Reader is just in the wrong diocese
From the Chair of the Central Readers’ Council
Sir, — You report the Bishop of Sherwood as saying that he could not change national policy as justification for refusing to license Mr Luton-Brown as a Reader because he has a same-sex spouse (News, 21 October).
The Central Readers’ Council (CRC) feels that it should be made clear that there is no national policy; each diocesan bishop creates his or her own policy on this matter. The CRC, in its recently published statement of policy, has stated that it is important that the Church recognises that Readers/LLMs are lay people who are ministers, and they are not quasi-priests. It follows that, in Reader/LLM selection, dioceses should not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age.
The only national policy that we are aware of comes from the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage, Appendix, para. 18: “Those same-sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments.”
In the CRC’s view, Canon C4 should not be applied to Readers as they are not clergy, and, as lay people, Readers/LLMs should be able to enter into same-sex partnerships and marriages if they wish. There is always a proviso with lay ministry, that those who minister in a parish should do so with the approval and support of their congregations. It seems that Mr Luton-Brown was fully supported by his parish. So, we would ask, what really is the problem with his ministry?
IMOGEN CLOUT
Brynteg, 1 Ferry Point
Llansteffan SA33 5EX
From the Revd Charles Read
Sir, — It was concerning to read of the plight of Ron Luton-Brown, who began his Licensed Lay Ministry (LLM) training in the diocese of Norwich before moving to Nottinghamshire and being unable to continue to explore this ministry due to his being married to a partner of the same sex. The report contained three substantial errors, however, which I would like to correct.
The first is that Ron was undertaking his LLM training with the Eastern Region Ministry Course (ERMC) and the University of Durham on its Common Awards programme. This is not the case, since ERMC and Durham University do not provide LLM training. Ron was, in fact, training on the Norwich diocesan Reader/LLM training course, which has a partnership agreement with ERMC. Through this route, students study with Durham University in order to gain a university award. ERMC is not involved in the selection of candidates to be LLM students, nor with the overtly formational aspects of their training
This is significant to note, as the completion of the academic award programme is not the same as completing a course of preparation for ministry. In Ron’s case, the decision to admit him to LLM training rests with the diocese.
The second error is that Ron had completed his training with us as a diocese. Ron began at summer school in August 2021. He withdrew from the training programme when he moved to Nottinghamshire in early 2022, and so had in fact completed one term out of the two-year programme.
Although I tried to persuade him to continue his academic studies via us with ERMC (which would be possible from his new location), he decided not to do this, and I advised him that he would, in any case, need to re-enter LLM training in his new diocese if the Bishop were agreeable to him doing so. Both at this stage and, I believe, when he was initially recommended for training, it was explained that different bishops would take a different view of this due to his marital circumstances.
This leads to the third error in the report, which is the reference by the Bishop of Sherwood to national policy regarding LLMs in same-sex marriages. The Bishop says that he cannot change national policy, which is perfectly true. However, there is no national policy on this matter, and each diocesan Bishop must make up her or his own mind about whether candidates in same-sex marriages are to be licensed as LLMs in their diocese. The Bishop of Norwich has been entirely within his rights to decide that they may, and I understand that several other diocesan bishops have made the same decision.
As is clear from the unfortunate circumstances in which Ron finds himself, not all diocesan bishops have made the same decision, and this means that it is a bit of a postcode lottery as to whether same-sex married candidates can train for LLM and exercise that ministry. Candidates who are already admitted to the office of LLM, and then move diocese, may find that they are not able to be licensed in their new diocese.
I hope that this makes clear the circumstances around Ron’s predicament. We found Ron to be a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, who desires to serve God in his church and to reach out to the community with the good news of Jesus. Licensed Lay Ministry would be a very appropriate way to do this. I hope he will be able to find forms of ministry which he can exercise which will enable him to do this. We were sorry to lose him, and hoped another diocese might be delighted to receive him.
CHARLES READ
LLM Training Co-ordinator for the Diocese of Norwich and Deputy Warden of LLMs
Diocesan House
109 Dereham Road, Easton
Norwich NR9 5ES
Proportional representation used in Synod not transferable to Parliament
From the Revd John M. Overton
Sir, — I read with interest the article “Time for the C of E to preach what it practises on elections” by Dr Colin Buchanan (Comment, 21 October), but found little that had not been said before on the subject of our process for election to Parliament.
The comparison between Parliament and the General Synod of the Church of England seemed to me to miss a number of points.
In our elections to the General Synod, we are surely trying to provide a body of people who will seek through prayer and debate to discern the will of God for the Church of England as it moves forwards. It is not meant to be an adversarial system.
Our General Elections to Parliament present us with the manifestos of a number of political parties. The public vote on that basis, and, if one party gets a majority, it forms a government and implements its manifesto pledges. The other parties form an Opposition, which monitors events and government action and seeks to protect the country from mis-government. Every five years, the public gets a genuine opportunity to change the government.
A referendum on changing the electoral system was put to the public in May 2011, and rejected by 69.7 per cent of those who voted.
If we get a change of government at a General Election, the Prime Minister and Cabinet all change.
Whatever happens in General Synod elections, the archbishops and diocesan bishops all remain in place. Electors in the electoral process (limited to deanery-synod representatives for the laity, at least) get no say in who those leaders will be.
The words chalk and cheese come to mind. . .
JOHN M. OVERTON
6 Brown Edge Close, Buxton
Derbyshire SK17 7AS
From Professor Michael Winter
Sir, — Bishop Buchanan holds up the Church of England as a paragon of democratic good practice because of its use of the single transferable vote in elections to General Synod.
I am a supporter of proportional representation, but I am also a supporter of universal suffrage. And on that the Church of England falls down badly. The nearest I get to any democratic say in the running of the national Church is through being a member of a PCC, which nominates a deanery-synod representative who casts their vote for the Synod as a PCC representative, not as a delegate. Some may consult their PCC about whom to vote for; most, I suspect, do not.
PCC members have no vote on who represents them in Synod, nor have electoral-roll members, nor I, as a licensed Reader of 30 years who has led many hundreds of church services. The Church of England democratic? I don’t think so.
MICHAEL WINTER (Lay Canon)
Stile Barton, Jacobstowe
Okehampton, Devon
From Mr Geoffrey Locke
Sir, — As a former town and county councillor, may I respond to Colin Buchanan’s article in favour of proportional representation?
Colin has successfully beaten this drum for many years. However, we need to bear in mind that the simplest system — the alternative vote — was defeated at a referendum in 2011. The more complicated single transferable vote (STV) requires multi-member constituencies, and therefore probably a major and time-consuming exercise in electoral reform.
There is the further question of government stability, when, almost by definition, STV ruling parties are in a minority. European experience illustrates the point.
May I suggest that a more fruitful way forward might be in local government, at the level of district and parish councils? Multi-member wards are already common.
Too often, say, a 30-member council is elected on a turnout of 25 per cent, with one party gaining 16 seats and claiming “We have a democratic mandate!” A change to STV and more councils moving to “No overall control” might prove welcome.
GEOFFREY LOCKE
Narnia II, 88 Ravenscliffe Road
Kidsgrove, Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire ST7 4HX
Our thick-skinned priest doesn’t understand the hurt that he has caused
Sir, — “Do parishes really need thick-skinned priests?” asks a first-time incumbent (Comment, 7 October). His point is very valid, but the bumps and bruises he alludes to are also suffered by the whole body of Christ in the Church receiving a first-time incumbent in the circumstances he describes. All of which apply to my parish situation, hence my request that my name be withheld if this is printed.
At the end of a two-year vacancy, our first-time incumbent was installed in the midst of Covid lockdown. We watched on Zoom, but there was very little in-person meeting with anyone for many weeks.
Collaborative ministry was very much the way the parish operated in the vacancy, with the laity of the church ministering to one another and to the community, working together to undertake all that has to be done. We constantly prayed for the person God was calling to come and work with us to serve our local community as the church in this place.
Our new incumbent believes in a framework of ordained authority and command — and we have all suffered the hurts of the intense disparity in his and our understanding of being church. People have been bewildered by no longer being wanted or valued in roles they are sometimes more gifted and experienced in than he is; and deeply hurt and stressed by the church they love and have given so much of themselves to over the years being declared failing and moribund, and themselves as “deadwood”, to be replaced by the church he so passionately wants to bring into being, of a totally different tradition.
He is hurting as the congregation numbers have halved, and many of his new initiatives have faltered despite his hard work. He is bewildered by lay people not regarding it as “his” church, to reorder as he chooses, and by their rootedness in both their “church family” and the neighbourhood community which they are part of, and he has come to as an outsider.
I hope and believe that we are all growing in grace, as we seek to forgive and forbear and to love one another, despite all the knocks and damaged trust and well-being of all concerned. The pandemic had made the situation more difficult for us all. We miss the fellowship we used to enjoy — and miss the people who now worship elsewhere, either by choice or because they were told that their theology did not fit this church. Please pray for us, both incumbent and laity, and others in similar situations.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Nice work if you can get it — but is it good work?
From the Revd Mike Newman
Sir, — I always scan the jobs section of the Church Times, not least because it provides a diagnostic of church health and priorities. Last week, the ad that caught my eye was “Director of New Worshipping Communities and Healthy Churches” in the diocese of Coventry.
The aim is big: among other things, to grow 150 “new worshipping communities” and “bring more people to Jesus, in new and greater ways than ever before”.
So far, so good; but apparently the above can be achieved by working “35 hours a week. Monday to Friday with occasional early morning and evening work . . . and very occasional week-ends”.
This is disingenuous, if not downright dishonest. It is also disheartening. As an assistant curate for 30-plus years, often working nearly double those hours for almost half the remuneration, I have clearly missed my true vocation.
MIKE NEWMAN
4 Cuthbert Road
Cheadle SK8 2DT
From the Revd Toddy Hoare
Sir, — At the risk of being dismissed as a grumpy old cleric, it cannot be said enough “Where has common sense gone in the Church of England?” Yet more managers are sought who will bring no progress but rather choke a system with more bureaucracy that is not needed. Nothing will be achieved.
Why does the C of E need a strategist at £55K+ to spend some £60 million? If the C of E is to be effective, the only strategy necessary is that explained by Jesus in the end verses of Matthew’s Gospel, 28.19-20. It is about making disciples (who are those who learn) and baptising people. This is the work for parish priests.
We therefore need the £60 million spent on more parish priests to teach, preach, and baptise, and proper residential training, but fewer bishops with aimless management and top-down ideas.
It all begins at the bottom and maintaining a strong base. The churches are there, and currently still have a strong enough core of people using them, but they need encouragement and guidance. Where are the priests for them?
TODDY HOARE
Pond Farm House, Holton
Oxford OX33 1PY
Add Queen to Calendar
From Dr P. W. L. Clough
Sir, — Several British monarchs are remembered in the Anglican Calendar as Lesser Festivals: Charles I (1649), Oswald of Northumbria (642), Edward the Confessor (1066), Alfred the Great (899), Margaret of Scotland (1093), and Edmund of East Anglia (870).
May I suggest we should add to this list Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, perhaps on 2 June, the anniversary of her Coronation? This would mark her impeccable but humble life of Christian service, and serve as an annual guide for many future generations; for truly, she was a staunch defender of our Anglican faith.
P. W. L. Clough
22 Ross Gardens
Canterbury CT2 9BZ