Revisited: the idea of employee status for the clergy

From Professor David McClean

Madam, — The Archbishop of York has revived the idea of clergy becoming employees (News, 10 January). Your report made a number of references to the review I chaired in 2003-04 which led to the introduction of common tenure; so perhaps I may clarify some points and add a relevant factual observation.

Although some members of the review group were initially attracted by the idea of clergy as employees, the group came to a common mind in rejecting the idea. It noted that an employer can tell an employee what to do, when to do it, and how to do it; and the employee must obey. Of course, a wise employer trusts the professional judgement and practical skills of an employee, but the employment relationship tends to be associated with managerial approaches to the organisation of work and with the setting of targets.

In contrast, an office-holder (the current status of most clergy) has a certain autonomy, a freedom to identify, and respond to, local needs. The response to our report showed little enthusiasm for the employer model. There was a ready acceptance of the report’s recommendation that the clergy, while remaining office-holders, should be given legal entitlement to many statutory employment rights. That was done in the legislation based on our report.

There was no satisfactory answer to the question who would be the employer (of bishops as well as parish clergy). A diocese as such is not a legal entity capable of being an employer. Establishing a national employing body (with the power to control the work of bishops) would radically change the structure of the Church of England. So, in a different way, would making the PCC the employer of the parish clergy. There would be some administrative convenience in making all clergy the employees of the diocesan board of finance, but that idea attracted little support.

The factual observation is simply that most clergy work on their own, often literally miles away from any professional colleague, and even further from any potential employer. That fact has to be taken into account in any discussion of issues relating to accountability (and, indeed, of safeguarding). Those who believe that re-branding clergy as employees would in some way resolve those issues are wholly mistaken.

DAVID McCLEAN
17 Scotland Road
Cambridge CB4 1QE

From the Revd Samuel Maginnis

Madam, — In this time of upheaval and uncertainty for the institutional Church of England, the Archbishop of York’s commitment to promoting the well-being and financial security of our front-line clergy is to be welcomed (News, 10 January). Nevertheless, we should be careful not to treat the idea of turning clergy into employees of the institution as some magic bullet that can solve the problems and distress that past safeguarding failures in the Church have caused.

The Church of England Employee and Clergy Advocates (CEECA) currently represent more than 2000 clergy across the C of E; and new members are being added every month. We have been campaigning — in and out of the General Synod — for fundamental changes to how the clergy are disciplined and for a truly effective, humane, and independent system of safeguarding for the Church of England. These issues are as central to clergy well-being as are promises to increase stipend levels and to resource front-line ministry properly.

Past failures to hold abusers and wrongdoers — priests and bishops — to account have been more to do with cultural factors and the shortcomings of systems of redress then in force than with the employment status of the clergy. Given the nature of Christian priesthood and the particular mix of demands placed on parish and front-line clergy, careful thought and reflection is needed on the impact that becoming church employees would have on the clergy’s ability to pursue a fruitful and fulfilling ministry.

I have said before that office-holder status should not be used by the institution to place increasing demands on the clergy without offering reciprocal support structures and accountability of those making the demands. Yet, with the proper support and protections in place, being an office-holder provides the necessary freedom and scope for the clergy to become embedded in their communities, to discern God’s plan for that place and moment, and to take some prayerful risks along the way.

CEECA will continue the fight for those protections and for greater openness and accountability across the institutional Church, but it has yet to be shown that classifying front-line clergy as employees can achieve this while actively enabling the mission of the Church of England in our parishes and local communities.

SAM MAGINNIS
Chair, CEECA
Holy Trinity House
Blunts Way, Horsham RH12 2BL

Trust, safeguarding, and Canterbury’s vacant see

From Mr Martin Sewell

Madam, — It was inevitable that the church Establishment would engage in a high degree of pushback to the growing revelations of dreadful C of E safeguarding failures, and, in various ways, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, and the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, have duly delivered it without addressing the most fundamental problem of all: trust. Consider the following.

The General Synod was told by Archbishop Cottrell that the dismissal of the Independent Safeguarding Board was a unanimous decision; Dr Sarah Wilkinson’s report revealed that eight of the 19 members had significant reservations and resistance. When Archbishop Welby hinted that the Council’s public statements were not quite true, he was publicly contradicted by Archbishops’ Council members. The Secretary General would have known the voting figures. So why did not one of them tell the truth on the day — or for 18 months?

Important Synod members’ questions have often been treated with contempt. I offer two examples: we and survivors have been previously told that a formal Charity Commission-compliant conflict-of-interest policy exists. We now learn that it is only currently being approved.

Ordinary sensible questions such as “How many cease-and-desist letters have been authorised by the Archbishops’ Council to be sent by external lawyers and at what cost to folks in the pews?” Answers to such innocuous requests for information are simply refused. It is treated as a cat-and-mouse game by Church House.

The Wilkinson report found the Secretary General to have been responsible for causing significant harm to the ISB 11 (see paras. 589-593). When the Archbishops’ Council took no steps to address such a serious allegation against their chief executive, or even to require an apology to be issued, it fell to me to complain formally to the Archbishops. “No further action” was resolved. When I asked to see the process by which such an outcome was determined, I was told that the process for dealing with such a complaint was “private”, i.e. secret, even from Synod members.

There are many other examples. Promises of lessons having been learned about “transparency and accountability” are two a penny and no longer credible. These things keep happening, and our leaders keep getting away with it.

Dr Beasley (Analysis, 10 January) can urge us to rally round, but this cannot and should not happen unless and until we see a total change of culture, including new leaders, utter contrition, and the correction of malpractice, starting this February in the Synod, where we will be raising these and other matters — if they are not ruled “out of order”.

My message to our church leaders is simple. If you wish to be trusted, be trustworthy.

MARTIN SEWELL
General Synod representative for Rochester diocese
8 Appleshaw Close
Gravesend DA11 7 PB

From Mr Gavin Drake

Madam, — In his Epiphany letter, the Archbishop of York wrote that the House of Bishops was “committed to leading this change” in safeguarding, leading to “independent oversight and scrutiny”.

And yet, less than a week later, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, writes that “‘Independence of safeguarding’ is offered as a mantra that will solve all our ills. But simply calling for ‘independence’ and ‘culture change’ will not bring the transformation needed”. And he goes on to describe operational independence as “a wrecking ball to hurl at systems that both survivors and auditors see in many places as already working well”.

So much for a commitment from the House of Bishops to bringing about safeguarding change.

If “both survivors and auditors” see current Church of England safeguarding practice working so well, as Dr Beasley argues, why is the Church currently in a safeguarding crisis so big that it led to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

GAVIN DRAKE
11 Church Street
Kirkby-in-Ashfield
Nottingham NG17 8LA

From Professor Helen King

Madam, — According to the Bishop of Bath & Wells, “Einstein spoke disparagingly of ‘repeating the same actions again and again, expecting a different outcome’.” This is a classic example of not checking one’s sources. Even a cursory online search will show that this supposed definition of “insanity” should not be attributed to Einstein. The idea behind the words goes back to the 19th-century history of mental health, while, for the exact wording, one possible source is a 1983 novel by Rita Mae Brown; another is a 1981 Narcotics Anonymous pamphlet. The wording was linked to Einstein only later.

So, why Einstein? The “Matthew Effect” suggests that we tend to give credit for something that we like to someone who is already famous; to those who have, more will be given. Attributing a fake quotation to a famous scientist not only gives it more weight than citing a woman novelist, but also gives more authority to the person quoting it. It reminds me of one of the lessons that we should be learning when discussing safeguarding: that undue deference is the source of many of our problems. Let’s at least get our basic facts correct.

HELEN KING
General Synod representative for Oxford diocese
35 Croft Road, Wallingford
Oxfordshire OX10 0HN

From the Revd Dr Lorraine Cavanagh

Madam, — The Church of England seems to be losing its way. Much has been said in regard to the fallout from the Makin report, but one thing that is less talked about is the fundamental loss of a sense of the presence of God in the Church’s life and of what ought to be its leaders’ overriding priority: to love God and to love his people.

This points to another more uncomfortable truth, especially with regard to Archbishop Justin Welby, but perhaps to other leaders as well: mercy seems to be increasingly scarce in these debates. The outgoing Archbishop is, after all, only a man (a woman would fare no better in his position) and a man who has known acute personal suffering.

While we are, perhaps, justified in passing judgement on his mishandling of abuse and, no doubt, other issues that may have seemed inconsequential at the time, or simply not made it to his inbox because his schedule was too full to accommodate them, we also need to pause for a second and examine our own consciences when it comes to how we discharge our responsibilities to those for whom we are answerable. There will have been many fallings short of the mark, none of which is easy to forgive, or forgivable at all, as is the case for Archbishop Welby in regard to abuse and safeguarding. We are all in need of mercy. But mercy often comes only once lessons have been learned.

The former Archbishop is now out of the picture. Lessons will need to have been learned when it comes to the appointment of his successor, but they will be learned only when fear is banished. Fear dominates a person’s professional life when love is occluded by the things that they are most frightened of losing: reputation, status, power. So, we need to see Archbishop Welby’s successor as the person they are with all the unknown fears that they secretly hold.

So questions will need to be asked. How do they measure up as human beings in regard to the need for the status and power that goes with the job? Has their professional life so far demonstrated that love of God and of God’s people has truly motivated their tenureship to the point of being willing to sacrifice their reputation, as well as their time, for the sake of that love? To what extent has mercy and emotional intelligence governed their thoughts and actions to date?

LORRAINE CAVANAGH
Bryn Heulog, Tal-y-Coed Lane
Llantilio Crosseny, Abergavenny
Monmouthshire NP7 8TH

Assessing the cost of 2024’s environmental harm

From the Revd Dr Mike Perry

Madam, — The Christian Aid report Counting the Cost 2024: A year of climate breakdown, highlighting the cost of climate change last year at $200 billion, makes sober reading (News 10 January), and it is rightly a call to action and the support of Christian Aid, which I wholeheartedly endorse. The true cost in 2024 of climate change, biodiversity loss and other associated crises was, however, an order of magnitude higher, at between $10 trillion and $25 trillion. This assessment comes from the December 2024 nexus report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which looked at the impact of biodiversity loss and the interconnected crises in nature, climate, and human health.

The nexus report emphasises that addressing issues such as biodiversity loss, climate change, water scarcity, food insecurity, and health risks need to be tackled together, with isolated action on single issues being less effective and often counterproductive. Whilst it is more challenging to work with multiple variables, as humans we are very capable of doing so.

The nexus report itself offers more than 70 paths of action for nations, businesses, and local communities, including ideas on restoring carbon-rich ecosystems, managing biodiversity to reduce the risk of zoonosis, and developing urban nature-based solutions. It, and an accompanying report, also highlight the significant business opportunities and economic benefits of engaging in positive action. The report is a call to integrative action, an approach that, I know, informs the worldwide programmes of Christian Aid and our own work in this country as A Rocha UK.

To paraphrase J. F. Kennedy: we must choose to do the multiple things needed not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because the challenges are ones that we are willing to accept, ones that we are unwilling to postpone. Theologically, our task is to use our wisdom to serve and protect the earth as a sacred duty, I know that there are church communities across the country and around the world which are stepping up to the challenges. May 2025 be a year of action.

MIKE PERRY
Chair of Trustees, A Rocha UK
The Vicarage, Middle Woodford
Salisbury SP4 6NR

Yes, there is justification for breaking communion

From the Revd Dr Lee Gatiss

Madam, — The Revd Professor Paul Avis’s review of the Revd Dr Charlie Bell’s Unity (Books, 10 January) is astonishing. For a start, it is simply bizarre to claim that questions of sexuality should not be considered “properly doctrinal” on the grounds that they aren’t mentioned in the creeds or the Anglican formularies.

The creeds were about a different issue; but, on the formularies, it is odd to suggest there is no mention of the issues now dividing the C of E, when they are very clearly addressed in at least two of the authorised homilies in the Book of Homilies (which, Article XXXV says, contains godly and wholesome doctrine most necessary for these times). Perhaps Dr Bell simply chooses to ignore the formularies that disagree with him?

Further, it is frankly staggering for the reviewer to add that “there is no justification — short of denial of the incarnation — in scripture or in the teaching of any great theologian in Christian history for breaking communion, even if we believe that our Church has taken a seriously wrong step.”

I covered all the scriptural material in my book Fight Valiantly (Church Society, 2022), but I wonder whether the reviewer has ever heard of the Reformation and its great theologians who broke with Rome. Or of Thomas Aquinas, who said in his comments on Titus 3.9-15 that if a person denied the Trinity or that sex outside of marriage was a sin, they were a heretic and should be avoided (quoting 2 Timothy 2.17, 2 John 1.10, and Numbers 16.26).

It really isn’t hard to find biblical and historical justification for breaking communion.

LEE GATISS
Director of Church Society
Ground Floor, Centre Block
Hille Business Estate
132 St Albans Road
Watford WD24 4AE