WE ALL have our own ideas of the sort of priest we would like as our parish priest. Since we are all different, it should be no surprise that the person who is my “perfect” incumbent is unlikely to be yours. We probably all expect a parish priest to be a spiritual person, with a sound theology and good Christian tradition, but there is more to the position than just the spiritual side. Over the years, I have observed consistent omissions in clergy training in practical matters, which are, none the less, important.
There was a time when a parson had great autonomy, and could make decisions without reference to others. Nowadays, all churches are regarded in law as charities (whether or not they are registered); so the incumbent has to recognise the legal position of PCC members who are charity trustees, answerable to the Charity Commission, which says: “Trustees have independent control over, and legal responsibility for, a charity’s management and administration” (Charity Commission leaflet CC3). Without reference to the PCC, the incumbent cannot make decisions that could have an impact on the trustees’ responsibilities, such as those involving finance or safeguarding.
Incumbents do not need to know the detailed contents of the Church Representation Rules (CRR), but having a copy and knowing how to use the index would be a good start. Some rules are responses to specific unfortunate events in church life, and thus they are there more to protect incumbents than to hinder them.
I HAVE known parish priests who were unable to chair a PCC meeting. This is a basic task, but many could neither maintain order nor ensure that resolutions were clearly worded and accurately recorded. One didn’t think that an agenda was needed for PCC meetings, and once allowed an item of “Any Other Business” to be raised without prior notice, and then discussed for an hour. Another did not understand the significance of the term “restricted funds” (introduced almost 30 years ago).
Yet another (when I was churchwarden and acting as treasurer) would do the chair’s report at every PCC meeting, and then ask me to make the finance report while a tin of chocolates was passed around, which invited chatter, making it very difficult for me to get any attention; sotto voce comments and even barracking were routine. At each annual parochial church meeting (APCM), when there were just two nominations for the two churchwarden posts, one incumbent would insist on a show of hands in favour, instead of simply declaring them elected.
MOST churches only function owing to the efforts of their volunteers — perhaps just a few people who do everything, or a larger group who all contribute. These volunteers are not employees, but reliably turn up and do their bit, often without being asked; sometimes, the incumbent is not even aware of what they do. Volunteers are precious, and should be looked after with love and care, not taken for granted.
I would like to think that most priests know this already and are tacitly grateful, but it is the expression of gratitude which matters. At one APCM, several hard-working volunteers were not thanked by the incumbent, who did not realise that, once you start thanking volunteers by name, you really do need to make sure that no significant volunteer is forgotten. Volunteers can very easily stop volunteering. How would the church function then?
More than once, as churchwarden, I have single-handedly specified the task for some significant work with the architect, found a contractor, obtained a quotation and PCC approval, sorted out the faculty, and managed the installation — all without a single mention of that important project at the subsequent APCM.
IN THE past 35 years, I have acquired significant experience of being a church officer, and have worked with a good number of incumbents and several assistant curates. Two of the curates had such problems that they were moved to a new training incumbent (TI) during their curacy (IME2). Skills such as delegation of responsibilities, teamwork, and task prioritisation have been particular failings.
Other important points included being upset when personal travel expenses claimed for visiting friends were not paid by the PCC; a reluctance to accept sensitively worded suggestions from a churchwarden (such as recognising when a PowerPoint screen has too many words, or has non-contrasting colours); not welcoming visitors properly; and an inability to use a microphone effectively. We shouldn’t expect perfection, but bad presentation reflects poorly on the church, and poor management tests the patience of the faithful.
The Bishops’ guidelines for ordinand pathways in initial ministerial education (IME1) “seek to create a flexible framework . . . for the training of a diverse range of candidates for ordination”, and state that “it is ultimately the responsibility of the bishop to decide on an ordinand’s training pathway.” I am sure that the path to ordination is hard work, and I would not wish to add to that burden by expanding the syllabus unnecessarily, but surely there is time to cover a few of these practicalities, as well as spiritual and theological matters?
The usual response that I have had to my observations is that these points will be covered in an ordinand’s curacy by the TI. I think this is an unreasonable expectation: in my experience, few TIs have had sufficient knowledge and resources to effectively fill this gap, and to expect the TI to make good the deficiencies from IME1 is largely unrealistic if the TI is unaware of the holes in their own knowledge and training. In any case, most parish priests are so busy with numerous churches that their assistant curate is seen more as a useful resource than a trainee who needs monitoring and teaching.
OF COURSE, many curates do survive IME2, possibly thanks to previous experience, or to a rare, excellent TI; others, however, struggle. I hope that the church authorities continually monitor the reasons for this. It is noteworthy that most of the retired priests I have known would have been excellent TIs: perhaps the training was better in their day?
I have always felt sympathy with Martha in the Gospel. Like her, I am concerned about the essential practicalities that the Church ignores at its peril. We need our new curates to be effective in their work: it is they who will shoulder the burdens in the future, and I feel that they are not currently being prepared as well as they could be in IME1. They have answered a call, but, in many ways, the Church is letting them down.
Matthew Clements is the author of Rotas, Rules and Rectors: How to thrive being a churchwarden (Troubadour Publishing, 2018).
Don’t forget:
- PCC members are charity trustees.
- Volunteers are not employees.
- The Church Representation Rules are there to help.
- Microphones and PowerPoint need practice.
- Training incumbents can’t do it all.