CofE patronage

TwangistTwangist Shipmate
edited May 10 in Purgatory
Our new (anglican) shack is about to go into interregnum (tbh this is making me a little twitchy for various reasons).
It is a church that self describes as open evangelical and CPAS is the patron.
What exactly does patronage mean in practice these days? (I'd like to avoid discussion of the merits or otherwise of particular patrons (as they seem to map along ecclesiastical party lines))
I note that most evangelical churches I'm aware of have some connection to CPAS.
I also note that the church of my yoof doesn't and has had quite a range of vicars.
Thoughts?

Comments

  • I honestly can't say how much influence the Patron may or may not have in clergy appointments, however this (and its linked pages) may be instructive: https://www.cpas.org.uk/prayers-love-and-faith-statement-cpas-trustees
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    The patron has the right to present a person for ministry in the parish. The PCC representatives have the right to refuse. IME the patron works with the PCC representatives in a collaborative process in which all voices are heard and a decision is arrived at.
  • TwangistTwangist Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    The patron has the right to present a person for ministry in the parish. The PCC representatives have the right to refuse. IME the patron works with the PCC representatives in a collaborative process in which all voices are heard and a decision is arrived at.

    What role does the Bishop play?
  • DardaDarda Shipmate
    I believe that Patron(s), parish representatives and Bishop must all agree on the appointment.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited May 11
    Twangist wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    The patron has the right to present a person for ministry in the parish. The PCC representatives have the right to refuse. IME the patron works with the PCC representatives in a collaborative process in which all voices are heard and a decision is arrived at.

    What role does the Bishop play?

    None, unless people can’t play nicely and even then they mostly stay out of it if they’ve got any sense. It’s a bun fight between the PCC and the patron when it comes down to it.

    It basically never comes down to that though unless people are *really* silly (on either side).

    When we appointed last year our patron was involved insofar as it was quite clear they would oppose our choice if they didn’t like our choice. But they left everything up to us and then their representative attended the interviews.

    I don’t think they’d have opposed on party lines or anything btw, they were just very clear that they would step in if they thought we were about to do something daft in terms of who we wanted to appoint.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited May 11
    If you’re envisaging wanting to go against the wishes of your patron, by the way, do bear in mind the point above that they will (mostly I think, but it can vary from church to church IIRC) sometimes have the right to be in on the appointment process alongside the PCC, to protect their interests as patron).

    Which doesn’t mean you won’t get your way, but it won’t be as straightforward as running to someone else with ‘we want this person but we don’t think our patron is going to agree so please make them go away’
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    BroJames wrote: »
    The patron has the right to present a person for ministry in the parish. The PCC representatives have the right to refuse. IME the patron works with the PCC representatives in a collaborative process in which all voices are heard and a decision is arrived at.

    A parish near me has a certain theological college as their patron. They have only ever appointed incumbents who trained at said college.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    Darda wrote: »
    I believe that Patron(s), parish representatives and Bishop must all agree on the appointment.

    Agree, though as I hinted above, the bishop comes last in that triumvirate and usually will sign off on what the PCC and patron have decided.*

    Ie the first two agree, then the bishop confirms. The bishop does not (if it can possibly be helped) go round the side to referee between the PCC and the patron.

    *assuming PCC and patron haven’t decided to do something utterly controversial in their choice, fill in your own blanks…
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    The patron has the right to present a person for ministry in the parish. The PCC representatives have the right to refuse. IME the patron works with the PCC representatives in a collaborative process in which all voices are heard and a decision is arrived at.

    A parish near me has a certain theological college as their patron. They have only ever appointed incumbents who trained at said college.

    Sometimes that can be laziness though rather than conviction - it’s easy to pick the phone up to one of the colleges (regardless of party) and say ‘who have you got/who do you know that might be looking?’

    It’s not necessarily healthy, but I can see why it might happen for reasons other than just ‘we love Staggers/Mirfield/Cuddesden/Wycliffe etc and are totally lock step with them’
  • I have known the process once - not being directly involved, but was kept up to date on the processes.

    AIUI - from 20+ years ago - the PCC usually as represented by the wardens and the patron will discuss anyone who applies and sees what they think. Normally they find agreement on certain candidates, who can then be offered the position in an order.

    The bishop will vet and review the candidates at some point to be sure they are happy with the options.

    In the end, the bishop has to agree to appoint. And the patron has to be happy or accept the candidate. But I know that the wardens can have a strong voice.

    In the case I was in, the bishop was reluctant to appoint the person the PCC preferred (the PCC had met the selected people, so it was a wider thing than the small group). This was because they had not worked as a parish priest previously, and there were big changes coming, needing an experienced person.

    In this case, we won. And he was appointed. And he went on to become a senior bishop. We most definitely got the right person.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    I was involved as a parish representative in the appointment of the vicar who has recently left after 5 years in post. I no longer attend that church, along with about 45 others who found the new person intolerable.
    The process of appointment was long and difficult. The Patron’s representative was helpful and supportive. Although it appeared that everyone on the panel (Patron, two parish reps, Area Dean and Archdeacon) was on equal terms, this was not the reality: the process was strongly controlled by the Archdeacon.

    In the the first round, it was hard to know which of the two candidates interviewed to invite. The one who was offered it asked for a day to think then turned it down. We were not allowed to offer it to the other one, who was obviously earmarked by the Diocese for another parish, to which he was in due course appointed ( and is a good fit).

    Round two produced four candidates, but we were informed by the Archdeacon that they were all unsuitable. Admittedly when we eventually read their CVs and applications we agreed, but it would have been more appropriate for us to draw our own conclusions. I am not sure whether the Patron was involved at this point.

    By the third round, there was only one candidate, and there seemed no reason not to appoint him. He had been previously vetted and approved by the Bishop as he fitted his agenda. Sadly his theology, personality and the way he conducted himself in the role alienated many.
    The Powers that Be were unhelpful at this point. The Patron was no longer involved, they had done their job.
  • IIRC, there are now many parishes where the Diocesan Bishop is the patron, and is presumably much more closely involved with the selection of a new incumbent.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited May 11
    At the start of the process, the PCC is entitled to ask for a section 12 meeting with the Bishop and the patron for the PCC to outline the needs of the parish. In my experience, it is normal for the PCC – perhaps in collaboration with the area/rural Dean and/or the archdeacon– to draw up a parish profile including a person specification.

    Churchwardens, as such, do not necessarily have a major role. It is not uncommon, however, for a PCC to appoint one or more of its churchwardens to be parish representatives for the appointment process.

    The process shouldn’t really be “controlled“ by the archdeacon (although he/she may be the patron, or part of the patronage board for the parish) but quite often she/he will play a major role in moving the process forward because he/she is familiar with it in a way which most PCCs and PCC members are not.

    The process is governed by the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986
  • CharlesReadCharlesRead Shipmate Posts: 24
    The details of how it works depends on the people concerned and some extent any process which the diocese has set up. Technically it is up to the patron to find a person to be presented to the Bishop for licencing and the PCC nominate two representatives who have the right of veto. This may be and often is the churchwardens but does not have to be. I was once the unanimous choice of a patronage team of five people and was then turned down by two PCC members neither of whom were actually Anglicans but were simply worshipping at that church at that stage in their lives. This shows the kind of anomalies that can sometimes happen.

    Patrons can vary a great deal in what support they give to a parish and to its incumbent. A friend of mine is vicar of a benefice of eight parishes and yes each parish has its own patron so appointing to a multi parish benefice will involve several patrons. In my friend's case one of the patrons is a Cambridge college which duly sent one of the fellows, an archaeology don, to be on the interview panel. This person was very discerning (and was of course a practising Christian and a member of the college Chapel community). Said college offers incumbents of any parish it is patron of free board and lodging at the college for a few days every few years so that the incumbent can have a bit of a break from parish ministry and maybe undertake some reading or research if they would like. Another of the patrons in this case was a member of the nobility who happens to be a licenced Reader (LLM) and who is married to a priest. He has been extremely good at phoning up my friend the incumbent and saying how they are getting on and what he can do to help. He has been to preach on at least one occasion.

    The Bishop may be represented by an Archdeacon in the interview process but in the case of the church which I am involved in the diocesan Bishop himself has been on the appointing panel and indeed has chaired it. Last time we appointed, which was seven years ago, we had two people to interview the first time round and before we met them the Bishop made it known that he was prepared not to make an appointment if that was the right decision. They were two good people but not the right fit and no appointment was made. We advertised again and ran another interview process, this time with 3 candidates shortlisted, all of whom were appointable.

    There is a particular comment to be made about CPAS but I will post that separately.
  • CharlesReadCharlesRead Shipmate Posts: 24
    CPAS are patrons of many parishes in the evangelical tradition and of some which are not. A number of these parishes would describe themselves as inclusive evangelical, including the one in which I am involved. CPAS has said it will respect the tradition of the parish concerning same-sex partnerships when it is involved in making appointments. It remains to be seen whether this works in practice given that CPAS has come down very firmly on the side of opposing such partnerships. I gather that some CPAS staff are not very happy about this. I do know that several bishops and archdeacons are watching carefully to see how CPAS actually behaves in making appointments. If the vacancy drags on for too long or if the benefice is suspended, the patron loses their rights so one tactic would be to let this happen which would cut CPAS out of the appointing process. However, I know a number of bishops who will include the patron out of courtesy even when the patronage rights have lapsed this time round.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Patrons can vary a great deal in what support they give to a parish and to its incumbent. A friend of mine is vicar of a benefice of eight parishes and yes each parish has its own patron so appointing to a multi parish benefice will involve several patrons.
    Where there are multiple patrons, they may act jointly, or they may take it in turns, or a combination of both, depending on the agreed rules for that parish or benefice.

    Benefices (or even single parishes) with 4 or 5 alternating patrons or "patron slots" aren't that rare. And each of those patron slots may itself be shared between 2, 3, 4 or 5 patrons. (It might be the same patrons nearly each time, because a different patron was allocated a ¼, ⅕ or even ⅙ share of the patronage.)

    It occurs to me that someone in each diocese has to keep track of all this.

    CPAS is currently the (or a) patron of nearly 700 parishes.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    There’s also the fun of parishes where the patron chairs the PCC and their word is law…
  • I would say, I think the whole patronage thing is a ridiculous throwback. It should be dumped.

    Choice of clergy should be the PCC - representing the church itself - and the bishop - representing the wider Anglican church.

    There is no reason for any other group to have involvement in this process. In any other business* it would be considered quite ludicrous to have some outside party on the recruitment panel for a senior manager.

    * And yes, the church is a business in many respects. Not all, and not quite like other businesses, but still the analogy holds here. IMHO.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    There is no reason for any other group to have involvement in this process. In any other business* it would be considered quite ludicrous to have some outside party on the recruitment panel for a senior manager.
    I believe the practice of including external or independent members on recruitment panels is quite common, if not actively recommended or required, in the case of some institutions.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host

    There is no reason for any other group to have involvement in this process. In any other business* it would be considered quite ludicrous to have some outside party on the recruitment panel for a senior manager.

    It's very common for head teachers in Scotland to be appointed by a panel which includes none of the people who have to work with them on a day-to-day basis.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I was told at the time by a member of the congregation that the vicar of the church where my daughter was married had originally been a curate there. The parish had gone into vacancy. He had been a late entrant into ministry with a previous career. It was a large suburban parish with employed staff. They had liked the way that the curate kept things going in the vacancy. When the time came for the appointment of his successor, the PCC and the parish representatives made it very clear to the patron and the Bishop that the curate was the vicar they wanted. Both patron and Bishop riled at that, and tried to appoint somebody else. The representatives refused that candidate, and I think refused a second one, by that time making it clear that they would go on refusing any candidate until the patron and the bishop appointed their curate.

    In due course, patron and Bishop decided that discretion was the better part of valour and appointed him. He had a very successful ministry there which lasted up until his retirement.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Second post
    It's very common for head teachers in Scotland to be appointed by a panel which includes none of the people who have to work with them on a day-to-day basis.
    From my work years, it was generally regarded as a very bad practice to include on an interview panel people who would be employed by, or under the direct management of, the person who was going to be appointed.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Enoch wrote: »
    Second post
    It's very common for head teachers in Scotland to be appointed by a panel which includes none of the people who have to work with them on a day-to-day basis.
    From my work years, it was generally regarded as a very bad practice to include on an interview panel people who would be employed by, or under the direct management of, the person who was going to be appointed.

    Indeed, and I believe that is the argument for that arrangement in schools. Just pointing out that having outsiders come in an appoint a person to be in charge is pretty normal, if annoying at times.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I would say, I think the whole patronage thing is a ridiculous throwback. It should be dumped.

    Choice of clergy should be the PCC - representing the church itself - and the bishop - representing the wider Anglican church.

    There is no reason for any other group to have involvement in this process. In any other business* it would be considered quite ludicrous to have some outside party on the recruitment panel for a senior manager.

    * And yes, the church is a business in many respects. Not all, and not quite like other businesses, but still the analogy holds here. IMHO.

    Hear! Hear!

    This sounds very much like feudalism to my ears Didn't this die out with the dinosaurs?

    The Lutheran Augsburg Confession sets the tone for all of Lutheranism. The congregation makes the choice. Usually the Bishop/District President will nominate a person that the Bishop thinks will fit the needs of the congregation (based on a congregational self-study and other reports) but ultimately it is a congregational choice.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I would say, I think the whole patronage thing is a ridiculous throwback. It should be dumped.

    Choice of clergy should be the PCC - representing the church itself - and the bishop - representing the wider Anglican church.

    There is no reason for any other group to have involvement in this process. In any other business* it would be considered quite ludicrous to have some outside party on the recruitment panel for a senior manager.

    * And yes, the church is a business in many respects. Not all, and not quite like other businesses, but still the analogy holds here. IMHO.

    Hear! Hear!

    This sounds very much like feudalism to my ears Didn't this die out with the dinosaurs?

    Once you understand that the CofE's structure is feudal, and anything over and above that mere window dressing, it becomes a great deal more explicable.
  • TwangistTwangist Shipmate
    It would seem that the congregation have a voice through the parish reps. @Enoch 's anecdote suggests that at times this is effective.
    It's a bit different to what I've been used to (let the reader understand).
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I would say the choice of parish reps is extremely important. They need wisdom, discernment and toughness to back their judgement. They shouldn’t be unpersuadable, but they shouldn’t be people who can easily be faced down or coerced.
  • TwangistTwangist Shipmate
    Top of the prayer list then
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    An unenviable position, especially when the process drags on and details cannot be revealed to those who think they have a right to be told. I am just grateful that no blame was laid at our door when the person appointed managed to alienate so many.
  • TwangistTwangist Shipmate
    Puzzler wrote: »
    An unenviable position, especially when the process drags on and details cannot be revealed to those who think they have a right to be told. I am just grateful that no blame was laid at our door when the person appointed managed to alienate so many.

    As you were sadly also one of the alienated/displaced sympathy is surely the only appropriate response.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Second post
    It's very common for head teachers in Scotland to be appointed by a panel which includes none of the people who have to work with them on a day-to-day basis.
    From my work years, it was generally regarded as a very bad practice to include on an interview panel people who would be employed by, or under the direct management of, the person who was going to be appointed.

    Indeed, and I believe that is the argument for that arrangement in schools. Just pointing out that having outsiders come in an appoint a person to be in charge is pretty normal, if annoying at times.

    Then I think it is as ridiculous there. I can see that having direct reports interview is problematic, but having the people they are going to report to - the school trustees or whatever - as the main people, with those they are going to work with also involved would seem better.

    So, in this case, the bishop and church representatives. Not some outside organisation. In fairness, I have had enough problems with people being appointed or dismissed over and around me without it being some outside agency.

    But fine if people are happy with it. I am glad that I am out of all that now.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    In English schools it will usually be the governors that make an appointment. Staff governors are not allowed to be involved in the appointment of head teachers or senior leaders.

    In appointing an incumbent to a parish the basic procedure is that the PCC produces a statement of what the parish is like, and what they are looking for in the new incumbent. It is then up to the patron to find an applicant or applicants for the post.

    The PCC through its elected representatives then has the right to say “yes“ or “no“ to the applicant or applicants presented. If the PCC representatives (or the diocesan bishop) refuse a candidate, either the patron has to go back to the drawing board and start again, or the patron has to ask the archbishop to review the decision.

    All patrons, or individuals acting on behalf of a corporate patron, have to be “actual communicants“ in the Church of England, or ordained in the Church of England.

    In my experience, in practice the process tends to be collaborative to avoid the risk of having to deal with formal vetoes, appeals to archbishops etc. so an interview panel is likely to consist of the two parish representatives, the Bishop (or an archdeacon on his or her behalf)., And the patron or the patron‘s appointed representative. Where multiple parishes are involved, there are likely to be more parish representatives on the panel.

    Unfortunately, even a collaborative process is not immune from power plays on behalf of the patron or the bishop, or, indeed, on behalf of the parish who would like “a nice young man with a family“, rather than an older man or woman with or without spouse, and/or children at home.
Sign In or Register to comment.