CofE patronage
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?
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
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.
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’
A parish near me has a certain theological college as their patron. They have only ever appointed incumbents who trained at said college.
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…
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’
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a bit different to what I've been used to (let the reader understand).
As you were sadly also one of the alienated/displaced sympathy is surely the only appropriate response.
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.
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.