Common Tenure...

Sorry to get all serious on you, and change the tone of this blog for a one-off entry, but I have been pondering a change the Church of England is making and would be interested in your views. This forms part of a larger body of work, and we pick up mid-way through a larger discussion.

"For larger communities who are already in covenant the vows made by new members are essential as an entry point and as renewal of that covenant between extant members.

This is a vital dynamic because the covenant itself is rarely discussed; it is simply understood and inhabited. It is, however recognised and essential. There is a fascinating example of this being played out at the moment. As I write the Church of England is moving from a system of so-called ‘freehold’ for incumbents to that of ‘Common Tenure’ and it is profoundly unsettling for many parish clergy. Let me de-jargonise that sentence and explain why the issue is so intriguing in our current debate.

For centuries, to be honest I am not sure how long but at least since the reformation of the 17th Century, clergy of the church of England have been placed as ‘curates’ in parishes, that is given churches to lead and communities to care for, on the basis of having the freehold of that church. Today’s Vicars and Rectors (there used to be a difference between those terms but there isn’t any more) literally own the church(es) (but not their contents) and the vicarage/rectory of the parishes or benefice where they serve. We are not employed, we are paid a stipend, or living allowance which allows us to survive without other paid work while we live the life of Christ among those to whom we are sent.

Now, at one level, having this freehold means little in reality because we can’t sell any of the property but, importantly, neither can the bishop or the diocese. Nothing can be done to alter my church, legally speaking, without my signature on the contract, for I have the freehold. Where this does bear fruit is in my relationship with the senior staff of the diocese. The fact that clergy have freehold allows my bishop to be my pastor not my boss. He is the chief shepherd of the diocese not the managing director. Arguably the reason that most of the renewal movements within the Anglican church have been able to take place is because parish clergy have a degree of independence from bishops. So, for example, the Oxford Movement of the 19th century depended on the freedom of parish clergy to preach a message very much at odds with the establishment. So, too, the charismatic renewal of the 70’s and 80’s which was strongly out of step with much of the church has brought great refreshment, arguably to the entire church[1].

At this moment the church is implementing a change, allegedly imposed upon us from the European Union via the British government, from freehold to ‘Common Tenure’ whereby we will hold in common the possessions of the church. Now at one level, again, this matters little. All I really mind about is the freedom to do the work of the Kingdom in the place where I am sent. However this change does alter the relationship we have with the ‘senior staff’, itself an interesting phrase, of the diocese. We now have terms of service and professional reviews. Our bishops and archdeacons become our supervisors and reviewers. We, at least at one level, lose a pastor and gain a boss.

I don’t know how this will work in practice, but I share some of the dis-ease felt by my fellow clergy. We are all supposed to be receiving a letter inviting us to relinquish our freehold but few, if any, of us intend to do so. What is the source of the dis-ease? It is not that I distrust my bishops, in fact the reverse is true.

What is happening is that the covenant into which I was ordained and within which I made vows is being altered. I am part of a covenant people and the nature of that community is being, literally, rewritten without my desire or consent at the behest of those beyond the covenant community and this feels like a violation.

I have never, at one level, explicitly entered covenant with the wider church, but at another level I have very clearly done so. I have made vows in the presence of bishops, clergy, and the wider gathered community, and on the basis of those vows and the will of the church I have been ordained and entered service. We are in covenant and that covenant holds, nurtures, and releases me into ministry. I recognise it instinctively when the covenant is altered or ignored."

[1] See John Finney’s Grove Booklet, R25, Renewal as a laboratory for change, Grove, Cambridge, 2006, ISBN 1851746293