While studying the life and times of Joan of Arc for a lecture I was giving, I was reminded of one distinctive feature of Western mediaeval society. The whole of that society was held together through a complicated system of patronage. Power was not only possessed by those who commanded the most soldiers, it was also exercised by those who possessed the legal and traditional right to put others in positions of power. To possess the power of patronage was to control others and to be the focus of influence right across society. Joan of Arc was only able to make headway in her short meteoric career having persuaded individuals possessing the power of patronage to back her.
Patronage, the right to raise up or cast down another person, is still a power that we find in our society. The Church of England is one contemporary institution that still openly exercises the power of patronage in its affairs. Arguably this manifestation of patronage is less salient than it was in the days of Jane Austen when Mr Collins, in Pride and Prejudice, used all his charm to flatter his patron, Lady De Bourgh for the right to occupy a particular vicarage and the substantial income that went with it. My old parish in Gloucestershire was under the patronage of a Cambridge college and its endowed income of £800 was sufficient in Victorian times to keep a vicar in style. Other parishes were worth a quarter of this and the vicars who occupied lesser posts scrambled to survive, like Mr Quiverful in the Trollope novels, in a permanent state of genteel poverty. It was no fun to live in a falling down vicarage with inadequate resources to heat the building or keep out the rain.
The traditional power of patronage that was exercised by bishops and others over the parishes of England was arguably the greatest source of power that they possessed. Keeping on the right side of this power was perhaps the only way clergy had to escape out of abject poverty into a position of relative affluence. A black mark against your name could mark your record for ever and prevent you ever finding a post which would keep you in reasonable comfort. Clergy were rightly in awe of those who had this power to create or destroy a career and a livelihood.
Anthony Trollope’s novels are also, in many ways, an exploration of the way that the exercise of patronage power was exercised and experienced in Victorian times. Today things have changed for the better. In the first place, stipends of the full-time clergy below the level of Archdeacons and Deans are largely the same. When I was ordained fifty years ago, there were vicars in some parishes earning seven times the level of their curates and living in far superior accommodation. Inflation has destroyed these differentials of income. A second change today is that posts are now mostly advertised in the church press and the appointments system is far more open. A transparent interview process takes place for most posts, even for bishops. But, as a recent letter in the Church Times points out, the exercise of patronage is an issue that is still a live one as we ask questions about how Bishop Peter Ball was elevated to Gloucester in 1991. It transpires that two other dioceses, Norwich and Portsmouth, had both refused to consider his candidature on the grounds of Ball’s known predilection for the company of young men. The CT letter from the retired bishop, Colin Buchanan, hints at political interference in this appointment. Patronage on the part of the ‘great and the good’ was thus apparently allowed to override normal checks and balances. To become a diocesan bishop in 1991 did require impeccable references. One of those who provided such a reference had to be his Diocesan bishop, the then Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp. Are we to believe that Bishop Kemp had no insight or knowledge of the rumours around Peter Ball? Kemp’s legacy of having allowed Bishop Ball’s translation to Gloucester and later obstructing the police enquiries into his conduct have left a mark against the bishop’s historical legacy which is unlikely ever to be erased.
The power of patronage in the church may be indeed weakening in the way that democratic processes reach further into the management of the church. And yet, even as it weakens, we need to have a full awareness of how important a role patronage has played in the church in the very recent past. In some dioceses all posts are advertised, even for senior clergy such as archdeacons and residentiary canons. Other dioceses, such as Chichester, appear to advertise relatively few of their posts. Most appointments seem to be done ‘in-house’. For one clergyman at least, this near total episcopal control over livings in Chichester has been experienced as an abuse of power.
Among the many documents released by IICSA in the course of its hearings was a witness statement by one Fr. Nicholas Flint, a Chichester incumbent. His testimony strongly criticises the way he felt he had been treated by the diocese. His complaints directly and indirectly touch on issues of patronage power. Flint had for a long time felt drawn with others in the diocese to support Peter Ball after he was cautioned in 1992. The eventual conviction of Ball in 2015 and the revelation of the full extent of his offending left him and other supporters in considerable confusion and dismay. His self-description was that of being ‘collateral damage’ to the whole sad affair. Eventually he obtained an appointment to see the Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, in October 2015 and he hoped to receive some pastoral care and support. He needed some understanding for all he had suffered in trying to respond to local perpetrators and victims who were part of the wider abuse scandals in the diocese. He was also looking for a possible move within the diocese after being in the same post from 21 years. The Bishop stated, in Flint’s words, that ‘he did not have anything for me in his diocese’. Whatever else was being communicated, this declaration by the Bishop is of interest because it indicates that the Bishop regarded himself at the sole dispenser of patronage in the diocese. This old-fashioned approach to the filling of appointments also runs counter, according to Fr Flint, to one of the recommendations of the Archbishop’s Visitation to Chichester Diocese a few years earlier. I have no figures on the dioceses where a bishop could make such a statement about appointments, but I would hope that these dioceses are now firmly in the minority. Centralised control of the power of patronage may be one of the factors that had helped to create the Chichester ‘scandals’ in the first place. It is strange as well as regrettable that the current Bishop of the diocese has no apparent insight into the possibility that a secretive structure from which outsiders are excluded is also one where malefactors can most easily hide. The old-fashioned feudal attitudes which exemplified the ‘reign’ of Bishop Kemp have no place in the 21st century. The current Bishop of Chichester should be making every effort to transform that culture in every possible way. The interaction with Fr Flint in 2015 suggests that the old culture of patronage and patriarchal power was then still very much alive in the Chichester Diocese.
This blog invites the reader to become better sensitised to the existence of a silent power in the Church. This is present in church patronage. When used corruptly, patronage power can quickly create situations of abuse, secrecy and rampant bullying. In the case of the Chichester Diocese, we would claim that any continued exercise of an unlimited patronage by a bishop over a whole diocese is, in 2019, something now totally inappropriate. The recent IICSA report on the recent history of their diocese, now in the in-tray of the Bishops and senior staff at Chichester, should surely be driving forward a new openness. Is the Diocese of Chichester to be a place that resists, as the Bishop of Burnley puts it, ‘deep-seated cultural change’? The episode that took place account of the Bishop of Chichester’s study a mere 3 ½ years ago is an example of reactionary attitudes that have no place in a post-IICSA church. This post-IICSA church is watching and waiting to see evidence of ‘learnt lessons’, transparency and a new penitential atmosphere involving real care by all bishops for their clergy.
Thank you for pointing this out in the case of Chichester Diocese. Patronage by those who wish to exclude women priests is still prevailing and controlling appointments in many rural parishes. I wonder if, when our present incumbent leaves, the parish will be granted a fair and open access to candidates from ALL the Church of England, not just those who belong to ‘The Society’? St Hilda should rise up and crown them with her episcopal staff!
There is unofficial patronage, too. Even a humble vicar can put someone forward for training, and what they say will be believed. I witnessed a situation where someone was put forward for basic training as a lay minister with a whole raft of things they were supposed to have done, working with young people here and there signed off by the incumbent. When in fact it was all completely fictional. And of course, reverse patronage. Someone says you are not suitable, and that’s that. Accuse a cleric, and you are a priori not believed. If you are accused by a cleric, they are.
Thank you for sharing my story. In my evidence I also record my repeated concern that as recently as 2016 Martin Warner had not passed on to the Police information I gave him about a suspect.
Since giving my evidence he has made one other attempt, fortunately bungled, to remove me from my one remaining supra parochial responsibility in the diocese.
At my age I have another 7- 13 years in full time ministry, but the experiences have been so traumatic that I cannot now face the thought of moving on in ministry. I am blessed to be in a supportive village and to be affirmed by my parishioners and other priestly colleagues.
Nick, I found your statement to IICSA painful to read. I’m so sorry you’ve had such a rough time. I’m glad your parish is supportive, at leas that’s one positive.
I’m from Chichester Diocese; Gordon Rideout was my vicar and Peter Ball my bishop. I don’t want to go into the story here but I too regard myself as collateral damage.
And yes, what you say about patronage is absolutely true, and still goes on.
I dont know the facts of the Chichester case that you refer to but I am aware of this sort of ‘patronage’ being operated in other dioceses and across a variety of levels of seniority. This aids and abets the clericalism that is rife in the Church of England much to it’s shame. As a state institution in receipt of state and public funds as well as the infamous seats in the House of Lords that it holds, it is high time that this self serving institution was brought to book and excluded from these ‘perks’ until its house, or houses, are in order in the same way that we would expect from any other national or local government body or associated quango. The fact that the state church, or ‘ministry of religion’ is allowed to be exempt from the equality act is laughable, but very scary at the same time.
I’d agree about the exemptions from the equality legislation! But isn’t a government or state organisation, nor does it get government money. Only the tax breaks any charity gets. The seats in the House of Lords are because some church legislation has to go to the House. So the Bishops have to have a say. The Chief Rabbi and various other religious Heads also have seats. It’s all very odd, I grant you.
I think what I mean by state/public funding is the historical financial endowments that make up the basis of the CofE’s financial wealth including things such as Queen Anne’s Bounty, the land that it owns, and schemes like the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, as well as its large receipt of lottery money.
It is the established church of the state and is therefore intrinsically linked to state bodies and it is through this that it has 26 Lords Spiritual, this is not offered to any other faith or Christian body although as you say the current chief rabbi is a Lord Temporal.
I think any other body that received these advantages would be expected to comply with all employment, equality, bullying, pay and other legislation that somehow the CofE manages to navigate around.
Wouldn’t disagree, broadly. Saying that the clergy are self employed also means they end up working ridiculous hours. Exploitation, basically.
Thank you for this. The single best article – by far – that I have encountered on the subject of preferment and its origins is by the extremely distinguished student of the medieval church, A. Hamilton Thompson (1873-1962): https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/1941-2/1941-42%20(22)%201-32%20Hamilton%20Thompson.pdf
Historically, the patronage of the bishops of Chichester was very slender – for example, the 1841 Clergy List indicates that they had the gift of only thirty benefices (though four of these were plural) outside the cathedral dignities in a diocese with approximately 320 (or so) parishes extant at that time. I haven’t done a calculation of the current patronage rights of the bishops – inflated naturally by the foundation of many more recent parishes and the disposal or exchange of advowsons by former lay or corporate patrons – but thirty livings was obviously a relatively slender base on which to start, though not as extreme as the bishops of Peterborough, who had the gift of only four parochial cures in their own diocese, or Llandaff (five) or Oxford (six) (within the legal structures prevailing in Wales prior to 1921 and the expansion of the Oxford diocese beyond the confines of the eponymous county).
Also, it is worth noting the relative financial distress of the Chichester diocese, occasioned in part by the fact that it still has far too many two or three parish benefices in rural situations, where benefices in excess of ten are now routine in nearby dioceses like Canterbury and Winchester.
It’s therefore possible that when Dr Warner says “we have nothing for you”, what he might mean is that, given the way in which benefices need to be amalgamated in order to reduce the stipendiary headcount (and thus relieve pressure on the budget), and the pressing economic need to discount certain forms of churchmanship in order to effect any such rationalisation, the preferment cupboard is bare.
Of course, it is also possible that there is something else going on, and that having certain associations can lead people, however blamelessly and unwittingly, into a sort of purdah. I have read Mr Flint’s witness statement, which speaks for itself. There is no biography in Crockford. However, I note that he is a long-serving incumbent of Rusper, between Crawley and Horsham (which you have pictured), and where I attended a service in 2009 as part of a pilgrimage I have been undertaking. Until recently it was in plurality with Colgate, where I have also attended a service. To my knowledge Rusper might now be the only rural single parish benefice in the diocese, absent Cowden (following the recent closures of Holtye and Hammerwood) where the incumbent has been part time; until 2015 Heyshott was also on its own, but it was led by an SSM. Knowledge of this will, I suppose, create its own pressures.
Froghole, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the pressing economic need to discount certain forms of churchmanship in order to effect any such rationalisation’. Can you please clarify?
Thanks.
There are still a few instances where single parish benefices served by stipendiary clergy endure in rural areas, invariably surrounded for miles on end by large (sometimes massive) multi-parish benefices. On occasion single parish benefices have survived because they are ABC, etc., or because even if they have not voted those resolutions, they have a distinct churchmanship. That makes little sense when so many dioceses are operating close to their overdraft limits, which seems to be why parishes of that type are now being corralled into larger structures, when they wouldn’t necessarily have been ten or more years ago.
Thank you also for your obit note in The Times the other day.
I see what you mean. Of course combining churches of very different churchmanships presents a huge challenge, especially in a diocese like Chichester which tends to the extremes at both ends. In Manchester diocese I was part of a group of parishes with 2 women clergy, when one of the parishes passed Resolutions A & B. When the Resolution parish hosted a united service it wouldn’t allow the 2 women to robe or sit at the front with the male clergy. That upset not just us women, but our congregations as well. And when a new tram rector was needed, that one parish vetoed meant no women could be considered – again upsetting the team dynamics.
In that group each parish had its own priest, but where you have vastly different parishes all with the same priest, there are few people who can minister equally well in both traditions.
It’s a dilemma, and I think the Church will have to find some very creative ways of solving it.
I’m glad you appreciated my Times piece, but did you mean ‘diary’ rather than ‘obit’?
Yes – sorry! – I meant the nice note you sent in about Ruth Scott which was published yesterday, I think.
I have been spending a lot of time the last two years worshipping around East Anglia, and have practically ‘finished’ that region (I mean in terms of attending a service in each church as part of my pilgrimage). I am struggling to think of a single benefice parish anywhere in the Norfolk countryside, and I can think of only one in Suffolk (Mendlesham, where the incumbent is under Richborough, has the freehold and takes many of the services for the FFC and NCT); even an ABC parish like Cookley has been brought into the Halesworth group, though its services are not advertised with the rest of the group (or, indeed, advertised at all save on the notice board). There are now some monster benefices I have encountered in a number of dioceses and clergy from a particular tradition have, perforce, to become acquainted with others – which is one of the advantages (perhaps one of the few advantages) of the growing indigence of the Church.
Anyway, what I mean is that single parish benefices in the countryside have become very, very rare indeed, and this must surely be a function of economics.
Yes, you are right there.
I didn’t think my comment on Ruth Scott had got into the Times. I didn’t see it in the hard copy. Was It in the online version?
It was in the print version (I think on Thursday or Friday), and I assume that it was also in the online version, although behind the firewall.
I’ll dig them out of my recycling bag and have another look. Was it in the obit section? I sent the comment to Feedback, which only appears on Saturdays, so didn’t think to look elsewhere.
In my experience, froghole, relatively limited, clergy taking over a parish that is different in tradition to themselves or another church in the benefice, simply carry on with what they’ve always done, very likely down to the hymns they know and like, regardless.
Many thanks, English Athena (and for your other comments). I think that is true about 70-80% of the time; about 20-25% of the time gradual changes are effected, and the rest an abrupt change will be essayed, usually with disastrous results…
That is sad. I’ve always tried to adapt myself to the parish’s tradition, and in the process I’ve learned a great deal and been enriched.
Of course I have also brought some things from my own (evangelical/eclectic/Celtic) traditions, and I hope the parishes have gained from that too.
The thing is, when you begin in a parish very different from your own tradition, you are bound to make mistakes from sheer ignorance. That demands tolerance and understanding from the parishioners. It also requires the congregation to be clear about their expectations and in communicating how they like things done. I have been blamed for ‘changing’ things when I hadn’t a clue I was doing anything different; no one had told me. So goodwill is required on all sides.
Of course there were things I deliberately changed, but I tried always to do that in consultation with the wardens, the PCC and sometimes the congregation. Sometimes I just got it wrong. And sometimes the parish tradition (i.e. previous incumbents) had been doing ‘illegal’ practices and the bishop leaned on me to change that.
One predecessor used to dole out the Reserved Sacrament at the beginning of every PCC meeting, without any accompanying liturgy! The same chap said Evening Prayer on Thursday mornings because he preferred the canticles. Some things just have to change.
Shouldn’t giggle should I, Janet?
It would have made sound economic sense to welcome my wish for a move, as Colgate is now amalgamated with Roffey, and Rusper could have been put with Warnham and/or become house for duty rather than leaving me here on a full stipend. In December 2016, after just one informal meeting with the Wardens, I was offered the single rural parish of West Chiltington. It was arranged by the Archdeacon who was grieved at the ‘appalling’ way the diocese was treating me. The Rectory was in a poor state and as a family we needed time to consider, but this was not granted by Martin Warner, who cited the ‘urgent’ need to advertise the post. The advert appeared the following June. The new incumbent was unable to move into the Rectory because of its condition. I was unaware that my biography is not now in Crockford. In a chronology which I have recently shared with the Diocesan Secretary I list about 15 parishes for which I might have submitted applications had these been openly advertised. My CV is such that Southwark, Canterbury and a Hospice Trust jumped at the chance to interview me. Their processes were transparent and although the posts turned out not to be right for me I was happy that this was a conclusion with which both they and I agreed. IICSA solicitors concluded that I am discriminated against in Chichester purely because of my associations.
Fr. Nick,
Thank you for this, and I am very sorry that this has happened to you. I sometimes find the distribution of manpower within dioceses bewildering and/or incomprehensible and/or problematic but you, of course, have endured it at first hand.
I should add that I have only looked at the online version of Crockford; you are listed as incumbent of Rusper; however, a search on your name does not return a result (though it does return several Flints). However, this might be a technological slip – I have found that to have been the case in a few other instances. Hopefully, it can be rectified.
Please accept my very best wishes for your ministry, whether in Rusper or wherever you might be called in the future.
Hello froghole. Always a pleasure. You always have so many well researched points to make.
Thank you. For the record on churchmanship, Rusper is middle of the road in keeping with much of the deanery.They don’t mind me being quirky, very open Anglo Catholic. To the north I’m bounded by Southwark and Guildford dioceses. There is just the one parish served by an SSC priest in Horsham deanery.
I can sort of understand why Colgate was removed from Rusper, being on the other side of the dual carriageway (I don’t know the back story), but fear that the lion’s share of the resource will be devoted to Roffey, since that’s where most of the people are. In view of the churchmanship at Warnham, I find the failure to amalgamate Rusper with that parish inexplicable and I am very sorry you have been the victim of that mistake (as I see it).
I wonder whether a more natural fit for Rusper, across diocesan lines, would be with Charlwood, Leigh and Newdigate where I found the churchmanship pretty middle of the road. Then again, removing Cowden from Rochester in the 1970s has proved to be a mistake: Holtye is being used as a studio, and is being left to moulder (it didn’t sell because of an easement issue, though the Commissioners don’t seem to realise that the golf club which has the ransom strip may be on its uppers) and Hammerwood no longer appears to be on the market and there were hopes it would go to the Landmark Trust. Since Cowden is in the gift of the Church Society and neighbouring churches in Kent are rather higher and have been in difficulties, it seems destined to remain an orphan for the time being; Rochester certainly doesn’t want it back.
Chichester is relatively coterminous with Sussex, the only other anomalies being or having been: (i) Loxwood (a chapelry still united with Alford in Surrey); (ii) Broomhill (i.e., Camber) – which has swung in and out of Kent and Sussex; (iii) North/South Ambersham which were technically a detached part of the parish of Steep in Hampshire, but de facto part Fernhurst and Easebourne respectively); (iv) Lamberhurst (where the church was in Kent and most of the village in Sussex); (v) portions of Bramshott and Hawkhurst; and (vi) the Broadwater Down district of Tunbridge Wells, which was removed from Sussex.
Nick, you now have the dubious honour of being on my prayer list. I’m so sorry.
I’m sure that will be a blessing – thank you.
Froghole, where does one look to find out who the patron of a parish is?
Janet, the Diocese of Carlisle used to have a paper copy of the Diocesan Directory. This had the patronage situation in each benefice. I’m afraid I’ve no idea how widespread this is or was.
I think most diocesan directories used to have something of the sort, but I have no idea if there’s anything online. I’ve tried to check a couple of parishes and can’t find anything.
Crockford online has a ‘places’ category but it doesn’t seem to work.
Re your question about patronage, there is (or was) a section at the back of Crockford itemising every benefice in the country, and indicating who are the patrons. Sometimes the patronage is ‘hidden’, as where it simply refers to the Board of Patronage, which conceals a variety of clerical and lay patrons. It is possible to identify these by looking at past pastoral schemes (where these are available), or by ploughing through older versions of Crockford to see whom they might be.
The very old editions of Crockford and the Clergy List used to list all the cures within the patronage of the leading patrons (i.e., the sovereign in his/her own right – i.e., the prime minister, the lord chancellor – the biggest patron by far though often of poor livings, the duchy of Lancaster, the bishops, deans and chapters, Oxbridge colleges and the likes of Eton and Winchester). The older lists are now very out of date because of divestments and exchanges, though crown patronage is pretty much what it was more than a century ago, less closed churches.
Few libraries have open access to back numbers of Crockford and the Clergy List – the London Library (my main resource) is one (and it also has a superb theological collection); the Lambeth/Sion College Library is another resource, though it is ‘harder work’ than the London Library, but of course you don’t have the heavy sub to pay to get access to Lambeth.
Here is a very old version of the Clergy List (to which I referred above): if you click on the page marked ‘Patronage of the Crown’ and scroll down you will get some idea: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Clergy_List_for.html?id=HOMNAAAAQAAJ. For a number of years Crockford followed the same formula after it bought the Clergy List in 1917.
Crockford, overall, is much less interesting than it used to be – the biographies used to be quite a lot fuller, listing degree classifications, books published, etc. The online version is handy in itemising past/deceased incumbents going back at least a few decades, and I hope that in time they will be able to go all the way back.
Surely we all know that Crockfords is now produced by Church House Westminster, hence the edit!
Thank you Froghole. I have an old printed copy of Crockford so have now looked up the information I wanted.
Now I’m trying to find out who was Rector of Maresfield in 1973.
Frank Bardell 1956-73 (1904-96), then John Wrake 1973-79 (1928-2018). When I attended a service there in 2011 the incumbent was a young former policeman, Jon Hobbs, who had brought the church back from a near-death experience, and it was one of the few churches in the area with a decent turnout and a slightly healthier demographic profile. However, I understand that Mr Hobbs has since left the Church of England for a nonconformist denomination (he resigned Maresfield in 2012); I don’t know how the place has fared since, although there has been quite a lot of property development in the area in recent years.
Froghole, you’re a mine of information.
What I’ve been looking into is who appointed Gordon Rideout as Vicar of Nutley in 1973 after he left the Army. He resigned after his court-martial on child abuse charges, though he was found not guilty. He later told a Bible study group at All Saints Eastbourne that he’d been expecting his godfather, an archdeacon, to find him a parish when he resigned, and the godfather refused (though I didn’t then know about the court-martial).
The patron of Nutley is the Rector of Maresfield. Depending on the month Bardell left and when Wrake took up the post, and when Rideout was appointed, Maresfield may have been between rectors. 1973 was also the final year of Kemp’s predecessor as diocesan.
So my search has not been very conclusive, but interesting.
I don’t know who Froghole is, but he is obviously learned in church history. As a lifelong fan of tadpoles, I appreciate the pseudonym, though I didn’t realise that frogs live in holes. Perhaps when they hibernate? My practical comment from a lay point of view is that I welcome the news that the Diocese is short of cash, because the only way I can see our parish (‘Exclusive Catholic’ merely because of its more recent incumbents) amalgamated into the multi-‘churchmanship’ of the benefice next door would be if we went broke. Then the stranglehold of The Society would be broken. Another hope I have is, that since both the Bishops of Chichester AND LONDON are our patrons, our newly arrived female patron would insist on Fair Play. Or is this expecting too much of a woman where men still have the Upper Hand?
I thought this was an excellent article, though I view it from the Antipodes (Adelaide, South Australia).
I wish I could say it was better here, but all I can really say “it is different, but equally frought.” [The Chinese proverb is Same, same. But different]
Although I am at pains to tell non-Anglicans that we are not hierarchical (in the way, say, the Roman Church is)[South Australia was a colony of ‘non-compulsory immigrants’ viz we were not criminals! We were independent thinkers, and this certainly translated into the life of the Anglican Church! We have never been an “Established” Church]
However after forty years of ordained ministry (served in this Diocese of Adelaide apart from a short time in the wonderful Diocese of Hawaii) I would reflect…Bishops either actually or de-facto exercise an enormous amount of power. Hawaii, curiously, seemed far more vulnerable to Episcopal whim.
In this Diocese, 95% of parishes have Nomination Rights, there are not 3rd Party patrons…but the Bishop can certainly exercise “pressure”[ In situations where the Parish is financially vulnerable the Bishop can step in…thank goodness he (sic…for as yet we have only had male Diocesans…about to get a female Assistant) has usually chosen not to bully parishes … however it’s difficult for Parish Lay and Diocesan Priest and Lay Nominators to stand against a Bishop.
I think Bishops have a lot of power which they can wield knowingly or unknowingly…but then I have been known (particularly by Bishops) as a turbulent priest. I am about to retire.
My eldest daughter finds the church and its Bishops to be laughable, “Look,” she said to me a year or so ago, “at the way it has treated you!” She doesn’t think I have been subject to honest process. She is a Senior Public(Civil) Servant. She understands that the Church is not a just society
I found myself sadly thinking
“Look, at the way Bishops treat the families of the clergy !”
Collateral damage.
I feel sad my three daughters have been collateral damage of patronage
I feel sad that at least one of them thinks the Church is a waste of space.
BYE the BYE…someone asked about Patronage in the Diocese of Carlisle (where I happen to have been born.) I am aware the Earl of Lonsdale as an influential mover during the early Industrial Revolution, had patronage of a number of parishes. For example, Whitehaven, the centre of the Lowther empire.
This is a bizarre curiosity.
I have no idea whether Hugh Lowther, the current Earl , is a believer. And I hold nothing against him.
I don’t think the Patronage of faith communities should be at the whim of someone who is essentially ‘of the Church’.
At least here in the Antipodes the Church has control of its destiny. Some Bishops get that OLJC has quite a lot to say about how power should be wielded . Others don’t
Sorry this got so long
Yeah. The patron of one of the parishes making up the benefice where I did my placement is the local baronet. Lovely man, much liked. But as you say, anachronistic. The parish where I lived is a patronage committee. Bishop, 2 from the parish and one “the Dean and chapter” . In practice, this vote was wielded by the Archdeacon. Conflict of interest, since the A/D is supposed to be the disinterested friend. And there was always a request that the parish reps were the patrons, which meant they were treated as reps and excluded from the selection process, and left with only the power of veto. Not satisfactory.
Nick, I note with concern your comment: “In my evidence I also record my repeated concern that as recently as 2016 Martin Warner had not passed on to the Police information I gave him about a suspect.”
Nobody has picked up on this. Not surprisingly the discussion has focussed on the finer details of patronage, as this was the subject of the article.
It’s troubling if any bishop is not acting on information reliably given by a member of clergy or officer within the diocese. And astonishing really that after many layers of failure and cover-up in this diocese have been brought into daylight – this lack of response might still be happening under a current bishop.
I hope the situation has now moved forward a considerable pace since the time of your statement. I’d be surprised if it hasn’t. I imagine you have had help from the IICSA lawyers to ensure a definite response. To my mind the bishop’s inaction would be grounds for a CDM. But that piece of structure has been brought into considerable disrepute with dismissals within the purple circle, time limits, ‘floods’, etc.
Two CDMs brought against Bishop Wallace Benn by the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group (DSAG) were dismissed on the basis of 12 month time limits. It is worth reading the IICSA summary to be reminded just how dysfunctional Bishop Benn’s approach was. And startling to see how easily the time-bar protects bad practice.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports/anglican-chichester-peter-ball/case-study-1-diocese-chichester/b6-complaints-under-clergy-discipline-measure
IICSA says the CDM “is not a suitable tool to deal with ongoing issues of risk management.” That seems a right assessment. But in the absence of anything else that might hold bishops to account, it’s all there is. Sir Roger Singleton brought a recent CDM against the Bishop of Chester for failing to respond to a letter ten years ago. If there’s any consistency, that will be dismissed by the Clergy Discipline Tribunal. And the Measure descend into more of a farce than it already is. One can only assume that Sir Roger’s reason for bringing this CDM was to highlight the farce and demonstrate the total collapse of the CDM. And force the church to address glaring unaccountability.
At the very least, Bishop Martin Warner should be asked to explain his reasons for the inaction. I’m not surprised the media did not pick up on this at the time, as there are so many documents on the IICSA website. Unless a witness lands in front of Counsel in a hearing, much goes past the media who tend to report the ‘big stuff’. The material on IICSA might be source for historians and theologians in the future….
It charts a church in breakage, a gospel in collapse.
Gilo
I was disturbed to find the sentence “A transparent interview process takes place for most posts, even for bishops” in the original article. In February 2019 General Synod debated minor changes to Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) processes designed to remove the regime of secrecy in casting one’s votes in the interest of transparency and accountability. The proposal was defeated heavily in the House of Laity.
In an article for the Church Times on the topic I remarked that for all General Synod knew about the secret workings of the CNC, they might as well have been considering the appointments regime in MI5. This left lay members prey to persuasion by those with vested interests.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/12-april/comment/opinion/cloaks-of-secrecy-are-too-threadbare
I sat on the CNC for five years up to December 2017 and observed the voting arrangements first hand and also had the advantage in February of having stepped down, an advantage only shared by one other lay person and one Dean. There were six current members of the CNC at Synod that day. For everyone else the arrangements are a complete mystery.
The burden of my argument was that, secrecy being the norm, it is not surprising that women and people in civil partnerships suffer discrimination to judge only by the numbers of women and gay people elevated to the House of Bishops in the years 2015-2017 (2 women, no gay people). It takes remarkably few members of the CNC who are opposed to women and gay people as clergy or bishops to ensure that this is the case. I also have an inside track on the calibre of the women and gay people who missed out on appointments.
Please agitate for secrecy to be abolished in the CNC or for an end to the voting process altogether, as is the case in all other Church appointments, so that panels can reach one mind by discussion and discernment. This was the proposal from the O’Donovan Commission which we were debating.
April. In my comment about bishops, I was carried along by the comments made at the time John Sentamu announced his retirement 18 months or so ahead of time. This was, I surmised, to allow plenty of consultation and open discussion about his successor. Such talk is quite different from the hidden secrecy that used to veil such a senior appointment. Whatever the the detail, things have changed in my lifetime in this area.
Has Nick Flint’s account of his conversation with Martin Warner been put to the bishop for his response?
I’m not sure which conversation you mean, Jill, but Nick Flint’s testimony to IICSA is a matter of public record.
Click on the pingback below. Depressing, but gives you information that is relevant to this question. And why is no one chasing Martin Warner about not reporting to the police? Especially as he is supposed to be cleaning up after a mess.
Indeed why not? ! The most disturbing thing is that I assumed it was inefficiency until a member of the Diocesan Team said ‘Do you think he did it deliberately?’ That surmise shocked me. She went on to say ‘No-one is above suspicion.’ However when I followed up this exchange with her boss he basically told me to get a grip with a tone of ‘ A bishop implicated in abuse? – As if!’ So, one rule or presumption for previous bishops, but another for a serving one – is what comes across, or am I missing something? I just don’t know what to believe and my request for evidence that proves me mistaken is simply brushed aside with ‘Well he must have passed it to the Police with everything else.’ The diocese deceived me once over Peter Ball, I think they owe me and others courtesy and transparency. Why is that so much to ask?
Well, he’s an intelligent man, and must appreciate that in his current situation he has to be like Caesar’s wife! But, just put the other side. Most people do tell the truth most of the time. So it’s not surprising people tend to just believe what they are told. And thank goodness. But when it’s something hurtful…. I once told supportive friend about one episode involving a married couple, both ordained, who had stitched me up, and were trying to get my husband to go forward for ordained ministry, with what amounted to an offer to fix it! While I have no idea whether they actually had the power to do so, my friend actually replied, “But they wouldn’t do that!” So most people’s reaction to something shocking is not to believe it. That makes life difficult in this line of business. And I’m sure I’ve been punished for making false accusations. Nobody says, of course, but the boot goes in. And they don’t check whether they really are false before punishing you. So, yes Nick, I’m sure that will have happened to you.
… just TO put the other side. Sorry.
In this instance the Safeguarding Officer presented me with a shocking scenario for which I was unprepared and her boss subsequently treated it as a joke and me as gullible for falling into it. As a write this a voice is telling me I’m describing manipulative behaviour on the part of the Safeguarding Team.
I think it’s known as ‘gaslighting’. And it’s nasty.