Should clergy expect deference?
My friend Richard Peers acquired something of a stir at the weekend when he questioned whether 'senior' clergy should expect to be treated with deference. His reflections arose from noticing a comment fabricated by Justin Welby at the IISCA research into sexual abuse. After offering a robust critique of ane attribute of Justin'due south witness statement, he notes:
Nonetheless, information technology is the Archbishop'southward comments well-nigh deference that I want to reverberate on in light of the wider context of his statements to exist found in the transcript hither.
The key statement from Justin that I will comment on is this:
"I'chiliad quite baffled by how we tackle deference. I notice it strange when I'm given deference."
It is ever good when leaders admit to weakness. I take Justin's admission as an invitation to all of usa to recall near how nosotros can end the culture of deference in the Church building of England. And then here are my thoughts.
I remember Richard'south reflections are helpful—and not a little provocative—simply I call back he needs to go further!
Start, Richard hints that he is baffled at Justin'southward own bafflement, in that he can recall of many means to address the culture of deference. Merely at that place is a more basic puzzle here: is it really possible to have the titles 'His Grace the Most Reverend and Right Honourable', besides as a glaze of arms, be a member of the Firm of Lords, alive in (an apartment in) a palace, dress in gilded on ceremonial occasions, and have real determination-making influence (despite Justin'southward off-white claim that 'there are no easy levers of modify that I can pull')—and still exist surprised by the deference that is shown? Despite the waning influence of the Church as institution, information technology nonetheless has a formal place in the structure of British social club, and and so anything the archbishop says volition have enormous significance, if only because of intense media interest, which consistently focusses disproportionately (both in the secular as well as church press) on what bishops say, which is ofttimes reduced to 'Church of England believes…' Given the inherent power dynamics, it is no surprise at all that people treat archbishops with deference.
It has been repeatedly noted that the 'culture of deference' has been a highly destructive force which has suppressed proper reporting of abuse. But it also has an bear on on some other issue nether discussion at the final meeting of General Synod, that of clergy well beingness. When parish clergy are experiencing difficulties and need support, there is quite a wide perception that the distance there is betwixt them and their bishops makes resolving these problems much harder.
Richard'due south commencement solution to the culture of deference relates to clerical dress.
Why do Anglican bishops wear imperial shirts? This is a modern (probably twentieth century) invention. The theology is poor. There is but one ministerial priesthood which the bishop shares with her or his presbyters. To be identified every bit belonging to a separate 'superior' guild is profoundly disturbing. Justin never, as far as I am aware, wears purple shirts. All our bishops should burn theirs immediately. Walking into a room in a royal clerical shirt is a ability argument. It is not what Jesus would practise.
Richard includes a correction from an online word that this is not just Anglican practice—but neither is it modern. The wearing of purple derives from Roman imperial practice, in which senators had purple edges to their togas and the emperor had an all-purple toga with aureate edges. Its limitation was in part a reflection of the expense of this dye, which came from the crushed shells of the murex snail. Historical purists note that the correct color is actually Tyrian purple, which is more like a shade of red than the cerise colour that most bishops habiliment today.
But we might extend this question in two other directions. Commencement, there are other elements of clerical dress which also encourage deference. The lawmaking for which kind of cassock you can wear in the Catholic Church building is boggling in its detail, including reference to unlike colours of pipage and buttons, and this interest has been taken upward in the Church of England over the terminal one hundred years. The effect of this is to create a separate grade of those in the know in contrast with the ignorance of outsiders, a little like the dissimilar arrangements of buttons for the Guards at Buckingham Palace.
The same applies to Roman-manner vestments worn in services and, of class, the thorny discipline of bishops mitres. The dissimilar theories near mitres are generally laughable; I was intrigued to find that the Daily Mail reporting on my article ii years ago included this comment from Christine Hardman, the bishop of Newcastle:
The staff and mitre are non seen equally outdated trappings of office but as symbols of care and dear.
That's a very strange estimation of something that, historically, was designed to emphasise the separateness of the person wearing it—and I retrieve it continues to take that result today.
The Synod debates nigh dispensing with clerical vestments were precisely around the issue that they have of separation, putting a altitude between clergy and ordinary worshippers, especially those who have not been inducted into the culture of the institution of the Church, and this distance is surely something that contributes to deference.
Richard Peers then tackles bishops' membership of London clubs ('I have known holy, good men to exist corrupted by [the Athenaeum] and associated institutions') and the House of Lords ('this most exclusive of London clubs'), earlier addressing the questions of housing and differential stipends.
The houses we live in are powerful signifiers. This is probably more true in England and perhaps the UK, than in well-nigh countries. Not just the number of rooms simply the location. Even if a bishop lives in a pocket-size flat in a former bishop's palace the reception rooms, study etc tend to be in the old grand rooms. These are designed to make ordinary folk feel intimidated. 1000 article of furniture, loftier ceilings, ancient buildings. Imagine beingness a victim of child sexual abuse and beingness asked to expect in those circumstances…
Should bishops be paid a different stipend to parish clergy? I can see no reason why. The expenses should exist significantly higher. Not the salary.
I recall the question of housing and offices is more complex than Richard allows for here. Houses practice not just have applied and symbolic importance; they are also historic assets, and I remember many dioceses (and the Church building centrally) has made a catastrophic mistake in shedding celebrated assets for the sake of supplementing short-term revenue (and some dioceses are standing to practise this at alarming rates). Capital assets, once lost, tin never easily be regained.
The question of stipend differentials has been a thorny effect for some fourth dimension—as has the question of clergy remuneration overall. I understand that the Anglican Church in Canada has differentials based on age lone (which raises other questions), but the practice of having differentials based on 'seniority' is widespread. The implicit question here is whether bishops do take a more 'responsible' job that, for example, parish clergy. If you are a bishop responsible for the oversight of, say, 150 clergy, is that more responsible than a vicar responsible for the oversight of, say, 300 members of a church? In do, this is not the question that most people inquire—because, tacitly or explicitly, our expectations of what bishops do has changed beyond what is reasonable. As I noted recently:
The problem here is putting [the expectation of good preaching and instruction] alongside all the other demands that we brand of them. They need to exist proficient administrators (who wouldn't want a quick answer to a request?); financial managers (how else will the diocese remainder its budgets?); competent strategic thinkers (else who will lead united states into growth?); concerned pastors (who else is looking out for the clergy?); effective in subject field (someone has got to keep everyone in line, even if that contradicts the previous concern); they must offering an effective voice in national debates (to raise the quality, every bit Parris argues)…and then on. As a recruitment consultant one time commented, it is the multi-coloured unicorn brief!
If nosotros want to undermine the culture of deference, information technology would assist a good bargain if we didn't look all our bishops to be Superman (or Wonder Woman).
Richard Peers then makes an interesting comment about who visits whom when meetings are arranged:
Being Director of Education is a pretty minor function in a diocese. In my three years in the role I have never asked a Head instructor to come and see me in the office. Far meliorate to become and see them, what does it say to people to ask them to come up to you lot? To waste their time in traffic? To have to be in your space not theirs? The time spent driving to see people where they are is time well spent. Bishops should exist pilgrims, peregrines, like Jesus, travellers on the road. Seeing people where they are.
I was very impressed when my diocesan bishop, in his first year of appointment, did but this, visiting every licensed minister in the diocese. But, noting the demands nosotros have heaped upon our episcopal offices, I suspect that is but not practically possible for most. Simply the principle expresses skilful practice, as Richard says, and of course applies to parish clergy also; there is zip that encourages people, especially men, than for their pastor to visit them in the place of their daily occupation.
Richard so makes a bespeak about titles and forms of address—'My own preference is for christian proper noun or Female parent, or Father.' I have reached the point in life where I cannot think of a reason for addressing a bishops as 'Bishop X', except that, if I don't know them well, they announced to await it. But I am at present at the stage of life where I am every bit old as half the bishops in the Church, and have been around long enough to know many of them personally. Besides, none of them address me as Presbyter Ian, so why should I use their title in personal accost to them if they won't for me?! And I remember Richard needs to reckon with the fact that 'Father' is in itself a term of deference ('Practise not call anyone on earth 'father'…' Matthew 23.ix).
Titles and forms of address are another area, like clothes codes, which create a difference between insiders and outsiders. I am on i mailing list which has me as 'R D I B Paul'; information technology took me a little while to reality that the get-go initials stood for 'Revd Dr'. And I have regularly had slightly amusing conversations with my bank on the telephone, where I accept to explain that I should not exist addressed equally 'Revd Paul' since 'reverend' is an adjective, whereas Mister (or Dr.) is a noun, so the right style to address a chaplain is 'Mr Paul'. It is usually a lot easier just to enquire to pay a beak, or whatever.
But what is one to practice when the archbishops address i another (perchance tongue in cheek) as 'Your Grace' in meetings? If they show one another deference, what of mere mortals?
Apart from addressing the specifics of deference as Richard Peers has done, I think it is also worth asking the question as to why this is an effect at all. In that location is clearly a question of historic legacy, which has a direct bearing on things like the use of titles, historic buildings, and even stipend differentials. Merely a fundamental issue (which has a begetting on both issues around corruption and the question of clergy well being) is the question of power. Justin Welby is right in some respects when he says that he (and whatsoever bishop in his or her diocese) has few levers of power; bishops are not, as many imagine, CEOs of an organisation called 'the diocese' or 'the Church of England'. Change must be brought about by careful thinking and the building of collaboration. But pressure for change is undoubtedly nowadays, possibly more than at any point in the last few decades, because of the perceived urgency of the need to opposite decline. This means that questions of power to effect change are in precipitous focus—and there is no uncertainty that bishops exercise power over clergy, just every bit clergy do in fact exercise power in a range of ways over ordinary church building members. No matter how cordial is my human relationship with my own bishop, the fact of the matter is that I hold the bishop's licence, and if I am planning to move, so I volition need the goodwill of my bishop and any other whose diocese I might move to in order to continue to exercise my ministry.
But in that location is some other fundamental factor, which arises from a just ascertainment well-nigh the New Testament linguistic communication here. Paul notes to Timothy:
The elders who direct the diplomacy of the church well are worthy of double honour, particularly those whose work is preaching and teaching. (one Tim 5.17)
This is an interesting annotate in several respects. First, if Paul was working in a hierarchical church, which includes the marks of deference we have noted hither, then this annotate would be superfluous; in other words, the demand for this comment reinforces the sense in Paul that the early Christian communities were strikingly egalitarian. Secondly, at that place has been some fence virtually the term 'honour', since the Greek wordtime has the meaning 'price' or 'value' in modern Greek, and it might exist that Paul is suggesting that they should be paid more—though this is non conclusive.
But the bigger issue is that of 'award' or common respect. One commentator on social media noted that we shouldn't treat bishops (or clergy) with deference, but we should treat them with respect. Nosotros are living in a culture which (in part because of the relational detachment afforded past online interaction) is singularly lacking in respect, and that has ofttimes infected discourse within the Church building too. If leaders feel they are defective respect, and so the easier affair to reach for is deference—and the use of titles, clerical garb, and large offices are the easiest manner to implement that.
We will take a meliorate hazard of eliminating the culture of deference if we all treat 1 another with a good deal more respect.
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media, mayhap using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot accept valued this post, would you lot considerdonating £1.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you take valued this mail service, yous tin can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Brand the nearly charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/should-clergy-expect-deference/
0 Response to "Should clergy expect deference?"
Postar um comentário