(This really happened) Rector to new parish councillor: "I think parish councils are totally unnecessary. I like to make all the important decisions."
When I look at the way in which many clergy manage the administrative polity of power and decision making in their parishes, my mind goes back to a rather interesting interaction in Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons between Thomas More and his soon to be Son in law William Roper about the rule of law. Roper is impatient with More's reliance on the law rather than going straight after his enemies and accused him of even giving the Devil the benefit of law.
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down (and you’re just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
(A rather English, and may I say Anglican, attitude to the rule of law in human affairs.)
It seems to me it is too easy for clergy effectively to abuse the rule of law in their parishes for all kinds of good reasons but with long-term bad consequences.
Let me say that I do not think there are any biblically mandated forms of church polity. We can get a hint of what happened in the New Testament but that's about all. And no doubt there are principles of good Christian behaviour. This means I find myself constantly underwhelmed when I see people attempting to create biblical models of leadership in today's church.
(I notice John Piper is not immune from this problem. In a paper "Rethinking the Governance Structure at Bethlehem Baptist Church" (2000), Piper is able to observe the very subtle point that because churches are apparently the final court of appeal in matters of disagreement, it is implied they should call and approve their own leaders (as Baptists do coincidently), while at the same time missing the more obvious fact that the criteria for the appropriate appointment of leaders he later relies on (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1) are written not to churches at all but to individuals like Timothy and Titus. As far as I can see it is only these apostolic representatives as well as the Apostles themselves (Acts 14.23) who do all the appointing of elders and deacons in the New Testament. I am not saying by this that therefore the episcopal form of government is the biblical pattern, as tempting as it may be. But it is a warning about reading what we want into the whispers and hints in the Bible and missing what is often right in front of you.)
Anglican polity as we have inherited it over the thousands of years it has taken to develop (I am not joking) is what I call a bipolar structure of government. That is, it gives authority to the ministers and it gives authority to the lay people of the church. Each has authority in different but overlapping areas and for successful church life, they need to work in partnership.
This is a model which goes right through our church. We see it in the bishop of the diocese (in our case, the Archbishop) with his synod around him, both having authority in different areas of life. We see it in the parish that the minister has authority given to him (from the bishop of the diocese) to oversee and lead the ministry aspects of the church, while the churchwardens and the parish council have responsibility over the infrastructure of the church; the property, finances and so forth. Of course, it is not a separation. The minister is a member of parish council, and the parish council has the power to consult with the minister on matters of church ministry. But in practice there are two distinct poles of leadership.
This, of course, can be very frustrating to both the laity and the clergy. And there is a constant effort to collapse the two into one to make a unipolar method. I see this in some parishes where the parish council is loaded up with corporate types, sometimes aided by the slightly unwise behaviour of clergymen, who try to treat the parish council as the kind of council of elders or board of directors under which the minister becomes merely the CEO or managing director. There are denominations which have a polity of a board directing the minister but that is not our polity.
On the other hand, I have seen instances where ministers seek to take control away from the laity by effectively abolishing or neutering the parish council and the wardens or by subtly finding ways of taking away from the lay people effective choice of who will be members of parish council or wardens. The minister, of course, already has the choice of one of the three wardens and about a third of the parish council so he is not without a say. But for some that is not enough. (I notice that even in Zac Veron's otherwise excellent book on parish leadership he encourages clergy to so organise things that all the effective lay leadership in the church is entirely appointed by him.)
Of course, these things can be well intentioned out of a real frustration of dealing with a less than optimal membership of parish council or wardens. There are, no doubt, times when it is not inappropriate to seek to increase the standard of such men and women. But to collapse them under the control of the minister is a serious mistake. It is a mistake to cut down the principles of our polity and collapse a bipolar structure of government in to a monopolar.
This is not a mistake that shows up that often in good times. For in a way, when trust is high and things are working well, the actual structure in many ways becomes less and less significant. But when there are difficulties and troubles, these errors can come back very seriously to bite. Depowering congressional decision making may be short term effective, but long term it leads to dysfunctionality.
I believe that we clergy ought to learn to model trusting restraint when it comes to power. It is so tempting in the name of the gospel to tear down all the laws because we know what needs to be done without realising that we are pulling apart the effective structure of a long-term healthy life in the churches we lead.
It is also a question of Christian discipleship. We gain our own authority as ministers in charge by virtue of the polity and laws of the church, and therefore since we are dependent on it, we should not rob others of their place either.
So I say to the clergy who want things their way, be patient, educate your lay people about their responsibilities and jealously guard their rights even more than you guard your own. Work to build trust and effective partnership. In the long run you will find you will have a much more mature and effective church community following you.
