St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

Talent and Calling

The Church of England’s General Synod received a report last month on the way that its leaders (bishops, archdeacons and deans of cathedrals) are appointed. Nearly 300 Synod members voted in favour of it, and just one voted against. So I’d like to explain why I dissented.

The debate was upstaged by Gordon Brown’s announcement about changing the system. Up to now, the church has proposed two names to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has chosen one, and advised the Queen accordingly. But now the church will be asked for just one name, and the Prime Minister will merely be a postman to the Queen. The Church of England has wanted to choose its own leaders for at least the last 30 years, and like everyone else I welcome this change.

But how should the church choose the name? The bible tells me that Jesus knew what was in a person’s heart in a way which I never can, so I don’t look to the gospels to tell me how to appoint staff. But after Jesus’ ascension, Judas’ death caused a vacancy - and Acts 1 tells me Peter did three things. He stood up among the believers and advertised the post. He outlined the job description (or more accurately, “role description”) and person specification. And it was open to anyone to apply or nominate.

I don’t believe the narrative of Acts can be translated directly into modern appointments procedures, but I do think it forces us to ask some questions. Why should the job description be published? So that everyone knows what the post-holder is supposed to do. Why should anyone be able to apply? So that the workforce can have confidence that the job wasn’t “stitched up” and that the best candidate really was appointed.

My brother is a personnel manager, and he pointed out a sad fact to me. The worst-case scenario is not that you appoint a mediocre candidate. The worst-case scenario is that the workforce refuses to work with the new postholder because they don’t think s/he should be in the job. To make a job work, you have to make sure the person doing it starts with respect.

And the “Talent and Calling” report didn’t recommend that. It said that there should be a job description, but not that it should be published. It made some sensible suggestions about the “preferment list” (the list of clergy who have the potential for high office). I don’t see any objection to using such a list as a way of encouraging people to apply. But it didn’t say that all posts should be advertised and open to anyone to apply. Instead, the present secrecy will stay. So I voted against it.

John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. August 2007, Page 2.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (August 2007) Prayer, Appointments, Hymnwriters, Egypt, Covenant. Other articles on church organisation.	Talent and Calling The Church of England’s General Synod received a report last month on the way that its leaders (bishops, archdeacons and deans of cathedrals) are appointed. Nearly 300 Synod members voted in favour of it, and just one voted against. So I’d like to explain why I dissented. The debate was upstaged by Gordon Brown’s announcement about changing the system. Up to now, the church has proposed two names to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has chosen one, and advised the Queen accordingly. But now the church will be asked for just one name, and the Prime Minister will merely be a postman to the Queen. The Church of England has wanted to choose its own leaders for at least the last 30 years, and like everyone else I welcome this change. But how should the church choose the name? The bible tells me that Jesus knew what was in a person’s heart in a way which I never can, so I don’t look to the gospels to tell me how to appoint staff. But after Jesus’ ascension, Judas’ death caused a vacancy - and Acts 1 tells me Peter did three things. He stood up among the believers and advertised the post. He outlined the job description (or more accurately, “role description”) and person specification. And it was open to anyone to apply or nominate. I don’t believe the narrative of Acts can be translated directly into modern appointments procedures, but I do think it forces us to ask some questions. Why should the job description be published? So that everyone knows what the post-holder is supposed to do. Why should anyone be able to apply? So that the workforce can have confidence that the job wasn’t “stitched up” and that the best candidate really was appointed. My brother is a personnel manager, and he pointed out a sad fact to me. The worst-case scenario is not that you appoint a mediocre candidate. The worst-case scenario is that the workforce refuses to work with the new postholder because they don’t think s/he should be in the job. To make a job work, you have to make sure the person doing it starts with respect. And the “Talent and Calling” report didn’t recommend that. It said that there should be a job description, but not that it should be published. It made some sensible suggestions about the “preferment list” (the list of clergy who have the potential for high office). I don’t see any objection to using such a list as a way of encouraging people to apply. But it didn’t say that all posts should be advertised and open to anyone to apply. Instead, the present secrecy will stay. So I voted against it. John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 7th August 2007.