Brief for a Working Group on implementing redefined roles for clergy, lay ministry and vestry

Background

This brief brings together two priorities for action identified in the Strategic Review. It does so on the premise that the work of clergy, lay ministry and vestry will jointly be most effective in generating congregational growth if it is coherent and based on a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities.

The brief flows from the Diocesan Review and its background is set out in the Strategic Review document. Relevant points include the following:

• Our society has become in effect post-Christian, but the roles and training of our clergy and lay people have not changed accordingly.

• Working relationships are often not as productive as they could be. For example, research with clergy revealed a desire for more help from members but based on clearer mutual understanding between clergy, lay ministry and vestry of respective roles and responsibilities

• Independent research evidence indicates that

  • Decline is fostered if clergy are not properly supported, trained and held accountable

  • More lay involvement in leadership tends to foster growth

  • The role of clergy in growth is primarily one of providing supportive leadership to lay members who will always be the congregation’s potentially most powerful resource

The Scottish Episcopal Church continues to give significant attention to issues of ministry – and in particular to lay and collaborative patterns of ministry. Our intention here is to adopt a more holistic approach:

• To understand and support ordained ministry which works in the context of lay participation

• To understand and support lay ministry which works in the context of leadership by ordained clergy

• To provide appropriate training and support for both

• To give particular attention to the working relationship of clergy and laity within Vestries.

Task

The task is to develop a plan to implement redefined roles and responsibilities for clergy and laity in our diocese to make their work, separately and jointly, more effective in achieving congregational growth.

The plan should

• redefine the role, responsibilities, support and training of clergy to maximise the potential for congregational growth in contemporary, post-Christian society

• redefine the roles, responsibilities, training and education for lay ministry and vestry to support clergy in achieving congregational growth

• provide rationale for those redefinitions

• set out how the diocese can apply the redefinitions in practice over the next five to ten years.

Envisaged approach

It is envisaged that the Group will adopt an approach along the following lines.

3.1. Develop a model

In its work the Group should begin by developing a view of what does or would constitute the ideal situation or best-practice for congregational growth. This should draw on research-based evidence where available, and cover

• profiles of clergy in terms such as competencies, attitudes towards mission, experience or other relevant characteristics

• selection of clergy and the types of review, support and training given to clergy in post

• the nature of the relationships between clergy and lay ministry and vestry, in terms of respective roles and responsibilities

• the type of preparation, education and training given to lay ministry and vestry

• the implications of wishing to engage with different groups of people likely to represent strongest prospects for growth in different kinds of community. Additional guidance on growth prospects will come from a workshop on that issue to be held in October 2007.

A central consideration should be how best to foster the distinctive leadership of clergy in a collaborative setting.

3.2. Assess the issues and opportunities

The Group should then move on to review the current situation in the diocese and identify where there are significant differences between actual and “ideal”.

3.3. Begin the process of consultation and planning

From that assessment, the work of formulating a plan should begin, focussing on how to move from the current situation to one that is closer to the “ideal” in terms of achieving congregational growth.

This process will produce some recommendations for immediate change where that is obviously necessary and practicable. In the area of in-service training for clergy there is an initiative already underway, and in training for vestry, for example, it seems likely that action could and should be initiated quite quickly.

It will also produce a mid- and longer-term plan for changes that will become more actionable over the next 5-10 years as movement of clergy, retirements and other personnel changes provide opportunity.

The key to this is good process. This means that we should not just consult people about changes which are proposed. We should so far as is possible and practicable involve clergy and people most affected in the actual process of identifying and exploring options.

4. Initial response requested

The Working Group is asked to meet by early September 2007, consider the brief, and request further information from the Implementation Group as required. The Working Group Chair is invited to come back to the Implementation Group on September 11^th make a short (1 or 2 page) outline proposal to the Implementation Group on how the task will be approached. That outline should include an estimate of any resources – human, financial or other – envisaged as being necessary to do the work.

5. Reporting

The Working Group Chair is thereafter asked to follow a 2-stage approach:

1. By end November, come back to the Implementation Group with a short (ie a few pages) interim report on progress and emerging conclusions

2. By end February 2008 present a recommended plan.
   This might take the form of a short (c10 page) document and some PowerPoint slides describing the proposals - emerging, tentative and/or firm – together with rationale, evaluation of the financial implications of what is being done or proposed, and measures that can be used to monitor effectiveness.

Additionally, the Group is asked to confer with the Implementation Group at the end of each significant stage of its work.