CLERGY will likely be entitled to 36 hours of rest in every seven-day period, including an uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours, if the Archbishops’ Council amends the Terms of Service regulations because the General Synod requested on Saturday.
The motion from the diocese of Winchester was brought by Alison Coulter (Winchester), who told the clergy: “You are a precious resource. . . Our priority is to take care of you.” Rest was fundamental to well-being, “a part of our God-given pattern of life”, she said.
The latest report from the ten-year Living Ministry research project had revealed one quarter of incumbents to be affected by poor mental health because of this, partly a minimum of, of not getting enough rest (News, 23 February). One had described his appointment to a benefice with seven churches as “the worst time in my life”.
There was no obstacle in the present regulations to the “modest increase” in break day proposed, which might allow clerics to take greater than a 24-hour break each week, she said. “We need to encourage wider discussion of what’s realistic. It’s a small but necessary step which I ask you to support.”
The debate was energetic and intense.
Professor Lynn Nichol (Worcester), a clergy wife for 37 years, hoped wryly that the motion might be backdated to 1987 — she had calculated that greater than two years of break day can be owing. It was about “principles, practicalities, and permission”, she said. “The requirement for a six-day working pattern is ingrained within the Church of England. This would give clergy explicit permission to take care of themselves.”
A successful amendment by the Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Mark Ireland, specifically affirmed the Sabbath “as a time to stop and delight, a part of God’s creation, a life-giving gift of God”. “A break day catching up on essential tasks isn’t a Sabbath day,” he said.
Many clergy contributors to the controversy acknowledged their very own liability for not resting. The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said that the motion was trying to attain culture change, and so the Sabbath amendment was very appropriate. “We have much work to do to bring about that cultural shift,” she said. “We are particularly vulnerable to an assumption that all the things relies on us.”
“Much as love this call, I could too easily turn into a slave to it,” Canon Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), said, and made reference to clergy inclination towards “a Messiah complex”.
The challenge to take break day in a parish context was more complex than a legislative one, Denis Tully (Southwell & Nottingham) suggested. Priests had to administer a variety of often conflicting expectations, “most coming from inside, which generally is a distillation of all of the external expectations”.
Dr Simon Clift (Winchester) referred to “unmanageable workloads and unrealistic job descriptions”. The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers, identified that there was no obstacle to clergy taking rest throughout the current rules, unless out of “ignorance and self-management. . . Sometimes we impose this pressure on ourselves. I even have valued the large freedom to organise my very own life. We ought to be careful about wanting to turn into normal employees,” he said.
The Revd Steve Wilcox (York) and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, each strongly emphasised the necessity to deal with the underlying culture of the Church, which they said was compliance heavy.
The Revd Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield) said that self-supporting ministers also needs to be considered. Her self-supporting curate had a dual calling as a funeral director, and lots of in full-time jobs didn’t even have 24 hours off, she said.
“Be careful we don’t sound slightly bit entitled. . . In the broader world on the market, individuals are doing two jobs simply to survive.”
“Let this be just the beginning,” the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said. “I will likely be in search of a a lot better deal for parish clergy.”
The Synod resisted an amendment which called for a 48-hour rest period. The vote in favour was overwhelming: 336 for, three against, with six abstentions.
