So, this one has been some time coming because it's harder to be clear about the role of a parish council or vestry than it is to be clear about clerical roles. I'm also not sure how much commonality there is between dioceses on the roles they assign to vestries so my reflections here are primarily based on the situation in Melbourne. (And I'm still not sure that I've got majorly insightful things to say... )
The Anglican Church has a strong history of lay leadership. In addition to the three orders of clergy, the Church includes lay leadership at a number of levels. Here in Melbourne, for example, the diocesan synod (~parliament) has more lay than clerical members. And each parish church has a council, or vestry, of lay people who are involved in its oversight.
While some local churches view their vestry as the board of governance, this isn't really right. Unlike boards in the corporate world, the vestry has no power to hire or fire the vicar / rector, who is the CEO equivalent, and the vicar actually has the power to appoint some members of the vestry. Also, the vestry has no real authority to direct the vicar / rector in terms of the ministry activities of the church.
The stated purpose of a vestry is to "consult together on matters of general concern and importance to the parish". Therefore, they are best understood as an advisory group for the vicar.
Such a group can be invaluable if they have all been screened on the basis of their Christian maturity and commitment to the parish church before taking up their roles. They can provide the vicar with lots of valuable insights from a range of perspectives. At the most basic level, just drawing on the exposure, experience and wisdom of a group of trusted congregation members will give the vicar a fuller picture of their church than if they just relied on their own.
But just as with other positions in the church, problems are likely to arise if a vestry assumes roles that they shouldn't. If, for example, they treat the vicar like their employee or want to have the final say in ministry decisions, then they've misunderstood their job. This isn't to say they have no recourse if they really believe their vicar is making a mistake - they can always approach their bishop if necessary. But like all roles in church, the clearer a vestry is about what they're meant to do, the more likely they are to be able to offer the most fruitful service.
Thoughts on Theology-in-Practice for Anglicans and Episcopalians - plus some other stuff.
The Vestry doesn't have much power at all, so the whole of your third paragraph isn't really correct - Vestry's role is to "consult together on matters of general concern and importance to the parish". The Church Wardens are accountable in law, in the UK and in Australia, not the Vestry and I don't believe Vestry has the power to direct the Wardens to do or not do something.
ReplyDeleteLike everything else in the Anglican church, it's a settlement of powers - the Minister has authority over the Divine Service, but the Wardens control the building. The Minister can employ people to help him/her (the Wardens only employ persons unrelated to ministry eg admin assistants) but the Wardens pay them.
So neither Minister nor Wardens can control the bus on their own. And the role of the Wardens is uncannily like that of a Deacon as described in Acts.
Yes - I think I shift it this way in today's post - the wardens are the ones finally accountable in law. But the wardens are members of the vestry although I agree that they're not 'executive' in the sense of taking directions from the rest of the vestry.
ReplyDeleteI think the deacon issue is an excellent one to flag. Like I said in the post on deacons, it's very hard to see where the line between deacons and lay leaders falls...
Thanks!
Technically, the parish bank account is meant to be in the name of the wardens rather than the parish. However, wardens change so frequently that this is non-sensical, and they usually just have wardens as signatories to a parish account.
ReplyDeleteA number of parishes, especially larger ones, are getting creative about how to best use their vestries. One I know groups them into smaller teams with responsibilities for property, staff, finance, strategy, etc and seeks to use people with particular skills in those areas.
There are 3 common problems I have encountered with vestries:
1) Rubber stamping - have no original ideas of their own, but just agree to the vicar's decisions. I think the most helpful antidotes to this are getting a warden (rather than the vicar) to chair the meetings, and ensuring members get opportunities to discuss relevant issues and put issues on the agenda.
2) Micro-managing - the "carpet colour" discussion is the cause celebre here. Vestries need to ensure the vision, mission and goals of the parish are being followed, and represent interests and concerns of the wider parish. But day to day operations ought to be left to the ministry staff or a sub-group.
3) Overly critical - Some vestries see it as their job to give a running scorecard on the vicar's performance. Again, you need a good chairperson who reminds people to support the vicar and provide him/her with the resources needed for the job.
Here's another question that's always bugged me - why is the Incumbency Committee elected separately from the Vestry? One of the Wardens is automatically a member, but why aren't the Vestry entrusted with the responsibility to select suitable people from within the Vestry or outside? They are already elected representatives of the parish. It seems to say, "We trust you to represent our opinions and give leadership, but not to select a vicar".
Thanks again AJ for your corrective. Changes have now be made to the post.
ReplyDelete