|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is the church being prejudicial to people over the age of 50yr?
|
Noodlechops
Apprentice
# 18513
|
Posted
Does anyone know if it is legal for the Church of England to prevent people over the age of 50yr from training full time for ordained ministry? A good mate of mine has had a real nightmare in his diocese, because he wouldn’t have been 50yr by the time he was ordained so he was forced to train part-time which has been really difficult for him. If however, he lived in the neighbouring diocese he would have been allowed to train full-time because they apparently have a different policy.
I have told my mate that I think he should think about taking legal action but not sure how he would go about it. He has asked to make a complaint but was advised that this was not possible because his Bishop wouldn’t support this. He also asked to make a freedom of information request for the C of E’s policies around age, but was advised that the church isn’t subject to the freedom of information act.
Aside from the details of my mates situation, it is clear that the diocese my mate lives in is struggling financially hence the age cut-off point. But is this right? The CofE in general has billions of pounds in its property portfolio and other assets. Is it also right to force a training option onto someone which then causes them significant financial difficulties?
Finally, people coming to ordained ministry in later life I think have a huge amount to offer the church but unless they can financial support themselves through training they won’t stand a chance of being ordained – how fair is that?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 1 | From: York | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
I'm not sure which equality rules apply to the church. I know they had an opt out over sexual orientation, and I think they still have. That may allow them to avoid age discrimination rules too.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The general CofE rules state:
quote:
"Any upper age limit is at the discretion of the Sponsoring Bishop."
And the Leicester diocese rules (for example) say:
quote:
Candidates for stipendiary ministry must therefore be able, after completing two or three years of training and a three-to-four year curacy, to offer at least seven years as an incumbent (or equivalent) by the time they reach the age of 65.
Such candidates will be aged
58 or younger on completing a three-year curacy,
55 or younger on beginning ordained ministry,
53 or younger on beginning a full-time course, or
52 or younger on beginning a three-year part-time course.
51 or younger on first approaching the DDO.
In the footnotes the document lists a number of other diocese with similar rules and says:
quote:
In many dioceses seven years has been the usual length of time-limited licences; it is at present the average length of an incumbency in the diocese of Southwark; and there is research evidence to suggest that it is often the minimum length of time in which an ordained minister can bring enduring benefit to the life and mission of a local church. A lower figure could be adopted for NSM candidates.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 does not allow clergy of the Church of England to remain in office beyond the age of 70.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 seems to have the status of law, and therefore it seems that [/i]almost[/i] any priest in the Church of England would be unable to gain a further appointment after 70, with the expectation that most will retire at 65.
I am not a lawyer, but this does not seem to be a case of age discrimination (which may not apply to the CofE anyway), but of cost. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that anyone could force an employer to take them on in a role with a substantial training requirement and a defined maximum age limit.
[ 28. November 2015, 11:10: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Good answer Mr Cheesy. Ordination training is expensive, and any organisation is at liberty to decide how to allocate its training funds and thus its recruitment policies.
There are other ways to offer oneself for ministry in the CofE....the diocese I used to work for has a thriving Authorised Lay Minister's (ALM) course which prepares and recognises people for a range of public ministry within the diocese.
There may be a tachyderm in the vicinity - there are certain things that only ordained ministers can do in the CofE.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The assets in the church's portfolio only cover the pensions commitments, as I understand it. Fewer stipendiary priests can be appointed, due to lack of funds, and churches are closing. The way forward for the C of E seems to be in the direction of greater lay involvement and self-supportimg priests. This may be a good thing.
If someone has a calling by God into the priesthood, they will go through whichever doors open to fulfil it. Part time is on offer, it is not as if the training has been refused.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I think our diocese must work in a similar fashion to wot mr cheesy sed. We recently had an ordinand on placement who, I know, is well over 50 - he said that TPTB reckoned they could get a good 10-15 years' work out of him post-ordination, next year (and then there's always PTO.... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ).
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
50 is fairly common as the cut off age - dioceses want some return on the money they have invested in someone's training.
True,older candidates have some wisdom to offer but they will encouraged to be selg-supporting.
It would be unwise to take legal action since the bishop has the final say on who can train and who they will ordain. (And if someone moves to a different diocese, his/her reputation of being as 'troublemaker' will succeed him/her.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Two thoughts.
First of all, nobody has a right to be ordained. It follows that nobody has a right to demand to be trained. If a person thinks that they have a right to be ordained, or that they are doing the church a great favour by offering themselves, that's quite a good indication that they aren't the right sort of person.
Fairness, whether called that or called non-discrimination, hasn't got a great deal to do with this. This may sound harsh but, as ordination is for the benefit of the church not the candidate, from the candidate's standpoint it verges on an irrelevant criterion.
Second, in most other contexts, people get themselves trained at their own expense, with loans or whatever. They then apply for posts when they've done so. Hospitals don't fund the training of doctors or nurses. The bar doesn't fund the training of barristers.
Irrespective of age discrimination, if an organisation pays for peoples' training, it's a bit difficult to argue that it should be obliged to ignore whether the person when trained will have enough years left to give back for it to have been worth spending money training them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hospitals don't fund the training of doctors or nurses. The bar doesn't fund the training of barristers.
Maybe individual hospitals don't, but the NHS contributes to course fees (or it used to at least).
I agree that organisations should expect a fair number of years out of candidates once training is done, but surely making older candidates train part time actually makes this worse as they're training for longer!
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
In the Church of Scotland you cannot begin training for full-time ministry of Word and Sacrament if you are over 47 (50 or so when trained with the minimum study). This came into force, AIUI, when there was compulsory, or near-compulsory retirement at 65, or 60 for women. But the retirement age has been done away with so now you cannot say how many years of service you would get out of your minister.
If you are over 47 you can train as an Ordained Local Minister, which is unsalaried and part time, and may not be inducted into a parish, though may be a long-term locum. There have been many murmurings aboutnthe fairness or otherwise of this, but I don't think anyone has tried it in terms on employment law, maybe because you first have to be selected by the church, and it is at selection process that the older will not get through, and once ordained you are not officially "employed" (self-employed to the tax man, more or less) but occupying an office.
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
IANAL but I think that if challenged in the courts, and selection for training was something that fell within the equality legislation, the Church would point to s13(2) of the Equality Act 2010 and argue that the age cut-off is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim such as ensuring that the Church's investment in training achieves a reasonable pay-back. But it would be for the court to decide whether that argument was correct.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IANAL but I think that if challenged in the courts, and selection for training was something that fell within the equality legislation, the Church would point to s13(2) of the Equality Act 2010 and argue that the age cut-off is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim such as ensuring that the Church's investment in training achieves a reasonable pay-back. But it would be for the court to decide whether that argument was correct.
This could be a little like direct recruitment for commissioned officers in most branches of the British armed forces. Last time I looked, this was 26.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In the footnotes the document lists a number of other diocese with similar rules and says:
quote:
In many dioceses seven years has been the usual length of time-limited licences; it is at present the average length of an incumbency in the diocese of Southwark; and there is research evidence to suggest that it is often the minimum length of time in which an ordained minister can bring enduring benefit to the life and mission of a local church. A lower figure could be adopted for NSM candidates.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 does not allow clergy of the Church of England to remain in office beyond the age of 70.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 seems to have the status of law, and therefore it seems that almost any priest in the Church of England would be unable to gain a further appointment after 70, with the expectation that most will retire at 65.
I am interested in the bit about the compulsory retirement age. Whilst it is indeed the case that the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 is still in force, life has changed immensely over the past 40 years and compulsory retirement ages are looking increasingly dodgy. In fact, I would go as far as to say that all it will take is one brave priest to challenge the C of E in this matter and the whole thing will probably collapse.
What the C of E ought to do is remove the compulsory age limit and introduce an annual (or biannual) competency review for all clergy aged 70 or more. If they can show that they are willing and able to continue, then they should be allowed to do so.
Strange as it may seem (to me at least!), there are many clergy who would like to remain "in service" well into their 70's. If they are competent to do so, why should the C of E stop them?
The knock-on of this would be that this age bar to full time training for ordination would also have to go, as its justification is based on the (possibly illegal) compulsory retirement age.
(Although, I suspect that it won't be long before almost all clergy training is done p/t, as f/t training is (I believe) vastly more expensive.)
The short answer to the OP question is "Yes - the C of E IS being prejudicial to people over 50." It does so because it thinks it can get away with it. It will continue to do so until someone challenges them on it. One would like to think that it would change of its own volition. But this is the C of E we are talking about....
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... What the C of E ought to do is remove the compulsory age limit and introduce an annual (or biannual) competency review for all clergy aged 70 or more. If they can show that they are willing and able to continue, then they should be allowed to do so. ...
As a person who is well over what used to be the compulsory retirement age, I disagree, for a reason that most younger people will not have thought of. I'm not talking about retirement and the church here. I'm talking about retirement generally.
When there was a fixed age, that was clear, and straightforward. Once that is gone, with the government wanting to stop people retiring so they don't have to be paid pensions, there will be pressure to expect people to go on until they drop.
Yes, there are a few people who can, and do, go on into their 70s, 70 is the new 30 etc. But most of us don't have the stamina or flexibility to do that. If, though, there's no automatic retirement age, and no or inadequate, pensions, workplaces will be cluttered up with people who are worn out and past it. And the only way to get rid of them will be by sacking them for incompetence. That's cruel, messy and no way to treat the elderly.
You might be quite happy to see your doddering old dribbling boss pushed out that way. You may see it as just revenge for the way they've obstructed your career. But do you want to see that happen to your father, your mother, or in your turn, you? And do you want the job of manipulating old employees into giving evidence of incompetence so that you can push them out.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
Taking legal action against the diocese/church is an unlikely path to ordained ministry. This looks like the diocese and the candidate having different needs and priorities. The church is not obliged to give someone what they want just because they want it. Church policies and budgets are shaped to the church's needs. Those who provide that money would expect no less.
Nevertheless, that does not close all doors. What are the candidate's priorities? God's call on his life? Access to ministry opportunities? Knowledgeable advice? Access to training? Someone to pay for his training? Someone to pay for his ministry? Something else? A combination of things?
As said above, you can't make the church part with money for your benefit just because that is your wish. If it is not about accessing their money, there are other possibilities.
If this is about God's call on your life, do whatever you can even if it seems less than ideal. Take the possible path. Want to exercise ministry? Start volunteering. There are many opportunities. Pick something closest to what you see as your calling. Volunteer work does not have to be forever but it builds your experience, demonstrates your capability and capacity to grow and learn, and gets you known to future referees and mentors.
Can't train full-time? Start part-time. You may be able to switch later on down the track. Can't get funding? Do what you can afford to fund yourself. Again, just start. There may be opportunities for scholarships or other funding down the track.
Your commitment will not go unnoticed. Can you seek advice from another bishop, a retired bishop, an archdeacon or anyone else who knows the needs of the church, alternative pathways and how flexible the norms are?
If another diocese is more helpful, can you consider moving there?
I don't live in England but for what it is worth, here is my experience: I felt a call to ordained ministry in my 50's. I began theological studies part-time at my own expense and went through a normal discernment process. By the age of 60 I was able to move to full time study and completed all requirements by the age of 62 when I was ordained. I have been in full time honorary (unpaid) parish ministry for 5 years. I have a slim income from my previous 40 years of paid work.
If I needed to move into paid ministry there are other opportunities eg chaplaincy, locum work, NGO positions, a move to another diocese or another country, etc. but I love parish life and am surviving OK.
In summary: If the main door is firmly closed, look for the side entrances.
[ 29. November 2015, 07:27: Message edited by: Morgan ]
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A mate of mine is doing much the same, but a decade older. His plan is to complete his training and degree, maybe seek ordination (unlikely as he's already just under 70) but certainly volunteer to assist unpaid a couple of days a week in a parish on the NSW Central Coast. That is the area between Sydney and Newcastle, has a fair amount of social deprivation with a high proportion of residents under 50 and on benefits.
I can't speak of all dioceses here, but AFAIK, none pays the college fees of an ordinand in training - or guarantees paid work either.
[ 29. November 2015, 08:54: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In the footnotes the document lists a number of other diocese with similar rules and says:
quote:
In many dioceses seven years has been the usual length of time-limited licences; it is at present the average length of an incumbency in the diocese of Southwark; and there is research evidence to suggest that it is often the minimum length of time in which an ordained minister can bring enduring benefit to the life and mission of a local church. A lower figure could be adopted for NSM candidates.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 does not allow clergy of the Church of England to remain in office beyond the age of 70.
The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 seems to have the status of law, and therefore it seems that almost any priest in the Church of England would be unable to gain a further appointment after 70, with the expectation that most will retire at 65.
I am interested in the bit about the compulsory retirement age. Whilst it is indeed the case that the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 is still in force, life has changed immensely over the past 40 years and compulsory retirement ages are looking increasingly dodgy. In fact, I would go as far as to say that all it will take is one brave priest to challenge the C of E in this matter and the whole thing will probably collapse.
What the C of E ought to do is remove the compulsory age limit and introduce an annual (or biannual) competency review for all clergy aged 70 or more. If they can show that they are willing and able to continue, then they should be allowed to do so.
Strange as it may seem (to me at least!), there are many clergy who would like to remain "in service" well into their 70's. If they are competent to do so, why should the C of E stop them?
The knock-on of this would be that this age bar to full time training for ordination would also have to go, as its justification is based on the (possibly illegal) compulsory retirement age.
(Although, I suspect that it won't be long before almost all clergy training is done p/t, as f/t training is (I believe) vastly more expensive.)
The short answer to the OP question is "Yes - the C of E IS being prejudicial to people over 50." It does so because it thinks it can get away with it. It will continue to do so until someone challenges them on it. One would like to think that it would change of its own volition. But this is the C of E we are talking about....
If there's no fixed retirement age, why would the competency assessment only kick in at 70? I can think of several priests in their 60s who would have been pensioned off already in any other walk of life.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am interested in the bit about the compulsory retirement age. Whilst it is indeed the case that the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975 is still in force, life has changed immensely over the past 40 years and compulsory retirement ages are looking increasingly dodgy. In fact, I would go as far as to say that all it will take is one brave priest to challenge the C of E in this matter and the whole thing will probably collapse.
What the C of E ought to do is remove the compulsory age limit and introduce an annual (or biannual) competency review for all clergy aged 70 or more. If they can show that they are willing and able to continue, then they should be allowed to do so.
From memory
My father retired around 1970/1 aged about 68. I recall that a few years earlier I was told that the CoE had c. doubled the pensions of retired priests as so many were unable to afford to retire and were therefore causing a shortage of available livings for curates seeking their own living. I know that, in the early 1960s one neighbouring parish (in W. London) was in the care of an 80+ y.o. priest who was unable to afford accommodation other than the vicarage that was dependant on his job.
Was the introduction of a fixed retirement age a further measure seeking to release blocked parishes?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The CoE does financially support some ordinands while training, but this is done on the basis of income and not age. Many young ordinands fund their own training.
It is reasonable for the CoE to want priests who have more than 15 years to give to the job.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dee.
Ship's Theological Acrobat
# 5681
|
Posted
Sometimes I have to shake my head over the madness of the way the process plays out. I was asked when I was in the discernment process in my early 30s if I thought I would be able to cope with the pastoral care of older members of my congregation given that I would be just under 40 when I would be ordained.
My "youth" seemed to count against me...can't win! As it turned out my vocation was for another profession but the irony of being too young in my 30s or someone being too old in their 50s is not lost on me.
--------------------
Jesus - nice bloke, bit religious
Posts: 2679 | From: Under Downunder | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
There's a real prejudice against part-time training, as if it isn't 'real training' and that simply isn't true.
Training full time at a college gives you some things that you can't have if you are training part-time, it's true. But training part-time gives you much that you can't get from being at a college.
You will encounter a wider range of churchmanship on any regional course than you will at any collge; and you will throughout your training have to balance the pressures of family/work/church/training in the way that you have to when you are ordained.
Virtually all the colleges are now exploring pathways of contextual training - where ordinands spend some time in a parish and some time in college - but regional courses are all about contextual training, and seeing your formation as happening just as much in your workplace and family and church as it is in the residential bits of the training. And the intellectual side of part-time training can be every bit as good as what's available full time.
And, for what it's worth, my experience is you meet far fewer people who are convinced of their own rightness, whose naive certainties haven't been knocked by their life experience, in part-time training than you do in full time.
[ 30. November 2015, 08:01: Message edited by: Niminypiminy ]
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
<snip> What the C of E ought to do is remove the compulsory age limit and introduce an annual (or biannual) competency review for all clergy aged 70 or more. If they can show that they are willing and able to continue, then they should be allowed to do so. <snip>
This might be a way forward, but may need some more thought. Someone losing their post under this process would at the same time lose their home, and have to break links with their worshipping community. Also, since no-one in the hierarchy generally sees directly what an individual vicar does in his or her parish, any review would be heavily reliant on feedback from the parish. In many cases this could be fine, but might be problematic in situations where a church community needs to be challenged in some way by its minister.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
