Bishop Lobinger of the Roman Catholic Church recently visited me in the office. He kindly gave me a copy of his book, which deals graciously with the theological underpinning of stipendiary and self-supporting priests. He requested that we help him with concrete examples of how they (the Roman Catholics) can implement with a clear Catholic conscience and theological rigour the ministry (part-time) of self-supporting clergy.

The study prepared by this Commission, led by Fr Chris Harper, is what Bishop Lobinger was yearning for. The comments by various people in the CPSA who read this study were all complimentary. Professor John Suggit as always gave concise and profound theological underpinning, as did Bishop Michael Nuttall. I commend this study to you all.

In terms of process, Fr Chris and his group will effect a “listening process”, whereby the self-supporting clergy of the diocese will read and “inwardly digest” the findings, and discuss as to how we should tackle this study.

God bless, and well done to the Commission.

+Thabo Grahamstown

Return to Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The Diocesan website acknowledges that “much of the ministry in the Diocese rests on non-stipendiary priests.” ¹ However the Diocese, as with other Dioceses throughout the Anglican Communion, has experienced a number of difficulties relating to the roles of self-supporting clergy and their needs, as well as with relationships between some stipendiary and self-supporting clergy.

Arising out of the resolution of 2005 Diocesan Synod, Bishop Thabo established a Commission on the Needs and Concerns of Self-Supporting Clergy. The Convenor of the Commission was Rev. Christopher Harper and the Co-convenor Canon Lulama Ntshingwa. Others to serve on the Commission were Canon Peter Mtuze, Reverends Lorraine Rusch and Ms Phila Simanga. However owing to difficulties in communication Ms Simanga was unable to participate in the process.

The Synod resolution read as follows:

Self-supporting clergy

This Synod, recognises that arising from the Bishop’s Charge and in particular the sentence, “It remains my dream to have well remunerated clergy and a deficit-free diocese”

That it be resolved by Synod that

(i) A commission be appointed by the Bishop, such Commission to be chaired by the Bishop and will consist of such persons as may be determined by him but to include not less than two self-supporting clergy as members thereof.

(ii) The said commission shall investigate the needs and concerns of the self-supporting clergy and shall report their findings and recommendations by no later than the next Diocesan Council after 31 December 2005.

(iii) In so investigating, the commission will address such questions and issues as may be determined or directed by the bishop, but which shall include amongst others, the causes of perceived polarisation and/ or isolation on the part of self-supporting clergy.

The importance of this Commission was described thus in the Cathedral Newsletter, “The Spire”

There were only five “Measures” on the Agenda [for 2005 Diocesan Synod]. Four involved small changes to expedite diocesan business - generally referred to as “tidying up”. The fifth, “of Self-supporting Clergy” was withdrawn, amid considerable controversy, and, as is usual on such occasions, referred to a Commission to be set up by the Bishop to resolve. The issue is an important one, and needs to be understood in its economic, historical and pastoral context. When clergy were paid a professional’s stipend, they could be re-located fairly easily by the Bishop in Chapter. As their income has shrunk relative to other professions, fewer suitable people have offered themselves for the full time ministry, and many of those are no longer the principle breadwinner, as their spouses make a major contribution. They are less easily re-located if the professional skills of their spouses are not “portable.” A partial solution to this problem has been the rapid growth of “non-stipendiary” or “self-supporting” clergy. Inevitably, many are genuinely “part-time” as they earn their living and perform their priestly functions out of working hours - and are hence unable to offer the “24/7" availability that many of their parishioners expect. Some, however, are effectively full-time as they have a spouse, pension or other alternative source of income. Circumstances also change, and what was offered freely in good faith, may become a debilitating burden for the “non-stipendiary.” The Church cannot just muddle along, hoping, in faith, for the best, with an increasing number of unhappy but essential clergy. A general rule cannot easily cover a multitude of unique cases - hence the commission.²

This report details the findings of this study and makes a number of recommendations for the Diocese to consider. The Commission has attempted to provide the Diocese with the opportunity to hear the voices of those self-supporting clergy who participated in this study. It is our hope that this study will help to build a better Diocese that is able to minister effectively to the needs of all God’s people.

Return to Table of Contents

2. The Study

This study sought to investigate the needs and concerns of the self-supporting clergy within the Diocese of Grahamstown.

2.1 The Sample

The total possible sample for the study was 53 self-supporting clergy within the Diocese as identified by Bishop Thabo. Of these 42 self-supporting clergy (27 male and 13 female) participated fully in the study. A further eight clergy were interviewed telephonically.

Return to Table of Contents

Participation in the study was voluntary and where clergy stated that they did not wish to participate in the study for whatever reason this was respected by the Commission.

Participants were drawn from all categories of self-supporting clergy as identified by Bishop Thabo, namely:

1. Full-time Priest in Charge (after retiring from secular job, or married woman)

2. Full-time assistant (after retiring from secular job, or married women)

3. Priest in Charge (with paid secular employment or self-employed)

4. Self-supporting assistant priests (or P to O) in active part-time ministry, with paid secular jobs or self-employed

5. Full-time self-supporting Deacons (retired from secular employment, or married women

6. Self-supporting Deacons with paid secular employment or self-employed.

Return to Table of Contents

2.2 The Research Process

The research took the form of a questionnaire which was developed by the members of the Commission in light of the Synod Resolution and issues that were raised during the sessions. The questionnaire consisted of three sections:

Section A: Personal Information

Section B: Ministry Information

Section C: Relations between stipendiary and non-stipendiary clergy.

After the questionnaire was developed it was sent to five self-supporting clergy for evaluation. The questionnaire was also assessed by a forum for psychologists. Once these groups had made their comments the questionnaire was refined and sent to all self-supporting clergy within the Diocese.

Self-supporting clergy were contacted via email or post and invited to complete the questionnaire and return to the Convenor of the Commission. Clergy were informed that the purpose of the study was to provide a true picture of the lives and ministries of self-supporting clergy within the Diocese. Thus all information provided would remain confidential and no identifying information would be included in the final report. It was also hoped that this would ensure that self-supporting clergy would be more open to share their views.

Furthermore it was agreed by the Commission that the Convenor would be the only member of the Commission to have access to all the information sent to the Commission in the interests of maintaining confidentiality.

However despite this not all clergy answered every question that was posed to them by the questionnaire.

Follow-up telephonic and personal interviews were conducted with respondents where required to clarify events, meanings and understandings as presented in answers to the questionnaire. These questions were based on what have been called red lights in the responses of the self-supporting clergy.³ These included the use of any unusual terms, strong emphases, and repeated statements and phrases. This process of clarification was vital to the study as the “words [of the self-supporting clergy] provided the fundamental data on which all analysis would be based”.⁴

In addition to the questionnaire members of the Commission conducted telephonic interviews with a further eight participants who did not submit an answered questionnaire. These interviews did not require the participants to answer every question but rather asked for their views of the position of self-supporting clergy within the Diocese and their needs.

Return to Table of Contents

2.3 Analysing the Data

The analysis of data was a twofold process. The first part concerns Sections A and B of the questionnaire. A basic quantitative overview of the data provided by the respondents was completed⁵. The second part related to the interpretive process used for Section C of the questionnaire.

The interpretive process for Section C of this study was chosen to highlight the views of the respondents. The questionnaires were read until the author believed he was fully acquainted with information provided by the self-supporting clergy. During this reading he identified common themes which emerged from the data and delineated “the commonalities of the participants’ experience”.⁶

A reading guide was generated when these themes were isolated to facilitate further interpretation of the data. The reading guide has been developed as a means of textual analysis to provide deeper insights into the actions and beliefs of those who choose to participate in a research process. This is achieved by extracting “those features of texts that clarify the meaning of the text. It involves generating a set of questions through which the data are read. The reading guide…facilitates the exploration of data.”⁷

The reading guide used in analyzing the needs and concerns of the self-supporting clergy within the Diocese of Grahamstown as expressed by the study’s respondents included the following two questions:

a.What are the self-supporting clergy’s understanding of their calling to ministry and the manner in which they have been able to exercise their calling within the Diocese of Grahamstown?

b.What are the obstacles that self-supporting clergy believe they face in exercising their ministry within the Diocese of Grahamstown and how are these obstacles played out in their lives and ministry? How are these obstacles challenged?

This guide was applied to each questionnaire and the evidence collated across these records. The use of a reading guide enabled the generation of the ideas concerning the plots of the respondents’ stories and the events and experiences that were part of the context of their lives. However, the reading guide is not used to direct the manner in which the data obtained is presented in this research.

The initial findings were discussed by the Commission members and thereafter the results were written up. This study gives priority to the words of the self-supporting clergy who have responded to the study. The quantitative data has been used to back up the data provided by the reading guide.

Return to Table of Contents

3. Findings

Self-supporting clergy within the Diocese of Grahamstown are a diverse group of people who are united through their dedication to serving God through the exercise of their ordained ministry. The personalities and talents of this group provide the opportunity to grow the Diocese and minister to the needs of God’s people. The diversity of the self-supporting clergy has the potential to provide richness to the life of the Diocese if properly valued and utilized.

This study does not claim that all self-supporting clergy behave appropriately at all times and always act in the best interests of the parish they serve. Nor does this study believe that the difficulties certain individual self-supporting clergy have caused within certain parishes need to be glossed over. All clergy, whether self-supporting or stipendiary, have a responsibility to uphold the vision and values of this Diocese and are therefore subject to the discipline of the Diocese.

Return to Table of Contents

3.1 Self-Supporting Clergy: An Inferior Calling?

The primary attitude of self-supporting clergy towards their ordination as priest or being made deacon was one of service and joy. The most commonly mentioned joys were to be found in liturgical settings, namely the celebrating of the Eucharist, preaching and leading hymns. Many spoke of the privilege of ministry particularly within pastoral settings. This was particularly evident in their being able to share in the lives of those God has, through the Church, entrusted to their care, and seeing people’s lives being changed by God’s love.

This does not limit the frustrations of some who had hoped to be accepted for fulltime ministry but because of Diocesan policy and budgetary restrictions were informed that if they wanted to be ordained it would have to be in a self-supporting role. Other clergy spoke of restrictions that their family life and commitments placed on them and so they were unable to take up the option of becoming a stipendiary clergyperson or were forced to leave this form of ministry. This causes great personal turmoil for them.

Any frustrations that self-supporting clergy feel were exacerbated in the case of a majority of respondents by their experiences of the dismissive attitudes of some stipendiary clergy towards them. The stipendiary clergy mentioned by respondents include clergy from all hierarchical structures within the Diocese. These comments have been directed particularly at those self-supporting clergy who have not studied at a Theological College.

Among the comments that have been made are self-supporting clergy being called “second-class clergy”, having an “inferior calling” to stipendiary clergy, being told that they have “slipped under the radar” and “have come in [to ordained ministry] through the back door.” Self-supporting clergy have also received the tag of “Oros” as they are thought of as “instant priests, not made having the proper training” Clergy have also been told of how they were accused of wanting to be “Sunday priests” only and ignoring any other responsibilities that go along with this vocation. Other terms used included “Pick ‘n Choose” and “temp” clergy, which related to a belief that self-supporting clergy choose only to do the things that they like doing and are not willing to make themselves available for other tasks.

This dismissive attitude also has a gendered component to it as a number of the self-supporting women clergy testified that they faced further difficulties as women within the Diocese. They wrote of being ignored by stipendiary clergy, some of whom told them that they would never be prepared to recognize them as clergy nor work with them in the Church based on their self-supporting status as well as their gender.

Another issue that came to fore was that of relationships between black and white clergy. Black self-supporting clergy believed they were belittled by some white clergypersons and that they were not regarded as ordained clergy in their eyes. Some white self-supporting clergy spoke of the antagonism that they had faced from black stipendiary clergy who told them that the reason they did not want to attend Theological College was because they were afraid of the racial integration that College life required.

There was some confusion amongst self-supporting clergy as to whether it was possible for them to be recognized as Rector of a parish. The vast majority believed, incorrectly, that it was not possible. In addition some clergy felt that it was unfair that only clergy who had been to Theological College could become stipendiary clergy. They were unaware of debates presently taking place within the Diocese concerning this question. This also hints at another important issue that was raised, the training of self-supporting clergy.

The importance placed on being trained at a Theological College was puzzling to some self-supporting clergy. They could not recognize any particular benefits to such training arguing that the training received from completing correspondence courses and in-service training was its equivalent. This view was not shared by those self-supporting clergy who have attended seminary. They believed that this was an invaluable learning ground that was much more than merely coursework but about growing into their calling as clergypersons. The focus of some self-supporting clergy on their own training at the expense of seeing themselves as part of a bigger system was of concern to those self-supporting clergy who had attended a Theological College. However, no self-supporting clergyperson who had attended a seminary questioned the calling and ministry of those who had trained via correspondence and in-service.

Many self-supporting clergy who are not part of post-ordination training do not engage in further theological education. This is a great worry. There is a vital need for clergy to be up-to-date with theological discussions, concepts and to improve their own ministry. Clergy spoke of the difficulty involved in attending clergy schools owing to their work commitments. In addition being involved in such training on weekends was not always possible owing to parish commitments.

The self-supporting clergy involved spoke of “being disillusioned”, “frustrated” and “demeaned” by such comments. This has created a painful situation for some clergy, where they do not believe that their ministry within the Diocese is recognized as valid, nor are their efforts appreciated. Instead of feeling that they belong to the Diocese as a whole, many clergy see their life and ministry as being limited to their particular parish of operation.

Return to Table of Contents

3.2 Relationships within Parish Ministry settings

Two-thirds of the self-supporting clergy who work as assistants to either stipendiary or self-supporting clergy spoke of having good relationships with them. All of the self-supporting clergy who serve as priests-in-charge of parishes and have assistants working with them claim to have good relationships with them.

While at a cursory glance these seem to be very positive results further investigation of their questionnaires and interviews with other clergy highlighted a number of difficulties. Some self-supporting priests-in-charge and their assistants have differing ideas concerning their relationship. While one would describe it as “very good”, the other would describe it as “could be better.” If these differences of understanding happen between self-supporting clergy and their assistants it is entirely within the realm of possibility that similar misinterpretations may be happening in the relationships between stipendiary clergy and their assistants.

Furthermore the question of the roles that self-supporting clergy play within parish life was cited as problematic as their roles were not clearly spelt out or understood. This led to tension between Rectors/Priests-in-Charge and their assistant clergy, and sometimes to tension between clergy and their parishes. This was especially experienced in settings where the time available for clergy to participate in parish life and related activities was limited by their other commitments. This tension was not felt in parishes where roles, responsibilities and availability of self-supporting clergy to participate in parish life were continually discussed.

Some self-supporting clergy believe that the stipendiary clergypersons they are working with are threatened by them. The issue was not raised with assistants to self-supporting clergy. These clergy commented that they were denied opportunities to preach and participate in parish activities. Many complained that their ideas were not listened to and their voice silenced. When they attempted to challenge this they said that it was common to hear stipendiary clergy ask them, “Why are you trying to take over the parish?”

In addition some spoke of disparaging comments that their stipendiary colleagues made about them and their status as a clergyperson to parishioners, thus placing them in a difficult position. This made attempts to participate in ministry within the parish very challenging.

Aside from those who believed that were not being allowed the opportunity to participate in parish life, there was a group who thought that they were expected to perform too many functions within their parishes. The reasons for their unease at this ranged from their belief that they were asked to do this as the stipendiary clergyperson was “lazy” to do the work or “didn’t care” about the issue. Sometimes they did not feel adequately trained to perform the tasks expected of them.

Much of the debate seemed to come down to the issue of whether self-supporting clergy assistants were recognized as working alongside or working under the Rector/Priest-in-Charge. Unhealthy hierarchical relationships within parish life remain an obstacle to development of all clergy and the ability to fully minister to the needs of God’s people. Team-based approaches to parish life were not common.

It also makes it difficult for the parish to be a learning environment for self-supporting clergy. If these difficulties exist between clergy then the ability to share experiences, to learn from each other and to develop as a clergyperson is minimized.

Some clergy also expressed their concerns at the response of parishioners to them following their ordination. They felt that parishioners often found it difficult to accept them in the new roles in which they were placed. This was especially true when clergy did not have the opportunity to serve as an ordained minister in another parish before moving back to their home parish.

Return to Table of Contents

A Sacrificial Clergy

One of the more emotive issues for self-supporting clergy during the study was that of what clergy sacrifice for the church. During the 2005 Diocesan Synod a statement was made by a stipendiary clergyperson that stipendiary clergy sacrifice more for the Diocese than self-supporting clergy do. This was not the first time that self-supporting clergy have heard this claim made. The responses to this issue as set out in the questionnaire ranged from amusement at what was perceived as “ignorance” on the part of certain stipendiary clergy to anger. None of the self-supporting clergy challenged the assertion that stipendiary clergy do make sacrifices for their vocation. However it was argued that some stipendiary clergy seem to have a “martyr complex”, continually focusing on what they don’t have and wanting constant praise for doing their work.

Both statements, namely that stipendiary give up more for the Church and that they have a martyr complex, highlight the lack of understanding that exists between stipendiary and self-supporting clergy concerns the challenges that they face in their ministry. This adds to suspicion on both parts about the nature of ministry and of those who are involved in it.

Those who have served within stipendiary ministry and now are employed and ministering as self-supporting clergy spoke of making different sacrifices. With regard to stipendiary ministry this was especially true concerning the levels of pay, lack of medical aid, as well as the uprooting that is part of moving from one parish to another. Many stipendiary clergy are reliant on their partner being employed in order to provide for their families. The strain is even greater on single clergy with family responsibilities and on clergy whose partner is unemployed.

At the same time the study found that self-supporting clergy also believe that the following issues need to be remembered when discussing the financial position of stipendiary clergy. While not all stipendiary clergy receive such benefits they cannot be ignored. They include:

Return to Table of Contents

3.4 A system of exploitation?

Self-supporting clergy claim to work between 10 hours and 48 hours per week. This figure is dependant upon a number of factors highlighted by respondents to the study:

whether they are employed or not;

if they are employed what type of employment contract they have;

financial considerations, especially of people receiving a pension;

their health and age status; and

the amount of support received from the parish they serve and the clergy they work with.

Self-supporting clergy thus make a major contribution to the ongoing ministry of the Anglican Church within this Diocese. Without the work they perform many parishes that have a long history of bringing the gospel to God’s people would be closed down. Their enthusiasm for ministry makes this possible. One proof of this is that self-supporting clergy have largely been responsible for much of their own training costs – including some who have attended Theological College and paid for it themselves.

One of the questions that arose during this study was whether or not this system of self-supporting clergy was exploitative. While it was understood that the Diocese found itself in a difficult financial position the difficulties that many self-supporting clergy face in carrying out their calling to the ordained clergy was highlighted. Is it fair to expect people to serve the Church in a similar way to stipendiary clergy when they do not receive any remuneration for doing so, especially if they serve in a full-time capacity? Furthermore is it fair to do this when it ends up costing the self-supporting clergyperson a substantial portion of their income to serve in this way?

The stipend paid to clergy has long been a worry for the Diocese. However while the stipend remains an issue of major concern, there are many self-supporting clergy working within the Diocese in full-time and part-time positions whose income falls far short of the stipend paid to clergy. To these self-supporting clergy, stipendiary clergy are recognized as being “affluent” and “well provided for”.

This study discovered that 25% of the self-supporting clergy who responded to the questionnaire and answered the relevant section earn a gross income of more than R7, 000 per month⁸. Benefits are only received by certain clergy earning this salary.⁹

However, more than a third of the respondents (37%) earn R4, 000 and below each month. Fourteen per cent of the respondents do not have any income each month. This is illustrated in Figure 1.

Considering that many self-supporting clergy who earn less than R4, 000 per month receive limited financial support this places a major strain on their finances. This situation is made all the harder when they do not receive any reimbursement from their parishes in the form of travel and telephone costs at all. Clergy spoke of “the dwindling buyer power” of their income and told how they were “battling to survive”.

In light of this it is fair to ask why if this was a problem they signed forms saying that they were able to support themselves. Two answers were given. First, people did not recognize the expense that this would become for them. This naivety of those entering the self-supporting ministry needed to be addressed through their training beforehand.

Group 1

Those with no income

Group 2

Those who earn R4,000 and below each month

Group 3

Those who earn more than R4,000, but R7,000 or less each month

Group 4

Those who earn more than R7,000 each month

However they argued that no-one discussed these potential costs with them and the implications that this might have on their lives. Second, the form was signed as many saw it as being the only way in which they would be able to carry out the ministry that they recognized God had called them to within the Church. If this was required then they would do it. However, the romance of the situation soon gives way to the reality of economic struggle.

Just as the situation that stipendiary clergy find themselves in depends on the parish they belong to, a similar situation exists when it comes to self-supporting clergy. This difference is seen in the following ways.

· While some clergy do not request nor are offered any reimbursement for their travel expenses, others receive either a standard amount per month or an amount based on their actual mileage. The standard amount ranges from R120 to R1, 500 per month. The rate that mileage was reimbursed at ranged from R1, 10 to R2, 00 per kilometre.

· The amount of travelling that self-supporting clergy are required to do in carrying out their parish responsibilities differs markedly. The average monthly figure of travelling done by self-supporting clergy was 650 kilometres. The range was from 40 kilometres per month to 1,500 kilometres.

· Many self-supporting clergy were responsible for visiting a number of outstations, while some are faced with this. The number of visits to these outstations differs from weekly to monthly. The longest return trip is 110 kilometres. The quality of the roads that self-supporting clergy travel on also differs markedly from roads that are in a "good" condition to those in a "terrible" state. The quality of the roads also has a significant impact on the wear-and-tear on the vehicle. Thus necessitating more frequent services in order to keep it in roadworthy condition. Only one respondent ever reported being assisted to pay for motor vehicle repairs.

· The majority of respondents do not receive any reimbursement for telephone costs. The amount given to those who do receive such reimbursement range from R200 to R500. Only in one case was the clergyperson's entire telephone bill paid.

· Two clergy receive a fixed monthly amount to cover both travel and telephone costs. The amounts received are R250 and R800 respectively.

· Some clergy live rent free in parish homes.

· Not all clergy receive an Easter or Whitsun gift depending on their position within the parish.

· Some clergy receive Christmas gifts from the parish ranging from R500 to R1, 800.

The potential to exploit self-supporting clergy – albeit unintentionally – is present. The Diocese needs to ensure that clergy and parishes are aware of their responsibilities to each other in order to prevent any difficulties from occurring. It is not being suggested that the Diocese take all self-supporting clergy on as stipendiary clergy. However recognizing the ministry that self-supporting clergy perform and validating them is vital if the system is going to work.

Return to Table of Contents

4. Recommendations

Following the completion of the analysis into the life stories of self-supporting clergy the following recommendations are made. These are not necessarily all the recommendations that can be inferred from this report and can be added to as required.

Return to Table of Contents

4.1 Recognition and Validation of Ministry

Self-supporting clergy need the assurance that they are recognized as persons called by God to the ordained ministry. The role of the Diocesan Bishop is vital in this. Clergy spoke of a need for greater communication with the Bishop, acknowledgement of ordination anniversaries and at least an annual one-on-one meeting with the Bishop.

Return to Table of Contents

4.2 Challenging Stereotypes: God's Call; Gender; and Racism

The Diocese needs to act to challenge the many stereotypes that both stipendiary and self-supporting clergy hold about each other and the Diocese. These beliefs translate into behaviour and are affecting the relationships between clergy in the Diocese. Information about the nature of God's call on people's lives, of the Diocese's policies concerning self-supporting clergy, and clergy training needs to be provided and opportunities given to work through these issues.

Attitudes towards women within the ordained ministry need to be addressed. Gender stereotypes within society contribute to the silencing of women's voices, to violence against women and to the escalation of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. They also deny women the opportunity to fully participate in the life and witness of the Church.

The question of racism amongst clergy is nothing new, yet it is sad that this continues. As a Diocese we need to face up to this, for how can we hope to make a change in the wider community if we cannot make a change amongst ourselves.

Return to Table of Contents

4.3 Support for Self-supporting clergy

The call for this study was hailed as a breakthrough by the self-supporting clergy. They believed that finally had an opportunity to express their views about ministry within the Diocese. To end this process with the presentation of a report does not do justice to such clergy. Rather it is proposed that the Diocese appoint a person to act as a link between the Diocese and the self-supporting clergy. The person would be responsible for bringing the self-supporting clergy together, organising times of training and spiritual development in conjunction with other Diocesan bodies and for hearing the needs of the self-supporting clergy and providing advice and support where necessary.

Return to Table of Contents

4.4 The Placement and Roles of Self-Supporting Clergy

The appointment of non-stipendiary clergy to parishes within the Diocese needs to be carefully planned and confirmed by diocese together with parish and clergyperson. This process needs to include the roles that the clergyperson will play in the parish, their responsibility to the parish, their relationship with other clergy serving in the parish, as well as the obligations that the parish has towards them. While it is possible to establish general guidelines the specificities of parish life need to brought the bear on each discussion. These roles will provide guidelines to assessing the effectiveness of clergy within a parish. This will assist the Diocese, the clergyperson and the parish in this regard.

Return to Table of Contents

4.5 The Training of Self-Supporting Clergy

It is vital that prior to their beginning training for ministries that potential candidates for the self-supporting ministry understand that this training is not limited merely to personal knowledge gathering or their own spiritual development, but that it links them to the Diocese, its laity and clergy, as well as to the wider Anglican Communion. We can only minister effectively if we are in relationship to each other and we live out our faith in the world.

On-going training is an important need for self-supporting as well as stipendiary clergy. Given the difficulties that many self-supporting clergy have in attending Clergy Schools and the like, it is recommended that the Department of Training for Ministries develop relevant, contextual training courses that can be completed either via correspondence or through the Diocesan website. Greater use can be made of this website to develop Virtual Retreats, Diocesan discussion forums and other readings. Completion of these courses can be included in the evaluation of clergy's ministry.

Return to Table of Contents

4.6 The Position of Full-time Self-Supporting Clergy

This study has shown the difficulties that many self-supporting clergy experience financial difficulties that are compounded by their work as self-supporting clergy. One suggestion made during this study was that where self-supporting clergy are working full-time within a parish setting and that their income is less than the minimum stipend paid, and then their income is topped-up to the level of the stipendiary clergy. These clergy would become known as Partially-Supported Clergy. Parish assessments would be increased to meet this cost. This would be administered by the Diocese and their inclusion in such a programme be based on documentation provided on an annual basis by self-supporting clergy concerning their financial position.

The Commission believes that this does not fully take into account those parishes that cannot meet their present assessment and who would be unable to meet this increased requirement. However, it is vital that the Diocese take note of such suggestions for the continued use of self-supporting clergy – especially those with no or little income in full-time positions within the Diocese - opens the Diocese up to charges of exploitative behaviour that is against the spirit of Labour Relations within this country. This further necessitates an evaluation of the Canons and Constitutions of our Diocese by the relevant Diocesan structures.

Return to Table of Contents

5. Conclusion

This study has attempted to give voice to the life stories of self-supporting clergy. Their comments have been faithfully recorded in order to give insight into their beliefs about their calling, their role in the Diocese and of their relationships with stipendiary clergy. As the study gives priority to people's lives and words there is a definite subjective element to it. However the commonalities amongst the experiences of self-supporting clergy give us both cause for hope and for concern. There are issues that the Diocese needs to take forward and address. There is a need for unity, understanding and commitment to each other's ministry amongst stipendiary and self-supporting clergy.

We wish to thank the Diocese for the opportunity to be involved in this study. May God's Spirit lead us all closer together that we work together for God's glory.

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Diocese of Grahamstown home page

¹ http://www.diocesegrahamstown.co.za/clergy.php#

²Downloaded from http://www.scifac.ru.ac.za/cathedral/spire/sep05/synod.htm

³ Kvale, S (1995). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications

⁴ Mergendoller, JR (1989) Good and Ill Will: War Resistance as a context for the study of moral action. In M.J. Packer and R.B. Addison (Eds.) Entering the Hermeneutic Circle. Hermeneutic Investigation in Psychology. Albany: University of New York Press, page 124

⁵ Not all respondents completed Section A of the questionnaire. In 12 out of the 40 questionnaires, parts of this Section were left unanswered or the pages not returned to the Commission.

⁶ Mergendoller, J.R. (1989) op. cit. page 126.

⁷ Gilbert, A; van Vlaenderen, H. and Nkwinti, G. (1995). Planting pumpkins: Socialisation and the role of local knowledge in rural South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 25(4), 229-235, page 231.

⁸ The figure of R7, 000 was chosen as it includes the clergy stipend plus the vehicle allowance of R3, 000 per month.

⁹ The benefits received are: Medical aid (80% of people in this salary scale), belonging to a pension or provident fund (80%), housing allowance (50%) and car allowance (10%).