The changing role of the clergy

I was talking to a friend from twitter the other day, in the spacious garden of her large, 4 bedroom vicarage. In all honesty, for the area, the house is a moderate size place. Among other things, we discussed the possibilities that are being considered of demolishing that building and building 4 properties in its place, including a new vicarage and curates house, all of which would still be reasonably large sized properties.

There was a precedent for this, because the current vicarage sits in a part of the garden from the old vicarage.

It set me thinking about the changing role of clergy, which is, to an extent, shown in their houses - and what this means for the future role and place.

In times past, say 150 years ago, the vicar was often the appointment of the landed gentry, who needed someone to cater for the spiritual needs of their tenants, as he would look after the practical needs. That was the idea. They would often be people of semi-independent means, whose position in society was important. He would often not be married, and so need a houseful of people to look after him - even if he was married, his wife would have her own responsibilities.

It is worth considering, of course, that at a time when a normal-sized household would require the wife to be working full-time on cooking, cleaning and washing, having staff to assist with these was a necessity for larger houses, and places (like the vicarage) where people may be coming to stay. The vicarage would also be used as the office, so a vicar may have a personal assistant. One of the perks of all these roles was often a place to live, a room in the house. So the vicarage needed to be large, to serve it's function, and allow the vicar to server his function.

Of course, a large property needed a large garden, and it would often be used for entertainment purposes. There was a justification - in the context of the time - for large vicarages. They were places that were central parts of the community, and served the entire community. But times changed, and the need for large houses became less - the developments in home technology meant that the size of the household staff needed was reduced. This meant that the houses became unwieldy as a home for one person or family (still, often, a single man). There were changes in the role, and changes in the housing needed. Many of the houses were sold or demolished, and newer, smaller houses built.

This served for a little while, but soon the requirements changed again: the need twenty years ago was that clergy houses needed to fit in with the local area. I have known a number that were large, out of proportion to the area, and stood out. For so many, the size of property reflects the importance of the owners, so a slightly larger than average property made the clergy stand out as trying to be slightly better than those around them. It is unfortunate, with hindsight, that some clergy houses were built or rebuilt to reflect an outdated idea of the role of the clergy.

But what of the future? I think the model of tied clergy housing is outdated, because it no longer represents the way that most people live. At a time when many people lived in tied housing, having clergy in tied housing made sense. Today, when most people have to earn the money to buy their house, maybe this is the model that we should adopt for clergy: earning money for some of their week in the area, and using this to pay for their local accommodation. Clergy should live in the society, and be a part of this.

So yes, I am proposing part-time clergy. But I am suggesting this not because of cost-saving (in truth, it might cost more, if the church has to help pay for accommodation at real prices), but because this would bring the clergy more in touch with their congregation. Because work is such an important part of life for most people, to have the clergy also engaged in this, in a way and style that fit with their fellow worshippers.

And this would involve some significant changes to the way that church operates. But the church has become so dependent on the full-time clergy, youth workers, administrators etc., maybe it is time that we all re-engaged with making church the gathering of the people, not a place run by the "professionals", and supported by our money.

But maybe the church is far too settled in the receiving mode to change. Maybe the church is far too stuck in what once was to be different.