Approved Employment of Ministers
[and "Withdrawal from Parish Ministry"]
The source of the current reference to the Standing Committee is a report from the Executive Director of the Commission for Mission (then Barry Prior) to the General Secretary (then Carole Anderson) of 11 February 1993 on an earlier Remit from Standing Committee regarding withdrawals from Ministry which followed progress reports to Standing Committee in 1989 on consultations the Commission held with Ministers without Settlement. Those consultations followed action by Standing Committee in 1988 on Recommendations to Standing Committee on Structures of Accountability for Ministers Without Settlement from David Beswick which had been received by Standing Committee the previous year in response to a request it had made after considering the report of the Moderator's Research Group in 1985 on Withdrawal from Parish Ministry. The Moderator's Research Group (Convened by Ethel Mitchell) had undertaken studies after the Synod of 1981 had resolved
To request the Moderator, in view of the number of (UCA clergy) who have withdrawn from, are withdrawing from, or are resigning their appointed ministry tasks:
(a) To undertake an immediate comprehensive assessment of the reasons and causes for this;
(b) to report to the Standing Committee in order that any desirable remedial pastoral action may be initiated with Synod and Presbytery bodies.
"Withdrawal from Parish Ministry" as a topic on the agenda of the Synod and its Standing Committee has had many points of reference going back to the Second Synod in 1978 which referred to the Division of Resources the following matters for development:
(i) ways in which ministers without settlement might be called to parishes as non-stipendiary ministers;
(ii) exercise of pastoral care for ministers without settlement by presbyteries, and
(iii) the contribution to ministry that can be made by ministers without settlement, both in their secular spheres and to the Church.
A committee convened by David Beswick carried out a survey of ministers without settlement for that purpose and reported with recommendations to Synod 1979. (See Minutes 126.96.36.199 and 79.5.13 and report Ministers Without Settlement pp. 92-100.)
Concern with this question in the Uniting Church appears to have been continuous with similar concerns which existed for some years prior to union. For example, the Methodist Conference of 1965 received a report on The Nature of the Ordained Ministry in the Life of the Church (Minutes 1965 pp 258-269) from its Faith and Order Committee (Beswick, strangely, was also convener of that committee more than 30 years ago). Its work was done in response to a request from the Conference of the previous year and "the need for a fundamental inquiry" was noted together with concerns about "the high frustration level" and the number of ministers (then quite small by comparison with the circumstances of the 1979 study) who were moving into various alternatives to parish ministry.
Withdrawal and engagement: the nature of the problem
The phrase "withdrawal from parish ministry" has various meanings. It can refer to the affects of stressful circumstances which have led some ministers to give up active ministry implying withdrawal from engagement in the mission of the church, at least as ministers set apart for a specific purpose; on the other hand, it can refer to a positive engagement in the mission of the church through unorthodox arrangements outside the normal processes of settlement in parishes or church agencies. In some circumstances a "withdrawal" might have been understood by those concerned as an "advance", in others as an admission of defeat or at least of needing a rest. For some ministers a loss of vocation for the ministry to which they had been ordained might have been recognized. There was a period of a decade or so after union when some 50 or more ministers in Victoria, who were employed in many different situations and had quite different outlooks on what they were doing, were "classified" as "without settlement" (a category which has now disappeared from the Regulations), and a significant number are still "in secular employment" [R 2.4.7] for a wide range of reasons.
Recently, with particular but not exclusive reference to the ministry of deacons, more regular provision had been made for the placement of ministers in situations of employment for active ministry which are "declared" to be "settlements" yet "not under the jurisdiction of the Church" but in which employment by "secular" bodies is allowed, [R 2.7.1 (a) (ii)]. Such ministers are not classified as being "in secular employment". Part time settlements are now more common and honorary settlements have been known in which a minister carries out the normal functions of parish ministry while earning an income in other employment. The "other" employment might be of the "tent making" variety, or it could provide a context for ministry. The situation in which a minister is employed to earn an income might be regarded by the minister and relevant church authorities as being within that minister's sphere of ministry, or it might not be a sphere in which ministry is exercised except in the same sense as the ministry of a lay person.
It needs also to be acknowledged that there are many signs of regular full
time parish ministry being a stressful occupation. This was well documented
by the Moderator's Research Group in 1984. Statistics reported by the Beneficiary
Fund show that in recent years about as many ministers have retired early for
health or stress related reasons as have retired at the normal retirement age
(see the Fund's report to Assembly 1994). Presbytery ministers, Presbytery PRCs,
the JPSAC counselling service, the Moderator and others who deal with ministers
in distress know many examples and constantly deal with problems of this kind.
Parish ministry these days is complex and demanding work which not infrequently
tests the limits of a minister's capacity.
To some extent a lack of capacity to cope with the situation can be seen to be due to factors which are commonly recognized in other professions today, where continuing education, peer support and appropriate supervision are accepted as important means of maintaining effectiveness many years after initial training. Ministers have often lacked or failed to use these means of maintaining effectiveness in a changing world. In the church it appears that there are, in addition, other factors related to the minister's sense of vocation and the different understandings of ministry in parishes and congregations which have tended more than in the past to be informed by commercial and professional models of employment rather than by the faith and traditions of the church. There are pastoral, disciplinary and strategic difficulties which the Church has been unable to overcome in a systematic way.
There have been two key problem areas which have been evident in the various reports:-
(1) Confusion about the nature of ministerial vocation is found in the councils of the Church and in the self understanding of ministers themselves. It developed in a time of rapid social change, and has been increased by the processes of secularization and alienation which have influenced ministers and members of the Church in general during the social revolution which came to attention in the Church in many places around 1965 and which resulted in a great loss of members and resources throughout the Western world.
(2) The inability of the Church to maintain discipline and pastoral care of ministers who believed they were called to new ventures in mission, especially where there was the possibility, and in some circumstances even the necessity, of separating the concepts of professional employment and ordained ministry. It has been common to many churches but has been felt with particular keenness in the Uniting Church with its newly evolving structures since union in the midst of these changes.
Theologically these two broad areas of concern belong together in our understanding of ordination and ministry. It is ordination which in fact brings them together. A vocation for an apostolic ministry can only be fulfilled in the church through appropriate discipline and pastoral care. The recent Assembly paper on Ordination and Ministry in the Uniting Church goes some way towards reducing the confusion which has surrounded these matters.
Towards a solution (with great difficulty)
By abolishing the classification "without settlement" in 1988, some
years after it had been recommended by the Victorian Synod in 1979 the Assembly
demonstrated a reluctant willingness to address the problems, which had, admittedly,
been more evident in Victoria than elsewhere. The Victorian Synod itself has
not found it any easier. In 1982-85 the Moderator's Research Group, made use
of findings from research by Robin Pryor who commented in his book based on
that research, At Cross Purposes: Stress and Support in the Ministry of the
Wounded Healer (1986, pp. 89 and 95):
Now, nearly six years later, there seems to have been little response to the cogently argued report by Beswick. Many of the comments, experiences and frustrated hopes were echoed in consultations with those more recently in the same situation. .... The Beswick report outlined five forms of ministry which could be recognized by a Presbytery as a `sufficient fulfillment of each minister's commission'. These issues seem not to have been addressed over the past six years, or at least they have not been accepted to the degree necessary to convey the sense of acceptance, belonging and security (both theological and among peers) desired by those who feel "called" or "forced" out of the parish setting.
Viewed from the perspective of another ten years, that judgement, while still salient, is probably too harsh. At least some of the recommendations on which Synod had resolved in 1979 were put into effect. As noted some changes to the Regulations concerning classification of ministers were made, although the basic problem remained because of the failure to separate ministerial vocation from the expectation of professional employment in the church. More adequate provision for part time settlements was made in the Regulations and in the work of JPSAC. Other initiatives in the Assembly on non-stipendiary ministries and the renewal of the ministry of deacon produced further relevant changes, mainly through the report Ministry in the Uniting Church to the Sixth Assembly 1991 and the later report on community ministers to the Seventh Assembly 1994. Presbyteries responded with varying degrees of effectiveness to the need to provide better oversight of ministers who were not in full time parish settlements, but the sense of frustration continued in the widespread feeling that much more needed to be done and that the fundamental questions which had been raised were too difficult to answer at the time.
Lest we despair of the church and fail again to act constructively it may be important to recognize that it is a genuinely difficult matter. As Barry Prior noted in his 1993 report in regard to the difficulty the Commission for Mission had in coming to grips with it:
Partly, this is because the roles and place of the Minister without Settlement are complex and raise significant questions of theology, the ordering of the church, personal preference and style, pastoral care, authority and responsibility, accountability and, the respective roles of the councils of church as they relate to Ministers without Settlement.
The next steps: principles and structure
It is proposed now that we do not attempt to complete the many incomplete tasks. It is too late for many. Nor should we visit again the complex arguments and evidence presented in previous reports, but assuming that background we should move directly to several actions which, while they cannot remove the pain of past failure, might at least help to create some positive opportunities for effective service in the future. The one thing that must not be done is again to refer the basic questions or the major points of action to another committee. The Standing Committee must itself come to a mind on what should be done.
We might begin by assuming support for the (last?) specific action of the Standing Committee when it asked the Commission for Mission to undertake a co-ordinating role in 1988. It resolved
That some basic principles relevant to accountability in the ministry such as detailed in the Rev. Dr. David Beswick's report of May 1987, as follows be adopted:
1. At ordination a minister enters the fellowship of an order within which he or she submits to the discipline of the Church in regard to the exercise of a specified ministry. Continued recognition as a minister requires continued submission to that discipline and implies that the minister will continue in fellowship with other ministers in a manner recognized by the Church.
2. The purpose of ministerial discipline is the fulfillment in each case of the specified ministry to which particular members of the Church are ordained. The form of discipline must be appropriate to the form of ministry, not only in general, but with respect to the ministry of the individual.
3. The Uniting Church is committed to the exploration of the possibility of its being called to exercise forms of ministry which may be different from those the Uniting Churches had known in the past. New forms of ministry may require new forms of discipline.
4. Ordination is a corporate act with continuing corporate responsibilities. One going out into the wilderness, as it were, in an exploratory form of ministry should be seen as sharing in a responsibility of the whole body in which the ministry of the individual is owned and supported. Continued acceptance of discipline in an appropriate form thus requires a correspondingly tailored form of pastoral care.
Note that these principles were not actually adopted. They formed the basis of consultations carried out by the Commission for Mission, with a view to something of this kind being adopted. Nor was a person "appointed by the Synod Commission for Mission to set up structures of accountability and a network of communication for Ministers without Settlement" as Standing Committee decided at that time. As noted, it was too difficult for the Commission for Mission in the circumstances, and probably should not have been referred there.
The administration of matters related to the ordained ministry has normally been the responsibility of the General Secretary. It may be noted that while we are recommending a stronger and more creative role for the Presbytery in developing alternatives in ministry, provision needs to be made also for Synod functions, and that the need for both Synod and the Presbyteries to play a part has been recognized in the various approaches that have been made over the years. The Synod in 1979, for example, resolved (188.8.131.52 and 5)
That Presbyteries be requested to:
(a) Encourage ministers currently without settlement to make themselves available for part-time or full-time settlement, and to assist them to negotiate suitable terms of settlement, in accordance with guidelines established by the Synod.
b) Review their provisions for pastoral care of ministers without settlement to ensure that each minister is personally interviewed, that the Presbytery is fully informed on his present situation and that the minister understands his relationship to Presbytery.
(c) Report to Synod sufficient detail of each minister's situation to allow informed decisions to be made in the classification of ministers.
That the Synod Co-ordinating Commission examine and report to Synod 1980 on the possibility of establishing a Division of Ministry, or some other means of strategic planning as may be appropriate, to co-ordinate Synod responsibilities and joint Presbytery activities in such matters as recruitment and selection of candidates, the training of ministers, the oversight of chaplains and ministers in educational and social welfare institutions, the planning and facilitation of strategic sector ministries, guidelines for part-time settlements, and forms of lay ministry recognized by the Synod ...
Little of this was implemented. We now recommend that the advisability of such a co-ordinating structure for the oversight of ministry be reconsidered. Meanwhile, a central procedure to co-ordinate Synod responsibility for some specific actions should be placed with the General Secretary and the JPSAC.
Integration of the exceptional with normal procedures
The main thrust of related recommendations is to "normalize" what has been a range of exceptional forms of ministry and to do so within a more flexible structure. Just as the term "without settlement" needed to be removed from the "classification" of ministers, so now should the classification of "secular employment". Approval of a minister being employed in a position that is "not under the jurisdiction of the Church" should be independent of whether or not a minister is in a settlement, but as far as possible if a minister can be recognized as being in active service it should be made part of the conditions of a settlement. All employment of ministers should be subject to approval as at present, but where the employment does not form part of an active ministry ministers should be granted leave from active service.
We therefore recommend a series of changes to the Regulations on "The Classification of Ministers". In addition we would suggest that the term "classification" is not necessary: it would be sufficient to have separate sections in the Regulations dealing with "Designated Ministries", "Leave" and "Retirement", which implement the general rule that ministers are either in active service, on leave or retired. The source of their incomes is a separate question.
The recommended changes to the Regulations would make what needs to be done in the Synod easier and more effective, but the means are available within the present regulations to introduce the most important procedures. We are recommending adoption of a set of Guidelines for Synod Approval of the Employment of a Minister in a Position which is not under the Jurisdiction of the Church, which we propose should guide the JPSAC in acting for the Synod and help the Presbyteries make proposals to the JPSAC in respect of each minister who seeks approval for such employment. The aim is to make the ministry of such ministers as effective as possible, while each minister has appropriate pastoral care.
It must be recognized that some further action needs to be taken regarding the oversight and support of ministers in parish settlements, or who are awaiting settlement, as well as those in the special situations which include "secular employment". We propose a system of accountability involving annual written reports for all ministers on the exercise of their ministries, and a grievance procedure to help overcome the breakdown of relationships which sometimes occurs between ministers and presbyteries.
Discipline and justice: the need for grievance procedures
There are considerations of natural justice which need to be taken into account together with the requirement of ministers to submit to the discipline of the Church. There are ministers who believe they have been treated unfairly by their Presbyteries, with the effect that their prospects of further ministerial work have been unjustly limited. In these matters most organisations make provision for review of actions in personnel management by a person who was not directly involved in the original decisions. Administrative law requires the application of natural justice in these procedures.
In view of the number of complaints and independent evidence of breakdown in relationships, including the failure of Presbyteries to deal with complaints by ministers about the way they have been treated by Parishes, it may be that Presbyteries and ministers should be advised of procedures which are available to resolve a conflict between a minister and a Presbytery or Pastoral Relations Committee. This is a matter for which it is advisable that a review is undertaken as it does not appear to have been dealt with before by the Synod. It would not be desirable to weaken the oversight of Presbyteries. That would not be to the advantage of ministers, parishes or the mission of the Church in general. On the other hand it is a normal consideration of justice that there should be a well defined avenue of appeal from an initial determination.
Some possibilities that exist now might be further developed. For example, where a minister who continues to accept the oversight of the Presbytery but believes that he or she has been treated unfairly the minister or the Presbytery or its Standing Committee or the Chairperson of the Presbytery might request the General Secretary to appoint a suitably qualified independent person to advise the Presbytery. In another situation, while counselling a minister alone should not be expected to remove injustice, some contribution to the resolution of a conflict might be made through a counselling process. A minister may be referred to or may independently seek assistance from the Ministers Vocational Counselling Service of the JPSAC.
People should also know about the formal procedures which are available. Some ministers and many parish officials do not seem to be aware of paragraph 14 of the Constitution making ministers responsible to the Presbytery and not the Parish, and Presbyteries have sometimes failed to enforce the discipline in this respect. Under the Constitution there is a right of appeal to the Synod from any action of the Presbytery, although the powers of the Synod to determine such appeals may be limited to the adequacy and fairness of the procedures followed by the Presbytery in exercising its powers as a council of Church. Ministers and councils of the Church also have access to the pastoral advice of the Moderator who may exercise special powers in the administration of the discipline of the Church if the matter cannot be resolved otherwise. These are options which could be taken into account in formulating grievance procedures. It is proposed that a highly experienced group seek appropriate advice and recommend grievance procedures which can be made widely known.
Approved employment: requirements for approval to be given
While amendments to the Regulations are being recommended, action can be taken under the present Regulations. There appear to be two ways of giving recognition and providing oversight of ministers who are employed by bodies which are not under the jurisdiction of the Church.
At first sight a "Designated Ministry" under R 2.4.2 (d) "In other placements not under the jurisdiction of the Church" appears to offer a desirable alternative. Such a placement "not under the jurisdiction of the Church" is one which "the Synod declares to be a settlement, pursuant to Regulation 2.7.1 (a) (ii), "in approved spheres of duty for the regular discharge of the duties of ministerial office." The trouble is that this conception confuses employment with ministerial functions and fails to apply the constitutional and theological principle that ministers must always be responsible to the Church for the exercise of their ministries. Nor will such placements include some situations of employment which it may be desirable for ministers to enter for the sake of the mission of the church but which do not, in the duties owed to an employer, require the performance of the duties of a ministers as they are defined by the Church. It might still be possible to make use of this procedure and to declare a placement not under the jurisdiction of the Church to be a settlement where the duties of a minister, as understood by the Church, are included in the responsibilities for which the minister is employed, but the means of accountability to the Church will need further consideration.
Whatever arrangements are made to permit or to recognize such employment, the duties of a minister employed in a position which is not under the jurisdiction of the Church should never be incompatible with the duties of a minister as defined by the Church (See R 2.3.10). It must always be possible for a minister who is in active service to carry out the duties of a minister, and to do so under the jurisdiction of the church, whatever duties may be owed to an employer. It follows that all employment not under the jurisdiction of the church must be subject to approval; and the ways in which a minister so employed may carry out ministerial duties, whether within that employment and/or in tasks which are under the jurisdiction of the church, must be acceptable to the council of the Church to which the minister is responsible for the exercise of his or her ministry under the Constitution.
If would be preferable in most circumstances for a situation of employment not under the jurisdiction of the Church not to be designated as a settlement, but for such employment, where it is in fact an integral part of an active ministry, to be approved as a component of ministry in a placement which is listed for settlement. Such placements could be created within the Church structure, normally in the Presbytery, and approved for listing as a settlement by the JPSAC. Presbyteries would need to follow guidelines adopted by the Synod and these are proposed as conditions for Synod approval of the minister being so employed. Such a placement would normally be in a Presbytery, but it could be in the Synod when a substantial part of a minister's work is in a function of the Synod. The role of the minister in each case should be defined in such a way as to specify the ministerial tasks which are to be performed by the minister which must include in addition to the role the minister is to have in the work of the Presbytery (or Synod) concerned, an appropriate role in a congregation.
Regulation 2.7.1 (a) (ii), which provides for a position to be "declared" a settlement, should be amended to include employment in an approved situation as one component of a placement in which the full range of duties is sufficient for the regular discharge of the ministerial office. Ministerial duties which are included in the placement may be such as to occupy the minister full time or part time, and may be undertaken on an honorary basis or as a part of paid employment. If the Regulation is not amended as recommended, a placement "declared" to be settlement pursuant to R 2.7.1 (a) (ii) should only be listed as a settlement when the Presbytery has defined and Synod (through the Settlements Committee) has approved a statement of ministerial duties of the minister so employed whether wholely within the situation of employment or partly in addition to it.
The conditions under which any employment is to by undertaken in a body not under the jurisdiction of the Church should be understood as conditions on which the minister will continue to be recognized as a minister. Guidelines for the approval of the such employment in ways which maintain the essentials of discipline and pastoral care are set out in the Attachment.
Much of what is said here of how employment in positions which are not under the jurisdiction of the Church might be more effectively integrated with normal settlement procedures, mainly through Presbytery settlements, could also be applied to chaplaincies. Hence it is recommended that JPSAC examine the implications for the making and co-ordination of chaplaincy settlements.
David Beswick and Robert Johnson
That Standing Committee resolve:-
1. To recommend to Assembly that the Regulations be amended as follows:
1.1 That Regulations 2.4.1 to 2.4.7 on the "Classification of Ministers" be amended to delete the category of "secular employment" and to provide that ministers be classified as being "in active service" or "on leave" or "retired". (Consideration might also be given to omitting the term "Classification" and dealing separately with "Designated Ministries", "Leave" and "Retirement".)
1.2 That Regulation 2.4.6 provide for ministers to be "retired temporarily" only for health reasons and after the Beneficiary Fund has determined that a pension will be paid;
1.3 That ministers who are neither in active service nor retired continue to be recognized as ministers only if they have been granted leave for a specified period pursuant to Regulation 2.4.6 as amended.
1.4 That leave from active service may be granted by the Synod on the recommendation of the Presbytery:-
(i) to undertake an approved course of study,
(ii) for family reasons, or
(iii) to rest from active service;
and that leave shall be granted
(iv) when a minister is awaiting settlement under Regulation 2.4.3, or
(v) not available for settlement under Regulation 2.4.4 pursuant to Regulation 2.7. 5 (b)(ii) or (iii).
1.5 That Regulation 2.7.1 (a) (ii) be amended to provide that employment in an approved situation not under the jurisdiction of the Church may be a component of a placement in a Presbytery or Synod rather than declaring a placement not under the jurisdiction of the Church to be a settlement.
1.6 That Regulation 2.4.7 and other relevant regulations be revised to specify, rather than the classification of a minister, the conditions under which a Synod may approve the employment of a minister in a position which is not under the jurisdiction of the Church whether or not the minister is in a settlement.
2. To adopt the attached guidelines for Synod approval of the employment of a minister, full time or part time, in a position which is not under the jurisdiction of the Church.
3. To determine that the JPSAC will act for the Synod in giving approval in accordance with the Synod guidelines to the employment of a minister in a position that is not under the jurisdiction of the Church.
4. To request JPSAC to consult with the Presbyteries and advise Standing Committee about the classification of each of the ministers under their oversight who are classified under R 2.4.7, "Secular Employment", with a view to their being reclassified as, either
(a) in a designated ministry under R 2.4.2 and appointed to a settlement in the Presbytery which includes a component of employment not under the jurisdiction of the church and a range of ministerial duties sufficient to satisfy the Synod's guidelines for approval of such employment for a minister who is in active service, provided that the appointment may be to a settlement in the Synod when a substantial part of the minister's work, paid or unpaid, fulfills a function of the Synod which cannot not be placed under the oversight of the Presbytery; or
(b) under R 2.4.6 (b) (iii) "on leave of absence" "for other reasons which the Synod considers sufficient", and for whom approval is given to be employed in a specific situation under the Synod guidelines.
5. To request the JPSAC to consider
(a) the desirability of having chaplaincy settlements transferred from the Synod to Presbyteries, while Synod retains a co-ordinating role; and
(b) the implications of the guidelines for Synod approval of the employment of a minister in a position that is not under the jurisdiction of the Church as they would apply to chaplains, whether settled in Presbyteries or Synod,
and to advise Standing Committee on recommendations which might be made to the Synod 1996 on the settlement of chaplains.
6. To request Presbyteries to review the employment of ministers who are not in a settlement and make recommendations to the Synod for the approval of such employment in accordance with the guidelines.
7. To request the Moderator, the ex-Moderator and the General Secretary to seek appropriate advice and report to Standing Committee on the need for a clearly defined grievance procedure to deal with complaints from ministers who believe that they have been treated unfairly by their Presbyteries, having regard to the difficulties and possibilities noted in the report and the requirements of natural justice in administrative law.
8. To request the Committee on Evaluation to give further consideration to the establishment of a Commission on Ministry to co-ordinate the work of the Synod in regard to the recruitment, education, deployment, discipline and the pastoral and financial support of ministers in the specified ministries of the Church, including the work of the Commission on Education for Ministry, the JPSAC, the co-ordination of chaplaincy settlements, the Pastoral Assistance Committee and other ministerial matters administered by the Secretariat.
9. To recommend to Synod that Presbyteries be advised to require all ministers, except those who are in Synod or Assembly Settlements, on leave, or retired, to report annually in writing to the Presbytery on the exercise of their ministries.
10. To recommend to Synod that all ministers in Synod settlements be required to report annually in writing on the exercise of their ministries to the Synod through the General Secretary who shall advise the Standing Committee on the reports received, except that the Moderator and the General Secretary will report to the Synod directly.
[Draft 12:28 21 March 1996. This was the final version prepared by David Beswick and Robert Johnson and considered by the Standing Committee. A shorter version of the report was sent to Synod 1996 where relevant recommendations were adopted. Those requiring amendments to the Regulations were sent to Assembly 1997. ASC adopted subsequent amendments to the Regulations in 1998. DB]
Guidelines for Synod Approval of the Employment of a Minister
in a Position which is not under the Jurisdiction of the Church
1. Approval of the Synod is required for the employment of a minister in position which is not under the jurisdiction of the Church. Such employment may be full time or part time.
2. The JPSAC will act for the Synod in giving approval under these guidelines after receiving a recommendation from the Presbytery which has oversight of the minister or from the General Secretary if the minister is to be in a Synod settlement while undertaking the proposed employment.
3. Regardless of whether the minister is in active service, on leave or retired,
3.1 the duties required in the employment should not be incompatible with the duties of a minister defined in Regulation 2.3.10 to the extent that the minister continues to have authority to exercise ministry in those respects; and
3.2 the minister should be consulted about the ways in which the Presbytery will exercise its responsibilities of pastoral care and oversight of the minister, having regard to the circumstances of the minister's employment.
4. If the minister is neither on leave nor retired, then in addition to 3.1 and 3.2 above:-
4.1 As far as possible Presbyteries should seek to define a role in the Presbytery which may be designated as a placement and listed for settlement by JPSAC, within which provision is made for employment not under the jurisdiction of the Church which is approved as a component of active ministry. Such a settlement may be full time or part time.
4.2 The relationship of that employment to the mission of the church should be described in the profile for the settlement. The purpose of the approved employment may be to earn an income which enables the minister to serve the Church, apart from the approved employment, in tasks which are those of a minister under Regulation 2.3.10 but for which financial support is not available in the Church or which are not fully funded. Alternatively, or in addition, the employment itself may include duties to the employer which are those of a minister so defined.
4.3 In any case, the profile for a settlement which includes approved employment should specify the full range of ministerial duties which attach to that settlement whether they are in the position for which employment is approved or in a Parish or in the Presbytery or the Synod or an agency of the Church.
4.4 Such a placement would normally be in the Presbytery, unless a substantial part of a minister's work is in a function of the Synod and it is not appropriate to place it under the oversight of the Presbytery.
4.5 The responsibilities of a minister whose employment is approved should include a role approved by the Presbytery in a Congregation or Christian fellowship recognized by the Presbytery, and such a role may include ministerial tasks which are agreed between the Presbytery and the Parish or other body concerned as part of the duties which attach to a settlement in the Presbytery.
4.6 In all circumstances the principle must be maintained that ministers are responsible to a council of the Church (normally Presbytery, but in some cases Synod or Assembly) for the exercise of their ministries in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Constitution.
4.7 Ministers whose employment is approved under these guidelines should report annually in writing to the Presbytery (or the Synod in the case of a Synod settlement) on the exercise of their ministry with reference to the duties which have been approved in each case by the Synod.
4.8 Ministers seeking approval of employment when there is not a range of ministerial tasks which Synod can approve as sufficient for a settlement, part time or full time, should if possible be considered for leave of absence pursuant to Regulation 2.4.6, provided that approval of their employment remains subject to the conditions specified in Regulation 2.4.7.
4.9 An alternative to designation of a placement in the Presbytery (or Synod) under normal settlement procedures is to declare a placement not under the jurisdiction of the Church to be a settlement pursuant to Regulation 2.7.1 (a) (ii), but settlement in a Presbytery should be preferred if possible.
5. In regard to a placement "not under the jurisdiction of the Church" which "the Synod declares to be a settlement", "in approved spheres of duty for the regular discharge of the duties of ministerial office", pursuant to Regulation 2.7.1 (a) (ii) [unless amended], in addition to the general principles in 3.1 to 4.9 above:
5.1 the Presbytery should prepare and the Synod approve a statement of ministerial duties of the minister so employed whether those duties are carried out wholly within the situation of employment or partly in addition to it.
6. While the Regulations continue to provide for the classification of a minister under R 2.4.7 as being in "secular employment", any minister continuing to be so classified shall be regarded, for the purpose of these guidelines, as being on leave from active service.
7. In regard to the settlement of chaplains who are in Synod settlements but may be employed by bodies which are not under the jurisdiction of the Church, approval of the placement by JPSAC would imply approval of the conditions of employment, but the general principles of these guidelines should be applied when giving approval of the placement.