Springtime for interim ministry
From the Warden of Cranmer Hall, Durham, the Principal of Ripon College, Cuddesdon, and members of the Interim Ministry Practitioners’ Group
Madam, — After a long, wet winter, spring is in the air at last. After a long wait, so, too, is training for interim ministers.
Interim ministry (IM), also known as (interim) change ministry and transition ministry, involves fixed-term appointments for up to three years in response to a missional or pastoral need in a parish — such as an unforeseen crisis, conflict, or a need for change and renewal.
This long-hoped-for development is thanks to Innovation Funding from the Church of England to develop training and networking with theological-education institutions working in partnership with IM practitioners.
A new three-year development post, Director of Interim Ministry Training, is being launched by Cranmer Hall, Durham, in partnership with Ripon College, Cuddesdon. This is the fruit of many years’ advocacy by practitioners and also of fresh recognition from the Church House Ministry Team that the time has come to invest in training for the increasing number of IM appointments.
It is the culmination of a ten-year wait for resourcing. IM posts were made legal in 2015. There have been repeated calls for training and support from national conferences and networking events since then.
Part of the challenge has been the lack of official data about IM. A survey in 2020 suggested there had been an estimated 82-137 IM appointments over five years from 2015 to 2020. Few had any training and support, despite the demanding and stressful nature of the appointments.
Training and development looked about to blossom five years ago (Feature, 14 May 2021), after the launch of interimministry.org.uk (News, 9 April 2021) and the successful delivery of the pilot Training for Transition programme. At that time, the Archbishop of York described IM as “quite literally a godsend” for struggling parishes.
Since then, practitioners have continued to voice concerns about the lack of understanding or development opportunities, fearing that IM posts were being undervalued. But there has been greater intentionality in recent years in using these posts. There have been about 48 posts advertised in IM in the past three years. A number of teams are being appointed as part of strategic-change programmes, notably in Durham and Sheffield, and interim posts regularly feature in SMMIB transformation programmes. There is even interim episcopal ministry in Liverpool diocese.
In uncertain times, it is increasingly recognised that responding to change is an essential skill for ministry: the criteria for discernment of priests have also been adapted to include “management of change” among the desired qualities for selection and training — or, as the criteria say, “to see where God is working in the world and respond with missionary imagination”.
The challenge that the C of E currently faces is a chicken-and-egg scenario in which the lack of training means we lack a cohort of clergy ready for these posts at a time when we are most in need of them. The good news is that posts being advertised now can look forward to the availability of training soon. We all look forward to being part of the process of preparing existing and new interim ministers to be effective and fruitful.
NICK MOORE, HARRIET HARRIS, JULIE BACON, HELEN GHEORGHIU GOULD, ALI MEPHAM, FIONA PENNIE, STEPHEN SKINNER, LOUISE VINCER, NATASHA WOODWARD
c/o Cranmer Hall, Durham
The UN and the extent of Israel’s democracy
From Mr Chris Oakes-Monger
Madam, — The letter (27 February) from the Revd Drs Ian Duffield and Alan Billings in response to the Bishop of Gloucester’s description of Israel’s policy in Gaza as “genocide” disputes the use of the term and dismisses the United Nations as a legitimate authority on the grounds that it is “anti-Israel” and that the chair of its Human Rights Council and its Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories are “anti-Semites”.
It is noteworthy that they do not raise any objection to the evidence and arguments on which the assessment of the UN is based; surely, the case should be considered in the light of that evidence and not the alleged character or motives of those making the assessment.
Quibbles about exactly what terminology we use to describe what we have all witnessed on live televison cannot make the slaughter and destruction excusable. Nor can it justify the continuing immorality of occupation, theft, and colonisation of land belonging to others. Simply dismissing as “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” those who point out that the Israeli government’s behaviour is wicked will not diminish the wickedness.
CHRIS OAKES-MONGER
Alton, Hampshire
From Canon Nicholas Taylor
Madam, — Paranoid conspiracy theorists, and politicians with vested interests, may claim that the United Nations and its institutions are “anti-Israel”, and that anyone who does not champion Zionism is anti-Semitic. If this were the case, the International Court of Justice would not have required the two years that it has already taken to try the genocide case against Israel, without yet having reached a verdict — notwithstanding the growing body of evidence, and the considered assessments of that evidence by Holocaust and genocide experts, many of whom are Jewish, including several Israelis.
Furthermore, the arrest warrants against Israeli and Palestinian leaders issued by the International Criminal Court required approval by an international panel of (eight) experts, at least two of whom are Jewish, one of them a Holocaust survivor who has served as an Israeli ambassador
The United States and Israel may maintain that not having subscribed to the Rome Statute places them above international law, that their brand of state terrorism enjoys some kind of divine sanction, and that the Abraham Accords and Board of Peace conceal their hegemonic aspirations. But Christian clergy ought to know that violence and military power exempt nobody from God’s judgement.
NICHOLAS TAYLOR
Address supplied (Pretoria, South Africa)
From the Very Revd Geoffrey Marshall
Madam, — I wonder who or what has led Drs Duffield and Billings to call Israel “the only democratic state in the region”: perhaps the fact that Israel holds elections. But so do Iran and other countries that they probably wouldn’t regard as democracies.
The idea that Israel is a democracy rests on the supposition that its population has the right to vote; this is only half true. Calling Israel demcratic depends on what we mean by Israel. Since 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were soon annexed. There is debate in Israel about whether it should annex some or all the West Bank, but in practice it did so years ago.
After nearly 60 years, it can’t be said that the occupation is an exception. Like it or not, the occupation is the norm. Israel has ten million citizens who are eligible to vote once they turn 18. But there are 5.5 million more people who live under Israeli control; and 350,000 Palestinians live in annexed East Jerusalem and have far fewer rights and legal protections than their West Jerusalem neighbours. A further three million Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank; they live under Israeli military control, and although some of the area (Area A and parts of Area B) is administered by the Palestinian Authority, it is obvious who is really in charge.
In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, there are also 700,000 Israeli settlers. They are Israeli citizens and have full voting rights and legal protections, even though they live outside the internationally recognised borders of Israel. This fact that almost ten per cent of Israel’s citizens live outside its internationally recognised borders but are none the less treated as part of the State of Israel shows how Israel’s borders already extend “from the river to the sea”. A further two million Palestinians live in Gaza, to whom Israel offers the opposite of rights and legal protection. There are more in the annexed Golan Heights.
So, within the areas over which Israel exerts sovereign control, there are ten million people who have full rights and 5.5 million who have none. Thirty-five per cent of the population can’t vote because they are discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, or ethnic origin. There are two ways that Israel can achieve democratic status: end the occupation, so that Israel no longer has control over Palestinians’ lives; or offer everyone living under its control the right to vote.
GEOFFREY MARSHALL
Oakwood, Derby
‘My song’, but now it’s time to stop singing it
From the Revd Dr Alan Race
Madam, — We have entered the period of Lent, and one of the favourite hymns that will be sung many times is “My song is love unknown”. But should we be singing this hymn at all?
The John Ireland tune is beautiful and is probably the main reason that choirs and congregations appreciate the hymn. But the 17th-century words by Samuel Crossman are highly problematic in today’s climate of wanting to improve the history and theology of Jewish-Christian relations.
The problem is that the hymn perpetuates the history of Christian anti-Semitism. The explicit difficulty comes to a head in the third verse, where it accuses the Jews of the death of Jesus, the central plank of Christian anti-Semitism: “Then ‘Crucify!’ Is all their breath, And for his death They thirst and cry.”
We know that crucifixion was not a Jewish form of execution, but a Roman one. The Jews should not be blamed for executing Jesus. Beautiful as the tune is, we should not be singing this hymn. And surely we should not be singing it in today’s international climate. The time has long passed when the Church can afford liturgically to ignore its part in fomenting the scourge of anti-Semitism.
ALAN RACE
Reading
C of E pensions uplift
From the Chair of the Church of England Pensions Board
Madam, — Canon Alan Bell (Letters, 27 February) questions the pace of delivering the uplifts for pensioners after the agreement of the amended scheme rules at the General Synod in February. He misreads, however, our letter to members, which says that we are aiming to implement the increase to pensions “by” (not “in”) 31 March 2027, and, as I said in Synod Questions, “earlier if possible”. As promised in the letter and at the Synod, we will update members as the work progresses, including confirming when the uplifts will be made, as soon as that is possible.
This is one of the most complex exercises that I have ever seen a pension scheme take on. By way of illustration: the example calculations that we are using to test the methodology each run to four pages. There are more than 8000 individual calculations to be completed. Those calculations then need to be quality-assured. And then the uplifts have to be reflected into the pension payroll. This is no small task. But it is one that we embrace with pace, determination, and care.
CLIVE MATHER
Church House
London SW1
Faith and cancer care
From Dr Andrew Purkis
Madam, — I entirely agree with Professor Raman Bedi that faith groups have an important part to play in strategies for cancer care (Comment, 27 February). But since the Government’s plan specifically and prominently names “charities” as key partners, it cannot be said that it ignores faith communities — because the vast majority of faith communities are charities.
ANDREW PURKIS
London SW12
Nat and Nico
From the Revd Dr Cally Hammond
Madam, — Last week, I recognised myself in King Saul: “I have been a fool, and have made a great mistake” (1 Samuel 26.21). One reader who questioned my indefensible conflation of Nathanael with Nicodemus in the Gospel for Lent 2 put it kindly but perceptively: “how easy it is for a train of thought to carry one away.”
I want to find refuge in Pope, whom I referred to in 2023 for the Second Sunday before Lent: “To err is human; to forgive, divine.” But what I actually feel about it is closer to Luke 17.2.
CALLY HAMMOND
Cambridge
