You couldn’t make this up!
Minister faces the sack for refusal to live in his manse
Published Date: 12 November 2009 By Ian Swanson
A CHURCH minister is facing the threat of the sack for refusing to live in his Edinburgh manse.
The Rev John Munro, minister at Fairmilehead Parish Church, is accused of breaking Church of Scotland regulations by opting to live in his own house instead and will face a “trial” in front of Kirk officials tomorrow.If the case goes against him, he could face censure, suspension or even end up being fired.
Read the rest in the Edinburgh Evening News here
I came across this tonight in the Edinburgh Evening News. Whilst I do understand that there would be tax issues and related matters for the Kirk to have to untangle with the Inland Revenue were it to ‘allow’ ministers to live outwith their manses, I have to say that on the face of it, to place a minister before the Commission of Assembly over the occupancy of a manse, or not, seems plain daft and inconsistent to me, especially when I cannot remember a single occasion in recent memory when Kirk ministers with theological views at wide variance from catholic, credal Christianity were ever asked to appear and give account before a Presbytery or to the Commission.
We all know that some ministers, perhaps many, have long wanted to live in their own homes, and the Kirk’s efforts to prevent it from eventually happening look increasingly like the boy with his finger in the dyke. On human rights grounds alone, it surely cannot be reasonable or fair that the Kirk ‘employs’ its ministers only on condition that the said ministers give up all rights whatsoever to live in a home of their own choosing and live, instead, in a property of the Church’s choice. What other employer in the modern world would ever ask or be allowed to ask such a thing of its employees? I can think of none.
There are tax implications for ministers who wish to live in their own house and who choose not to ‘occupy’ the manse. Agreed. But can these financial rather than theological reasons be allowed to override the wishes of a minister and his/her family to live in a home that suits and which is liked by all of the family members? Doubtless there are theological issues about the importance of living in the parish in which one ministers, and there is also the matter of the congregation owning and financially managing a property in the parish in which a minister can live if he or she wishes to, but these are not in anyone’s reckoning issues that are ‘of the substance of the faith.’ To what extent then should they be the basis of disciplinary proceedings in this day and age?
Furthermore, a minister may live in a manse from which he or she writes, preaches and teaches anything and everything but historic, orthodox and credal Christianity, all without censure or investigation by a Presbytery or by the Commission whatsoever, whilst a refusal to live in the manse seems to be an issue thought deserving of the considerable expense of gathering together the members of the Commission of Assembly in order to put a minister and his family members thoroughly and completely through the emotional wringer, and I can tell you, being at the Commission of Assembly is an emotional wringer.
It is a strange and sad place for the Church to be in when some ministers are openly and unashamedly theologically heretical, with impunity, sometimes with admiration and a measure of popular notoriety, whilst a minister who will not live in a manse is to face the Commission of Assembly.
I predict that the Kirk’s insistence that ministers always and almost without exception live in manses will come to an end. It may not open a floodgate of ministers taking advantage of the new situation, but the shortage of ministers, and lengthy vacancies, as well as changes in the future shape of congregations and churches, not to mention the continuing question of the viability of the parish system itself – all of these things mean that the Kirk cannot stand like Canute, holding back the tide of ministers and their loved ones wishing to live where they will.
It will be fascinating to see what the Commission decides, but spare a thought and prayer for the minister and his wife and family, for whom a day at the Commission will not likely be a day with friends, interspersed with a light and congenial lunch.
Soli Deo Gloria
“What other employer in the modern world would ever ask or be allowed to ask such a thing of its employees? I can think of none.”
Onward Christian soldiers…
Soldiers are generally permitted to live where they choose, security considerations being equal
Louis, this story is another illustration of the breakdown of any meaningful and practical belief in parish ministry. If the Church of Scotland decides that ministers dont have to live in or close to their parishes… well… why be a “minister” at all? The drift towards 9-5 office ministry, with occasional evening events, and leadership of Sunday services, is slowly killing real Christian ministry in the CofS. I hope that the Special Commission on Article 3 reaffirms a proper territorial ministry… men and women living in localities because they believe God has called them to share, not just the gospel, but their very lives for the sake of the gospel.
Interesting to think that God can call someone to be a minister to his people, however we as humans seem to think we’re above that, making the descision whether or not they should be fired over such a silly trivial matter instead of letting them do the job God has called them to do!
If this story has gone out in the press (which it has!) we need to consider what impression this gives to people of the church and of us as Christians.
Tim, it is a minister’s job to live in his or her manse, unless given permission otherwise… if an office worker was consistently late for work, he or she would not be able to use the excuse “I was working from home…”
The problem is not so much that Presbytery is right or wrong or just petty in this case… it’s more that the move is too little too late in terms of a mutual and corporate oversight of parish ministers according to agreed standards and principles of conduct. Ministers have little effective management and oversight in their work… hence the outcry when people in Presbytery actually do take action against ministers not working up to the standards our people deserve.
Thank you, Louis, for the first words of sense – and compassion – I have read on this subject.
David, it is emphatically NOT ‘a minister’s job to live in his or her manse’. To make such a statement on behalf of the Christian church in Scotland really does put the church in a position of easy ridicule.
It is clear that Rev Munro is being made an example of here and this is a political issue.
I am 30 years old and this situation is another one of many which put me in a position where I no longer wish to be associated with the Church of Scotland and, in particular, the Presbytery of Edinburgh who seem outmoded, farcical, unfeeling and rigid. Never was the Church of Scotland in greater trouble than it is now and all by its own making.
I have to say I agree with both sides. I fully share Louis’ sense of anger that this is the worst thing a minister can do.
The problem is the cost. To permit some to remain outwith a Manse means that the rest are all immediately liable for at least £3,000 of tax, every year that we remain in a Manse. That’s a big ask on everyone else from the few who are trying to remain outwith the Manse system. So in the meantime it has to be enforced, with some justifiable exceptions.
On the other hand, I have argued (and failed to win the argument with the Ministries Council or Assembly) that we need to dismantle the entire system, and find a way to provide a few Manses in remote locations and provide a system to move us all out. I’m also not sure that the Inland Revenue is willing to consider a phased withdrawal.
yours
Mike
James, you shouldn’t make a statement without backing it up. When ministers take ordination vows they promise to abide by the laws of the church. If that means living in a manse then a Church of Scotland parish minister only fulfils their commitment to a call by, among other things, living in their manse.
Seems pretty simple to me… I think people ridicule organisations that don’t apply laws and procedures consistently or effectively… so I dont understand your comment that my position leaves ‘the Christian church in Scotland’ open to such ridicule. I think in most cases the church in Scotland is already beyond ridicule anyway.
The issue – apart from the politics of the case – is not what is right or Christian or ‘biblical’…it is not the shape of Christian ministry in principle… it is the order and integrity of a particular denomination.
Mike, if only my brain allowed me to agree with two sides of an arguement at the same time… that would make my church life and ministry a lot easier.
By all means let’s have another discussion in the Church of Scotland. But let’s stop pretending that church law and procedure don’t matter… in a denomination they are definitive.
Where can I find the word “manse” in the bible?
Yet again, the church makes itself look ridiculous. After that outrageous vile cyber witch hunt against Scott Rennie, we now see this “rearranging Titanic deck-chairs” nonsense. It would not be out of place in Monty Python.
And meanwhile, the world looks on and shakes its head….
Okay, folks… if we get rid of manses answer these questions for me… What maximum distance, if any, would you impose between a minister’s home and their place of work? Would it be acceptable for a minister to commute between, say, Glasgow and Edinburgh? Would stipends be based on location so that people could afford to live in higer cost of living areas?
Presbyteries, Ministries Council, or whoever is responsible for ministers will always have to impose on and dictate to ministers the parameters of their work… so there is nothing ridiculous about this case at all.
If we give up the traditional CofS understanding of parish ministry what will replace it? How many current parish ministers really think they would be more effective living apart from their manse? I dont think many ministers in the CofS can give a coherent answer to these questions without effectively un-church-ing themselves or undermining their very own ministries.
David, I am arguing that in taking disciplinary action against ministers for not living in manses, whilst taking no action, as far as I can tell, concerning what a minister preaches and teaches, the Church strains out gnats whilst swallowing camels. I am against a blanket insistence that ministers should live in manses, but there will always be some congregations that will have to make such an insistence, perhaps because of the impossibility of renting the manse out when the parish minister lives elsewhere.
The question of how far away from the parish and/or the manse a minister might reasonably commute would be one for the nominating committees, and perhaps advisory committees, certainly the Presbytery in the end. I see no problem with this. There are a number of CoS parish ministers whose manses are not within the parish bounds. Some are a distance away. Church leaders in other denominations often live outwith the communities in which their church building is sited. They seem to be no more or less effective in their ministry than we are in the CoS.
Stipends would remain as they presently are. It would be up to an applicant to decide whether or not he or she could afford to live away from the manse, and perhaps away from the parish.
In answer to your question, the traditional understanding of CoS parish ministry is already changing and breaking down, significantly in some instances. We can create ever larger parishes and superficially look as though we are still doing parish ministry. In reality, we are just spreading ourselves more and more thinly to the point where we have little or no effective contact with our parishes any longer. This is increasingly the case when humanist officiants continue to take to themselves more and more of the funeral work, work that once came to us as a matter of course, and more and more weddings are conducted by registrars.
The parish system is a geographical model. It assumes people living statically in their parishes, whereas communities are very different today. The NT presents more of a relational model of church establishment and growth. Unchurched cities and regions are evangelized and churches established precisely wherever people are found. It is a very dynamic pattern that is neutred when the countryside is sub-divided up along parish lines and rules about intrusion put in place. Whatever the future shape of the church, it will flourish best when the Gospel is allowed to flow along the lines of relationship rather than geography.
Our people don’t need to know that we live round the corner. They need to know that we will live or die for them, wherever we hang our hat.
Still unconvinced, brother?
Louis, I have always been convinced! It’s just that in the last year or three I’ve started to realise that “emerging models” of church, etc, are not actually very effective in a Church of Scotland context.
Many churches I’ve been involved with are engaging with all sorts of people without actually attracting those people to join or commit to local Christian fellowship, i.e. without encouraging people to profess faith and join the Church of Scotland. This is a hopeless situation because it creates a three tier body: the “professionals” who are bound under Presbytery/Ministries Council rules and authority, the “members” who have voting rights and responsibility for funding the “professionals”, and the “free” who treat the church like clients seeking whatever service they require at any given time.
So, with the parish system at breaking point, either we re-think the model entirely (effectively un-churching ourselves as the Church of Scotland)… or we rationalise things while retaining a territorial approach (so keeping the established CofS distinctives but also the weaknesses). I’m not sure which of these approaches is best… but I’m sure we will have to choose one way or the other.
Can’t wait for the Special Commission on Article 3 to report…!!
Thanks for your time on this… I think the issues are serious.