Readers, Lay Readers, or Licensed Local Ministers, or ...?

[Keith]

I may have missed something!

I was licensed in Essex (long ago) as a "Reader" and am now similarly licensed here in Suffolk (as of a couple of months ago). I have friends dotted about the UK, all of them called Readers. I receive a magazine called "The Reader".

We ceased being "Lay Readers" 30 or more years ago; I'd not heard of any subsequent name change until I came to Lay Anglicana. I draw the inference here that "Reader" is now an antiquated term, and we are called something else.

Is the difference a local one to a couple of Dioceses, or have I indeed missed something? Or are the non-Reader Readers in other provinces than Canterbury and York?

[Joyce]

Keith, I have to say that I haven't noticed the change from 'Lay Reader' to 'Reader' but that could be because all the ones I know became Lay Readers some years ago. I've definitely not heard that they've become something else. I always thought 'Reader' was an academic term associated with a university. For practical reasons I've not been deeply involved with a B and M church - not in the sense of being on any committees or taking services or attending courses etc - for perhaps ten years. One does get out of touch with the jargon. However, I have friends who are still very actively engaged and they've not been using any new terms. I await replies to your post with interest.

[laurasykes]

Hello, Keith, and welcome to the forum.

The situation seems to be as clear as mud!

This is what the Church of England website (http://www.churchofengland.org/clergy-office-holders/ministry/readers-.aspx) says about Readers:

Readers are lay people who have been selected, trained and licensed by the Bishop of a diocese to preach, teach and lead worship in a pastoral context. There are more than 10,000 active Readers in the Church of England. Most are licensed to a parish but some are chaplains in prisons, hospitals, hospices or schools, a few are in charge of parishes.

The website devoted specifically to Readers (http://www.readers.cofe.anglican.org/) says
"WELCOME... to the Readers' website, dedicated to serving the fast growing lay ministry of Readers in the British Isles and Europe
.........................
So, as you say, it would seem from the above that the old Lay Readers have simply dropped the 'lay' part of their title and carried on. But you must remember that this is the Church of England and nothing, but nothing, is simple.

The Anglican Communion (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/theological/teac/grids/LayMinistersGrid110406.pdf) office refers only to Licensed Lay Ministers, not Readers. If you Google 'Licensed Lay Ministers' and then check the websites for the dioceses in the USA, New Zealand etc, all the ones that I found (up to p5 of Google) were LLMs rather than Readers.

The Dioceses of Ely (http://www.ely.anglican.org/ministry/adult_learning/llm_training.html), Guildford (http://www.cofeguildford.org.uk/downloads/departments/ministerialtraining/llm_brochure0809.pdf), Oxford (http://www.oxford.anglican.org/ministry/licensed-lay-ministry/) and Salisbury (http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/learning/discipleship/licensed-lay-ministry) now refer to Licensed Lay Ministers. The Dioceses of London (http://www.london.anglican.org/Readers), Peterborough (http://www.peterborough-diocese.org.uk/ministry/llm.htm), Carlisle (http://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/ministry-and-vocation/readers.html) and Worcester refer to both Readers and Licensed Lay Ministers interchangeably, though hinting from the layout that the preferred term is now Licensed Lay Minister.

........................

I agree that I have been at fault for continuing to call Readers 'Lay Readers'. I can only plead confusion!

[Keith]

Ah! Thank you, Laura - that clarifies it. I'd not come across that before.

I suppose the title "Licensed Lay Minister" is more apt and descriptive. There is a slight snag in that I wasn't licensed in Suffolk until I'd been here for a year, and my licence from my previous Diocese was cancelled when I left. I suppose that made me a "Licensed Lay Minister without Licence". When I pass that certain age, instead of "Reader Emeritus" I'll be a "Superannuated Licensed Lay Minister without Licence".

Perhaps we should continue the logic and change the title from "Priest" to "Licensed Ordained Minister"... ;)

When I was working for a living, I spent a lot of time in the USA, and visited various Anglican churches there. Those I spoke to were surprised to hear of the existence of Readers and told me there was no equivalent in ECUSA. That was a while ago, so it may be different now.

[minidvr]

Just to complicate things, in Canterbury, we have Authorised Lay Ministers. Not licensed, but authorised by the Bishop, after appropriate training to carry out a variety of ministry roles. I am authorised, (http://www.canterburydiocese.org/bmt/localministries/index.htm) not licensed, so I cannot do anything wider than my benefice, whereas a Reader is licensed across the diocese.

It's all a bit confusing and it's time that the Church got its act together and resolved the differences between licensed and authorised, to at least had it recognised across the spectrum. But that would mean collaboration, which diocesan's seem averse to. They all want to do their own thing.

[Joyce]

Oh no, Ernie, we're British,remember ! :) We wouldn't be us without little local differences. Rolls,bannocks,cobs and barms are all the same thing after all.

[minidvr]

Thanks Joyce, got me of my high horse with laughter.:D

[Joyce]

And thank you,Ernie for serving Her Majesty, and hence us, to uphold all that is right and British in the world. Long live our eccentricities, idiosyncracies,maypoles, morris dancers, brass bands, the Church of England, and all that other nations envy for being quaint.

[alanbirt]

I always thought 'Reader' was an academic term associated with a university.

Yes, in academical circles, a Reader is usually regarded as a 'rank' for a university teacher above senior lecturer but below professor. However, over the past decade or so, the term 'lay-reader' in the Anglican church has tended to become just 'Reader' as, by definition, the person is a layman anyway and therefore it is tautology to add the prefix 'lay' to the title.

[Joyce]

Thanks, Alan. That's an interesting point about tautology. In my youth the term 'lay preacher' was in general use where I lived and so perhaps the 'lay' was explanatory and useful. I find tautology annoying as a rule. My late father used to be irritated by 'Personally, I myself ' whereas it's 'secret ballot' and 'work colleague' that make me want to throw something at the radio.

[alanbirt]

Of course the term 'Reader' is itself an historical label. When Readers were re-introduced into the C of E in 1866, over half of the population were illiterate anyway so someone who could actually read was known as a "reader". My great-grandfather was illiterate and so could not even sign his name. In the family archive I have my grandfather's indentures countersigned by his father with a X, which the solicitor then signed to state and confirm the X was "his mark".

Whilst now getting 'off-topic'* (but I hope of general interest), such historical labels exist elsewhere in life. For instance, in the Royal Navy, clerks are officially known as 'writers'. The ascending rank structure is Writer; Leading Writer; Petty Officer Writer; Chief Petty Officer Writer; Warrant Officer Writer. This trade-title stems from Nelson's day when most seamen were quite illiterate. So the rare seaman who could actually write was known as such and this considered to be a special skill. He would be exempt from many of the normal harsh seaman's duties but was employed in what we would regard as the ship's office. A 'soft option' for him ! He would be pleased and proud of his title of 'Writer'

[alanbirt]

Getting back to the original topic as stated in the title (but it was my posting at #11 which diverted the discussion towards illiteracy), in recent decades I have noticed that CofE Readers are now very middle-class. Indeed, many of them are of a professional background and of graduate-level education. The working-class Reader seems to have disappeared (or been ousted !) I sometimes feel there is now a social cachet in becoming a Reader and occasionally I have wondered about this as a main motivator for a few.

This is a sad development. Traditionally, the clergy have been mainly, or almost entirely, of middle-class origin. The Readers with which I was familiar some 50 years ago were mainly of working-class background. These were able to identify more easily with the 'ordinary' members of the congregation than could some clergy. Does anyone know a working-class Reader ? By that description, I mean someone on the minimum or near-basic wage, or job-seeker's allowance, and who lives in a council-house. These 'salt-of-the-earth' Readers seem to have faded away, either by default or perhaps by design. I do know of one Reader who lives in social-housing but she is of a professional status: her marriage collapsed and so she lost her previous home. But she seems to be a rarity and I understand she has received adverse comments about her address and the neighbourhood in which she now lives.

With the greater availability of higher education, there are now more people who have risen from their origins but I am not referring to Readers in this category - those who were once of working-class status. Are there any real working-class Readers still with us ?

[Joyce]

I know one man who is a Reader, in a minimum wage job,who has lived in social housing and who is an immigrant from East Africa. Another I know lives in a council house.They both have degrees not required for their work.

I agree that men like this are less common now. I can see how that's come about. I too remember when Readers came from all backgrounds. Generally,since those days, I'd imagine that reaching the academic level required to become a Reader has involved becoming middle-class as a matter of course.We tend in this country to choose professional, administrative or highly technical occupations rather than skilled or unskilled ones if we have paper qualifications. In theory at least,everyone has the opportunity to study for GCSEs and to go beyond that if they do well in them. Highly intelligent men and women who are not educated are as a species rarer these days. In England, Wales and NIR people have to be forty or over not to have taken GCSE and in their mid-fifties not to have taken CSE if not O level. The days when clever girls and boys capable of higher-level study were forced by unambitious or fearful parents to leave school at fifteen and go into dead-end jobs belong to an earlier generation.

It may be a sad thing that mostly less-academic people choose what the Americans call 'blue-collar' jobs and that so few academically-inclined people do. I think it is sad indeed that a lady who works for the spread of the gospel is disdained because of where she lives. It would never occur to me that something like that would affect capability to preach or fitness to be in Church company. Social housing is needed for many reasons,not always because people are too feckless to find a more expensive home for themselves. In fact the friends of mine who've needed social housing have been far from it : good,hardworking Christian men and women all.

[minidvr]

It's strange that you perceive Readers as belonging to a certain class. I know several who might have been labelled as working class, due to their background and upbringing, but who would not consider themselves in that category. For whatever reason, they've been called to Reader ministry, and have had the ability to undertake the necessary academic, theological study to achieve the role that they feel called to be. Perhaps there is an element of being given the tools needed through divine intervention, more likely they had the talents, which God has seen fit to use.

I come from a working class background in the East End of London. My father was a driver and later builder's labourer. I left school at 15 for economic reasons, I needed to work. My father was injured in an industrial accident and couldn't work for several years. Two years later, I took the Army entrance test and found that due to my lack of academic achievement, I could not join the technical role I wanted, instead I was employed as a Technical Clerk.

The Army, through its internal education system for promotion, qualified me by upgrading my education in three stages to Advanced Level, over a period of years, which equated to A level GCE, but are not recognised by the Civilian System. I had to pay for and take additional modules to achieve Literacy levels which matched the civilian qualifications. Over the years, I attained various qualifications recognised by professional institutions, which has ended with a City and Guilds level 7 qualification in Leadership and Management, but still no degree.

Now the church is looking hard at me to see whether I am suitable for training for Ministry? None of the past achievement counts. I don't sense any prejudice about working class roots or lack of qualification, rather a search for people who are called, who can cope with the academic rigours of degree level training, but who also have the skills and personal qualities to have a successful ministry. It may be that semi-professional people, have more time and resources to undertake Reader Ministry, while Working Class people, while called, are worn down by the daily struggle for employment, bringing up a family and keeping a roof over their head to be able to offer for Reader Ministry, I'm sure that there is not an overt or covert snobbery involved, which discriminates against working class candidates.

[alanbirt]

..... begat two lovely daughters, .....

..... indicated that I should be a Reader. I chose my time at precisely the moment the C of E decided Reader Training Should Be More Academic, so I had eight years of detailed Biblical Foundations (good stuff!), Church History (was that much detail really necessary? Oh well), Christian Present (ie theology as she is spoke), and The Work of a Reader. I was licensed and admitted in 1984.

'Begat' .... what a delightful Biblical word ! I like it and consider it's a pity the word has fallen into disuse.

The current training of Readers compared with some decades ago, whilst then needing some improvement to achieve higher academical standards, seems now to have gone too far the other way. In some regions, potential Readers and potential Ordinands are trained on the same course which is often at degree level. This must put off some potentially good candidates who consider themselves not capable of such high standards of academical study.

When I became a Reader in the 1960s, I offered my Certificate in Religious Teaching (which I had gained as an 'optional extra' when I was training at a C of E college to be a specialist teacher of Science* ) to satisfy the Theology requirement. I then had a viva voce examination on my knowledge of the Prayer Book - there was only the BCP in those days. My understanding of the Creeds, 39 Articles, and being able to find my way around the BCP and its lectionary for the appropriate Scripture Readings, Saints Day and Red-Letter Day Collects, etc, was examined and found to be adequate for the task. Whilst this process was more than just a 'nod and a wink', it was not a very searching examination. In those days the main services were Morning and Evening Prayer with Communion just once a month, quite often celebrated at the North End of the altar. Readers rarely were required to preach: whenever possible I avoided that task anyway !

I carried out the duties of a Reader for some 25 years but when I retired from the Royal Air Force after 30 years service, I retired as a Reader also. The change from being in a strict and rigid institutionalised life to the relaxed, easy-going, casual existence of being a pensioned-off civilian was a new and drastic experience and it took some considerable time to adjust. Overnight I had lost my status, responsibilites (and some privileges), security-clearance, firearms certificate, military driving licence, and many other intangible aspects, too. At the time I considered the change to becoming a civilian Reader was also too much to face, so I didn't.

But to return to my original point: I sympathise with 'Keith' who joined the system just as the new regime was imposed. Whilst he indicates he found some of the tasks to his liking, others must have seemed tedious - and eight years to completion surely is an excessive imposition. The original concept of Readers, as re-introduced into the C of E in the 1860s, now seems to have escalated to the point of being required to have a broader and more academic training that some clergy ! Is this current enhanced system really appropriate for all candidates to a Readership in the C of E ?


* Although I qualified as such, I decided schoolmastering was not for me. I joined the RAF instead and became a Training & Education Officer and had a very happy career for 30 years in this rôle. If I had my time again, I would do it again.

[minidvr]

Alan,

Interesting to hear what you gave up on retirement from the RAF. I retired from the Army after 43 years in 2009. In a similar way I gave up most of the things you mention, but the thing I missed most, was the people. Any service unit is a tight knit community of people who work together and in some cases live alongside each other. In my case, I lived 54 miles from my duty station, but have developed such an love of the area and the people (as has my spouse) our Church is there and the community of people we joined due to circumstance of posting on promotion, but belonged to for the last 7 years of my service in a Reserve unit. We are planning to move when my spouse retires from work in 2 years time.

When I joined the Army I had no formal qualifications, I left with a level 7 qualification in Leadership and Management, this was the formal recognition of years of in-service training and qualification, including gaining membership of three professional institutions, the Church has these taken into consideration while discerning a vocation - but there will be no exemption from the rigours of preparation and training for ministry for me (if I am selected). That has been made clear from the outset. It will be 3 years of a mixed economy course, part-time modules, mixed with Parish placements in a variety of locations, none of which will be my home parish.

Readers train alongside Ordinands on this course, although there are some different elements within it. But I'm told that the mix works very well on the whole and is being widely adopted in diocesan or area Ministry Training Schemes across England. In some ways I can see the benefits, it makes courses viable and cost effective (in the end, finance is always an issue) but also affirms the ministry sharing which is part of the now, mixed economy of the church. Lay leadership is now much more necessary and common than years ago, and empowering this and getting potential Incumbents or Self-Supporting priests used to working and sharing with lay ministry, seems to me to be both appropriate and justified.

As for the Academic content, my understanding is that after 3 years part-time, it is a diploma course, but subsequent Continuing Ministry Education over 4 years provides the basis to qualify for a Degree in Theology, if you wish to pursue it.

I was worried about my lack of academic achievement, however I have been reassured that the selectors won't pass someone who is likely to struggle with the academic side of training. And, I also believe that God wouldn't be calling someone to ministry, unless he was going to equip them for the task. Providence perhaps.

[alanbirt]

..... but the thing I missed most, was the people. Any service unit is a tight knit community of people who work together and in some cases live alongside each other.

Yes, but the point about the people is that they were "like-minded". With them you shared the same philosophies, the same risks, the same concepts, and the same discipline. Any new member of the Armed Forces who could not become "like-minded" in that way did not last very long - they either left of their own accord or were dismissed as 'services no longer required'.

The other aspect I miss is 'Service banter' where one could tease other members, even of a higher rank, in an appropriate way and no offence is taken. This happens rarely in civilian life. One could be quite rude in some ways but within the accepted pattern of 'banter', no offence was interpreted and it was understood that none was intended.

[Joyce]

"one could tease other members, even of a higher rank, in an appropriate way and no offence is taken."

That explains something to me. Some years ago I was at a gathering where there was an ex-RAF man. He told us that he sometimes flew the Prince of Wales. HRH tended to prefer to fly the plane himself and as he got to the plane he always shook hands and said to whoever was waiting for him 'We've met before.'
The RAF bloke told us that the men thought this was getting boring so on one occasion he answered, 'Indeed, Sir. As I recall, four hundred and fifty seven times.'
HRH with a straight face replied,' And I remember them all.'
To which the RAF chap said he responded, 'You lying sod.'

[minidvr]

Ah Alan! Service Banter! Yes, you are quite right. I found it varied across the services, but the one common theme was not to take yourself to seriously. If you did, you just made life difficult for others, and being part of the team became more difficult for you.

Obviously, there could be a fine line between 'banter' and insubordination or even abuse. Some people never learned the difference and needed to be reprimanded and brought into line, but these were far and away the exception, not the rule.

I well remember as a young soldier on a Formal Parade being inspected by the Regimental Sergeant Major, a guy in the file, a couple along from me, being told by the RSM, you haven't shaved this morning. and deciding that as he had shaved, he could answer back. We were treated to a succession of 'have and have nots' until I an another were detailed off with an NCO to march him to the Guardroom. I can remember his name to this day, well over 45 years later. Lucas. He went before the CO and was given 7 days detention for his pains. All he had to do was to acknowledge the criticism and perhaps do some jankers, but chose to make a stand. I admired him for it, but still thought him foolish.

On another occasion, a Corporal on parade and deliberately unshaven challenged by the RSM just said "I've decided not to soldier any more". He proceeded to throw his No 1 Hat to the ground, did the same with his belt and turned and marched himself to the guardroom. There he took off all of his uniform and refused to wear anything military or obey any orders. He was Court Martialed (he wouldn't cooperate with anything) and discharged. To this day, I don't know what sparked it, but I suppose he got his way. He didn't have to soldier any more.

Service discipline is about self-discipline and each individual playing their part in their team. Respect is earned, not deserved and pulling your weight is a necessity, not just a nice thing to do. If you fail in that, team cohesion suffers and lives can be put in danger. I suppose it's about the Iron fist in a velvet glove.

[laurasykes]

'Ramtopsrac', a Licensed Lay Minister who blogs as A Reader in Writing (http://ramtopsrac.wordpress.com/), has written a piece (http://ramtopsrac.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/reflections-after-two-years-of-reader-ministry/#comment-855) on her ministry inspired by this thread. When I say 'inspired', I think she felt we could do with a little help in looking behind the scenes at what LLMs actually do

[Joyce]

That's interesting. It seems pretty much what the Lay preachers,two brothers,were doing in the parish where I lived fifty five years ago. Plus ca change..... There was no vicar for many years and between them they did more or less everything that would have been expected of a vicar. Few in the parish who weren't regular churchgoers seemed aware that the younger one wasn't the vicar anyway. It took some years for it to sink in to my own brain that there was a difference between someone like them and a priest.