Thread: Purgatory: Interviewing applicants for clergy post Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001020

---

Posted by Lumensis (# 10272) on :
 
If you were asked to interview candidates for the post of priest/minster/pastor of your parish/church/fellowship (etc!), what would you want to ask them? What would you want to learn from them?

[Thread title edited for Limbo.]

[ 08. February 2006, 19:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Curious (# 93) on :
 
'What's your nickname on Ship of Fools?'

Curious
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
You'll find, I think, that the questions are standard ones from the Little Book of Middle-Management Interviews, and are distributed to members of the interviewing group at a preliminary meeting. They include the following: Describe a conflict in your work and how you handled it. What do you want to be doing in 5 years' time? How do you handle stress? What would you say your weaknesses (the current phrase is 'areas of growth') are? If offered this post, would you accept it? What makes you angry? How do you plan and organize your work? Do you have any questions?

The acceptable answers to all of these questions are in a section of the book called 'For the Interviewee', and any clued-up candidate will have found the book and swotted up.
 

---

Posted by Tommy Tortoise (# 10720) on :
 
Do you believe in and follow the Lord Jesus Christ?

No? And where would you like to be Bishop of?
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
What would be the first 3 things you'd want to do on arriving at the parish?

It's a chance to see if they're innovative, into service, keen to listen and learn first, or whatever. It should reveal a lot about their priorities in ministry as well as their personality (they may say make a cup of tea if they're truely English!).
 

---

Posted by BanneR LadY (# 10505) on :
 
I have heard it on good authority that getting the nod from any parish or diocese usually hinges around answering all the money questions with the correct mix of caution and optimism.

Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
It is difficult to know which questions to ask without knowing the context of the parish.

I would want to ask questions which would try to reveal whether the interviewee's vision connected with the vision of the parish. There are fewer frustrating things (for all concerned) than to appoint a perfectly good candidate who is going in the completely opposite direction to the parish.

So I would want to ask about the candidate's overall vision. What is important to him or her? What do they really enjoy and give time to in their ministry?

I would be VERY wary of anyone who (at the interview) seemed to already have a definite plan as to what they would do if appointed. Such people are invariably seeking to impose their views and priorities upon the church regardless of whether the church wants them or not. But it is fair to expect that someone being interviewed will have begun to form a general vision of what they would bring to the church. And it is this which needs to be explored.
 

---

Posted by Julian4 (# 9937) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I feel strongly that the laity should have almost no part in interviewing clergy for parochial positions and certainly not the present situation whereby parish representatives can effectively veto a candidate even if the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

For the most part the laity have absolutely no idea what it is to be a priest and no knowledge of the skills and competencies needed.

---

quote:

---

Their questions, as shown by the few replies so far on this thread, are all always about 'what will you do for us if you come here?' and, if the priest shows any ideas of his own, he gets rejected in favour of the 'safe pair of hands'. The 'safe pair of hands' is always a man, married with two children who have left home, had one but preferably two incumbencies before, is aged about 55 and looking for a last job before retirement.

---

quote:

---

Also the laity representatives have a fixed idea of what they want from a priest (which is usually to do what he's told and not Rock The Boat) which, to my episcopalian mind, is merely congregationalism dressed up.

---

quote:

---

If the laity have to be involved, then the only question they should need to ask is this:

'If you were to come to this church, what can we do for you and how can we help you?'

---

quote:

---

If they can't decide whether or not they like a prospective priest on the answer he gives to that question then they have no business asking any questions at all.

Cosmo

---

quote:

---

The idea that the laity are only there to aid the priest is dangerous nonsense IMO.

---

And unscriptural too... didn't Jesus say repeatedly that he had come to serve? Isn't the priest supposed to be representing Jesus to the people?

When my Other Half was involved in creating a 'Parish profile' for the edification of priests interested in applying for the incum(br)ancy of our parish a few years ago, he was inspired to create a folder of embarrassing photos of the congregation (mainly taken at parties and church fetes) entitled 'Not the Parish Profile' which he showed to the new vicar after he'd signed on the dotted line. To his credit, the man did not flee screaming over the horizon... (and it was too late by then anyway )

Of course, you may not have any embarrassing photos of your congregation...

Jane R
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I'd like to agree with Fr Cosmo, but I'd have to consider the possibility that the Bishop might appoint someone who wanted to celebrate the Lord's Supper but once a quarter using a Service Of The Word, burn the vestments, sack the choir, chuck the candles in the bin, make two hour sermons the norm, and turn the worship space into a community centre.

The trouble with not allowing your Bishops any power is that they might forget how to wield it responsibly if you gave any of it back.
 

---

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
I have no direct experience of this particular situation, so I'm going to speculate loudly and at length ...

The situation which I do have experience of, and which I think is somewhat analagous, is selecting teachers for a community school. I can't think of a single teacher who would say ``Oh yes, I'd like this selection process to be in the hands of local parents''. No, that's not true -- lots of teachers would say it, they just wouldn't mean it. At the backs of their minds teachers know that teachers should be chosen by other teachers, and the less input non-teachers have in this process, the better. As a teacher (or, rather an ex-teacher), I would have wanted my appointment to be in the hands of professionals. As a parent of schoolchildren, I want to have a role in selecting teachers for my children. There is no solution to this problem that will satisfy everyone.

I imagine that selecting a minister presents very similar problems.
 

---

Posted by A Lurker (# 3377) on :
 
Cosmo:
The problem is that the CofE is not a monolithic thing. The big problem is not getting a priest who's no good at being a priest (there are remarkably few of them) but one who would be very good if they were in the right parish, which this isn't. Particularly in the big mess of 'MOTR' parishes, which are all actually remarkably different from each other. People in the parish are best placed to know what it's like.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
I would reject a candidate too sanctimonious or obsessed with whatever he believes his mission to be to have a sense of humor. It's a good trait in anyone, but perhaps especially important in clergy.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
I see you have a well-defined ecclesiological view of the priest as servant, Cosmo.

T.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Amos's book reminds me of many questions I've been asked when being interviewed for teaching posts. I'd better ask for a copy in my Christmas stocking.


The OP is a very pertinent question for us at the moment, seeing as how we're starting an interregnum as soon as the needles start to droop on the Christmas tree (and before they actually fall off).

For our parish, I think I'd want to ask questions about how good a team player he or she is. This is because there is a long tradition of the laity taking a lot of responsibility for their own faith as well as doing things in the church and parish. It would not go down well to have somebody dictating to them. There is also a long tradition of the importance music plays in worship and also in the wider community through many concerts - so some indication of his musical interests and abilities would be important. As would the ability to work with leaders of groups from all sections of the community, as it is a civic parish. There is also a tradition of good, well-educated sermons, plus training of the next generation of curates: some sign of a deep, theological understanding and experience of the complexity of life, rather than a simplistic black and white faith, would be necessary.

Oh, and the ability to leap tall buildings with a single bound, and to walk on water without waterwings would come in handy, too!
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Their questions, as shown by the few replies so far on this thread, are all always about 'what will you do for us if you come here?' and, if the priest shows any ideas of his own, he gets rejected in favour of the 'safe pair of hands'. The 'safe pair of hands' is always a man, married with two children who have left home, had one but preferably two incumbencies before, is aged about 55 and looking for a last job before retirement.

---

I don't actually think that is true, otherwise nobody outside of the parameters you've set would ever get into a position.
C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'd like to agree with Fr Cosmo, but I'd have to consider the possibility that the Bishop might appoint someone who wanted to celebrate the Lord's Supper but once a quarter using a Service Of The Word, burn the vestments, sack the choir, chuck the candles in the bin, make two hour sermons the norm, and turn the worship space into a community centre.

---

quote:

---

The trouble with not allowing your Bishops any power is that they might forget how to wield it responsibly if you gave any of it back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
But, um, on Cosmo's view, it seems even more so that we the laity ought to be trusting and following what the Bishop proposes. (Or have I misunderstood?)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The trouble with not allowing your Bishops any power is that they might forget how to wield it responsibly if you gave any of it back.

---

Can you add an extra thumbnail elucidating which way the situation is in England on this? (I just don't know enough about the CofE situation to place the context for this remark.)

---

I think this emoticon should clarify things:



In practical terms I'm fairly sure the parish can veto a priest for bad taste in choice of stole embroidery, which does seem excessively congregational. But I'm no expert and probably wrong.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
<snip> the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
In practical terms I'm fairly sure the parish can veto a priest for bad taste in choice of stole embroidery, which does seem excessively congregational. But I'm no expert and probably wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
<snip> the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

---

Hold the phone. As usual, I love it when Fr Cosmo speaks to us from his 1850 time warp, but who is this "Patron of the Living"? Are the Church of England's priests still paid by the local Lord of the Manor?

---

The Patron doesn't (sadly) pay the bills, but yes, the Lord of the Manor might well be one of the people entitled to present a priest to the living. This is another good reason for having lay representatives of the parishioners with a decent level of input, IMHO.

T.
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Assuming that you've lied through your teeth in your parish profile - and don't say you haven't - I'd see whether the candidate shows any ability to dig between the lines and find out what's really going on. When the real challenges begin to emerge I'd want to know if he suffers from the delusion that he's just the type of person to solve these. If so, then temper any false sense of relief you might have with the thought of this person sitting on the edge of his bed three years hence wondering what he's gotten himself in for and noticing how lonely he feels. The more the candidate asks how you together with your new rector are going to face these challenges the more likely you're looking at the right person.

RR

p.s. be especially careful to mention the black watch beetles in the church roof.

[ 14. December 2005, 16:02: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
 

---

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :
 
Been there, done that, just came off of a Candidate Review Committee.

We did a survey of all the members of the parish. The survey had 48 questions. We took the top eight themes that grew out of that survey and wrote three essay and nine interview questions. One of the essay and two of the interview questions were hypothetical situations. Others were about how they personally did thigns like, prepare for worship, approach growing programs, et cetera.

However, before each formal interview, we had a mini coffee hour, and at each one I was very certain to ask the candidate what kind of movies they enjoy. Science Fiction lovers only, please!
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
if the priest shows any ideas of his own, he gets rejected in favour of the 'safe pair of hands'. The 'safe pair of hands' is always a man, married with two children who have left home, had one but preferably two incumbencies before, is aged about 55 and looking for a last job before retirement.

Also the laity representatives have a fixed idea of what they want from a priest

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
<snip> the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

---

Hold the phone. As usual, I love it when Fr Cosmo speaks to us from his 1850 time warp, but who is this "Patron of the Living"? Are the Church of England's priests still paid by the local Lord of the Manor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"

---

That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:
That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"

---

The point of that question is not to get replies from the candidate. It is to tell the candidate exactly what kind of parish it is they are in, if they have somehow foolishly managed to miss it. Slighly different forms of words signify different micro-churchmanships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
which, to my episcopalian mind, is merely congregationalism dressed up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I feel strongly that the laity should have almost no part in interviewing clergy for parochial positions and certainly not the present situation whereby parish representatives can effectively veto a candidate even if the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

---

Well this is the Church of England way maybe you are in the wrong church?
 

---

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
As with Spiffy, I served relatively recently on the Pastor Nominating Committee of my Presbyterian (PCUSA) church. The process was similar to that outlined by Jeremiah Gutzywuk, but I'll fill in some more details.

The process began with a separate committee which prepared a Mission Study of our church. In that process every member of the church was interviewed in informal groups of 5 or 6 people usually by one of the members of the Mission Study committee inviting them over to nosh. The report has several sections mandated by the PCUSA including a full financial disclosure covering several years. The thoughts and desires of the congregation were distilled into a concise mission statement.

The first task of the PNC was to select a chair, and establish the meeting structures like frequency and schedules for the subsequent meetings. We selected two co-chairs. One was the best moderator I have ever known in any committee I've ever been on. He could march us all efficiently through an agenda. The other was a lab tech at the local university who used her skills to manage the correspondence and track the candidates. The skill sets of both co-chairs were highly valuable. Of course, it didn't hurt that our secretary was the former City Clerk of San Francisco who was way over-qualified in his knowledge of committee procedures.

The single best decision we made at the outset was to bring food and drink to the meetings. I strongly recommend any search committee avail themselves of a selection of good wines particularly when you have to get through three sermon tapes in an evening's meeting. Believe me, it made the process far more bearable and even convivial.

The first task of the committee was to use the mission study to prepare a form called the Church Information Form (CIF) which is then submitted to the national PCUSA search service. Pastors looking for positions also produce Pastor Information Forms (PIFs), and both are uploaded to the web at PCUSA.org. The national church also provides a matching service based on the two sets of forms a generates lists of candidates that the feel are good fits based on the responses to various numerically coded questions on the forms. In general, however, we found our strong candidates found us based on our posted CIF.

The Mission Study and the CIF helped guide our preparation of interview questions. After weeding through PIFs we selected some names to send us sermon tapes, after reviewing the sermon tapes we selected some candidates to conduct a phone interview, and, ultimately, four candidates we brought to town for a face to face interview usually following hearing them preach at a local church.

I am an advocate of behavior-based interview techniques. That is, instead of focusing on hypotheticals (what would you do if you were our pastor), you focus your questions on what the candidate has done. Behavior-based questions generally begin, "Can you gave us an example of a time when you..." For example, "Can you give us an example of when you visited someone in a hospital and led them in prayer." Behavior-based interviewing then seeks to probe different skills by following up with questions that get to the specifics of what the candidate has done. The follow-up questions also provided ample opportunity to probe issues of theology.

We prepared our initial questions ahead of each phone interview and tailored the question to each candidate. For instance, the guy we ended up nominating and hiring is a surfer, and so I asked him, "What has the ocean taught you." He response really got to the depth of his feelings about the presence of God in creation.

Thus, I would affirm that the interview questions should arise from a process that addresses the concerns of the entire congregation. They should elicit the skills and the theology that the candidate has actually lived. They should be specific and tailored to the congregation and the candidate.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Having a light-hearted conversation the other day with a few churchgoers, we got on to the subject of my doing something, in church life, that they mightn't agree with. The accusation was that it would be my fault if it all went wrong. And then I reminded them that through the selection process, complete with churchwardens, parish and deanery reps and PCC questionnaires, they could hardly blame me, as their choice, when things go pear-shaped! That the responsibility for me being there as vicar was as much theirs as mine!

Now if I had been a choice of the higher-uppers only, imposed from on high, we could have both moaned together about the Bishop's choice of the new vicar and the parish to which she was sent! An interesting point of unity!

On a slightly more serious note; I have known some vicars who were not given much of a chance in their new posts because the parish reps elected by the PCC or Team Council, to be part of the selection process were disliked or distrusted by so many others, who were not part of the process. 'Fred and Agnes chose him. Hardly any wonder he's hopeless!'

Similarly, when the situation involves group or team ministry - lots of parishes working together - the lay roles get so thinned out across so many churches that the parish who ends up with the successful candidate can sometimes feel as if they've hardly been part of the process anyway; that nearly every other church in the area has had more to do with selecting their priest than they have.

Not a criticism of the process, though. Just an observation. I doubt if there's a better way of doing it, if we wish to help congregations 'own' the process of selecting clergy. But there does sometimes seem to be some danger of those same congregations being unable to own the consequences of their part in the selection if it doesn't entirely suit their expectations.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I was on a call committee once. After which I dropped out of the Church; perhaps a contributing factor.

These aren't questions per se, but here are some of the things I would look for:

Does the candidate talk easily and sincerely about his or her faith walk? If I perceived that the candidate was just phoning it in, or reciting what s/he thought we wanted to hear, or had gone to seminary to work out his or her own theological issues, somehow slipped through the discernment process and the candidacy committee and was basically using the pastorate as therapy -- next...

Is the candidate committed to the theology and praxis of our faith tradition? What is his/her understanding of preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments in the context of this parish? Any crypto-Other-Agendas... next... (I've seen one church really almost self-destruct because the pastor was frankly not with the Lutheran program. Which begs the question: If you don't like fill-in-the-blank's theology/praxis, why do you want to be a clergyperson in that tradition? D'oh!)

Does the candidate have a strong sense of vision for this particular congregation? If you ask, "Where do you see this congregation, under your leadership, in the next five years? Next ten?"...do you get the impression that the candidate has done his or her homework about this congregation, has some ideas for ministry beyond caretaking, and seems genuinely excited by the prospect of serving these people? If not... next...

Does the candidate demonstrate an interest/competency in working with all the different demographic and other subsets within the congregation? Even if s/he especially enjoys a certain kind of targeted ministry, can s/he work easily and effectively with others?

Does the candidate's idea of pastoral care extend beyond the active membership into the inactive membership, the neighborhood and the community? This is really important. This is what changed my own congregation from one on the brink of dissolving to a strong and growing one. Caretaker clergy need not apply.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Why does reading this thread make me feel ill? I think because it raises all the impossible and disagreeable expectations around ministry. These are not just factors complicating work and relationships, they are tangled with our view of who we are and what we're about - both minister and church folk. They tap into our anxieties about us and God as well. There's something about the Church that fosters a profound immaturity in people. We're all screaming 'love me, love me!' inside, and it stops us hearing each other well enough to muddle through.
 

---

Posted by Lumensis (# 10272) on :
 
Well boys and girls, as they say at the Church of the Golden Arches, "I'm lovin' it"...the breadth of your replies that is.
Like others, I'm a fan of the behaviour based question approach when it comes to that point in the process.
Would you, though, want to grill the spouse/civil partner? Would you want to put them through the ordeal by "mingling over lunch"? Do you enjoy the competitive interview?
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Well, at least in my congregation, while we'd have high expectations of the pastor, we also have high expectations of ourselves as a largely lay-led enterprise...we're all working together as a team. The pastor's job is to provide vision and guidance, and our job is to support him or her, including in helping out with what have sometimes been traditional "pastoral" activities like outreach, visiting the sick and imprisoned, planning/leading worship, etc.

And frankly some clergypeople aren't comfortable with that dynamic. And they wouldn't do well in our particular congregation.
 

---

Posted by ferijen (# 4719) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lumensis:
Would you, though, want to grill the spouse/civil partner? Would you want to put them through the ordeal by "mingling over lunch"? Do you enjoy the competitive interview?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I feel strongly that the laity should have almost no part in interviewing clergy for parochial positions and certainly not the present situation whereby parish representatives can effectively veto a candidate even if the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

---

Well this is the Church of England way maybe you are in the wrong church?

---

Ah, the usual shrill cry of despair when confronted with any opinion that doesn't fit the Archbishop's Council line; LEAVE.

Of course, this 'Church of England way' has only been in existence for about 30 years. Before then the laity had absolutely no choice over their incumbent. He was chosen solely by Bishop and Patron. There might be a bit of informal consultation but nothing as formal as Parish Profiles, veto powers of Parish Representatives, formal interviews. That was, we were told then, the 'Church of England way'.

Now it's changed so that the choice of a new Incumbent is very little removed from the Call of a Congregationalist Minister.

The laity are often hopelessly unqualified for such a task. Parish Profiles are often a joke and simply a manifesto by a few self-appointed busybodies who want to see the parish run their way in the future. The laity are given virtually no instruction or teaching on the role and nature of priesthood, merely parochial legalities.

I stand by my first post and I think have seen it confirmed by subsequent ones. Most questions asked by laity at these interviews are not questions at all; rather they are demands for reassurance that they (the laity) will not be challenged. These questions (as we have seen from the examples given on this thread) are always about what the potential priest will do or react or think; never about what the congregation might do or be open to. So I still stand by my comment that a really good question to ask is 'How can we help you?' becuase such a question is truly a question that will reveal what both sides in an interview want, expect and can hope for. It's not a pathetic rolling over by the laity; nor is it an excuse for the potential priest to think he can do what he likes. But it shows that a congregation see things as not being simply about what Fr X will do for them and God help him if he doesn't. If you can't see that then you simply show how unfit for choosing clergy you are.

But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.

You wil read in a parish profile the desire for a 'leader' and a 'guide' for the congregation. Then in the same profile you will hear the need for the priest to be a 'servant' (as we have heard on this thread already). Congregational representatives (as demonstrated by Anselmina) are very ready to cast all blame at the feet of the Vicar but take no responsibility for their actions in choosing that person.

Ultimately, some congregational participation in the selection of a new parish priest is desirable. But, in the Church of England at least, it should not continue to go down the path of making the parish priest into a congregation's Chaplain. There are times when a priest needs to lead and do things that might be unpopular with some. Unsderstandably , congregations don't like it. But it doesn't mean they should be able to veto that candidate, even if he by far and away the best for the job and go for the Safe Pair of Hands. At the moment they invariably do.

Cosmo
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
ferijen:

Lumensis: you're allowed to invite the clergy spouse, but he or she may not be able to attend, especially if there are small children or if it means taking a day off work. You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School. or has some other useful skill, like music or plumbing. You also invite the clergy spouse so that the candidate may demonstrate his or her heterosexuality.

The luncheon, or, indeed, the day-long tour of the parish is a very important part of the appointment process. Strictly speaking, only the formal interview is supposed to 'count'. But the candidates will know that everyone is watching to see what their table-manners are like, and how they cope with Mrs. Smith's wall-eye. You can see which one stays relaxed, charming and pleasant. It's always good to serve a local speciality at these lunches. Faggots and pease if you're in the West Midlands. Jellied Eels in London, Tripe up north. See who cleans the plate.

[ 14. December 2005, 21:24: Message edited by: Amos ]
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"

---

That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
You also invite the clergy spouse so that the candidate may demonstrate his or her heterosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Is it fair for the "brightest and best" parishes to get, effectively, first pick of clergy? Ofcourse, the best way to ensure that the continuous, shifting, dynamic, mathcing occurs in an at least not terrible way is to consult with the moving clergy and be-interregnum-ed parishes but letting either of those groups decide on their own seems potentially disastrous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I was on a call committee once. After which I dropped out of the Church; perhaps a contributing factor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I feel strongly that the laity should have almost no part in interviewing clergy for parochial positions and certainly not the present situation whereby parish representatives can effectively veto a candidate even if the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

---

Well this is the Church of England way maybe you are in the wrong church?

---

Ah, the usual shrill cry of despair when confronted with any opinion that doesn't fit the Archbishop's Council line; LEAVE.

---

quote:

---

But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.

---

quote:

---

You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School. or has some other useful skill, like music or plumbing. You also invite the clergy spouse so that the candidate may demonstrate his or her heterosexuality.

[/QB]

---

Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days - please tell me clergy spouses are not part of the interview process! .....I'm usually considered presentable and sane, but the clergy spouse is definitely not there to plug the gaps. Usually he/she has a job or occupation of their own.

Having a spouse and children isn't a reliable indicator of heterosexuality, either.
 

---

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :
 
Drat - bad code - apologies.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.

---

In what precise way is this different from saying:

``I know best; you are wrong'' ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
In my diocese, about twenty years ago, the lay reps of a certain church vetoed the possibility of teaming up with an adjacent one solely because the vicar of the latter was a black man. How are you with that, Nightlamp? Is there any case you can think of where the veto of the lay reps of a parish should be overruled? At all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.

---

In what precise way is this different from saying:

``I know best; you are wrong'' ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.

---

In what precise way is this different from saying:

``I know best; you are wrong'' ?

Is `confused', in the sense it used here,not the same as `having the audacity to hold opinions that I, and my right-thinking colleagues, ascribe no value to'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Of course, this 'Church of England way' has only been in existence for about 30 years. Before then the laity had absolutely no choice over their incumbent. He was chosen solely by Bishop and Patron.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Of course, this 'Church of England way' has only been in existence for about 30 years. Before then the laity had absolutely no choice over their incumbent. He was chosen solely by Bishop and Patron.

---

And, with the exception of a few livings in the gift of the Bishop or another local clergyman, the Patrons were until the mid-19th century overwhelmingly lay people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:Three of the churches were, until recently, strongly catholic in ethos. But the Profile describes these churches as MOTR and a new Incumbent would be expected to work in that tradition. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I feel strongly that the laity should have almost no part in interviewing clergy for parochial positions and certainly not the present situation whereby parish representatives can effectively veto a candidate even if the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).

For the most part the laity have absolutely no idea what it is to be a priest and no knowledge of the skills and competencies needed. Their questions, as shown by the few replies so far on this thread, are all always about 'what will you do for us if you come here?' and, if the priest shows any ideas of his own, he gets rejected in favour of the 'safe pair of hands'. The 'safe pair of hands' is always a man, married with two children who have left home, had one but preferably two incumbencies before, is aged about 55 and looking for a last job before retirement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boopy:

quote:

---

You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School. or has some other useful skill, like music or plumbing. You also invite the clergy spouse so that the candidate may demonstrate his or her heterosexuality.

---

Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days - please tell me clergy spouses are not part of the interview process! .....I'm usually considered presentable and sane, but the clergy spouse is definitely not there to plug the gaps. Usually he/she has a job or occupation of their own.

Having a spouse and children isn't a reliable indicator of heterosexuality, either. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Not to mention the fact that most people are happiest with the status quo and therefore don't like to be challenged spiritually

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"

---

That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

2) A country benefice of five churches also recently advertised for an Incumbent. Three of the churches were, until recently, strongly catholic in ethos. But the Profile describes these churches as MOTR and a new Incumbent would be expected to work in that tradition. The reason: a small group of retired people moved into the area ten years ago and took over the running of the Benefice. They don't like Anglo-Catholicism and have driven the Benefice down the candle over the last few years. When it came to writing a new Parish Profile they, as those who run the benefice, wrote it themselves for what they want. A new Bishop and Archdeacon know no better and so the Parish Profile stands despite the fact that many of the rest of the congregation are sad that the catholic tradition has gone but have been browbeaten by a determined group of intelligent ex-professional people who know how to talk to bishops properly. Thus any applicant who looks as though he might be a bit too catholic will be rejected in favour of the grey-shirted man who wants MOTR family services because 'children are the future'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:
is it up to the "selection comittee" to discern God's will in the situation, rather than to their potential spiritual leader?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ferijen:
how would not having lay participation stopped a MOTR guy taking over what used to be an AC place if the Bishop and Archdeacon are too new to know what is different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Julian4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"

---

That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"

---

Forgive me quoting myself, but I couldn't pick on just one of the others that quoted/replied to me. So, do I understand from the various responses that we don't think the issue of an applicant actually being called to the job is important? Do we expect to get a number of applicants who just think it would be a good career move, and then select the one we best like the style of? Or, to put a more positive spin on it, is it up to the "selection comittee" to discern God's will in the situation, rather than to their potential spiritual leader?

---

It often happens that the language of faith and vocation itself becomes careerist. When this happens, as many have pointed out, from Langland to Bonhoeffer, it's especially noxious:
'I heard God call me to come be your servant-leader at St Uncumber's. And I said, "No, Lord! No! I am not ready, I am not worthy, I am a man of unclean lips!" And the Lord said to me, "You are called, and I have called you. I shall cause you to increase the electoral roll and the annual giving. I shall give you power to get rid of pews, and the Diocesan Architectural Committee shall be as chaff before the breath of your mouth. And you shall visit the old ladies every day, yea, and the little children of the nearby estate also." And I said, "O Lord, be with me then before the Interviewing Panel." And you see, He was, and I am here.'

 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Amos is right. It's another case for the Christian-to-English dictionary -

"I feel God is calling me to be here." Translation: "This place is in the catchment area for the school I'd like my kids to go to."
 

---

Posted by mgeorge (# 10487) on :
 
As a lay person, I found being part of a search committee a formative and educational process. For one thing, it did much to educate me about the nature of the priesthood. This in turn helped me to later teach other lay people about the real nature of the priesthood, that it wasn't a job where you just worked on Sundays, etc.
 

---

Posted by MadKaren (# 1033) on :
 
I was part of the interview panel for the appointment of a new Uni chaplain last year. Like mgeorge says, it is educational for a lay person.

Our panel was a mixture of clergy and laity, representing various Christian groups on the campus who the Chaplain would have course to work with. The bishop chaired the panel, but we all contributed and asked questions.

The current incumbent wasn't my personal first choice, but they have been great for the job, and I'm glad that this person is there.

Unfortunately, I have forgotten what we asked the applicants, sorry.

MadKaren
 

---

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
Trying to think offline around this one for a couple of days and looking for a point of agreement with Cosmo; I think I can agree with:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
If the laity have to be involved, then the only question they should need to ask is this:

'If you were to come to this church, what can we do for you and how can we help you?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
For the most part the laity have absolutely no idea what it is to be a priest and no knowledge of the skills and competencies needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I see you have a well-defined ecclesiological view of the priest as servant, Cosmo.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angloid:
................
Cosmo's comment that few laypeople understand what priesthood involves, while it invites the response 'that's the fault of priests for not teaching them', nevertheless rings true. Inevitably the inner circle of worshippers relate to the priest as a leader of worship, preacher and sacramental minister, and possibly see s/he has some pastoral role towards the sick and infirm members of the congregation. But few laypeople really understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and real priesthood involves relating to the wider community, to those inconvenient callers at the vicarage door, to staff, children and parents of the local school...etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merchant Trader:

quote:

---

quoting angloid: Inevitably the inner circle of worshippers relate to the priest as a leader of worship, preacher and sacramental minister, and possibly see s/he has some pastoral role towards the sick and infirm members of the congregation. But few laypeople really understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and real priesthood involves relating to the wider community, to those inconvenient callers at the vicarage door, to staff, children and parents of the local school...etc...

---

I agree that this is the tip of the iceberg – the priest, through the church, needs to care for the needs of the whole community. I found having 400 people in my last (secular) job exhausting as one dealt with people who had experience death, estrangement, suicide of family member, daughters pregnancy, abortion, issues over coming out, rejection by church, redundancy, debts, weight problems, stress, drink and drugs problems. I found it hard to care for 400 individuals as a manager. If a priest tries to get alongside 7,000 parishioners to meet their need ? So back to my thesis, the priest needs to be the chaplain to the congregation equipping them to get alongside their neighbours. It is not just the sacrament that should equip the faithful to witness to Christ (and I don’t just mean mission or pew filling) during the week; the priest needs to equip the saints to carry out a wide task way beyond one individual.

So I am interested in the priest who can help prepare the laity to be Christ in their community as well as exercising the reserved priestly functions. My starting point may well be Cosmo’ question. But I do feel that some members of the laity may have as much the gift of discernment as do many clergy and that this wider ministry put forward by Angloid can and is (often unseen by the clergy) also exercised by the laity in the community.

Maybe there should be a separate thread on the role of a priest and probably many will have a different view but why should the practitioners view be the only valid one ? and why should not other members of the people of God play a part in discerning the right person for the post ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angloid:
But in the absence of competitive interviews, what a parish is faced with when looking for a new priest, is the number one choice of the bishop (or patron), with no-one to compare him or her with. So if the lay reps turn candidate no.1 down, there is the fear that no.2 will be even less good and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lumensis:
And one might ask about the C of E application form which, as clergy are office holders not employees, goes against all the anti-discrmination (age, marital status etc) legislation that applies to the vast majority of job-seekers......

Should a (now gay, civilly partnered, divorced, black, old,)lay representative be privy to personal information that is irrelevant to the applicant's fitness to do the job?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
But Adeodatus, is a position in a parish the same as a job in the NHS?

Surely a difference in theology and practice can become very important when you are meant to be leading a church, but is of minimal importance when you're an NHS employee.

Of course that does not excuse racism or homophobia.

I'm not sure how/where you draw the line.

A church is inevitably going to be asking personal questions that would not be acceptible elsewhere. I dunno. I guess I'm struggling to see how Clergy are really the same as any other employee in that they are supposed to be an example for the rest of the community, however unrealistic that is.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boopy:

quote:

---

You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School.

---

Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days

---

Seriously, Boopy, at least in the CofE the notion of 'spouse as unpaid curate' is not going gentle into that good night. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
pete173 -

I've been involved for the last 18 months with the NHS "agenda for change" in which we look very carefully at job descriptions, person specifications, appraisal procedures, recruitment and retention, etc.... And I can certainly tell you that - as I've seen it, experienced it, and had it described to me - the CofE's appointments procedure is still decades out of date.

The prejudices I described are real - I've experienced them. And if they were displayed in an NHS interview then the interviewers would be subject to disciplinary action probably leading to dismissal. Would that happen in the CofE? No, I didn't think so.

And Cosmo is right - the person specifications for parish posts (where such things exist) are not based on skills and competencies. I've never seen a parish profile based on evidence and measurable outcomes.

And who actually suffers in this process? The clergy, of course - who are mis-sold parishes by bishops and parish profiles alike, who are subjected to unfair interviewing techniques, and who if they do get the post are left on their own to pick up the pieces of all this afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest in Boots:
What pete173 omits to mention is that clergy applicants are required to supply information about age and marital status.What is the relevance of these if transferable skills and suitability for the post are what is sought? The fact that the CofE complies with the legislation concerning ethnicity doesn't excuse the inappropriateness of other questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angloid:
as long as most (or at least many) clergy posts in the C of E are filled by the nod, wink and bishop or patron's say-so

---

quote:

---

Lay reps might have a veto, but if they are put in the invidious position of turning down the only candidate they are not likely to make a considered decision.

---

quote:

---

guess my impression of clergy (perhaps this is a loony evangelical thing) was that having felt a strong call by God to his service, they would want something interesting and challenging to do. Hence, in my (obviously incorrect) picture successful parishes looking for a caretaker would be less popular than those that needed change and renewal, or had specific probelms to solve. Obviously, not every Priest wants to try and build up a congregation from a starting point of 3 old ladies in a dangerous inner-city area, but I would have thought that someone would feel called to this kind of thing. Or is God not very efficient at calling people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Well, with regard to marital status, we have to house the priest in question. So although it shouldn't figure in the interviews and the appointment, we need to know about spouse and number of children (and schooling requirements) for the purposes of pastoral care for the appointee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Actually, this is what our pastor loves to do. He came to our moribund little congregation and turned it around 180 degrees -- we're now building an addition, for the first time in our church's 90+ year history. And we almost lost him a few years back to a call -- and I'm not making this up -- on an island off Alaska, ministering mostly to the First Peoples population living there. We are extremely fortunate to have him, and also that when he had the chance to go elsewhere he chose to keep hanging out with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Actually, this is what our pastor loves to do. He came to our moribund little congregation and turned it around 180 degrees -- we're now building an addition, for the first time in our church's 90+ year history. And we almost lost him a few years back to a call -- and I'm not making this up -- on an island off Alaska, ministering mostly to the First Peoples population living there. We are extremely fortunate to have him, and also that when he had the chance to go elsewhere he chose to keep hanging out with us.

---

Great! I'm glad that there are people out there who feel that kind of call. This thread was giving me the impression that all Anglican clergy either wanted to be in evangelical mega-churches or huge tat-palaces and that noone was left for the small failing churches in difficult areas.

All the best,

Rachel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
There's obviously a lot of concern on this thread that requiring this information on the form is unnecessarily intrusive. Though I don't think my answers have been interpreted quite fairly. I'm not arguing for the status quo. It isn't necessary for the interviewing panel to know these things, which was why I was talking about detaching this information from the application form.

But it is necessary for the appointing bishop to know about the family situation, precisely because we are responsible for more than just employment. If you're appointed and have five teenage kids, you're going to need a bigger house. If I'm about to offer you a job and those kids need a letter to get them into the CofE school, I need to write the letter. If you're getting divorced, I have to know. So whether you're putting it on the form, or on a separate piece of paper for the bishop, you're going to have to supply those details.

I'm not suggesting that any of these factors should influence the panel. The form must, I would suggest, be redesigned to cope with the new situation arising from the Clergy Conditions of Service anyway. It's going to have to relate much more to criteria against which the successful applicant can be held to account in the appraisal framework of the future. It's going to have to ask for a much fuller account of all previous posts, pre-ordination and post-ordination. It's also going to have to relate to the requirements of the Clergy Code of Conduct. So, more professionalism on the part of those interviewing and on the part of those applying.

But we're still not appointing people to just another job. We're looking for the right priest to serve in the right parish. And that's about something more than tickbox criteria, which is unfortunately what EO-type interviewing can sometimes come down to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I'm curious, pete, perhaps you can help me with your real life experience. If someone applies for a post (and let us assume that their vocation has been weighed and they have met the minimum academic qualifications, training, etc for the sake of argument), what do you do with the information if you find out they have a live-in girlfriend?

Or suppose they are in a civil partnership relationship?

Surely there are two conflicting pressures in that a) people want to be considered on their merits rather than judgements on their lifestyle and yet b) you're saying that you need to know for pastoral reasons.

Given that in the above examples there could clearly be some conflict with the theology of those in the parish, couldn't you put the argument that it is none of your business (and also by extension none of the laity's either) or on the other hand put the argument that everyone has the right to know about something like that?

Moreover is the kind of pastoral knowledge you are advocating something that would happen outside of the church? Is it not in fact another reason that you (as a bishop and a representative of the church) are using to exclude certain people from certain roles? I put it to you that many people on this thread suggest that this is exactly what is happening.

From my POV, I still don't see that a Christian vocation is like any other position that you apply for and therefore I don't see how you can make the same kind of application systems as for any comparable non-church job. It strikes me that the church is stuck in a is-it-isn't-it system which is dressed up as one thing whilst largely being something else.

Also strikes me that this is a horrendous can-of-worms.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
If they have a live-in girlfriend, their manner of life would not be compatible with the teaching of scripture and the church, and they could not be appointed. It's unlikely anyway that such a person would get a positive reference from their previous bishop (it is the practice of the CofE to do a bishop-to-bishop reference before an appointment anyway).

If they are in a civil partnership, and they could not satisfy the criteria set out in the House of Bishops' Guidance, they would not, again, be capable of being appointed.

So, yes, of course interviews in the Church cannot be the be-all-and-end-all of the criteria for appointing a priest. As I indicated earlier, the provisions of the Canons will always override Equal Opps criteria. I don't make these things up; the Church of England requires them. A priest is a public figure, not just a person in an occupation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Please be assured that I am not accusing you of making it up. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of how it works in practice.

I think you have shown that the church does not conform to the expectations people might for job applications in secular employment quite well, thank you. I'm sure you appreciate that the answers you have given would lead to legitimate claims of discrimination in any other profession.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But being a priest isn't just any other profession, is it? There are criteria laid down in scripture and in the teaching of the Church about what we require of our presbyters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
There's obviously a lot of concern on this thread that requiring this information on the form is unnecessarily intrusive. Though I don't think my answers have been interpreted quite fairly. I'm not arguing for the status quo. It isn't necessary for the interviewing panel to know these things, which was why I was talking about detaching this information from the application form.

But it is necessary for the appointing bishop to know about the family situation, precisely because we are responsible for more than just employment. If you're appointed and have five teenage kids, you're going to need a bigger house. If I'm about to offer you a job and those kids need a letter to get them into the CofE school, I need to write the letter. If you're getting divorced, I have to know. So whether you're putting it on the form, or on a separate piece of paper for the bishop, you're going to have to supply those details.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
That's true, pete173. I think bishops have a hard time of it, being sort of 'line managers' of clergy as well as their pastors. It makes life difficult for all concerned. And I think it's an intractable problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
*snip*
There's a good argument, I guess, for not circulating that information to the parish reps *snip*

---

This time, I've counted to 10,000 before replying.
Who's going to pay this person? The local congregation.
Who are the saints to be built up for the work of ministry? The local congregation.
Who's going to clean the toilets so that the minister can visit them before the service? The local congregation.
Who's going to invite their friends along to a special service, their children and grandchildren to be baptised, or married, or waved off to Glory? The local congregation.
Who's going to have the PA ready, the music performed, the flowers arranged, the brasses shining, the correct seasonal colours on the lectern and communion table? The local congregation.
To save bandwidth and to avoid repetitive strain injury, let's cut to ask who are the sine qua non for a minister, but not he/she for them? Very good, you're showing comprehension, The local congregation.
And these people or their elected representatives are not to be entrusted with knowledge concerning a candidate minister?

Aaagh, FD staggers around banging his head against every available vertical surface
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
But we are an Episcopal Church not a congregational one.

I am not bothering to argue with the nonsense in the actual post most of which is just plain untrue.

P
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
*snip*
There's a good argument, I guess, for not circulating that information to the parish reps *snip*

---

And these people or their elected representatives are not to be entrusted with knowledge concerning a candidate minister?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
But we are an Episcopal Church not a congregational one.

I am not bothering to argue with the nonsense in the actual post most of which is just plain untrue.

P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
*snip*
If the Bishops in London have too much patronage in parochial appointments they can always give some of it away ! *snip*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
This thread was giving me the impression that all Anglican clergy either wanted to be in evangelical mega-churches or huge tat-palaces and that noone was left for the small failing churches in difficult areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Amos, I thought this phrase suggested there was room for improvement in his part of the CofE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.

---

---

Nightlamp, I read the passage you quote as pete173's suggestion that, as the new clergy terms of service come in, the process of appointing clergy to a parish will come, ever more, to resemble that used in the NHS, the Civil Service, and industry. What I miss, and still miss, is a sense of the immanence and desirability of God's kingdom, the necessity that we seek its values in all our works and ways, and, even more, a sense of the Church hierarchy as justus sed peccator.
It seems to me that the categories of bishop as senior manager and bishop as pastor and father in God have been, and are being, confused to the detriment of both, and, especially to the detriment of the relationship between priests and bishops. This, in my opinion, is a greater problem for the appointments process than the presence of laity on clergy interview panels, or even the dubiously valuable weight of their veto.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Or even the imminence of God's kingdom. Take your pick.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
If the Bishop of 173 and Nightlamp think that the relationship between a pastor and his or her flock is analogous to that between a filing clerk and the Gas Board

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
But being a priest isn't just any other profession, is it? There are criteria laid down in scripture and in the teaching of the Church about what we require of our presbyters. The text of the ordinal
says what is expected of our clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp: To be honest I think that the lay people should be given more authority particularly in the appointments of Priests-in-charge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I also struggle to see any good reason why a Bishop should need to know the intimate details of a vicar?s life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
If the Bishop of 173 and Nightlamp think that the relationship between a pastor and his or her flock is analogous to that between a filing clerk and the Gas Board, then I begin to see the difficulty of this thread.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

So, even the CofE will have to move with the times?
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Question: if civil partnership disqualify a priest from applying for a new post (assuming I am reading pete's comments correctly), how come it is acceptable for priests to be getting civil partnership-ised?

I don't understand how it is unacceptable if you are applying for a job, but acceptable if you are already in one.

C
 

---

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
Being in a civil partnership does not disqualify you from being a priest, but you have to promise that it is not and will not be a sexually active one. One of the differences between civil partnerships and marriages in law is that they are not voidable if not consumated (and, indeed, there is no definition of consumation that would apply to them).

Spong
 

---

Posted by DavidG (# 121) on :
 
Contrary to some of the seemingly anti-laity posts on this thread, I think that lay people should have an increasing role in the church. As many denominations struggle to find ordained people to fill posts, congregations will have to work without clergy and use the gifts they have that often lie dormant. So, with the laity fully involved, I look forward to the day when the questions asked are similar to:

"We believe that God is calling us, as the Church in this place, to ....... How can you help realise this vision?"

It is the lay who do most in serving God in the community. Clergy minister to the ministers and assist and encourage them in fulfilling their calling.
 

---

Posted by Priest in Boots (# 10672) on :
 
Well DavidG that's just what I am being asked right now! So, your dream is being realised somewhere on this wonderful planet!!!
 

---

Posted by DavidG (# 121) on :
 
Wonderful news, Priest in Boots
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Bless your hearts.
 

---

Posted by kiwimac (# 10733) on :
 
Talking as a worker priest with no congregation (at the moment), I find this all fascinating!

Kiwimac
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Bless your hearts.

---

Do I detect a whiff of irony there? Or cynicism, even?

Surely not. I mean, you're a priest.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0