Ship of Fools: How do you get rid of a nightmare vicar?

Thread: How do you get rid of a nightmare vicar? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022047

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

This may be a Church of England problem. Clergy in the C of E have the employment status of "Office holders" - they are not employed - so not subject to employment law - not dismissable by superiors easily. Got that?

But I can think of a number of cases in which a rogue cleric has done untold damage while working out his (usually, not always, him) crazy obsessions all over his colleagues and congregation and sometimes community. They get more and more paranoid as slowly but surely, yes, everyone does start to talk about them and does dislike them heartily. It never ends well - it takes years for some kind of process to work out, dioceses are incredibly slow to act, the reputation of the church takes a pounding, the person at the centre can never realistically work again as a clergyperson. It creates a lot of misery - and sometimes it can destroy other peole's lives and careers - colleagues, church musicians, marriages, etc. In any other outfit the whole thing would have been governed by much stricter rules and would have been nipped in the bud - or so I like to think. The whole thing is a MESS!

How do you get rid of the annoying fuckers (who in our better moments we remember are suffering too and whom God loves yada yada)? Short of doing something illegal, that is?

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

This telegraph news report opens interesting possibilities. The device would need to be re-programmed to boom TIME TO MOVE MY SON! whenever the Vicar came into the building. [Devil]

Failing that contact his previous parish, and ask them how they got rid of the fucker. [Two face]

[ 28. February 2012, 08:04: Message edited by: Oferyas ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Short of doing something illegal, that is?

You're no fun.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It isn't a CofE problem. Sometimes I think it's a ministry problem but I've seen people in other vocations (eg, teaching, medicine and the public services) emphasize leading over serving. The outcome is usually micro-management, power and control, with universally unhappy results.

It's difficult to get rid of any of them.

[ 28. February 2012, 09:28: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Tell Mossad that s/he is an Iranian nuclear scientist... [Snigger]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I find that an angry and frightened mob armed with pitchforks and flaming brands works well in most situations.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

There are few situations which cannot be resolved...by suicide, a bag of gold, or thrusting a despised antagonist over a precipice on a dark night.

Kai Lung

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There are few situations which cannot be resolved...by suicide, a bag of gold, or thrusting a despised antagonist over a precipice on a dark night.

There's the solution then - make it look like they committed suicide by smacking them over the head with a bag of gold while they're walking along a clifftop path. [Big Grin]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

From where I am the CofE seems to be promoting leadership over service as an organisational strategy. It's emphasised in ministerial reviews and in diocesan leadership training events where clergy are encouraged to identify and develop their leadership style. Those who are naturally autocratic will feel empowered to micro-manage and any objections from those on the receiving end will be interpreted as a failure to support the leadership.

I'm interested in how organisations work, in the processes of management and decision-making. This is where we look to sort out the problems. We've no shortage of processes in the CofE along with guidelines, codes of practice and assorted policy statements. Some processes are embedded in statute. They just don't work. Manipulating, lying and bullying does work.

If you've got a nightmare vicar it can be worth trying to see a wider picture. I'm not saying rogue clergy can't develop all by themselves with no help from anyone else, just that sometimes it may be serving an agenda within a diocese to allow a nightmare to develop, or even encourage it. 'Pastoral breakdown' is a usefully imprecise category as a basis for getting rid of someone and wide open to manipulation.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Can you get one of the members of the congregation to seduce him?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

The first step should be for the church wardens to approach the bishop - with clear evidence of issues; dates, times, people involved, outcomes. And take a guide from him. If the bishop persists in supporting the incumbent, an explicit vote of no confidence from the PCC is the nuclear option. There are procedures for the removal of clergy, but it's painful...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I thought there was a fairly standard practice to deal with this sort of thing?: make written contact with the pcc, then the archdeacons and rural dean and then if that fails you have right of appeal to the Bishop. Surely if enough people did that the various people contacted would have to act in some way? The danger of course is that its just a personality clash with one person who has managed to whip up a couple of other unhappy gossips as sideline support - but that tends to come out in the wash eventually, but is just as damaging to a parish community and can end in horrible ostracisation thats very hard to stop.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

But then the archdeacon and bishop wring their hands, say 'Oh dear, Oh dear, yes we know that has been a problem, we shall look very carefully into choosing someone appropriate when he retires (in xxx years' time)' and then it gets put on the back burner again.

Oh well, back to the voodoo dolls.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I understood that the procedure was a complaint to the bishop about a incumbent - the bishop being the licensor of any official licence holder. And the bishop then discusses it with the incumbent being complained about.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

The OP is Henry II and I claim my five pounds [Yipee]

Will no-one rid him of this turbulent priest?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

I think a "turbulent priest" is a very different proposition from a nightmare vicar. Almost by defiition, a turbulent priest is someone who is doing his job properly - a nightmare vicar isn't.

I took Confirmation classes with a vicar who had seemed relatively normal when we started but rapidly became completely barking (was it something I said).

One memorable day when there was a foot-and-mouth scare going at a small family farm in the parish, he preached a sermon saying that it was God's Judgement on greedy farmers. People asked me afterwards why I walked out during the sermon - the rest of them had got into the habit of not listening. (The scare came to nothing, by the way).

It all came to a head when the vicar's wife had had enough of his private cruelty and bizarre sexual demands - he ended up being sectioned. Would it have made any difference if somebody had tried to do something earlier? Dunno. Perhaps.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Chorister:

quote:

But then the archdeacon and bishop wring their hands, say 'Oh dear, Oh dear, yes we know that has been a problem, we shall look very carefully into choosing someone appropriate when he retires (in xxx years' time)' and then it gets put on the back burner again.

Oh well, back to the voodoo dolls.

Somewhere along the line you seem to have either had a really bad time with your Bishop or had an incredibly weak one.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

when's the next ministerial review?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Shoot the bastard.

Or report them to the Bishop. Who will probably do nothing.

Or report them to the local papers.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
It all came to a head when the vicar's wife had had enough of his private cruelty and bizarre sexual demands - he ended up being sectioned. Would it have made any difference if somebody had tried to do something earlier? Dunno. Perhaps.

OK, now I want to hear more about the bizarre sexual demands.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing? Is there some kind of conspiracy you all know of that the rest of us haven't been let in on yet?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I hope you're not counting me in with the 'assuming' number - it was a real incident, although many years ago now.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

[trying to tip-toe tenderly, but likely wearing jack boots]

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience once, but is it fair to then assume that all Bishop's would be equally ineffective?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I hope you're not counting me in with the 'assuming' number - it was a real incident, although many years ago now.

If I remember some of your historical posts you know whereof you speak?

Theoretically, the churchwardens are the 'eyes of the bishop' and have a duty to report to the bishop - who is after all the Ordinary of all the parishes in the diocese - if they think their parish is being mishandled. But it does sound like some Bishops are very reluctant to respond or get involved.

I can understand a Bishop mightn't jump right in; Archdeacons do a lot of episcopal donkey work sometimes, I think. He mightn't want to take sides. But it does sound like the system fails an unhappy congregation, in some cases.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

If it was many years ago and the person concerned had freehold, then the bishop had very limited powers. The parson could only be deprived of office if a Consistory Court found a person guilty under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure of

quote:
(a) an offence against the laws ecclesiastical involving matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremonial;
(b) any other offence against the laws ecclesiastical, including—
(i) conduct unbecoming the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders, or
(ii) serious, persistent, or continuous neglect of duty:

Provided that no proceedings in respect of unbecoming conduct shall be taken in respect of the political opinions or activities of such person;

And provided further that no proceedings in respect of neglect of duty shall be taken in respect of the political opinions of such person.

or a specially constituted tribunal established 'complete pastoral breakdown'.

Both these processes were enormously expensive, lengthy and very public for all concerned. Bishops had two options (a) speak sternly to the offending clergy person, or (b) the legal equivalent of the nuclear option. Common Tenure does change that, and dioceses have had to establish robust formal processes for dealing with complaints.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing? Is there some kind of conspiracy you all know of that the rest of us haven't been let in on yet?

Yes.

And bishops will rarely do anything on the basis of one or two reports. In fact, even if there are many reports from the congregation, they will often do nothing.

If they get a complaint from another vicar, OTOH, they will act.

Yes I am a cynic. Yes this is hell. It is not entirely true, but there is more truth to it than many would like to admit.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If they get a complaint from another vicar, OTOH, they will act.

Not necessarily. Not even when they've promised various members of the congregation that they will act as soon as there is straightforward evidence of their behaviour, and that evidence is then provided by the Vicar of the neighbouring parish.

That may be the point at which the bishop says 'But our priority must be to show pastoral care to the Rector'*, demonstrating just how much concern he has for the dozen or so people who have been irrevocably damaged by said Rector over the previous decade, who have believed the bishop's assurances that action would be taken to protect others as soon as it was possible to do so.

*This meant doing nothing at all, just in case you were thinking that it constituted appropriate action.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
[QUOTE]That may be the point at which the bishop says 'But our priority must be to show pastoral care to the Rector'*, demonstrating just how much concern he has for the dozen or so people who have been irrevocably damaged by said Rector over the previous decade, who have believed the bishop's assurances that action would be taken to protect others as soon as it was possible to do so.

I agree that this has happened in places in the past, (and may still happen in the future) but the new Clergy Discipline Measure makes it much more likely that action will be taken if a genuine complaint of misconduct is made.

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing? Is there some kind of conspiracy you all know of that the rest of us haven't been let in on yet?

Haven't you heard that when bishops are consecrated in the holy huddle of bishops they removed the spine of the new bishop? This goes to prove that bishops on consecration, whatever their views before consecration, become part of the Borg...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There are few situations which cannot be resolved...by suicide, a bag of gold, or thrusting a despised antagonist over a precipice on a dark night.

Kai Lung

We would have a problem then - most of East Anglia is remarkably flat. And we do have street lights, you know.

[ 29. February 2012, 07:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing?

Circling the wagons and protecting their own is one of the things clergy do really well.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There are few situations which cannot be resolved...by suicide, a bag of gold, or thrusting a despised antagonist over a precipice on a dark night.

Kai Lung
We would have a problem then - most of East Anglia is remarkably flat. And we do have street lights, you know.

Well there you go - problem solved. Street lights have more than one use...

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing?
Circling the wagons and protecting their own is one of the things clergy do really well.

Yep.

It's just under (on the list of things we do well) putting up with the pathetic rants of small minded tossers who went to Sunday School, learnt enough about Christianity to know they didn't like it but decided to go to church anyway.

All the Best, Pyx_e.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Who's small minded?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There are few situations which cannot be resolved...by suicide, a bag of gold, or thrusting a despised antagonist over a precipice on a dark night.

Kai Lung
We would have a problem then - most of East Anglia is remarkably flat. And we do have street lights, you know.

Flat, but many churches have bell towers. Plenty of murder mysteries feature people falling off these, being hung from bell ropes (accidentally) or getting trapped in the belfry, losing the key and going mad.

It's up to you.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing?
Circling the wagons and protecting their own is one of the things clergy do really well.

Strangely enough, while whistle-blowing on abuses within any profession is a good thing (eg, sexual scandals, financial irregularities, bullying etc), there are also times when supporting one's colleagues is not a bad thing to do. And ironically, most surveys of pastoral care given by dioceses to their clergy apparently demonstrate that the clergy are often last on the list when it comes to being supported during times of vulnerability.

There are probably more than a few on the Ship alone who could comment that 'circling wagons' were nowhere in sight during times of great need.

I'm not sure that the clergy line of work is any more or less skilled at 'protecting their own' than other comparable occupations.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

Have you good church people thought of staging an intervention?
Asking the vicar to sit down and talk, and then ambushing him with a table of eight or ten people who screech and rant at him in turn while insisting that he remain silent and listen?
It could be wonderfully effective, you know.
Mind you, the Human Rights Commission, or whatever the body is called in your location, might consider that to be a form of harrassment and bullying, but it sounds as if you might already be at the point anyhow.
Thereby including an outside, quasi-legal, quasi-government body to stretch things along for a few more yeears should at least let the vicar maintain his health benefits and pay into his pension a little longer.
Good luck, and peace to all!

[ 29. February 2012, 14:24: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If they get a complaint from another vicar, OTOH, they will act.
Not necessarily.

They will not necessarily act decisively. They might just decide to have a talk to the offending vicar.

And yes to those who doubt it, clergy protect their own very often. Not all, not always, but often.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Annual parochial church meeting time is upon us, so organising appropriate candidates for church wardens and the PCC is now an option. If you don't bother to ensure that your views are being represented by those people - or even stand yourself - you don't have the right to whinge. And the PCC voting to give the diocescan quota to The Church Society / Anglican Mainstream / Forward in Faith / Affirming Catholicism might get the attention of the bishop*, whilst stopping the payment of expenses is also an option, though not a pleasant one.

* Do write to him to explain your interesting choice....

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
[trying to tip-toe tenderly, but likely wearing jack boots]

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience once, but is it fair to then assume that all Bishop's would be equally ineffective?

I should jolly well hope that most Bishops aren't equally ineffective. I think they're rather well-chosen these days and would hope that in severe cases (we are talking about those, rather than just cases involving whinging niggles, aren't we?) that they often do a good job of helping to sort out the problem.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

quote:
I should jolly well hope that most Bishops aren't equally ineffective. I think they're rather well-chosen these days and would hope that in severe cases (we are talking about those, rather than just cases involving whinging niggles, aren't we?) that they often do a good job of helping to sort out the problem.

What planet are you on?
Bishops are not chosen for their ability to think for themselves. In fact they are still chosen behind closed doors - give us episcopal election, I say...

And as for gettting rid of destructive fuckwits who are vicars they are SLOW to act. And those who say here that this is a rather cynical view, I can tell you it aint - it is the fruit of long experience of watching slow train crashes taking place, both as an incumbent and as a Rural Dean.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Perhaps things are simply better at different times and in different parts of the country? Or is that too simplistic an answer?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Chorister is right, that they are getting better. But they have not all got better. As I have said, there are some excellent bishops. But there are also some dire senior clerics (it is not just the bishops, there are others involved too.

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.

Who supported the Vicar and helped him not to become feral?

As has often been said on the Ship - they are toxic Vicars but there are also toxic churches, people and congregations. In soem cases, there are toxic areas where "ministries" never flourish.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.

Perhaps the Forest isn't yours after all. An interesting attitude - what does it signify or cover up?

If it's the one I'm thinking about then it has a lot to answer for: it isn't the first vicar nor the first denomination to be affected there. I've personally counselled a minister driven out by gossip and slander, just because he wouldn't toe the line to the matriarch.

[ 08. March 2012, 08:05: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.
Who supported the Vicar and helped him not to become feral?

As has often been said on the Ship - they are toxic Vicars but there are also toxic churches, people and congregations. In soem cases, there are toxic areas where "ministries" never flourish.

I understand the point you are making, but our Parish is anything but toxic.
The vicar 'went feral' by becoming sexually involved with a young single mother, who had approached him because ehe was convinced her house was haunted. He responded by dealing with the presenting problem, and initiating an affair. He promised to leave his wife for her. I was shown the e mails, by his wife, who was sent them when the young woman realised he had no intention of leaving his wife.

It was a sad story, but I can assure that the church was in no sense 'toxic'. It was, is a healthy, supportive and thriving community. This mans minestry had functioned very well, up until the affair. The Church continues to thrive. The Vicar has bounced back, in a new life and job, still with his wife.

The young woman was the one who suffered most from the whole sad business.

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.
Perhaps the Forest isn't yours after all. An interesting attitude - what does it signify or cover up?

I am not sure what you mean by 'cover up'. What 'the Forest is Ours' signifies is a sense of joy and relief when the Forestry Commission backed down from an threat to 'sell off' the Forest of Dean to private ownership. The Forest has always been understood to belong to the Dean, and we felt vindicated by the backdown.
But the fight is won, so perhaps it is time to find a new sig.

Thank you for your interest in my posts.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
*snip*They get more and more paranoid as slowly but surely, yes, everyone does start to talk about them and does dislike them heartily. *snip*

Does anyone ever try talking to the vicar instead of talking about them?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Yes. It's only when you get nowhere on that score that you take things a stage further.

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

I spent hours and hours talking to the Vicar, and to his wife when she learned of the affair, and to them both as a couple. It got none of us anywhere!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I spent hours and hours talking to the Vicar, and to his wife when she learned of the affair, and to them both as a couple. It got none of us anywhere!

I wasn't implying in any way that the FoD as a whole or your church was/is toxic - just a generalised observation.

It so happens that some years ago I spent a lot of time with a family who had been abused (and that's the right word) by a toxic individual and individuals in that area and the church stood by and watched it. They considered the forest and the people to be theirs - as a fenman I understand exactly.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.
Who supported the Vicar and helped him not to become feral?

As has often been said on the Ship - they are toxic Vicars but there are also toxic churches, people and congregations. In soem cases, there are toxic areas where "ministries" never flourish.
I understand the point you are making, but our Parish is anything but toxic.
The vicar 'went feral' by becoming sexually involved with a young single mother, who had approached him because ehe was convinced her house was haunted. He responded by dealing with the presenting problem, and initiating an affair. He promised to leave his wife for her. I was shown the e mails, by his wife, who was sent them when the young woman realised he had no intention of leaving his wife.

It was a sad story, but I can assure that the church was in no sense 'toxic'. It was, is a healthy, supportive and thriving community. This mans minestry had functioned very well, up until the affair. The Church continues to thrive. The Vicar has bounced back, in a new life and job, still with his wife.

The young woman was the one who suffered most from the whole sad business.

I think such behaviour is totally unsuitable, certainly would result being struck off in any other caring profession. It is abusive and I hope someone has put some serious safeguarding in place if he is continuing in ministry.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I have to admit that our Bishop was a star when the Vicar went feral.
Who supported the Vicar and helped him not to become feral?

As has often been said on the Ship - they are toxic Vicars but there are also toxic churches, people and congregations. In soem cases, there are toxic areas where "ministries" never flourish.
I understand the point you are making, but our Parish is anything but toxic.
The vicar 'went feral' by becoming sexually involved with a young single mother, who had approached him because ehe was convinced her house was haunted. He responded by dealing with the presenting problem, and initiating an affair. He promised to leave his wife for her. I was shown the e mails, by his wife, who was sent them when the young woman realised he had no intention of leaving his wife.

It was a sad story, but I can assure that the church was in no sense 'toxic'. It was, is a healthy, supportive and thriving community. This mans minestry had functioned very well, up until the affair. The Church continues to thrive. The Vicar has bounced back, in a new life and job, still with his wife.

The young woman was the one who suffered most from the whole sad business.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Yes. It's only when you get nowhere on that score that you take things a stage further.

quote:
Originally Posted by The Weeder:
I spent hours and hours talking to the Vicar, and to his wife when she learned of the affair, and to them both as a couple. It got none of us anywhere!

Thanks. That wasn't clear in context.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I love it when my fellow Hosts double post. Makes me feel all warm and superior. I, of course, have never done such a thing [Devil]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And the PCC voting to give the diocescan quota to The Church Society / Anglican Mainstream / Forward in Faith / Affirming Catholicism might get the attention of the bishop*, whilst stopping the payment of expenses is also an option, though not a pleasant one.

By stopping the payment of expenses do you mean refusing to accept money for your incumbent's stipend? Because I can't see any other situation in which this position isn't blatantly self-serving.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think the two protest options ES is suggesting are:

Failing to pay the parish's contribution to diocesan finances and sending it elsewhere instead (which effectively means letting the rest of the diocese pay for the vicar)
Failing to pay the vicar's expenses of office (travel, phone bills etc.) so he/she is then out of pocket for carrying out parish duties

They would both make a point - whether they would be effective in achieving change, I don't know.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Does anyone pay their diocesan share in full these days?
We did until recently, at crippling cost, but are no longer able to do so.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes - round here the only places that aren't paying their Diocesan Share in full are those churches which can afford to and aren't on principle, as they demand the support of the diocese to mop up the latest mess they've created. Much more populated area with ever increasing numbers of shared clergy across churches or team parishes here though.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I love it when my fellow Hosts double post. Makes me feel all warm and superior. I, of course, have never done such a thing

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Does anyone pay their diocesan share in full these days?
We did until recently, at crippling cost, but are no longer able to do so.

Most do in my diocese too, they take it seriously as their obligation. I will confess that one of our group of churches isn't, it is seriouly in the financial do-dah, but they are working hard to try and find a way to put the church on a better finacial footing. However we are in a minority.

I heard that in the Chester diocese, that if you don't pay up, then you don't get a vicar. It would be good if anybody could let us know the truth or not of that.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Our small parish pays our parish share in full and on time.

Good job we do, as we have need to approach the diocese for funding this year. They wouldn't even look at us had we not been up to date with our Parish Share.

Which means we are either canny and wise.... little sunbeams....or have brow beaten everyone into compliance

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

Yes, we pay up our full share.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Our small parish pays our parish share in full and on time.

Good job we do, as we have need to approach the diocese for funding this year. They wouldn't even look at us had we not been up to date with our Parish Share.

Which means we are either canny and wise.... little sunbeams....or have brow beaten everyone into compliance

Bribery then

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Why have two people assumed a Bishop would do nothing? Is there some kind of conspiracy you all know of that the rest of us haven't been let in on yet?

Bishops often have odd attitudes. There used to be a joke about "Montefiore's Law" which stated that if a priest was incompetant you left him where he was so he only destroyed one parish. Seems harsh to me, but under English Canon Law it is about all you can do.

I am used to working under US Canon Law which has a nasty little device called "Conduct unbecoming of a clergyman." In our code it is Canon 51 section 9, but it exists in some form in most denominations. It is supposed to be used to address barmy rectors. Unfortunately some bishops use this as a sort of ecclesiastical ways and means act. Basically the bishop puts someone up to accusing Fr X of fiddling his expenses, the bishop has to suspend him, an investigation is launched then put on the long finger, and by the time he is cleared of the false accusation his ministerial career has gone down the tubes. I saw a couple of priests got rid of that way because they opposed the Bishop. I bugged out before it was my turn.

PD

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

We pay our quota and so, as far as I know, do our neighbouring parishes with a couple of exceptions. (And no, they are not evangelicals)

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

The heartcry of the OP is partially solved by Common Tenure of course ( which everone hates because it's so unfair etc etc etc) But....for those living with an impossible Vicar one can see why the idea has merit.

One helpful option would be to send him or her off on a Sabbatical. Who knows what delights might present themselves while walking far away... After so many years most diocese pay for one, even in these hard pressed times. If not, suggest to the PCC that it would be money well spent.

[ 13. March 2012, 19:33: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on :

How to get rid of a nightmare Vicar: get him to join the Ordinariate! [Devil]

Joking aside, the Vicar at my former church, who over the past few years had become increasingly barking mad in some of the things he said and did, as well as paranoid, recently joined the Ordinariate along with some of his "yes men/women".

Those who opted to stay behind have all sighed with relief at his departure, and are looking towards building up the church again. Latterly, Father Madman alienated many in his congregation, and was responsible both directly and indirectly for many people leaving (inc me).

However, a lot needs to be done and finances need to be regulated, as the erstwhile Incumbebt and his cronies on the old PCC have left a toxic financial legacy.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Clearly I'm a nightmare vicar. The pricipal benefactor of the parish has withdrawn $25,000 pa funding (primarily because I placed a pall in the wrong place after Ash Wednesday. How apalling. Hahahahaha. But basically he thinks I'm a nightmare vicar/rector).

The pricipal funding agency has pulled funding of $20,000 pa becuase I wear a chasuble and don't preach penal substitutionary atonement (see link below in my sig if you're really bored [Disappointed]

). Gotta love the Diocese of Sydney.

The plot has failed, though. I'll just find a second job. [Snigger]

(Or starve. Whatever). I have tenure, paid or not!

[ 22. March 2012, 01:31: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Welcome to your new freedom! We discovered it back in 2006. It's amazing how much simpler (NOT easier) life gets when no one can threaten to take away your salary. [Snigger]

At least in our denom, there is very little they can do to us now besides hope and pray that we will go away. And the Lord seems to like us here. [Devil]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

There's always promotion. A time-honoured way of getting rid of someone who can't cope at one level is to shove them up to the next.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Gotta love the Diocese of Sydney.

Really? Why?

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Gotta love the Diocese of Sydney.
Really? Why?

Because...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
(see link below in my sig if you're really bored

*like*

quote:
PSA, as it is often called for shorthand convenience, is more or less the belief that God killed or allowed Jesus to be killed as an act of retribution for the sins of the world in defence of divine holiness.

I expressed a similar concern to my diocesan heavies.

Guess what I got for it?

A two thousand word essay that demands I argue FOR it.

*sigh*.

[ 22. March 2012, 13:34: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Onced upon a time, before some of you young folk were born, I turned up at our parish church to find a priest I had never seen before standing before us instead of the vicar.

He said he was PS, a retired priest from a nearby parish, and the Bishop had asked him to be our tempoirary priest-in-charge.

He told us that the curate had resigned from his job, and the vicar had gone to a monastery in the North of England on a long-term retreat. I can't remember what he said about the vicar's wife. And he told us that he had been asked specially to pass on a request that none of us try to find out where any of them had gone or contact them in any way.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Onced upon a time, before some of you young folk were born, I turned up at our parish church to find a priest I had never seen before standing before us instead of the vicar.

He said he was PS, a retired priest from a nearby parish, and the Bishop had asked him to be our tempoirary priest-in-charge.

He told us that the curate had resigned from his job, and the vicar had gone to a monastery in the North of England on a long-term retreat. I can't remember what he said about the vicar's wife. And he told us that he had been asked specially to pass on a request that none of us try to find out where any of them had gone or contact them in any way.

Meanwhile, in a stone cell on a desert island, somewhere in an off-the-map location, a man in an iron mask mumbles the liturgy to himself and curses his diocesan bishop........ [Paranoid]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A church I knew some years ago had a Vicar who was incompetent and, I think, suffering from mental health issues. The PCC and congregation tried to get him removed, but couldn't as he held the living. This impasse went on for some years and services only continued because the parish had an elderly lady who could act as a non-stipendiary Curate. (At times the Vicar turned up unannounced and declared that he was going to take the service). The congregation declined rapidly.

My understanding is that the PCC were eventually told to resign en masse, as that allowed the Diocesan authorities to come in and "do something". The PCC did resign, and then things moved quite rapidly. The Vicar was removed from his post - at least, he was persuaded (or required) to stand down. He continued living in the Vicarage and a new house was bought for the incoming Priest-in-Charge (who I think is the Vicar today).

Since then things have gone swimmingly.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It must have been very difficult having the former vicar continuing to live in what most people recognised as the Vicarage.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I am surprised that money was available to provide housing for the new vicar.

Moo

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

It was some years ago.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It must have been very difficult having the former vicar continuing to live in what most people recognised as the Vicarage.

Actually it wasn't - this was in London, the church conducted its affairs from an office at the church rather than from the Vicarage. And he kept completely out of the picture (he had his own house elsewhere, anyway).

The new house bought by the Diocese was much smaller than the old Vicarage.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A church I knew some years ago had a Vicar who was incompetent and, I think, suffering from mental health issues. The PCC and congregation tried to get him removed, but couldn't as he held the living. This impasse went on for some years and services only continued because the parish had an elderly lady who could act as a non-stipendiary Curate. (At times the Vicar turned up unannounced and declared that he was going to take the service). The congregation declined rapidly.

My understanding is that the PCC were eventually told to resign en masse, as that allowed the Diocesan authorities to come in and "do something". The PCC did resign, and then things moved quite rapidly. The Vicar was removed from his post - at least, he was persuaded (or required) to stand down. He continued living in the Vicarage and a new house was bought for the incoming Priest-in-Charge (who I think is the Vicar today).

Since then things have gone swimmingly.

I thought that not turning up to take services was the one thing that meant you could get rid of a vicar with freehold?

I was told by a previous vicar that basically, if he did nothing but turn up and take Sunday services then he could not be forced to go.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In some churches, the congregations would be glad if that's all the vicar did!

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

[Smile]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'll swap you your nightmare vicar for our cheesy one (he's just spent the evening teaching us all the awful 1970s choruses he used to have to sing from the cheesiest children's Sunday School book in the universe - bleurgh, I now feel sick!). Sound like a deal?

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

May I suggest that the most productive route might be a quite word with the Bishop? My experience is more gets done by the informal network than the formal.

Now, is there someone level headed and with diplomatic skills, who has access to the Bishop? Alternatively, it could be someone near him who can pass on the concerns of St Whateverthename. All this carried out in strictest confidence and more in sorry than anger, of course.

It is amazing how posts appear out of seemingly nowhere that are just made for the man/woman concerned – incredible, must be a miracle.

For further pointers, watch back episodes of ‘Yes Minster’ on Youtube.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
It is amazing how posts appear out of seemingly nowhere that are just made for the man/woman concerned – incredible, must be a miracle.

Ah - the dead cat approach to recruitment; if you can't cope with a vicar, find some other parish to throw the dead cat into. As someone who knows of one parish whose ministry was undermined, and another where they are still picking up the pieces, where bishops bullied the appointing committee into making the appointment the bishop wanted, we need to stop this solution. Unless you are volunteering your parish, and promise to stay with it despite the new vicar being a disaster?

This is, of course, one of the advantages of ordaining people after they've established a significant career in another job; they have something to go back to if their being a vicar doesn't work out.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This is, of course, one of the advantages of ordaining people after they've established a significant career in another job; they have something to go back to if their being a vicar doesn't work out.

It can be, but after they've done two years in college and three or four years in a curacy, and spent long enough in charge in a parish to discover it's not working they may have a lot of ground to cover before they can go back to whatever they did before. In some cases they may no longer own a house, nor have the wherewithal to put down a deposit.

I'm not saying it can't be done - but it's by no means simple.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
It can be, but after they've done two years in college

Two years? Crikey. Ours takes four. Tho it sounds like our curacies are a year shorter.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Clearly I'm a nightmare vicar. The pricipal benefactor of the parish has withdrawn $25,000 pa funding (primarily because I placed a pall in the wrong place after Ash Wednesday. How apalling. Hahahahaha. But basically he thinks I'm a nightmare vicar/rector).

The pricipal funding agency has pulled funding of $20,000 pa becuase I wear a chasuble and don't preach penal substitutionary atonement (see link below in my sig if you're really bored ). Gotta love the Diocese of Sydney.

The plot has failed, though. I'll just find a second job. (Or starve. Whatever). I have tenure, paid or not!

Hang in there, Zappa!
Always remember, you are a part of a higher societal strata, and many groups treat you as privileged, even if certain individuals treat you like shite.
For example, when a funeral home sends a car round to pick you up, they will always politely return you to your home, after you have conducted a service.
When a funeral home sends a car round to pick up the principal benefactor who is now treating you like shite, they will deliver that person straight to the crematorium, and load them directly onto the conveyor belt.
Surely your treatment is by far the one to be desried?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
It is amazing how posts appear out of seemingly nowhere that are just made for the man/woman concerned – incredible, must be a miracle.
Ah - the dead cat approach to recruitment; if you can't cope with a vicar, find some other parish to throw the dead cat into.

True, but it could also be the "square peg" approach - they're in a round hole as present, but another parish might suit them to the ground.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

(i agree)

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

A toxic congregation is horrible, but primarily for one person - the vicar who has to cope with it.

But IME a nightmare vicar is a much more dangerous beast because they can affect the whole congregation - many more lives.

I grew up in an Anglican church with a nightmare vicar, a controlling, cheating, angry, manipulative spiritual abuser. One of the many people who bore the brunt of this was my dad, who, a decade later on his deathbed was still coming to terms with forgiving this man. Many other people were bullied and pushed out of the church too. Looking at the lives of my friends who grew up in the same church, I can still see the legacy of his shitiness in their lives too. In my early 20s I could have easily left Christianity for good (as many of my friends did), but Jesus just about outweighed my cynicism.

It's so dependent on the individual bishop. If he says 'like it or lump it', then if you're in a hierarchical church structure there's not much you can do. The same potential problem exists in independent 'apostolic' churches too.

Maybe there are more safeguards in the Anglican church now - I'd hope so (this is my experience from 15-20 years ago).

I'm now in a Baptist church, and have to say, despite the negatives (very slow for anything to happen), the structure is the best one I've encountered for minimizing spiritual abuse. I'm sure it happens, but it seems to me that the way the church operates reduces that possibility. I don't think I could ever go back to an Anglican church, much as I like and respect Anglicanism.

There are two people throughout my whole life that I still struggle to forgive, pray for, and think good thoughts about, even though it's been years since I've seen either of them, and one of them is the vicar that almost ruined Christianity for me. I'm lucky that I had people (like my dad) who managed to redeem it for me.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A toxic congregation is horrible, but primarily for one person - the vicar who has to cope with it ...

I'm now in a Baptist church, and have to say, despite the negatives (very slow for anything to happen), the structure is the best one I've encountered for minimizing spiritual abuse. I'm sure it happens, but it seems to me that the way the church operates reduces that possibility.

Thanks for a moving and sad post.

I think the Baptist (congregational) system does indeed provide accountability and prevent abuse by clergy; the only problem is that the Minister can get abused by church members and, in particular, deacons/elders. The most recent Baptist Union "Guidelines for Ministers" do lay out a very useful and helpful complaints procedure to stop this happening.

One crucial difference to the Anglican system (at least where freehold is involved) is that a Baptist congregation can actually sack their minister. I've seen it done; but hopefully negotiation and intervention by Regional Ministers will lead to a happier parting of the ways.

But no system is perfect!

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the only problem is that the Minister can get abused by church members and, in particular, deacons/elders.

I can see that. It must be hard for any new minister, when you've got stalwarts who have been in the church a lot longer than he or she has carrying an attitude of "what's this upstart minister doing telling us how we should run our church?!", especially with how long churches can spend in interregnum. But when that person is a bully/abuser too, must make things even more difficult. Who would go into ministry?!

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But no system is perfect!

Too true! I think with any the system, it's a case of being aware of the dangers and putting those safeguards in place - to protect both congregations and ministers.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It must be hard for any new minister, when you've got stalwarts who have been in the church a lot longer than he or she has carrying an attitude of "what's this upstart minister doing telling us how we should run our church?!"...

What do you all think of trying wherever possible to have new leaders / ministers coming from within a congregation? One way you could do this is to have a body of elders, some of whom are employed by the church (perhaps part-time). These elders are given the opportunity to get whatever experience and training the church / denomination deems necessary for its church leaders, so when the current senior leader person is no longer around, there are people in the church who are ready to take on the role.

Any thoughts, especially from those in churches where this might at least be feasible? I imagine it's a non-starter in denominations with a centralised training system that allocates newly-ordained people to churches on a national or regional basis.

EDIT - This is not Hellish at all, as I forgot which board I was posting on. Sorry!

[ 26. March 2012, 12:36: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One crucial difference to the Anglican system (at least where freehold is involved) is that a Baptist congregation can actually sack their minister.

There is a shipmate, a Southern Baptist minister, who once said that he had been fired from his churches four times and received severance pay only once.

Judging by what he posted on the ship, he was not toxic or manipulative. He did, however, stick to his principles, and some people didn't like that.

Moo

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What do you all think of trying wherever possible to have new leaders / ministers coming from within a congregation?

I think it's a reasonable idea. In my humble opinion, most church leaders are an amalgamation of two separate New Testament ministries - apostles and elders.

Apostles would travel between different places, preaching the gospel and encouraging and growing the churches, for a few months or years. They would then appoint the elders from within the community, who would then lead the churches.

Most church leaders are somewhere in-between this - they stay for a few years at one congregation, then move to another, tending to do the job of both elders and apostles at once.

My default mode is restorationist, but I am aware of the flaws of that approach, and do try to look wider than it.

However, I do think that this model could still work today. It would also save the churches money, and spread the workload. If the churches employed fewer, but more highly trained and supported ministers to do the 'apostle' job, overseeing a number of churches, spending time at each of them, but the local everyday leadership was a plurality of unpaid people from the local congregation (like your team of elders/deacons).

In practice this kind of thing happens quite a lot anyhow - with Baptists you often have years spent in interregnum, and with Anglicans you often have one vicar running five or six (or more) churches. Lay people are used to running the day-to-day activities of churches.

I'd see no harm in formalising this kind of practice and trying to make it more efficient, with trained, employed ministers taking on the more 'apostolic' roles, supporting and overseeing teams of laypeople taking on the everyday 'eldership' roles. And for me, that would be closer to the New Testament precedent.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I rather think that we are straying from the OP into a more Purgatorial/All Saints mode on this thread. You have until I wake up (in about 10 hours time) to continue in this mode. Or not.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But no system is perfect!
Too true! I think with any the system, it's a case of being aware of the dangers and putting those safeguards in place - to protect both congregations and ministers.

To me this is an example of elf and safety culture entering the church; the existence of such 'safeguards' will tend to mean in practice that the opponents of change will be able to get in the way even more effectively. It's interesting to note that Benedictine monasticism has flourished for nearly 1500 years with an overwhelmingly powerful leader in the monastery; to me it's evidence that the advantage of such authority does, in the end, overcome the dangers of giving it out. Admittedly the Benedictine monasteries are far more fettered than they were originally; the existence of 'congregations' within the movement does provide a modicum of accountability. But my own feeling is that we are probably too worried about the disadvantages and not open enough to the advantages. After all, in the local church you can always walk away; in a monastic establishment that option is often inconceivable.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What do you all think of trying wherever possible to have new leaders / ministers coming from within a congregation? One way you could do this is to have a body of elders, some of whom are employed by the church (perhaps part-time). These elders are given the opportunity to get whatever experience and training the church / denomination deems necessary for its church leaders, so when the current senior leader person is no longer around, there are people in the church who are ready to take on the role.

Any thoughts, especially from those in churches where this might at least be feasible? I imagine it's a non-starter in denominations with a centralised training system that allocates newly-ordained people to churches on a national or regional basis.

EDIT - This is not Hellish at all, as I forgot which board I was posting on. Sorry!

The CofE has introduced the concept of 'Ordained local ministry', which enables people involved with a church to train up to be fully ordained but continue in their own parish. The problem is that the CofE 'ranks' mean that OLMs end up as priests - which is the same rank as the fully ordained, paid priest. To me the problem is that we have too few bishops - in effect the distinction here is between 'bishop' and 'priest' - but we've got confused about it.

And the CofE is equally confused about the long term status of an OLM; they are ordained to a single parish - but what happens if they do move elsewhere? They're 'properly ordained' - but supposedly second class citizens. Once more the CofE has made a mess of things; I like the approach, and letting a lot more people do the magic bits is clearly part of the answer to the declining number of stipendiary clergy...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But defining priesthood as being about 'magic bits' is seriously bad eucharistic theology.

Priesthood is about the offering of the whole of life. The eucharist signifies this, which is why only a priest may offer the holy sacrifice - because s/he was sacrificed career and personal choice.

OLMs really should have remained Readers or deacons

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo
OLMs really should have remained Readers or deacons

What elitist nonsense. Do you want nothing but middle-aged, middle-class white men with university degrees?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo
OLMs really should have remained Readers or deacons

What elitist nonsense. Do you want nothing but middle-aged, middle-class white men with university degrees?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Priesthood is about the offering of the whole of life.

Every Jesus-follower is called to do this.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...s/he has sacrificed career and personal choice

This should also be true of every Jesus-follower. There's nothing special about getting ordained to be a priest, it's just another way of serving God and offering your life to him (IMO, of course).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Priesthood is about the offering of the whole of life.
Every Jesus-follower is called to do this.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...s/he has sacrificed career and personal choice
This should also be true of every Jesus-follower. There's nothing special about getting ordained to be a priest, it's just another way of serving God and offering your life to him (IMO, of course).

I want to agree with that. However, the Western catholic tradition envisages two ontological characters, indelibly given - at baptism and at ordination. The latter is supposed to model the former.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo
OLMs really should have remained Readers or deacons
What elitist nonsense. Do you want nothing but middle-aged, middle-class white men with university degrees?

No - but I don't quite follow this. There are SOMN young, working class Readers and deacons around, esp RC deacons.

My point was that OLMs have often been readers or deacons and have only been ordained priest because there is a shortage of priests. A congregation wants mass more often that they can currently get it, so they muddy trhe waters of difference between different ministries in order to get it. They wand a souped-up Reader who has added value by virtue of being able to do the 'magic biuts'.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Well I know a lot of OLM's and none of them were previously readers. I also know several NSM's who were previously readers.

OLM's have to go through the same selection process as stipendiary clergy, there is no shortcut to Preisthood just because you were a reader. I know some readers who were not reccomended for training for ordination.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

I just found this page a few minutes ago.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Well I know a lot of OLM's and none of them were previously readers. I also know several NSM's who were previously readers.

OLM's have to go through the same selection process as stipendiary clergy, there is no shortcut to Preisthood just because you were a reader. I know some readers who were not reccomended for training for ordination.

But I do know three who were readers and who were then ordained. One interestingly went on to be a 'house for duty' priest when he retired from the public sector job he was in.

Given that the traditional role of a presbyter was to be a consultative college of them for the bishop, it makes sense for people to rise to that after having had a career as a 'reader'. OTOH the reality is that our readers are leading services that probably wouldn't have existed in the early church, it rapidly gets very messy. Bring back chorepiscopacy!

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I just found this page a few minutes ago.

May I suggest that you use great caution in opening Lothlorien's link; it refused to close for me and repeatedly popped up again, even after I shut my processor down, it opened again on that link.
Or maybe my computer just likes it, I dunno.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I just found this page a few minutes ago.
May I suggest that you use great caution in opening Lothlorien's link; it refused to close for me and repeatedly popped up again, even after I shut my processor down, it opened again on that link.
Or maybe my computer just likes it, I dunno.

It's just you Fauxy. It works like a charm; much better than some YooToob shit.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I just found this page a few minutes ago.
May I suggest that you use great caution in opening Lothlorien's link; it refused to close for me and repeatedly popped up again, even after I shut my processor down, it opened again on that link.
Or maybe my computer just likes it, I dunno.

Never ever had a problem either, and I check them out weekly.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Western catholic tradition envisages two ontological characters, indelibly given - at baptism and at ordination. The latter is supposed to model the former.

Not usually true, of course, in Free Church understandings, which see Ordination much more in terms of "recognition of gifts and for service". However that's not relevant, as this post is about removing nightmare Vicars.

It would be interesting to hear, though, how Evangelical and Low Church Anglicans regard Ordination.

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :

I think the Holy Spirit must have had a senior moment when the vicar of our parish got ordained and missed him out in the distribution of indelible ontological marks. He’s not so much as a nightmare as an example of suspended animation - doesn’t do visiting, doesn’t do pastoral care, doesn’t know what’s going on in the parish or how its finances are doing, doesn‘t prepare his sermons, just picks up the service sheet and does a ramble through the readings, doesn’t reply to emails or offers of assistance from members of the church (though he always responds to offers of food and drink). Last year the church had a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, technically led by him but organised by someone else, and when I said I hoped they’d have a wonderful time he just replied, “I’d rather go to Italy”.

The congregation is shrinking, several active members have left (including us), the finances are in an increasingly bad way - but the Revd Mr Dead Cat was appointed just before common tenure came in and he has the freehold (as he reminds the PCC every so often) and since he takes services, performs baptisms, marriages and funerals when requested, and turns up to the meetings he’s supposed to chair, there’s no way of dislodging him [brick wall]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Margaret, sorry to hear about your needing to leave your disastrous vicar; I'm curious - did you actually tell him you were going or just drop out of sight. I left a parish many years ago with no fuss, and feel in retrospect that was a mistake: a letter to the PCC with a copy to the bishop would appear to be the appropriate way to go if it's as a result of a lack of confidence in the vicar. And remember: if you actually live inside the parish, you can still go to the vestry meeting at the start of the APCM and vote down the church wardens without being on the electoral roll.

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :

Now that’s a thought! Though I have every sympathy for the present wardens - they had a meeting with the Revd Dead Cat some time ago to try to persuade him to show a bit of interest in visiting people who weren’t able to come to church, and all that happened was that he accused them of bullying him, as one of them told my husband afterwards.

I did send him a (fairly polite) email to explain why I was resigning from the PCC and leaving the church, to which of course there was no reply - I don’t know if he even read it. The problem with taking it further was that although I was finding the way he behaved difficult and spiritually unhelpful the thing that actually made me leave was his complete callousness towards my husband - who didn’t really want to pursue it, just get out.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
Now that’s a thought! Though I have every sympathy for the present wardens - they had a meeting with the Revd Dead Cat some time ago to try to persuade him to show a bit of interest in visiting people who weren’t able to come to church, and all that happened was that he accused them of bullying him, as one of them told my husband afterwards.

I did send him a (fairly polite) email to explain why I was resigning from the PCC and leaving the church, to which of course there was no reply - I don’t know if he even read it. The problem with taking it further was that although I was finding the way he behaved difficult and spiritually unhelpful the thing that actually made me leave was his complete callousness towards my husband - who didn’t really want to pursue it, just get out.

He sounds like a total dipstick.

Irrespective of all other considerations (even secure tenure), has anyone referred the "rev" to the bishop?

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

freehold isn't all it's been cracked up to be.....at least not in these straightened financial times.

( just sayin')

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
freehold isn't all it's been cracked up to be.....at least not in these straightened financial times.

( just sayin')

What ARE you talking about? The freehold gives the incumbent silly levels of protection unless he does something criminal. Otherwise the diocese is on the hook to pay the guy's stipend till he retires, and there's an interesting question as to whether the 'you must retire at 70' rule is enforceable any more.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I would hope that any bishop who has a problem clergyman in his diocese has a 'plan B' for that particular benefice. Certainly, I find myself in the position of having to prepare for some very unpleasant situations. I often wonder whether I will last until I am 72 as bishop!

PD

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

(sigh)

All I am saying, is that we shouldn't take for granted the whole Freehold Status Thing. Life moves on. Stuff changes.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
freehold isn't all it's been cracked up to be.....at least not in these straightened financial times.

( just sayin')
What ARE you talking about? The freehold gives the incumbent silly levels of protection unless he does something criminal. Otherwise the diocese is on the hook to pay the guy's stipend till he retires, and there's an interesting question as to whether the 'you must retire at 70' rule is enforceable any more.

Actually, an incumbent found guilty of misconduct (including "neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office") under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 may be removed from office (among other possible penalties under the Measure).

Alternatively, an enquiry into pastoral breakdown under the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977 can be instituted following a vote of two thirds of those present and voting at a properly constituted PCC meeting. The diocese is obliged first of all to attempt reconciliation, but, down the line, an investigating committee or tribunal may recommend that the bishop declare the benefice vacant.

Both of these are sledgehammer procedures - although the Clergy Discipline Measure is supposed to be a more sensible procedure and can be triggered by a lesser complaint than the vote of the PCC. Where the real issue is capability, then Common Tenure allows a capability procedure to be instituted which has as its primary purpose the desire to enable priest and parish to work effectively together - but can in the end result in removal from office. This does not, however, apply to freeholders.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
freehold isn't all it's been cracked up to be.....at least not in these straightened financial times.

( just sayin')
What ARE you talking about? The freehold gives the incumbent silly levels of protection unless he does something criminal......

What about 'conduct unbecoming' and 'breakdown of pastoral relationships'?

I know of a church where, from one point of view a vicar is struggling with a nightmare congregation and from another the congregation is struggling with a nightmare vicar. The vicar has freehold. I expect there's blame on both sides but that doesn't solve anything. It's still a nightmare.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Yes, BroJames the pastoral breakdown measure does exist - but it has proved impractical to implement, mainly because the costs of the procedure, which the diocese ends up paying, are vast. Therefore dioceses tend to avoid these issues for as long as possible. As a result they are left to drift, by which point only people who can stand the vicar are left. This was one of the reasons for the introduction of common tenure; we've yet to see if that does work better.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think you are right ES. The Vacation of Benefices Measure procedure is difficult and expensive - and only rarely invoked by PCCs which are often no more enthusiastic than bishops to confront a problem - even though they have the power, the responsibility and often the relevant direct experience to call for an investigation.

The Clergy Discipline Measure is intended to be a much more flexible process. It applies equally to freehold and Common Tenure clergy. For clergy under Common Tenure where the basic issue is actually capability then there is a route for addressing that. This is not available for clergy under freehold.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
It applies equally to freehold and Common Tenure clergy.

Erm no.

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
It applies equally to freehold and Common Tenure clergy.
Erm no.

AtB, Pyx_e

Erm yes

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Point taken. Thank you.

But since the accepted route into into CDP is through capability procedures and they are not applicable then perhaps you see my point too?

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

But what does 'capability' actually mean? One person's 'complete loon' is another person's 'incredibly spiritual' - more so than in any other profession I can think of.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Point taken. Thank you.

But since the accepted route into into CDP is through capability procedures and they are not applicable then perhaps you see my point too?

AtB, Pyx_e

Capability procedures may be the accepted route for those on Common Tenure, when the issues relate to capability in office, but it isn't the only route. The accepted route for the freehold 'nightmares' may be more direct.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
The accepted route for the freehold 'nightmares' may be more direct.

An example of "more direct" please?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
The accepted route for the freehold 'nightmares' may be more direct.
An example of "more direct" please?

A direct complaint to the bishop starting the process.

The capability process is separate and I'm not sure it is in fact the 'accepted way' into the disciplinary process.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The Capability and Disciplinary processes are separate. Capability is not necessarily the route into Disciplinary. Some Disciplinary offences will be obviously not (directly at least) a matter of capability. The Disciplinary Measure Code of Practice contains guidance about how they might relate.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
But then the archdeacon and bishop wring their hands, say 'Oh dear, Oh dear, yes we know that has been a problem, we shall look very carefully into choosing someone appropriate when he retires (in xxx years' time)' and then it gets put on the back burner again.

Oh well, back to the voodoo dolls.

There is also a remote chance the Bishop has his own set of voodoo dolls for said incumbant.

It is not unheard of for a Vestry/PCC to be extremely fed up, but not prepared to start the formal process for removing an inert, incompetant, stupid, or insane incumbant. For example, in this jurisdiction I need a formal complaint signed by a majority of the vestry to start the process for dissolving a failed pastoral relationship. In most cases this will not be forthcoming, even though you know the chap is not up to snuff and is doing great harm to the parish.

The disciplinary Canons are easier to invoke, but they create a nightmare in terms of costs and paperwork. A single ecclesiastical trial could eat a year's non-payroll budget for this district. In short, it is somewhere we do not want to go except as a last resort.

PD

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
[QUOTE] the formal process for removing an inert, incompetant, stupid, or insane incumbant.

Who's left?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Me [Big Grin]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Suddenly I have an inspiration for choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury.....

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Choose Pyx_e! [Two face]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

He is not THAT good.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Whoops, there goes Pyx_e's ego.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
[QUOTE] the formal process for removing an inert, incompetant, stupid, or insane incumbant.
Who's left?

Yeah, I know I should have qualified that by writing

"totally inert, incompetant..."

PD

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

not totally

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

I must have been very lucky with my vicars - I had one deeply irritating and rather immature one, who wasn't a bad bloke really, but the others have all been great.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

No, I do not think you are exceptional. I did managed to get through "my life as a layman" with only one vicar who was mildly annoying, but that was a much a result of a basic clash of temperament as anything else. However, it cannot have been that serious as I never definitively quit until I left the C of E altogether. Mind you, I evolved a coping strategy - when things looked like they were going to get out of hand I would hide at the local BCP only shack where the incumbant was a High Church Evangelical.

PD

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.

Sounds hellish.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.
Sounds hellish.

...meant the C of E can do what it wants - it isn't my problem any more...

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.
Sounds hellish.
...meant the C of E can do what it wants - it isn't my problem any more...

I see!

Well, jolly well done you! I'm very happy for you, and how very satisfied you must be with yourself for your narrow brush with undiluted evil and the great perspicacity and superior spiritual skill with which you evaded it. [Big Grin]

Oh, and thank you for taking the trouble to inform the thread of your disinterest in the problems of the CofE by er.... posting on a thread about the problems of the CofE.

The next time I feel no longer interested in something, I'll be sure to follow your example and make a point to spend time and effort in letting those who are interested know that. [Razz]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.

Lord have mercy. You're even more dismissive and superior than I am Mark Betts. [Big Grin]

For your information, the C of E is the only proper church in the world.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.
Lord have mercy. You're even more dismissive and superior than I am Mark Betts.

For your information, the C of E is the only proper church in the world.

Wait a minute... historically, it's not a question of superiority, it's a question of whether the church you belong to is the same Church that Christ founded - it's that simple!

There's nothing "superior" about me either, I just made a decision - one which you too can make (as can Anselmina).

Do you care about your Salvation? Or would you rather spend the rest of your life engaging in intellectual debates without growing in Christ at all?

I spent most of my life in the C of E, so I've every right to post here!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

...Oh, and one more thing - I'd love to know how you can justify your statement that the C of E is the only proper church in the world!

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
historically, it's not a question of superiority, it's a question of whether the church you belong to is the same Church that Christ founded - it's that simple!

The Church Christ founded is the whole body of Christians who accept the ancient creeds, especially the Nicene, and probably quite a few who don't, regardless of denominational label. Therefore, the C. of E. is part of the Church that Christ founded, and a darn sight nearer to what he intended that the Roman Catholic Church, which has added a huge body of extra doctrine, none of which is necessary or helpful, and some of which is arguably harmful.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...Oh, and one more thing - I'd love to know how you can justify your statement that the C of E is the only proper church in the world!

Irony isn't your forte, is it?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Getting back to topic, the whole point of my statement is that instead of trying to get rid of a nightmare vicar, you can leave and find something better.

Do you honestly think that if you manage to successfully remove a vicar you can't get on with, he (it will always be a man) will automatically be replaced by a good person and everything will be rosey and well in your church?

(and yes, I do irony! [Biased]

)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're even more dismissive and superior than I am Mark Betts.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I have found that nightmare leaders are not confined to the CofE. Simply leaving to go to another church will not guarantee that you never have leadership problems..

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Don't be silly Zacchaeus, the One and Only Holy, Apostolic Faith Holiness Catholic Orthodox Charismatic Bible Church has no leadership problems. I thought everyone knew that.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

oops silly me

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Don't be silly Zacchaeus, the One and Only Holy, Apostolic Faith Holiness Catholic Orthodox Charismatic Bible Church has no leadership problems. I thought everyone knew that.

Tell me about it - I might pay them a visit! [Yipee]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@Mark Betts - you, Sir, are a prick. In fact, if a prick was to spend time trying to formulate a general definition of what a prick was, he would be describing you. You are the archetypical prick. If prickiness was a stick of rock, your name would run through it.

Go back to your church, you are welcome to it. And mores to pity the poor congregation, priest, bishop on Pontiff that has to live under the same ecclesiastical roof as you.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.
Lord have mercy. You're even more dismissive and superior than I am Mark Betts.

For your information, the C of E is the only proper church in the world.
Wait a minute... historically, it's not a question of superiority, it's a question of whether the church you belong to is the same Church that Christ founded - it's that simple!

There's nothing "superior" about me either, I just made a decision - one which you too can make (as can Anselmina).

Do you care about your Salvation? Or would you rather spend the rest of your life engaging in intellectual debates without growing in Christ at all?

Are you being serious?

(I've been told I am too intemperate. So before laying into you I'll just double check. Cos I'm a good little repentant Christian and listen to all my shippie brethren tell me)

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Are you being serious?

Of course!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

You sure you're not trolling? [Paranoid]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

Do you honestly think that if you manage to successfully remove a vicar you can't get on with, he (it will always be a man) will automatically be replaced by a good person and everything will be rosey and well in your church?

Well that part, at least, makes sense. Better the devil you know....

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You sure you're not trolling?

Posi

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Well in that case, I hate to break it to you but your church is not the church Christ founded. Mine is. It's as simple as that.

If you cared about your salvation, and weren't interested in debating the superiority of your new found current fad (that will eventually disappoint you because you are basing your foundations on naivete) then you should return to the one true Mother Church, the C of E.

That is, if you want to grow in Christ.

But you may have been taken over by the devil in which case you may have no free will over the matter ( oh no wait, that would make you Lutheran or Calvinist).

But I'll pray for you just in case.

God is always gracious after all. There may be hope for you too.

I was once lost and sinner. But then I was found.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Shit in a bag and punch it [Disappointed]

If ever there was an argument where I want both sides to lose, it's this one. Two more arrogant, self-obsessed fuckwits I have yet to encounter outside of the demented nightmare-inspired ramblings of the tortured soul I keep locked up in the cellar so that I can feast on its screams.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Like many, I didn't bother trying to fight with the C of E system - I got out when I had the chance, and I've never looked back.

I prefer to go to a proper Church now, they can do what they want.
Lord have mercy. You're even more dismissive and superior than I am Mark Betts.

For your information, the C of E is the only proper church in the world.
Wait a minute... historically, it's not a question of superiority, it's a question of whether the church you belong to is the same Church that Christ founded - it's that simple!

There's nothing "superior" about me either, I just made a decision - one which you too can make (as can Anselmina).

Do you care about your Salvation? Or would you rather spend the rest of your life engaging in intellectual debates without growing in Christ at all?

I spent most of my life in the C of E, so I've every right to post here!

Haha.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There's a feature in the Church Times where the person being interviewed is asked 'Who would you like to be locked in a church with?' I vote we lock Mark Betts and Evensong up together in a church, then go in and pick up the pieces in the morning.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well in that case, I hate to break it to you but your church is not the church Christ founded. Mine is. It's as simple as that.

If you cared about your salvation, and weren't interested in debating the superiority of your new found current fad (that will eventually disappoint you because you are basing your foundations on naivete) then you should return to the one true Mother Church, the C of E.

That is, if you want to grow in Christ.

But you may have been taken over by the devil in which case you may have no free will over the matter ( oh no wait, that would make you Lutheran or Calvinist).

But I'll pray for you just in case.

God is always gracious after all. There may be hope for you too.

I was once lost and sinner. But then I was found.

Thanks for that Evensong - and I'll pray for you too!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
There's a feature in the Church Times where the person being interviewed is asked 'Who would you like to be locked in a church with?' I vote we lock Mark Betts and Evensong up together in a church, then go in and pick up the pieces in the morning.

Not necessarily.. I was him a few years ago - a deluded Anglican, thinking we had the truth in our belief system somewhere. I thought I could admonish all my fellow Anglicans to do the right thing... but... well that's another story.

Anyway, all has changed for me now (thanks be to God).. and who knows, me and our Evensong could end up being bezzy mates!

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I was him a few years ago - a deluded Anglican, thinking we had the truth in our belief system somewhere. I thought I could admonish all my fellow Anglicans to do the right thing... but... well that's another story.

Anyway, all has changed for me now (thanks be to God).. and who knows, me and our Evensong could end up being bezzy mates!

You may have changed your church, but you haven't changed your belief that you are qualified to admonish other Christians.

Moo

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I thought I could admonish all my fellow Anglicans to do the right thing... but... well that's another story.

Anyway, all has changed for me now

It was a long time ago, so you've probably forgotten but there was this....

quote:
There's nothing "superior" about me either, I just made a decision - one which you too can make (as can Anselmina).

Do you care about your Salvation? Or would you rather spend the rest of your life engaging in intellectual debates without growing in Christ at all?

I'm sorry - you were saying you had changed? Certainly the Anglican bit may have changed but the 'deluded' appears to still be alive and kicking. Don't worry, I'm sure God doesn't expect even you to get it right [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm sorry - you were saying you had changed? Certainly the Anglican bit may have changed but the 'deluded' appears to still be alive and kicking. Don't worry, I'm sure God doesn't expect even you to get it right .

Yes, you're right of course, as always... [Snore]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

This thread has strayed so far from the OP, that my head is spinning (Like the pea-soup barfing girl in The Exorcist).

Mark Betts - if you want to discuss your new conversion, find somewhere else to do it.

Everyone else: Don't feed the fucking troll

Closed.

PeteC
Hell Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0