|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: church meeting blues
|
Lucydog
Apprentice
# 15116
|
Posted
I'm a churchwarden and, as a result, have to go to various meetings run by representatives from the Diocese. They're usually lovely people, but why do they waste so much time making us go into focus groups or interact in other ways? If they're coming to talk to us about something, why don't they just get on with it instead of faffing around? We're all intelligent, busy people who would probably rather be doing something else than being patronised. Is this unique to the CofE, or just our Diocese? A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think a lot of the problem with organised christianity is work creation.
There is a large parachurch organisation in my city staffed mostly by Americans whose income consists of giving from churches and individuals back home. A continual pressure for them is being busy enough to have something to put in the prayer letters they send back to their supporters.
When you step back and look at their busyness from the outside, though, it's amazing how little direct missional impact they actually have compared to how many of them there are. Their days are consumed with meetings that sound a lot like what you describe (in fact one thing that keeps them busy is training in how to write the aforementioned prayer letters...).
In addition, they find it very difficult to understand why people with other demands on their time (such as the students they work with) aren't "more committed".
I'm not sure what the solution to this is (apart from dismantling organised christianity altogether) ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) but I sympathise.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
It's because when you work for any para-church organisation they send you on seminars, usually run by ex-teachers, about learning styles.
70% of people can only learn by doing something. Apparently. And so you feel forced to think of something to DO which invariably lengthens the meetings and makes people feel like children. Curse the "training consultants".
I think it's a bunch of crap personally. People want to come to the meeting, hear the info, ask questions if they need to and go home.
If it's any comfort, the same "trainers" have been everywhere. When I worked for a local council we couldn't even have a short session about recycling and turning off your computer without some sort of game imagining we had landed on the moon with only a bottle of water or other such drivel.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Having had more than my fair share of conventional meetings - with Chair, Secretary, agenda, minutes, written and unwritten conventions about "appropriate behaviour", I have always had some sympathy for the local E Anglian vicar who gave voice to this wonderful and outrageous prayer at a Norwich Youth for Christ prayer meeting.
"Dear Lord, I pray that you will turn up at the forthcoming Youth for Christ AGM, since you never seem to turn up at ours, or PCCs meetings either, come to think of it".
Mirth broke out big time.
Afterwards, I had quite a serious chat with him. He reckoned he'd been more than a little naughty and more than a little indiscreet, but said it was just frustration with the way these meetings so easily became politicised, taken over by folks who knew how to "play the game". Basically, he had become concerned that those who attended the meetings (including him sometimes) tended to lose the plot; the real purpose of the meetings was to foster Christian work and witness locally.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with trying out various means of escaping from conventions which may be becoming a "dead hand" on the real purpose of such meetings. I guess such variations are a matter for the Chair in the first place. I have a sneaky feeling the vicar I knew is not the only one to have ever had such thoughts.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I largely agree with the posts above.
However, I would also like to hear the views of those who value 'participation' when it comes to sharing information and such like, and who dislike the one person talks and everyone else mainly listens model.
It's always a hot topic on sermon threads how frustrating it is to have to sit through an address during worship with no opportunity to participate in some interactive way. It would be useful to hear if this frustration is also felt with seminars, teaching/training days etc where member participation is not encouraged. And if so what are the plus points of the above kinds of examples in small group, seminar work etc?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I largely agree with the posts above.
However, I would also like to hear the views of those who value 'participation' when it comes to sharing information and such like, and who dislike the one person talks and everyone else mainly listens model.
Yes Anselmina you are quite right. Very eirenic of you! Perhaps I was a bit strong in my opinions.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
I'm a churchwarden and, as a result, have to go to various meetings run by representatives from the Diocese. They're usually lovely people, but why do they waste so much time making us go into focus groups or interact in other ways? If they're coming to talk to us about something, why don't they just get on with it instead of faffing around? We're all intelligent, busy people who would probably rather be doing something else than being patronised. Is this unique to the CofE, or just our Diocese? A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Whilst I have every sympathy with your perspective, the question that springs to mind is: 'What have you done about it?'.
1) Have you written to the person organising the session to express your discontent, and asking them to explain the precise purpose of the 'messing around'?
2) The next level is to propose to the chair of the meeting: 'Next business'. It is, ultimately a formal session; express your discontent publicly and ask for others to support you.
3) Finally take along a book / laptop / report and blatantly refuse to play the game and say publicly 'When we get to the information I'm here to receive, could someone please nudge me. Till then I've got better things to do.'
Nothing changes unless people kick up a fuss. The church has the idiotic belief that we being loving means being non-confrontational, with the result that otherwise assertive people let training people walk all over them. They then come and rant about it at places like this, without helping the people causing the problem to realise that there IS a problem. (that applies to you as well Eutychus!)
Of course your bishop may not bother to reply to your letter - but then it become appropriate to tell him that you can't be bothered to continue your standing order to the church ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I have no problem with doing group exercise things when they have a point and for appropriate items.
What bugs me about most of the church meetings I've ever been involved in (as a member, as a co-optee onto a committee, and as a deacon) is that all of the time/energy would be arse about face.
So you get an agenda item where it's utterly, blindingly obvious what the answer is, but despite that all 15 people present have to be given an opportunity to say their piece. So you go around the table with everyone taking an age to find a new way to say "What they said" but sounding like they're contributing in their own right. I used to pray that I'd be second or third in line, so I could just say "Well, it's pretty obvious, is there anyone who doesn't agree with what X just said?" and short-circuit the whole thing.
Then there are the other items. The really serious ones, where there are definitely things to discuss, where group work would be helpful, where actually listening to the opposing view, debating, and seeking consensus would be the right thing to do. Those are the items where the Chair tends to either push it through in 30 seconds flat with no opportunity for discussion, or says "Ah, well, this is a biggie, maybe we should just defer it after that exhausting debate we've just had on whether or not we want coffee, and if so what brand we should buy".
And then there's the elephant in the room outliers.
All of the above being one reason why I'm currently studiously avoiding all forms of service/volunteering that involve group meetings
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Like Snags, I’ve no problem with doing group exercises when they have a point and are appropriate to the topic in hand. The issues touched on here aren’t unique to churches.
Many agenda items are pointless and input from the whole church may not be needed. Does the purchase of new curtains really to be discussed by the deacons and then the deacons recommendations taken to the main meeting so they can discuss it again and vote on it? Or should someone just go and buy curtains that match the existing colour scheme that aren’t overly expensive.
The other problem is that many meetings are badly chaired so you end up getting bogged down in discussions about trivial stuff like what brand of coffee to buy or the meeting’s resident windbag is allowed to drone on for most of the evening about this week’s pet topic. This leaves you with five minutes to discuss the more difficult and challenging things that no one really wants to, but need a proper and considered discussion in order to decide how best to deal with them.
Eutychus touches on something slightly different IMO. Where the organisation becomes less about what you’re meant to be doing – So for the one in his City it would be missionary work, outreach, supporting a particular group pastorally etc - and more about justifying your existence through attending meetings and doing things that are unrelated to the core activity. [OTH, a survey at my workplace suggests that we’re no different and that people the world over complain that they could be doing proper work if it wasn’t for all this unrelated guff that they’re told they’ve got to do!]
Tubbs
[ 25. July 2012, 11:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I haven't been to too many church meetings involving pseudo-psychological exercises...although our pastor did bring out the "talking stick" at one point to counteract one particular windbag who dominated our committee meeting.
Like others here, my main irritant in meetings are people who veer off the agenda, and leaders who can't reel them in.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
We have similar annoying practices at work where we are required to attend 'bonding' sessions. Most of us hate these sessions and many of us will find excuses to be absent eg death of elderly aunt etc. All these nasty practices seem to be developed by pseudo psychology types most of whom wouldn't have a clue as to what we all do at work. However, it is more than our jobs are worth to complain to the powers that be. Are there any risks in complaining at church events?
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The other problem is that many meetings are badly chaired so you end up getting bogged down in discussions about trivial stuff like what brand of coffee to buy or the meeting’s resident windbag is allowed to drone on for most of the evening about this week’s pet topic. This leaves you with five minutes to discuss the more difficult and challenging things that no one really wants to, but need a proper and considered discussion in order to decide how best to deal with them.
You are, of course, assuming that this isn't precisely the intention of the person chairing the meeting:; to give them the maximum chance of getting the answer they want by reducing the chance for real discussion. We had a major project manipulated through our church on this basis; the opportunity to challenge the whole basis for going for a particular choice was carefully kept from the church council IMHO. The result has been impressive, but I'm still in awe of the Pastor's manipulation of the process leading to the decision.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow is 100% right.
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
...t why do they waste so much time making us go into focus groups or interact in other ways?
Its a form of social control, a way of manipulating the resutls of a meeting so their pre-programmed conclusion can be claimed to be the will of the whole meeting.
If they just told you outright what they wanted you to do or what their opinion was then you might disagree with them. So they take the "frog-boiling" approach, slowly nudging you towards agreeing with them while prompting you to use their carefully crafted language to describe the apparent problems and solutions, often exterting control by extending informal approval and disapproval. A good maniupulator does that qute naturally and often they genuinely don't know they are doing it and they really think everyone agrees with them because no-one has clearly expressed any disagreement. Opposition has become unsayable.
Little groups also supress the exrepssion of dissenting views by forcing them through an incresed number of filters. If each person has to get their opinion through the group, then have someone else "feed back" for them instead of talking with their own voice - and that quite possibly hours later - then have some "moderator" write it up on a flipchart carefuly changing the language to what is socially approved, any real disagreement can be very successfully buried.
Genuinely open participation would involve allowing everyone to speak to the whole meeting rather than their little group or to whoever is sitting next to them. That risks the wrong answer, so it isn't allowed.
Also if there are more than about eight ot ten people present then the only way to have a genuinely equitable discussion on any controversial topic (and why bother to talk about things that aren't controversial?) is to have some formal rules of procedure. These have gone out of fashion in the last twenty or thirty years as they are supposed to be intimidating, but in fact they make a meeting harder to control, not easier. Now everything is about consensus and focus and sharing and learning together and and all the rest of the management-clone-bollocks it is far easier for a manipulative elite to control their minions - and not even admit to themsleves that they are doing it.
(Trust me, I'm in the Labour Party - all those policy forums and so on that came in after Blair were explicitly designed to silence anyone not willing to lick the right-wing's arse - the old-fashoined ways of doing things with formal agendas and committees and rules of debate and passing potions up from branches to GC to Conference had actually allowed the Left to speak - even if what we said was then ignored - but when Noo Labour came in they cut out the middle man and went straight to ignoring us without even listening to us first)
[ 25. July 2012, 14:43: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
The Death Knell for me are the words, "Now we'll break up into small groups, and get to know each other better, by playing some fun games, and take turns around your table by telling the best thing that happened to you this week, and then, the worst thing. Then we'll hold hands and pray for each person's worst thing."
Or words to that effect. Makes me want to just die. Quickly.
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
The Death Knell for me are the words, "Now we'll break up into small groups, and get to know each other better, by playing some fun games, and take turns around your table by telling the best thing that happened to you this week, and then, the worst thing. Then we'll hold hands and pray for each person's worst thing."
Or words to that effect. Makes me want to just die. Quickly.
I know some preachers who do that in sermons. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
We hates it! We hates it for ever!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
Ken, that's why I left the Labour Party. Are you still in there?
As for church, I'm a Catholic - sort of - and we don't have meetings. Not sure if that's good or bad...
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
The Death Knell for me are the words, "Now we'll break up into small groups, and get to know each other better, by playing some fun games, and take turns around your table by telling the best thing that happened to you this week, and then, the worst thing. Then we'll hold hands and pray for each person's worst thing."
The only time this particular bishop has pulled rank in a meeting was when someone tried doing that at a Standing Committee meeting. We were seriously behind schedule, and I was not in a mood for the touchy-feely stuff, so I muttered "No we bloody won't!" Then outloud "As we are running well behind schedule I think it would be a more productive use of time to move on to the next element in your presentation." A huge sign of relief went around the room, and we got finished on time - i.e. 5pm.
I tend to fear anarchy more than tyranny, so I tend to keep Church meetings on a pretty short chain. They are essentially ventilation exercises, because the policy is pretty much on-going and depends a lot on the outlook of the particular bishop. Otherwise you discuss the same things over and over and over, which if it is something unpopular may be the tactic that is being employed by its advocates to wear the rest of us out.
Another pet-peeve is being made to wear a name tag... I have been the bishop for three years, they ought to know who I am by now!
PD
[ 25. July 2012, 15:09: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucydog
Apprentice
# 15116
|
Posted
thanks everyone, and, yes, I will express how I feel about it. In fact, people's answers clarified how I felt about what was wrong i.e. there is no value in focus groups and other exercises, they are just designed to push you in the way the organisers want you to go, while making you feel like your discussion might be important (which it isn't)
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Our Diocese has gone big time for the Diocesan advisors, who travel about from parish to parish making suggestions and then disappear off to the next place. At the same time, the Diocese is complaining that it is short of money. I personally would like to see the floating advisors being utilised in the parishes, working at ground level where they are needed, as we have so few parish priests, each given an increasing number of churches.
I was pleased to see, though, that we have been given the chance to comment on how Diocesan resources should be allocated (by questionnaire), and was able to bring up this point. It will be interesting to see if there is any feedback.
It is difficult to understand, if you are the sort of person who is used to talks, sermons and lectures, how some people need a more interactive approach. I ducked out of the Lent Course this year because it was very craft based (making paper chains, etc.). But some people who went thought it was wonderful ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I was pleased to see, though, that we have been given the chance to comment on how Diocesan resources should be allocated (by questionnaire), and was able to bring up this point. It will be interesting to see if there is any feedback.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You seriously expect the wrong answers to be publicised? The only way to correct this is for Diocescan synod to take control of the budget and delete the funds for such advisors. But they will be diverted by more pressing issues, like climate change, women's ministry, the provision of toilets in churches etc etc.
Me cynical? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Genuinely open participation would involve allowing everyone to speak to the whole meeting rather than their little group or to whoever is sitting next to them. That risks the wrong answer, so it isn't allowed.
Absolutely agree. I've once seen a vicar ask the PCC whether he could get rid of the pews in favour of chairs. They said no. He accepted it. He clearly really wants chairs, and I hear that he brings it up again every so often, and gets told no again.
I wonder if he could have manipulated the meeting had he done a bit of focus group discussion, brainstormed and snow-balled the pros and cons, and got what he wanted. He's a clever man, and probably could have done that if he wanted. He tried to persuade them of his view in an open way, failed, and accepted the verdict. Which I have great respect for.
I think those kind of snow-balling and focus group activities are useful in adult education. In which they are clearly designed to bring out the points a teacher wants to get to. Hence they are not appropriate for engaging with peers who have important views.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
Okay, I realise this is a seriously minority opinion, but I wish there were more interaction and more genuine reflection and discussion at meetings. Anything that doesn’t need that kind of discussion should be done by email.
Most of the meetings I used to go to at church were like Snags’ second example. An innocuously-worded agenda item would turn out to be a major decision, possibly involving the church in vast expenditure. A long document would be circulated at the meeting when we had no time to digest it. Then everyone would sit around in a circle not wanting to speak for fear of looking stupid or troublesome. Thus we would get “consensus” – although sometimes it would later transpire that people hadn’t been 100% sure what they had just agreed to.
One of the best meetings was when we split up into groups, outside the view of the Rector, and did an exercise based on the Mystery Worshipper! It was the first time we all felt safe to admit that the church wasn’t perfect and that we did want to make changes. I think we’d all previously thought it was just us.
(I should add that in the learning styles thing, I’m somebody who learns best by reading – hence my great irritation at having to listen to something I could have read in advance. And I really don’t get what the appeal is of sticking bits of coloured paper together!)
[ 25. July 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: Wannabe Heretic ]
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
thanks everyone, and, yes, I will express how I feel about it. In fact, people's answers clarified how I felt about what was wrong i.e. there is no value in focus groups and other exercises, they are just designed to push you in the way the organisers want you to go, while making you feel like your discussion might be important (which it isn't)
There is no value in abusing any group discussion by manipulating its agenda, guidelines or processes in order to achieve a pre-determined end.
Heck, the original point of such processes was to provide variations of opinions and arguments based on the diverse experience and understanding of the group members. Behind that was the ancient understanding that in resolving matters requiring a lot of thought, two (or more) heads are better than one.
When any such process is used cynically to endorse the opinions of a powerful individual (or group) the process has been corrupted. It is naive to believe that the traditional committee processes aren't often corrupted in precisely that way, so that the meetings become a kind of ritual dance. I've been to plenty of those, come away feeling "what a waste of the ability in the room".
So I think it is wrong in principle to attack novel processes simply because they are novel. What is essential is the recognition that all processes, novel or traditional, are subject to abuse by the powerful, and seek to guard against that. Speak up against the stitch-up.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Okay, I realise this is a seriously minority opinion, but I wish there were more interaction and more genuine reflection and discussion at meetings.... An innocuously-worded agenda item would turn out to be a major decision, possibly involving the church in vast expenditure. A long document would be circulated at the meeting when we had no time to digest it.
I think there are lots of different compatible attributes to describe meetings that can be distinguished.
For instance, one can have an interactive, open floor discussion without doing the focus group stuff. One can circulate documents and agendas in detail in advance whether or not one does an interactive bit.
I like having things written down too, and find it frustrating that meetings are called as a substitute for people answering emails and commenting on documents in detail.
My problem is with the focus group activity stuff without an opportunity for the group to establish consensus with an unfettered discussion. But there probably is a place for breaking into small groups before coming back together again if it is difficult to get any discussion going. However I think it is important that the group as a whole is allowed an unguided unfacilitated response after that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Like Snags, I’ve no problem with doing group exercises when they have a point and are appropriate to the topic in hand. The issues touched on here aren’t unique to churches.
Exactly. Which means being clear about the committee and it's purpose.
Some committees are truly ministry teams where the goal is both team building as well as planning upcoming events. Group exercises or devotional activities might be appropriate in that context.
Some committee are meant to be simply oversight-- they aren't the actual ministry team, they are a "rubber stamp" giving accountability so you don't have a rogue group running off half-cocked (too many of these sorts of committees and you get nothing done). These groups are best kept to efficiency-- make sure the group seeking approval gets to have their say, make your decision, and be done w/ it.
There's a difference, too, between the types of activities you might engage in when you're brainstorming (trying to think outside the box, generate creativity) and when you are doing the minutia of planning/ trouble shooting or evaluating a completed program.
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Many agenda items are pointless and input from the whole church may not be needed. Does the purchase of new curtains really to be discussed by the deacons and then the deacons recommendations taken to the main meeting so they can discuss it again and vote on it? Or should someone just go and buy curtains that match the existing colour scheme that aren’t overly expensive.
The other problem is that many meetings are badly chaired so you end up getting bogged down in discussions about trivial stuff like what brand of coffee to buy or the meeting’s resident windbag is allowed to drone on for most of the evening about this week’s pet topic. This leaves you with five minutes to discuss the more difficult and challenging things that no one really wants to, but need a proper and considered discussion in order to decide how best to deal with them.
A consent agenda is a good workaround here. One week in advance the agenda is emailed, including all motions to be brought forward and supporting arguments/ documentation from the individual/ group making the motion. No additional agenda items are accepted after that date except in an emergency.
On the day of the mtg, after the preliminaries of approving minutes, etc. the chair asks if there are any items that need to be pulled from the "consent agenda"-- i.e. anything that needs clarification or discussion. After those items are pulled a motion is made to approve the consent agenda. Anything left on the consent agenda-- not pulled-- is approved then w/o comment or discussion. The chair then proceeds to discuss the items pulled-- asking the person who pulled it what their question or opposition is, to be answered by the person bringing forth the motion.
For truly controversial issues with a lot of heat, it can be useful to make an itemized list of pros and cons, and continually remind people not to repeat arguments already made. You have the list upfront (either handed out ahead of time or on powerpoint or white board)-- speak only if you have something to add on the pro or con that hasn't already been mentioned.
Proceed to vote.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Okay, I realise this is a seriously minority opinion, but I wish there were more interaction and more genuine reflection and discussion at meetings.
I don't think people here are objecting to genuine reflection and discussion, but to the "bonding exercises" and the "let's get to know each other games."
I just now came home from a morning meeting followed by helping paint scenery for VBS, both productive gatherings with NO bonding exercises or "get to know you" games; contrasting these with what some here are saying, I *think* what's going on is some churches have picked up the idea that we need to build connections, and meetings of any kind are seen as primarily for the purpose of building connections rather than primarily for getting some specific project planned or done and letting the process of working together automatically build connections.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I *think* what's going on is some churches have picked up the idea that we need to build connections, and meetings of any kind are seen as primarily for the purpose of building connections rather than primarily for getting some specific project planned or done and letting the process of working together automatically build connections.
I think that's right - at least in part, when considering the motivations of organisers. The desire for church to become more relational (rather than primarily task-structured) is I think a good one.
But IME, working together does not automatically build connections. Often it becomes a crucible for highlighting differences of personality and outlook. Working together is just as likely to create emnity as harmony. In this respect, the voluntary team associations in local churches don't differ all that much from the more enforced teams found in the average workplace. Church and workplace politics thrive in the fertile soil produced by "rubbing edges".
There's a natural tendency to relate to those folks who we relate to more easily, to form factions almost without realising it. It takes some generosity of heart and mind to recognise that diversities of outlook and personality can be a source of riches. The "rubbing edges" often tell us as much about ourselves as the folks who are irritating us.
[ 26. July 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is no value in abusing any group discussion by manipulating its agenda, guidelines or processes in order to achieve a pre-determined end.
Heck, the original point of such processes was to provide variations of opinions and arguments based on the diverse experience and understanding of the group members. Behind that was the ancient understanding that in resolving matters requiring a lot of thought, two (or more) heads are better than one.
When any such process is used cynically to endorse the opinions of a powerful individual (or group) the process has been corrupted. It is naive to believe that the traditional committee processes aren't often corrupted in precisely that way, so that the meetings become a kind of ritual dance. I've been to plenty of those, come away feeling "what a waste of the ability in the room".
So I think it is wrong in principle to attack novel processes simply because they are novel. What is essential is the recognition that all processes, novel or traditional, are subject to abuse by the powerful, and seek to guard against that. Speak up against the stitch-up.
I completely agree with this. The problem is that those who abuse the processes do see a value in it if they get the outcome they want.
In PCC meetings I’ve unfortunately encountered the attitude that leadership means the vicar makes the decisions. The way this is achieved is by not following the regulations, so no proper agendas or documents in advance of the meeting, no minutes of previous meeting in advance, vicar decides the agenda and also the draft minutes. I was once refused permission to put an item on an agenda because the vicar didn't agree with the proposal but believed the rest of the PCC probably would agree. He felt that if this were allowed to happen then it would mean the PCC had failed to accept his leadership and he would be obliged to resign. The proposal was a) that we get documents in advance of the meeting so that we can think about proposals beforehand and b) that agreed minutes are made available to the congregation.
A PCC has legal responsiblities and can be held accountable for its decisions so it is very important that statutory processes are followed. Its not a general discussion group or sounding board for the vicar's ideas. I’ve heard of one PCC where every meeting begins with each person in turn having to say what God has done for them that month.
Sometimes even where established processes are followed, if the outcome isn't what those in power want then the decision is ignored or sabotaged in some way. For example, a meeting involving clergy and laity which had to decide between three proposals. Option A proposed a major change involving formal proceses, option B proposed a less drastic change and with informal processes which could be a way of working towards option A. Option C was to do nothing and leave things as they were. Clergy voted for option A, the laity for option B. It was agreed that some kind of working party be formed to move things forward. However, this never happened and option C was the result. From that time on the main supporters of option A referred to the decision as the laity's failure to agree to option A. If it had been the other way round and clergy had voted for option B then I am sure this would have been followed through.
As for speaking up against the stitch-up, the way things are in the CofE if you're a curate, NSM, OLM, Reader or anyone with a licensed ministry you risk having that ministry effectively ended.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Yes, for adults! If you can't articulate what your church symbolises to you, understand that it's different from what it symbolises to the person sitting in the next pew, and imagine how different it is from what it symbolises to the people who walk past it every day but never think of coming to contribute then you shouldn't be putting yourself forward to be a churchwarden. If your church has healed all the sick people in the parish, fed the hungry and set all the captives free, then I'm speaking out of turn. But certainly my church is very far for those things, or even from being a viable community, let alone a beacon for the local community to look to. If we're not being effective in our mission then we need to reflect on what is holding us back.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've once seen a vicar ask the PCC whether he could get rid of the pews in favour of chairs. They said no. He accepted it. He clearly really wants chairs, and I hear that he brings it up again every so often, and gets told no again.
He's right! He needs to find a way to manipulate the meeting. They'll all be much happier when they get out of the Victorian age and join the rest of the world sitting in comfortable seats. You can call it democracy if you like, but mob rule often produces the wrong decision.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Yes, for adults!
Surely, "for some adults" - and that's where the problem lies.
For (seeing that I have the drawing ability of a very visually-challenged 3-year old) this kind of thing doesn't help me at all; I work more through debate and discussion. But my wife finds the visual stuff really helpful. (For what it's worth, I'm not saying that this is in any way a gender issue: I'm merely speaking of my wife and myself).
[ 26. July 2012, 22:58: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
As for speaking up against the stitch-up, the way things are in the CofE if you're a curate, NSM, OLM, Reader or anyone with a licensed ministry you risk having that ministry effectively ended.
I'm sorry to hear that. If more generally true, then something is wrong.
Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others? I recognise the general issue of tenure in the C of E but I wouldn't have thought that stopped a Rural Dean or Archdeacon (or even the Bish if necessary) from jumping up and down on the head of a vicar who was clearly abusing due (and authorised) PCC process. That looks like a line-cross worth their time to do something about.
I'm more used to the church meeting scenario in congregationalist settings. There is scope for those to be abused as well, but it's hard to silence a nonco congo member with the bit between his or her teeth!
[Mind you, whistleblowers have a hard time just about everywhere these days. "And the people all said sit down, sit down you're rocking the boat" seems to be some kind of baleful theme.]
[ 26. July 2012, 10:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our Diocese has gone big time for the Diocesan advisors, who travel about from parish to parish making suggestions and then disappear off to the next place. At the same time, the Diocese is complaining that it is short of money. I personally would like to see the floating advisors being utilised in the parishes, working at ground level where they are needed, as we have so few parish priests, each given an increasing number of churches.
My experience is that the sort of churches where such people would make a real difference are the sort of churches that wouldn't have them!
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
Most training courses these days involve breaking into small groups so that you can share your ignorance with one another, with a plenary session afterwards to share the ignorance more widely.
If all the participants are truly ignorant of the subject matter and are there to be trained, then this is pointless. It would be better for the trainer to train them. However, if the participants bring different types of expertise to the meeting, it can be helpful, as they will jointly know much more than one trainer.
With regard to meetings, here are some things that work:
- Have no "any other business" or ask people with any other business to inform the chair before the meeting starts. This avoids the meeting rambling on.
- Approve the minutes of the previous meeting at the end of the meeting rather than the start and have "matters arising" either absent or at the end. Important matters arising get their own items earlier in the agenda. This topsy-turvy arrangements avoids wasting time at the start of the meeting re-hashing what was decided last time.
- If there is something super-important to discuss, put it first or put it immediately after all of the non-contentious but necessary stuff.
- Have starred items. These are things that are on the agenda but which are approved with no discussion. Ensure that there is an item early on to "approve all starred items" during which people can unstar things. Ensure that the chair skips the starred items rather than saying "Item 8 is starred..." followed by a five minute monologue on item 8.
- If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others?
Can happen in congregationalist-type Nonconformist churches, too. Trust me.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Yes, for adults! If you can't articulate what your church symbolises to you, understand that it's different from what it symbolises to the person sitting in the next pew, and imagine how different it is from what it symbolises to the people who walk past it every day but never think of coming to contribute then you shouldn't be putting yourself forward to be a churchwarden.
Adults can have that discussion without being asked to draw pictures with a felt pen. Then they can be treated like adults and debate the idea, and whether it is right or not, and whether they should in fact be churchwardens despite not agreeing with it.
Setting it up like a school lesson with a drawing activity introduces the idea that the teacher has the answers and is teaching the children. That's fine if the meeting is educational, but not if it is about discussion and shared decision making.
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
He's right! He needs to find a way to manipulate the meeting... You can call it democracy if you like, but mob rule often produces the wrong decision.
The thing is that as tempting as they are in the short term if you are in control, non-democratic methods often seem to pan out worse in the end.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Two things.
1/ Most church meetings are “make-work” because we don’t know how to do mission and evangelism so we go to meetings. (Most “social action” in parishes falls into the same category). The only answer I have found that has any chance of working is converting the meeting into a time of corporate prayer and bible study. Funnily when we turn again to God He turns up.
2/ It helps to define agenda items into “Church Business” or “The Business of the Church.” Most meetings I go to 90% of the agenda is Church Business. Now don’t get me wrong someone has to decide when we pay the bills, who get the toilet paper and what colour we paint the toilets, but these matters should never trump “The Business of the Church.” So an attempt to dramatically curtail “Church Business” and have an hour or so of “The Business of the Church.” First few times we tried this it was like the tumble weed moment. But in the end we started to get somewhere and when we are really stuck we have a time of corporate prayer and bible study. Funnily when we turn again to God He turns up.
Atb Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Most training courses these days involve breaking into small groups so that you can share your ignorance with one another, with a plenary session afterwards to share the ignorance more widely.
When I was doing my Reader training, we had one lecturer who would often break us up into small groups to discuss things for about 10 minutes before re-convening. He later admitted that the primary reason for doing this was so that he could nip outside for a smoke!
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Pyx_e! Most meetings seem to be ‘topped and tailed’ with thirty seconds of prayer, and then (in the church I was in anyway) virtually no reference to God or the gospel in between. I think the people chairing are (rightly) concerned to keep the meeting short, but it unfortunately seems easier to do that by cutting out a) debate and b) God rather than working out a more efficient process like Dal Segno suggests.
Hairy Biker / Mdijon: Isn’t there a way the priest could put forward his case persuasively without manipulating people? Simply saying ‘do you want chairs?’ (if that’s what he did) is bound to get a rejection. That’s not a decision, it’s just a reaction. But manipulating people would just lead to resentment and problems down the line. Especially because debates about chairs and pews are never just about chairs and pews. Sometimes people think they can ‘make the space more flexible’ as if that were an end in itself, without thinking through all the corollaries – does anybody actually want to use this space? Are we happy about what they might want to do in it? What about the additional pressure on volunteers to open up and lock up?
One good technique I’ve come across for major decisions like that is called De Bono’s Thinking Hats. It’s a way of making sure you look at a suggestion from all angles – pros and cons, practicalities, emotional reactions, aspects that are uncertain or need more looking into, alternatives. Otherwise what happens is that the first person comes up with all the reasons it won’t work; the second person reacts emotionally; the third person says that the second person’s reaction isn’t valid; the fourth person suggests something entirely different... and you never actually get a chance to assess any of the arguments because the discussion is going in so many different directions.
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
If there is something contentious, the chair or secretary should ideally discuss it with everyone beforehand to avoid instinctive reactions (we've never done that before) from dominating over considered reactions (we've never done that before but, on reflection, it might be worth a try).
And who takes the minutes of these discussions?
[ 26. July 2012, 12:03: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
But manipulating people would just lead to resentment and problems down the line.
Exactly.
Actually he did put the case reasonably persuasively and outlined all the things that could be done with chairs rather than pews. But however persuasive one is, there remains the possibility that people won't agree with you. And if they don't then I think the right thing to do is accept it.
Pews vs chairs is really quite an arguable thing and not an obvious moral judgement. There should be room for reasonable people to disagree, and therefore take the view that the right way is to establish the consensus vote and go with that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
....I was once refused permission to put an item on an agenda because the vicar didn't agree with the proposal but believed the rest of the PCC probably would agree. He felt that if this were allowed to happen then it would mean the PCC had failed to accept his leadership and he would be obliged to resign. The proposal was a) that we get documents in advance of the meeting so that we can think about proposals beforehand and b) that agreed minutes are made available to the congregation....
If that really is a true summary of what happened and the issues, and he was that touchy about interpreting everything as a challenge to his leadership, he was unsuitable to be a leader. Perhaps you should have called his bluff.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
A recent one involved us being told to draw on a piece of card with felt pens pictures of what our church symbolised to us. OK for children maybe, but adults?
Yes, for adults! If you can't articulate what your church symbolises to you, understand that it's different from what it symbolises to the person sitting in the next pew, and imagine how different it is from what it symbolises to the people who walk past it every day but never think of coming to contribute then you shouldn't be putting yourself forward to be a churchwarden.
The problem is that some people, including me, are disastrously bad at drawing. I do better making shapes with plasticene, and I also am good at expressing myself with words. If I have to draw, I want a pencil with an eraser.
If I were asked at the beginning of a meeting to draw with a felt marker, it would temporarily damage my self-confidence to the point that I would contribute less to the meeting than I otherwise would have.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... If that really is a true summary of what happened and the issues, and he was that touchy about interpreting everything as a challenge to his leadership, he was unsuitable to be a leader. Perhaps you should have called his bluff.
He had very many years' experience of being an inccumbent and was well-regarded in the diocese. 'Calling his bluff' would have ended my ministry, that was made very clear.
Before I became a Reader, and in another diocese, I attended a lay training event which was led by a suffragen bishop from another diocese. At that event a Reader of very long experience spoke about the difficulty she would have in following the bishop's suggestions. She explained that if she did or said anything at all which her incumbent did not agree with he would simply take her off the service rota and her minsitry would be ended. The bishop expressed his outrage at her situation and urged her, and indeed all of us, to stand up for ourselves. But, as she remarked at the end, after the bishop had left, he was from another diocese and unable to help her so nothing would change.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Moo
What about adults who are the other way around, who can draw and such but can't express themselves well in words, don't most meetings play on their insecurities in just the same way?
That is what I suspect at the core of this, we all have preferences for things being done in certain ways whether due to skill, natural abilities or experience (what is known is nearly always preferable to the unknown). When something comes outside our preferences we feel uncomfortable. We rarely stop to consider how someone with different preferences might feel if things are organised the way we like.
Many years ago my father was making just such complaints and wondering why things could not be done in formal manner, until I pointed out that while he knew how to behave in a formal public meeting (due to experience as it is how much of the URC is run), my brother-in-law in a skilled technical job didn't because he never had to deal with them. So what was comfortable for Dad was very uncomfortable for my brother-in-law.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If an adult wanted to contribute by volunteering a drawing of something that is very different from all being sat down and given a piece of paper and a felt tip.
It is the equivalent of asking everyone to give a 1 minute talk about their view of the church.
It isn't the drawing vs verbal or the formal vs informal dichotomy for me, it is the compulsion to communicate in a particular way regarding a particular issue that bothers me.
Adults should be allowed to choose how they will contribute and a meeting of adults where those adults are to be responsible for a decision ought to allow the form of discussion to be shaped by those present.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others?
Can happen in congregationalist-type Nonconformist churches, too. Trust me.
Sure. In Baptist congos, when it comes to control however, the boot is very often on the other foot. As Billy Graham joked; "Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Resist the deacons and they will fly at you".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But IME, working together does not automatically build connections. Often it becomes a crucible for highlighting differences of personality and outlook. Working together is just as likely to create emnity as harmony.
IME team building exercises can build enmity too.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In Baptist congos, when it comes to control however, the boot is very often on the other foot. As Billy Graham joked; "Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Resist the deacons and they will fly at you".
Absolutely true, Barnabas.
But it's far harder to deal with the "informal leaders" - those who are unelected and yet whose words have much more clout than the "official" ones. All churches and societies have them.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
..Perhaps there is realpolitik at work, possibly more in some parishes than others? I recognise the general issue of tenure in the C of E but I wouldn't have thought that stopped a Rural Dean or Archdeacon (or even the Bish if necessary) from jumping up and down on the head of a vicar who was clearly abusing due (and authorised) PCC process. ...
Thing is Barnabas, the CofE works hierarchically so where incumbents behave like jerks, and get away with it, chances are the Rural Deans, Archdeadons (or even Bishops) behave like bigger jerks.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
