Thread: OLMs in the C of E 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=023339
Posted by mooky (# 15729) on
:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
[ 21. July 2012, 06:40: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I would suggest that you convert to a Church that you believe to be the Church founded by Christ regardless of your status as an OLM- whatever that is.
[ 20. July 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
The answer is surely going to depend on the Church to which you want to transfer.
If, for example, you are attracted to the Catholic Church, there are established routes (both within and outside the Ordinariate) and there are people on the Ship who could tell you a good deal about how it all happens.
If you're thinking of an independent Pentacostalist congregation in your locality, it's going to be different - and unless there's a member of that congregation on the Ship no-one can tell you much!
Different destinations will have different theologies of priesthood, and there can be no one answer!
So, what direction do you see yourself taking? And if you've not decided, what is it that's leading you to move, and do those reasons indicate any likely destination?
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on
:
That would depend entirely on which church you join. If Catholic, then of course there's the Ordinariate.
(P.S., is this a little serious for Heaven?)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Regardless of your status as an OLM- whatever that is.
According to Google, it's a blind, cave-dwelling amphibian.
While we are not specieist in Heaven, this may not be the most apposite board for this discussion. I will consult with my fellow Hosts.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Ah - found OLM!
Sorry to hear you feel so strongly that you need to leave the CofE, mooky.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Its an ordained local minister.
And the probably the reason that nobody can tell you is that nobody knows. You are raised up from a local congregation and ordained to your particular local church and have to stay there.
An OLM is a strange thing that the CofE doesn't seem to have quite worked out where it stands in the scheme of things.
Also from what I read diocese vary, some do not even have OLMs.
I have an OLM friend and in her diocese she can't transfer to another CofE church, never mind another denomination.
She even has to get permission to preach in a different church to her home church.
But seriously if you have issues with the CofE you need to sort out the whys and wherefores of that, before you can decide which church fits with your theology and ecclesiology. You can't choose a church on the basis of whether you can remain an OLM or you risk jumping from the frying pan to the fire
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
On the other hand I used to be a member of a chruch with an OLM. Her OLM network was complaining that more and more they were being asked to cover interregna, when being in charge of a parish was not part of their training or expectations.
An OLM who wanted to change and become a vicar, had to do some more training, as they were trained in different ways. Though it is possible that that is not the same for all dioceses.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
On the other hand I used to be a member of a chruch with an OLM. Her OLM network was complaining that more and more they were being asked to cover interregna, when being in charge of a parish was not part of their training or expectations.
An OLM who wanted to change and become a vicar, had to do some more training, as they were trained in different ways. Though it is possible that that is not the same for all dioceses.
You've highlighted the problems nicely. I've had experience of the same OLMs complaining on the one hand of not being deployable wherever they wanted to go AND also having been asked to go beyond the parish to assist other churches, once in a while, in need of a priest's services. - or being compelled to up their contribution during interregnums.
I think there is great potential in Ordained Local Ministry but the huge wrinkles in the scheme obviously haven't been ironed out. For an OLM to post that they want to leave the church that gave them their authority as an ordained minister but 'keep' their priesthood in terms of applying as a priest, to another Church/ecclesial institution seems to indicate an almost catastrophic ignorance. (I'm not saying it's the poster's fault, by the way. I know nothing about his/her situation so everything I post here is general and not specific to his case.)
And it's not altogether clear whether training is always to blame for this. In one diocese, to my knowledge, OLMs were given the same training as stipendiary/NSM clergy and readers (more or less), and were very well acquainted with the nature of both the priesthood and an OLM's particular restrictions - and blessings - in the exercise of their particular ministry.
They knew, explicitly, they could not seek either NSM or stipendiary ministry, would be under the authority of a P-in-C or Rector/Vicar and be mainly deployable, with Bishop's variations, within the context of their own parish set-up, because it was from that parish set-up they had received their mandate for ministry to the local people.
It has worried me when I've seen an OLM happy to be part of the process (indeed in some dioceses dependant on it), of a team or group of congregations discerning them as a potential OLM, receiving their acceptance and training and then ordination as a result of this parochial mandate; and then doing what appears to be everything they can to disassociate themselves from the same local consensus by which they derived their new authority! It's like saying to those parishioners: 'thanks, guys, for the collar and the title. I'm off now, bye!'
However, post-ordination seems to throw up a small crop of OLMs who do not seem to remember - or somehow overlooked - these factors in their training, and acquire persecution complexes based on things they will have had to agree to accept at least a few years before their training began eg, no stipend, no house, restricted deployability etc.
It does argue the case for 'what is priesthood' - but I think the issue is more about the authority of ordination, and the authorizing Body of that ordination (under God). I'm sure there must be CofE bishops who would be content to PTO or acquire an OLM moving into a new area, if that person seems capable in ministry. But I can't imagine a non-Anglican Church accepting Anglican orders for their own leadership, except to whatever degree they actually recognize Anglican orders as valid.
It's a shame Mooky's contribution to CofE ministry hasn't worked out, and I hope s/he finds a great, welcoming place where he can be useful and serve God with great satisfaction.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
A friend's church is in conflict at the moment, because the OLM cannot accept that the new Rector, is the one with the authority to lead the church.
In the OLM's mind they have been there longer and was very busy during the interregnum. However they can't let go and just can't see why the rector was needed, when they were there to run the church.
In fact the OLM's reputation as a difficult person went before them and actually put off some applicants from applying for the post.
Having said that I was at a church for a while which had the most fabulous OLM. Who because she didn't have to worry about the 'business side' of church had the most creative ministry.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Would it not be better for these to be made or trained as NSMs? Can they wear their clerical collars outside the parish? Surely the symbolism of being ordained (usally deacon) in the cathedral emphasises that the local church is actually the diocese (in episcopal churches) not the parish. So many questions. It seems as if the CofE has made a cock up of this good intention.
That is not meant as an insult at all to clergy who are OLMs, but questioning what appears to be an inconsistency both theologically and ecclesiologically.
There is the question also of 'a prophet is not without honour...' and a very strong argument that those called to leadership should NOT do it where they have been known before. It was (is?) the practice in the police that anyone promoted has to move, for that very reason. This is also the case in certain jobs in the Armed Forces.
Related, but not quite the same, is the convention in the CofE that clergy do not retire to where they have been incumbents.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Sebby the OLMs that I know were ordained in their own parish church and not the cathederal, in order to empahise that they are called from within their congregation.
And yes to everything you have said - it was what I was getting at when I said I don't think the church has really worked out the place of OLMs in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
As this discussion is developing in the direction of the nature and role of OLM s in the Church of England, the call is that it would be better suited to Purgatory. I will edit the title to reflect that.
Mooky, the board for sympathy and support is All Saints. You may wish to take the personal aspects of your situation there.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I'm certainly no expert concerning OLMs, mooky, but I would have thought your predicament largely depends on where your priorities lie.
I left the C of E around a year ago, to become Orthodox, but my position in the church I saw as a secondary thing (although it wasn't much to begin with).
Would it be possible for you to join a church which you are more comfortable with, and in time fulfill at least some of the functions you used to partake in within the local community without being ordained? If certain people you are in contact with need communion (for example), you could work with a local priesr/pastor to arrange this. Re-ordination may come in its own time, but I don't think it should be your priority.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I have just checked the ordination information for a number of dioceses, and the diaconal ordinations are usually in the cathedral and in some places (but not all) the priestly ordinations in parish churches. There is no distinction between OLMs. NSMs, full time clergy with this arrangement. This emphasises both the universal and the particular.
Is an OLM restricted totally to one parish and somehow isn't a priest when they step outside? Does this mean an OLM is restricted when, say, a Reader isn't? Hasn't the invention of the car made a parochial view of ministry redundant anyway, to an extent?
It is clearly an unresolved nonsense.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
I am a massive fan of the OLM concept because it restores a level of function in a parish corresponding to the presbyters of the church in the first few centuries before dioceses grew to the silly size that they are now. It is my understanding that historically - e.g. when Augustine was in Hippo - a bishop was over what we would regard as a small town, probably with a population about the size of our CofE parishes. In that context the presbyters are the 'local leaders' who are recognised as having a ministry to contribute to the 'diocese'.
As dioceses grew, these presbyters increasingly became the person in charge of parish churches, and increasingly came to be the 'bishops' of those parishes, leaving it impossible for the ministries active in those parishes to be recognised as presbyters (not all ministries are helped by the title, and of course, some are more diaconal - but that's another debate).
The problem is exacerbated by the propensity by the belief that being ordained creates an ontological change which will remain with you even if you move. This encourages bishops to be very sparing in their willingness to ordain - cause it can't be undone.
But of course being human, some OLMs find the constraints under which they operate too limiting, whilst others actually transition to be being 'proper' presbyters in charge of a church, with the concurrence of their bishop: I know one who is now 'house for duty' in charge of a parish; his gifting has developed. Of this is actually no different from a priest developing into a bishop...
The issue of the availability of an OLM to cover inter-regna in parishes is interesting; from first principles it doesn't make sense. But one can argue it's a good training opportunity - the excuse my former employer always offered when they required me to carry out tasks above my pay grade; it raises hard questions about the preparation, and is one of the issues that the diocese must work through with the individual at the time of ordination.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
Why are you leaving? Whats the problem? Please tell me (I wrote a really rude reply and then decided to just check that you had a real reason and were not flouncing).
AtB Pyx_e
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
You will always be a priest since ordination is to the whole Church even though licensed ministry for an OLM is to a local setting. You would be in the same position as a retired priest.
The Methodist Church recognises Anglican orders and some CofE clergy are also Methodist ministers. ISTM that OLM selection and training with its emphasis on collaborative ministry is well suited to the Methodist Church which relies on collaborative leadership.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Ordination is to 'the church of God' not 'the Church of England' and certainly not to 'the parish church of St. X's'.
While I applaud the element of a community calling out its own person, and while it may be impractical for a full-time worker with a family to be redeployed by the diocese, there must be times when it is necessary for them to move - for their career for example. In many cases, they are the sort of worker priests that NSMs were meant to be.
However, they seem to have less portabilty that me - as a Reader, I preach in other parishes quite often.
Maybe OLMs and Readers should be licensed to deaneries rather than to parishes. That is being encouraged in the diocese. We have an OLM from a nearby parish who often comes to preside for us but she is retired and therefore has more time to move around, plus the circumstances of her parish have changed - when she startred, her parish was in interregnum. Now, it has two full time clergy..
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
Some OLMs are licensed to deaneries - 'local' has a fairly wide interpretation. However the initial calling is from a parish and the parish has to be assessed and authorised before it can present a candidate for OLM. There are nationally agreed criteria which include a commitment to shared ministry and the structures to support an OLM.
It's not meant to be a transferable ministry, like NSM or Reader, and I suppose this can be one of the problems when an OLM moves. Their selection and training has been focused on the needs of one locality and their position in the church has more similarities with a churchwarden than with a Reader or NSM. But they are still ordained.
[ 21. July 2012, 10:38: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
... I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
Have you, personally, with or without assistance, worked out why you want to leave? Clearly?
Perhaps you need "time out" to consider the implications.
Do you have any idea "where" you want to go?
This might also need reflection and consultation.
What do you see "priesthood" as being and does remaining a priest become the most important element when transferring? Will you remain C of E if you can't be a priest if you transfer?
You seem confused. Very confused. Perhaps something has led to you seriously doubting the process you went through or the purpose you were ordained for.
There is more to this than appears on the surface. Take care. Think. Pray. Consult. If you're temporarily depressed about anything please wait till you feel better and things clear. It sounds a difficult time.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I was a member of a church where we had an OLM ordained while I was a member. It was a church that was used to having stipendiary curates and they were used to going off to the cathedral for their priestings.
When the OLM was ordained in the parish church, a lot of the congregation had great difficulty understanding exactly what was going on. The question was frequently asked as to what exactly was the OLM now? and how was it different to the other curates?
And yes actually the readers are more re-deployable than OLMs, though as always, every diocese interprets these sort of situations a bit differently. As do many dioceses train in different ways too, and I have heard that some dioceses no longer train OLM’s?
Certainly in some (I hesitate to say all, as practice seems to vary so much) dioceses OLMs have to be part of some sort of local ministry team and the question hasn't been answered, as to what happens to the OLM, if the Local ministry team ceases to exist.
So it would It seem to me that it is impossible to give any sort of definitive answer to the position of OLMs because as always the devil is in the detail.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm only just learning about OLMs, but what occurs to me is that if you're talking about being a pastor in a different denomination, surely most churches would expect you to have some knowledge of how they do things, of their doctrinal position, of the way their denomination works, of their preferred preaching style. In some denominations this knowledge or relationship is developed at the congregational level, and at others the information is processed at a central or regional level. In any case, your application would be probably be more impressive if you could show that you had some knowledge of and affinity with the denomination whom you want to employ you.
The Methodists are short of both local preachers and ordained clergy, and if they liked you, they would probably go out of their way to suggest a positive course of action. (If you went to a local Methodist church they would be able to give you contact details so that you could speak to the right people in the circuit.) Unlike local preachers, who are unpaid, there's no guarantee that Methodist clergy can get to live and work in their local area, although requests can be made. But the Methodists are quite ecumenically-minded, and they might feel that it would be rather awkward for you (and them) to remain ministering in an area where you'd regularly cross paths with members of your old church. This would certainly be an issue to bear in mind if you plan to work in the same area.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I, like others, wonder what has changed if the OLM ministry is in accordance with God's calling.
I think that our own ideas of what a role should be doesn't necessarily marry up with a) what God wants and b) what anyone in a leadership role above wants of us.
I'd plump for a) and rely on God on a day by day basis to guide you into your ministry, whether or not it ends up in the same place as it started.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Is an OLM restricted totally to one parish and somehow isn't a priest when they step outside? Does this mean an OLM is restricted when, say, a Reader isn't? Hasn't the invention of the car made a parochial view of ministry redundant anyway, to an extent?
It is clearly an unresolved nonsense.
There may be variations across dioceses, but an OLM is - like any CofE priest - bound by the terms of their licence. For any priest to minister in a church not within his own licence, technically he should be approved by the Bishop. Though generally incumbents are trusted(!) to handle guest ministers without bothering the Bish. The bit that I can't figure out is what happens to an OLM when s/he moves and obviously wishes to continue their ministry. Is there a general CofE policy for that?
So in the case of the OLMs I've known they were expected to mainly minister within the Team Ministry (usually a group of several parishes) they were licenced to. Just like the vicars and rector. A couple of these OLMs were quite firmly of the opinion that they wished to be attached only to 'their' parish, within that Team, because of this connection of a parish calling out and sponsoring its 'own' OLM cleric. I don't know how typical that is.
Others were ordained quite specifically with a 'profile' in mind eg, adult education, chaplaincy etc.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I am suspicious exactly BECAUSE it is too local (for the reasons outloned before 'a prophet is not without honour...' etc), and because it doesn't seem to recognise the ontological change that many believe to be effected by ordination to Holy Order. The way of doing things in the early church may have been fine then, but as that perceptive and modern Pope Paul VI once remarked 'there is no need for us to be obsessed by the early church'.
Ordination to, say, a chaplaincy, is fine, but a more universalist training and education is required in a more educated and scientific age where a growing professionalism is all walks of life is expected. Opticians were not always graduates, now it appears to be a requirement. There is desire of the General Teaching Council for an all graduate profession, to take random examples. It is odd if the church should wish to go in the other direction.
Chaplains to the Armed Forces of any denomination are expected to have been fully trained, ordained, and called by their Sending Church, and have served for three years in a parochial capacity before facing the gruelling Army Officer Selection Board. Then they would go to Sandhurst, Britannia RNC or RAF Cranwell for at least twelve weeks intensive training on the Professionally Qualified Officers' course. The assumption is that are are as much professionals as their colleagues on the course - lawyers, doctors, nurses and surgeons. They would not be offered a Queen's Commission were the Armed Forces boards to conceive of them as anything other than educated, experienced and trained professionals.
I suspect that, once again the yet to be solved OLM anomaly has little to do with theology and ecclesioloigy, but more to do with money. In an episcopal church where ordination is seen as requirement for the sacraments, it is a case of getting clergy on the cheap, without really thinking it through first.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Mooky, I was thinking of replying by private message, but have decided not to, since it's possible other Shipmates may have something different to say about what I'm about to air.
Also, although what inspires it are my thoughts on ordained local ministry, to me, that only sharpens something which strikes me as being very material to all forms of ordained ministry.
I'm assuming it isn't just whether it would be possible to transfer to a different parish. That would presumably be a matter for the Bishop to say yes or no, though there may be more of a no presumption than would be the case with another type of licence.
These days, a lay person can choose on which pew to place their bottom.
As I understand it, the nature of Ordained Local ministry is that a person is ordained to serve specifically the believers and residents of St X church Yton - in word and sacrament to represent God to those specific people and those specific people to God. So presumably that is their calling, the work Christ has given them to do. It is a noble calling, but in return, they no longer have the same freedom to move their bottom to a different pew under a different roof.
As such, when you say you may have to leave the Church of England, is that some straightforward reason, such as your wife or husband's job is moving them to Wales, France or somewhere? Or is it something more complicated like an incompatibility of conscience with the CofE generally or specifically with the people of the parish of St X.
If it's the first sort of reason, then that's a choice only you can make. By becoming an OLM, presumably, you feel you have entered into some sort of commitment to the people of St X. Even if a person does not so feel, it seems to me that they have entered into that sort of commitment. There are some other choices in life you have had to forsake as a result, and some that will prevail over that commitment. In the case of a spouse's job taking them somewhere else, I'd have thought your obligation to follow comes first. In the case of not liking the way the organist plays, or the incumbent is uncouth, impossible to work with or you don't like his or her preferences on vestments, I'd have thought those do not prevail.
In the case of the second and third though, if your unease is with the CofE generally, I'd have thought the circumstances would have to be very extreme to be able to say your own conscience takes priority over your commitment to the people of St X. By becoming an OLM, to serve them, it seems to me you give up virtually all of the right to abandon them because of your own conscience. Have the people of St X told you they no longer want your ministry? Unless so, shouldn't you assume they still need you, and they are still the people Christ has called you to serve and care for?
Even if you think the CofE is going in a wrong direction generally or on a particularly issue, I still think you have to ask, 'is there any situation where my commitment to the people of St X does not take priority?' And I also think the answer is that this is not such a situation unless it is clearly and unequivocally obvious that it is.
For that to be the case, I also think you have to believe, not just that the CofE is imperfect - all ecclesial communities are - but both
a. it is not the Church of Christ and not part of it at all, AND
b. that there is another ecclesial community which is, outside which there is no salvation, that it is imperative that you AND EVERYONE ELSE UNDER YOUR CARE go there NOW, and that you really believe that if they don't, they will imperil their immortal souls.
I realise I've gone on a bit, and some of what I've said may sound a bit harsh. But as I said at the start, for me, I feel the particular nature of an OLM brings into sharp focus something that I think should be taken as applying to all clergy. When, if ever, should your own conscience driven preferences take priority over the needs of the sheep in whose care you share?
Posted by Steve_R (# 61) on
:
Mooky, I am concerned as to why you feel that you must leave the CofE. If it is a location matter then discussion with your Priest/Bishop should allow you to transfer your "permission to officiate" to whereever you are relocating to. If it is a matter of doctrine then movement to whichever denomination satifies your beliefs is necessary and whether you will be allowed to retain your priesthood is a matter for the recieving denomination.
Either way please rely on the power of prayer to guide you in your future course.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
What everyone else said.
But, to specifically answer this question in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM.
In the CofE there is a distinction between ordination to the priesthood, and licensing to work in a particular church, or church-related job. I expect that that is probably true about every denomination that thinks of ordained priests as some kind of distinct order, not just a job. So a priest who is not at the moment working as a minister of a church remains a priest, and someone who is a minister of a church but is not ordained is a lay person, not a priest.
A Church of England OLM has the same ordination as any other priest. The difference is that they are intended to serve in one particular role (usually as an NSM in their home parish) and licenced only for that role. There is no legal or doctrinal difference between their ordination and the ordination of any other priest, only in their licence. There is no legal or doctrinal reason a bishop could not appoint them to any post that other priests can fill. Its quite rare, but it can happen that an OLM or another NSM becomes the incumbent of a parish.
Anyway that ordination to the priesthood would be recognised by any churches that recognise CofE ordinations at all. So the short answer is that if you were an ordained priest in the CofE and you joined a church that accepts CofE ordinations then you would be a priest according to their rules as well. But, just as in the CofE that's not the same as being appointed to any particular role in that church. You might still be a priest, but be worshipping from the pews like everyone else. And, I suspect, any church of any denomination that finds an ordained priest of another denomination sitting in the pews would want to know why they left their previous church before licensing them to any ministry. (*)
As to which denominations recognises CofE ordinations, its the rest of the "Anglican Communion" and some spin-off groups, and most (but not quite all) Lutherans, most (but not quite all) Methodists, at least some Presbyterians, and lots of rather smaller Protestant denominations. We return the compliment to the episcopal Lutherans but sadly not to the Methodists and Reformed. And of course many other Protestant churches don't share the same understanding of priesthood as a lifelong state, so won't make that distinction between being ordained as a priest and working as a church minister.
(*) That also works within a denomination of course. I know of a few Anglican priests who left their church positions for personal reasons and either retired or got other jobs, and later started worshipping in other CofE parishes. After a few years some of them sought and obtained permission to officiate as NSMs or honourary curates in the parish they were now members of, but it wasn't at all automatic, and it depended on the incumbent of the parish asking for them to get permission and the bishop granting it - and that depended on circumstances. (The bloke who gave up his curacy to work for a charity for homeless refugees probably had an easier time getting past the bishop than the one who had had an affair with the choirmaster's wife).
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
I am still trying to understand whether the regulations concerning OLMs make any sense at all or whether the dear old C of E is being more batshit crazy than usual.
The situation I am used to is one where there are two broad categories. Most of the clergy are NSMs trained on the diocesan course. Generally the NSMs are chosen by the local congregation and approved by the standing committee and bishop. The small number of stipendary clergy are chosen the same way, but face a much stiffer training programme. There is some movement between the two categories which tends to be a product of vestries deciding that an NSM would make an OK stipendary ministry. I guess not been an Estabished church gives us greater flexibility.
PD
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am still trying to understand whether the regulations concerning OLMs make any sense at all or whether the dear old C of E is being more batshit crazy than usual.
The situation I am used to is one where there are two broad categories. Most of the clergy are NSMs trained on the diocesan course. Generally the NSMs are chosen by the local congregation and approved by the standing committee and bishop. The small number of stipendary clergy are chosen the same way, but face a much stiffer training programme. There is some movement between the two categories which tends to be a product of vestries deciding that an NSM would make an OK stipendary ministry. I guess not been an Estabished church gives us greater flexibility.
PD
Having offered a perspective above based in church history, I guess the perspective from a parish is that the tradition was that if you were ordained you would automatically leave the parish from which you were ordained. For parishes this meant the loss of vital people - so those people became less inclined to offer for ordination. The OLM scheme, by allowing people to remain in their home parishes, thus widens the pool of those who are willing to be ordained. The danger is the OLMs get sucked into the 'let's keep the show on the road' mentality, which is what is going on if they end up doing the magic bits for other parishes during an interregnum.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Come on Mooky, the reason you left? It does affect every answer. If you are leaving because your vicar will not endorse your relationship with the organist then you will get a differnt reply from if your vicar is a small minded ego-centric idiot. If you make me wait much longer you will get the "flounce" response.
Pray tell.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Pyx_e
That's a bit nosey! The main thing to know is which denomination Mooky was thinking of joining; the reasons for leaving the CofE are of secondary importance. It surprises me that Mooky doesn't appear to have identified any alternative denomination. This gives the impression that Mooky is more interested in finding a paid job as a priest than in finding a spiritual home. To my mind, it should be the other way round.
As for your two examples, there are ego-centric clergy in every denomination that makes a distinction between the clergy and the laity. And if Mooky were having an adulterous or gay relationship with the organist, then the two of them wouldn't have very many options.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The bit that I can't figure out is what happens to an OLM when s/he moves and obviously wishes to continue their ministry. Is there a general CofE policy for that?
I used to be in a parish with an OLM who mnoved house, so his status was changed to MSE (Minister in Secular Employment). This gave him the freedom to move to another parish.
My diocese did away with OLMs a few years ago because this was happening a lot, along with OLMs wishing to apply for chaplaincy positions etc. The Bishop came to the conclusion that so many OLMs were asking to change their status to either MSE or NSM it was preferable to do away with OLM all together and insist that all those seeking ordination should got through the same process of selection and training.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
That's a bit nosey
If s/he is leaving for disciplinary reasons (running off with the organist) then I would suggest any other denomination would want to know that before s/he was admitted to orders.
The reason for leaving, be it in the vein of the one above or something completely different will directly impact on ones reception into a new denomination. One does not prove faithless to one bride to take up with another overnight. Whatever the reason there will be some impact. I was trying to ascertain how much of an impact by understanding the reasons for leaving.
All answers given without knowing the reason for leaving are hopelessly speculative.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As to which denominations recognises CofE ordinations, its the rest of the "Anglican Communion" and some spin-off groups, and most (but not quite all) Lutherans, most (but not quite all) Methodists, at least some Presbyterians, and lots of rather smaller Protestant denominations. We return the compliment to the episcopal Lutherans but sadly not to the Methodists and Reformed.
Sorry, ken, but I think you are wrong, at least insofar as the Methodist Church of Great Britain is concerned.
I know of no Methodist, certainly no Methodist minister or Connexional Officer, who does not recognise the ordination of Anglicans. None at all. Certainly there is nothing in our Standing Orders which allows for that denial.
An Anglican priest who decides to seek to be Received Into Full Connexion with the Conference is not, subsequent to that reception, ordained - as are all other (Methodist) candidates - into the Church of God.
Sadly, of course, we know that (Covenant notwithstanding) the same is not true the other way round.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Pyx_e
Surely it goes without saying that if you've left the CofE due to adultery then this will influence your reception in another denomination?
I can't see any denomination accepting into ministry someone who gave adultery as their main reason for switching churches, although perhaps the adultery could be discussed as part of a long process of spiritual trauma and growth.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
And I wanted to say that, as a Methodist Minister, I find myself resenting the inference made by someone up the thread that we would take any old Anglican refugees going because we are so desperately short of ministers. We wouldn't. Any such refugees would go through the same or similar testing and examination as any Methodist first-time candidates for ministry.
The only difference would be as I have already said - we wouldn't have the bad manners to need to re-ordain them, as the Anglicans do when on occasion one of ours jumps the crozier.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
And I wanted to say that, as a Methodist Minister, I find myself resenting the inference made by someone up the thread that we would take any old Anglican refugees going because we are so desperately short of ministers. We wouldn't. Any such refugees would go through the same or similar testing and examination as any Methodist first-time candidates for ministry.
The only difference would be as I have already said - we wouldn't have the bad manners to need to re-ordain them, as the Anglicans do when on occasion one of ours jumps the crozier.
I'm the one who said that the Methodist Church was short of ministers (and as former Methodist church steward I should know). I certainly didn't say that the church would accept 'any old Anglican refugees'. I said that 'if they liked you, they would probably go out of their way to suggest a positive course of action.' This doesn't equate to saying that anyone is an automatic shoe-in for the ordained ministry!
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
S'V2, so you have accepted the principle. Now work on the nuance. Once more, with feeling: The reason you leave WILL effect your future ministry.
Whatever the reason.
Not so nosey now?
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
S'V2, so you have accepted the principle. Now work on the nuance. Once more, with feeling: The reason you leave WILL effect your future ministry.
Whatever the reason.
Not so nosey now?
AtB, Pyx_e
Well, it depends on what Mooky is trying to gain from this thread. If his aim is to find out which denominations accept adulterers/gay people/Anabaptists/yoga practitioners/fire-breathing fundamentalists, etc. etc. into the ministry then he needs to say so. But as I implied above, his post doesn't give the impression that doctrine or lifestyle are his primary concerns; he simply wants to know what position other denominations take on OLMs. The question almost seems to be a bureaucratic one. The issue of one's personal beliefs or behaviour is an additional one, but not, it seems, the main thing.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
And there was I imagining it was probably women bishops.
Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And there was I imagining it was probably women bishops.
Given the gender of the name on the email address on Mooky's profile, I would be intrigued if this was the case.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
S’V2, given one of the most uncontroversial reasons I can come up with for deserting ones calling and leaving ones denomination: “My vicar was a nasty git and when I spoke to the Wardens and the Archdeacon I did not get the support I (and my family and friends) thought I deserved and needed.”
As a spiritual leader in the receiving denomination I would need to check that the story I was be given was true (it never is) AND that a suitable period of reflection and recovery was being undertaken. All before suitable discernment and training were undertaken, of which there is no guarantee of being recommended.
So for the last time; The reason you leave will affect you entry into another denomination.
Please retract the nosey remark.
AtB, Pyx_e.
p.s. lots of those opposed to women bishops have womens names ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
As this discussion has widened since being removed to Purgatory, one feels free to comment on the OLM question in general:
(1) There is indeed a difference between ordination and licence. In the pre-Reformation church not all priests were allowed to preach. Certain lay people could; these clearly could not celebrate Mass. In the RC church priestly ordination carrys with it the subliminal charism to preach, similar to diaconal ordination, but permission to do so is not automatic. Neither, for example is the right to hear confessions. A priest may do this by virtue of BEING a priest, but may not be licensed to do so. I believe 'valid, but irregular' would be an accurate description. Therefore Ordination and Licence are different.
(2) Pragmatically I am not sure quite how workable the restricted licence is. Parish boundaries are not what they were. The Exeter diocese has, in some cases quite fluid, 'mission communities'. Where I live there are two separate Mission Communities two miles apart. One priest happened to live on the other side to the community to which he was licenced. On Christmas Eve a small river opened up to block the road. The clergy just agreed to swop churches rather than get their cars stuck half way. I'm sure that were one of them an OLM it wouldnt have made any difference to their decision. Similarly, in an interregnum a priest is seen as a priest, and deaneries will no doubt ask an OLM for help with (say) an 8.00 Communion. I suspect that the use of OLMs will get more liberal and that pragmatisim will drive a more sensible form of the licence.
(3) A shipmate has observed that is it comparatively unusual for OLMs and NSMs to transfer to another form of licence. For years NSMs have gone stipendary, and sometimes stipendaries have gone NSM. The Church Times last week mentioned at least one OLM who is to become an incumbent. This may have been after additional training, but I seem to recall that it was even in a different diocese.
(4) It is indeed a muddle, and I suspect that the best bits will survive (the wider calling of individuals for example) and the rest will in time pass away (licenses to parishes gradually giving way to 'mission communities' or a deanery then to a diocese and so on).
(5) This is no way criticises the vocation of those called to the diaconate or priesthood in this way, but merely questions the thought process of certain dioceses within the CofE who appear to have a slighly less than long term notion of the reality of restricted OLM licenses and, perhaps, training. This has led some to think cautiously about the slightly slip-shod ecclesiology at work.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
As a spiritual leader in the receiving denomination I would need to check that the story I was be given was true (it never is) AND that a suitable period of reflection and recovery was being undertaken. All before suitable discernment and training were undertaken, of which there is no guarantee of being recommended.
That's fine, and I don't disagree. But my point was that Mooky was apparently not asking any of us to judge the nature of his problems with the CofE, but apparently to suggest which denominations recognised OLMs.
quote:
Please retract the nosey remark.
I said that your statement was nosey, not that nosiness was an aspect of your character. But I'll certainly retract it, as it wasn't at all my intention to upset you.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Regardless of why Mooky wants to leave the CofE, it would be at least courteous, if not rational, for the Opening Poster to interact a little on their own thread? I'm sure that's not too much to ask - nosey or not.
Spike, I'm very interested to see that one Bishop did away with OLMs!
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
I still think that having separate rules and processes, which seems to be the inference I am picking up, for OLMs, MSEs, and NSMs is batshit crazy. It sounds to me as though someone needs to take a machete to the regulations.
We handle all three categories under the same Canon, which, because of its original function, dealing with delayed vocations due to WW2/Korea s known even today as the 'Old Guy's Canon.' Indeed, as time has passed more and more candidates for ordination have been handled on the Old Guy's Canon.
The present requirements are that a candidate be over 35; baptized, confirmed and a communicant; and have a sufficient level of education to be capable of passing a college entry examination. After that it comes down to the tricky stuff. For example, if a candidate is going to serve in his home parish he should have the unanimous support of the rector and the vestry, and he will also have to be interviewed by the Bishop, get past the Board of Examining Chaplains twice, and the Standing Committee of the diocese twice. When he is eventually ordained he licensed to his home parish, but this does not preclude his moving somewhere else if he needs to. In that case he will simply go from being licensed as an NSM in parish X. to being an NSM in parish Y.
I do not get why the C of E has to make things so freaking difficult, except to preserve the clergy caste system that divides full-time incumbants from the rest.
PD
[ 23. July 2012, 04:18: Message edited by: PD ]
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Spike, I'm very interested to see that one Bishop did away with OLMs!
It's interesting that since OLM was done away with here, there has been a big reduction in people from working class and/or ethnic minority backgrounds being ordained. That said, there has been an equal increase in people from those backgrounds becoming Readers. Make of that what you will!
[ 23. July 2012, 08:03: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
PD: The rules here are batshit crazy, but not quite in the way you guess.
MSEs and NSMs are exactly the same thing, as are a few other names. Various people have strong views on what these people should be called, and insist on using their preferred name. I get the impression that factions occasionally 'gain power' and change the official name, but since everyone keeps using their preferred names, this makes no difference. This debate may be batshit crazy, but since it doesn't impact reality, I don't object to it.
The problems (which lead to OLMs) stem from arguably trying too hard not to treat NSMs as second class priests. So they have to go through (essentially) the same selection and training process as stipendaries and are considered to be deployed where there's a need after ordination (there's a lot of complications in practice but that's the theory).
The problem is that there are a lot of situations (especially small rural parishes) where lower standards of selection and training are wanted, so people have half invented OLMs to fill the gap. (While other places have nothing to do with them as they seem like a half-invented batshit crazy mess)
Someone needs to work out the rules for OLMs moving parishes, and no-one's done this. I fail to understand why this is difficult since there are perfectly good rules for people moving a local ministry between parishes, namely the rules for readers.
The other really silly thing about the current situation is the gap between OLMs being completely local and NSMs being completely deployable. Which means in practice that someone considering these 2 paths has to immediately chose between never leaving their current parish or never returning. As far as I can work out, that's usually the big decision, and people put up with the level of selection, training and respect that flows from that decision.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Indeed batshit crazy and half-invented.
The 'Army 2020' programme incorporating the reduction in troops from 102,000 to 82, 000 (the wiseness of this is a separate issue) includes the abolition of the term 'TA' in favour of a One Army concept. All will be members of the army full stop. Personnel will be interchangeable. There will be no first class, second class and so on in terms of regular and reserve.
Given that this was largely driven by economics and the need for bods, perhaps there is a lesson for the CofE: end the anomoly that creates tiers of priesthood, and make one sort that can be deployed wherever, either stipendary or non-stipendary, and a method of moving between these areas.
This will probably happen in time, but as usual, a few decades after other areas of society have woken up to it.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
The other really silly thing about the current situation is the gap between OLMs being completely local and NSMs being completely deployable. Which means in practice that someone considering these 2 paths has to immediately chose between never leaving their current parish or never returning. As far as I can work out, that's usually the big decision, and people put up with the level of selection, training and respect that flows from that decision.
Didn't there used to be Local Non-stipendiary Ministers - LNSMs? I haven't heard of them since shortly after about 2000. Where they phased out?
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Given that this was largely driven by economics and the need for bods, perhaps there is a lesson for the CofE: end the anomoly that creates tiers of priesthood, and make one sort that can be deployed wherever, either stipendary or non-stipendary, and a method of moving between these areas.
That was the situation until recently (and it remains the case that it's easy to move between being a NSM and a stipendary priest). The problem is that the masses are crying out for a 2 tier priesthood.
Or to be more accurate: The masses (in some places) are crying out for priests who are either unable or unwilling to meet the standard that the church requires as the normal standard. The church either has to lower the standard, tell the masses that they can't have what they want or invent a 2 tier arrangement. The church has, of course, done a bad job of implementing all 3 strategies.
Anselmina:
I'm going to guess that LNSMs are the same as OLMs. Presumably OLMs have the right to equality with NSMs in terms of the number of different acronyms used to describe their role.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
LNSMs was an idea that didn't seem to get off the ground, certainly in Salisbury - they existed on paper, but there was no training available. I had a friend get accepted at ABBAM for LNSM and then get told there was nothing available for her to train.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Or to be more accurate: The masses (in some places) are crying out for priests who are either unable or unwilling to meet the standard that the church requires as the normal standard. The church either has to lower the standard, tell the masses that they can't have what they want or invent a 2 tier arrangement. The church has, of course, done a bad job of implementing all 3 strategies.
I'm bemused as I'm reading this thread. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
2 tiers of priest? Lower the standard? In what sense? Who are the 'masses' wanting inferior priests? Where do 'Readers' fit in to this inferior/superior structure?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think there's a profound mismatch between the clerical and lay view on this.
The clergy see the distinction as between the ordained and the unordained, a matter of orders and theology. To the rest of the church, the distinction is not about orders, but between those that are paid from church funds to enable them to exercise a ministry, and those that are not.
So the clergy get very anxious about priests they think might not be adequately intellectually trained to exercise their sacred ministry. Most of the laity have no problem with unpaid priests that the senior clergy might regard as only part trained, as long as they are living holy lives and take services competently. Such priests are more like the rest of us.
What the laity though does expect from full time paid church staff, whether ordained or not, is that if the church pays them a stipend not to have to earn their living, that they don't just live holy lives and take services competently, but also have abilities commensurate with their stipend, and are fully committed to what they are being 'stipended' to do.
One may condemn the rules for being chiroptercoprophiloid but if so, IMHO the reason is that many clergy either can't get their heads round this stipend point, or haven't noticed it.
I suppose part of the question is whether you think it is more important that the the sacraments are readily accessible even if from a subedar priest, or that they are much less accessible because the church has such high academic standards for its clergy that it can't afford to have very many of them.
By the way, Sebby, I think the idea of making up the shortfall in army numbers by using non-stipendiary or part-stipendiary soldiers is far more chiroptercoprophiloid than anything the CofE does.
I thought people joined the TA so as to earn some pocket money and be available when the homeland was attacked, not so as to be expected to put their lives on the line on bizarre foreign ventures, without the back support, career structure, pensions etc that go with being a proper soldier.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
Any church with an OLM will have had to show that it meets certain standards for collaborative ministry. So it will be a church where shared leadership is operating and where an OLM will be supported by lay ministry. If, for example, a church has an OLM, a Church Army or other licensed evangelist plus one or two Readers, along with competent churchwardens and PCC, why would they need a full-time stipendiary cleric?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
There seems to be almost a consensus that the OLM idea is an anomaly that might changed in time as the good bits survive and the rest fall by the wayside. And batshit crazy.
Perhaps an increase in the number of NSMs; better deployment of highly competent Readers; perhaps even greater use of Extended Commnuion powers?
One might claim that to lower standards - certainly academic ones - in a more professi onal and educated age is completely ludicrous. Low educational standards of the clergy (if this is indeed the case despite the fact that I noticed an OLM recently in possession of a PhD), was one of the pre-Reformation complaints later addressed by many protestant churches, and the RC church after the Council of Trent and the subsequent creation of the diocesan seminaries.
The creation of a class of what appears to be 'mass priests' by rhe CofE appears a retrograde step.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
The criteria for OLM and SSM are public knowledge. In short an SSM would not be discerned to have a strong/proven leadership gift and hence could not function at incumbent status level. Further to that an OLM (coming from a particular context) is not expected to be able to fulfil all the criterion regarding Ministry in the Church of England (Which an SSM should being deployable).
We do not have lower standards or tiers of priests. A priest is a priest. We do have an acknowledgement of differing levels of giftedness. The greater the range and depth of gifts the greater the level of responsibility.
It is not rocket science. It breaks down in many areas, my two bug bears are those who have a very functional model of priesthood and cannot understand why a OLM should not go 3 miles down the road to a church that have no experience of leading worship in and function well. Secondly they insane idea that any leadership is better than no leadership. Most Churches are perfectly capable of looking after themselves until they (with their Diocese and Deanery) find a suitable priest to lead them in Mission. Putting someone in who has been ordained SSM or OLM who has been discerned as NOT having a leadership gift is the act of blithering idiocy.
Again, there are no levels/tiers of priest. There are degrees of giftedness and responsibility should be given to reflect that gift.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The last post seems to ignore the fact that ALL ordained ministry involves leadership to an extent. Not the best example, but a young 23 year old Second Lietentant is expected to have the leadership skills required in leading people. So are generals. At the more junior level, it might be argued, it is even more important. Different gifts certainly, but the same rigorous amd exacting skills required by BOTH without diminution
More importantly still in the ecclesiastical context, is the public perception OUTSIDE the walls of St Mungo's. There will be expectations from the non-church-not-particuarly-religious in the pubs, for example. They see a collar; they expect a priest/vicar as it were. Indeed that is what they get. But is it then explained 'oh I am not gifted like the one next door'? 'I'm sorry I can't do my sisters wedding despite her parish incumbent inviting me because I am for St Mungo's, and she is in the parish of St Ethel's?
As posted before, time will render this particular restriced licence unworkable and it will almost certainly change. I heard that from the principal of a theological college very recently.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A friend's church is in conflict at the moment, because the OLM cannot accept that the new Rector, is the one with the authority to lead the church.
Wouldn't this problem become a very common one?
A long-time rector and his wife who chose to stay in the parish after retirement nearly killed off the small congregation that my parents joined after their own retirement. Over several years, three young successors left, considerably disillusioned. At one point the bishop threatened to excommunicate them both if they didn't stop trying to interfere and usurp. Finally a man took the helm who was strong enough to hang onto it while spreading oil on the waters.
The tendency of anyone already in place who has built a "power base" of admirers to thwart a newcomer in making changes is one reason why U.S. rectors have traditionally had the right to choose their entire staff, and everyone hired by his predecessor is expected to resign. One does't necessarily approve of this high-handedness, either. An utter lack of job security discourages various competent professionals from working for the church. But surely, creating a class of subordinate clery who are *expected* to stay in one place indefinitely is asking for trouble.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
AIUI the criteria for selection is the same for all candidates for ordained ministry but with additional requirements for those planning for stipendiary ministry. It doesn't mean that NSM/OLM candidates don't possess those additional skills or gifts, just that they don't need to prove it. Which isn't the same as being discerned as not having leadership skills.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The last post seems to ignore the fact that ALL ordained ministry involves leadership to an extent. Not the best example, but a young 23 year old Second Lietentant is expected to have the leadership skills required in leading people. So are generals. At the more junior level, it might be argued, it is even more important. Different gifts certainly, but the same rigorous amd exacting skills required by BOTH without diminution
I think that last post actually acknowledges different levels of leadership. Not everyone who is a priest is going to make a good bishop. Not everyone who is a Bishop will make a good Archbishop. Not everyone who is a priest will make a good incumbent. Not everyone who is an incumbent will make a good team rector etc.
An OLM certainly has a very important role of leadership. Some more than others, some in different areas than others. One OLM pal of mine is a great leader when it comes to his particular field of clerical work. But he has no intention of leading a parish, or a PCC etc.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Didn't there used to be Local Non-stipendiary Ministers - LNSMs? I haven't heard of them since shortly after about 2000. Where they phased out?
In Southwark, LNSM was the original name for OLM. They changed the title, but the role was identical.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Sorry for the double post.
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Someone needs to work out the rules for OLMs moving parishes, and no-one's done this. I fail to understand why this is difficult since there are perfectly good rules for people moving a local ministry between parishes, namely the rules for readers.
That's a very interesting point.In the past, there were two tiers of Reader ministry - Diocesan Readers and Parish Readers. Dioesan Readers were licensed to a parish but entitled to excercise their ministry anywhere in the diocese. Parish Readers were only permitted to function in the parish to which they were licensed. The level of training was different and the Diocesan Readers were regarded as having a higher standard of training the the Parish Readers.
The distinction was done away with in most dioceses a long time ago, partly because of the complications that arose if a Parish Reader moved and wanted to continue his/her ministry in another parish.
The same problems appear to have arisen with OLMs. You'd have thought the PTB would have learned by now!
[ 25. July 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A friend's church is in conflict at the moment, because the OLM cannot accept that the new Rector, is the one with the authority to lead the church.
Wouldn't this problem become a very common one?
A long-time rector and his wife who chose to stay in the parish after retirement nearly killed off the small congregation that my parents joined after their own retirement. Over several years, three young successors left, considerably disillusioned. At one point the bishop threatened to excommunicate them both if they didn't stop trying to interfere and usurp. Finally a man took the helm who was strong enough to hang onto it while spreading oil on the waters.
The tendency of anyone already in place who has built a "power base" of admirers to thwart a newcomer in making changes is one reason why U.S. rectors have traditionally had the right to choose their entire staff, and everyone hired by his predecessor is expected to resign. One does't necessarily approve of this high-handedness, either. An utter lack of job security discourages various competent professionals from working for the church. But surely, creating a class of subordinate clery who are *expected* to stay in one place indefinitely is asking for trouble.
Actually there is a protocol in the CofE which says that a retiring incumbent cannot live int he parish where they ministered.
Of course there are some who stick to the letter of the rule but ignore the spirit. I knew one who moved away but kept close contact with many in the parish stirring things when anythign new was suggested. Another case where he stayed away from the church but his wife and family remained worshipping there and interfering and causing trouble left right and centre every time the new vicar tried to do anything. They were open about not lettign anybody 'spoil' the ministry they had ahd there by making changes.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
The idea that someone is ordained but can only exercise their ministry in a single parish is barmy, especially in today's world where there is crying need for increasingly pressured and scarce "human resources" to be utilised wisely.
ISTM that there is a strong case for all Readers, OLMs and NSMs to be licensed across a whole deanery (or even diocese). If someone is felt to have a ministry exclusively to their home church - fine. And in many cases, Readers and OLMs will spend most of their time in their home parishes. But many such people will be happy to be available for wider use if needed - and will often appreciate and benefit from experiencing other styles of church.
In a previous post, my neighbouring parish (with whom my parishes were supposed to be in a group with) ended up with 2 Readers and 3 OLMs. Inevitably, these people began to feel a little under-utilised as there simply wasn't enough to keep them all satisfied. But whilst I could "borrow" a Reader for a Sunday if I wanted/needed to be away, I couldn't have an OLM. It was stupid and defies theological reasoning.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The last post seems to ignore the fact that ALL ordained ministry involves leadership to an extent. Not the best example, but a young 23 year old Second Lietentant is expected to have the leadership skills required in leading people. So are generals. At the more junior level, it might be argued, it is even more important. Different gifts certainly, but the same rigorous amd exacting skills required by BOTH without diminution
More importantly still in the ecclesiastical context, is the public perception OUTSIDE the walls of St Mungo's. There will be expectations from the non-church-not-particuarly-religious in the pubs, for example. They see a collar; they expect a priest/vicar as it were. Indeed that is what they get. But is it then explained 'oh I am not gifted like the one next door'? 'I'm sorry I can't do my sisters wedding despite her parish incumbent inviting me because I am for St Mungo's, and she is in the parish of St Ethel's?
As posted before, time will render this particular restriced licence unworkable and it will almost certainly change. I heard that from the principal of a theological college very recently.
I take your point.
I shall make myself clearer, to lead a parish to be of “incumbent status” demands a breadth and depth of gift. In my ten years of experience of recruitment and selection in the C of E I have never seen any confusion over this. My experience in parish, deanery and diocesan life only serves to reinforce the need for that gift at incumbent level.
Pastorally challenging and often internally conflicted parishes are incapable of mission and need the best leadership to both heal and move into a mission footing.
I agree with the general tone of this thread that the current OLM is proving unworkable but only because diocesan senior staff keep breaking it. I also worry because generally those who do not come from a “middle class” background and come late in life to their vocation have often found the OLM route to be a way in, the most gifted of those should come back to Ministry Division to be re-panelled.
To be clear, ordination brings obvious leadership demands which I did not feel the need to state (as they were obvious). The ability to lead worship, prayer and certain projects within the context of the parish vision. OLMs and SSMs also need to be “leadable” as they do not share the cure of souls which is the incumbents and the bishops. They do not have overall oversight, they either do not have the gift or that gift has not been discerned and authorised. To ask or to just give them responsibility beyond their call is hugely damaging.
Sorry if I sound down on OLMs and SSMs, trust me I am as down on Incumbent Status clergy who do not function in their giftedness too. As I minister in a growing Diocese I feel I am able to make this comment: The parishes that are growing have good leadership (defining good leadership is another thread), those that are struggling don’t. Therefore our task is to get good leadership in place. Not in the context of this thread put some poor soul in who can’t do the job. Again.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Or to be more accurate: The masses (in some places) are crying out for priests who are either unable or unwilling to meet the standard that the church requires as the normal standard. The church either has to lower the standard, tell the masses that they can't have what they want or invent a 2 tier arrangement. The church has, of course, done a bad job of implementing all 3 strategies.
I'm bemused as I'm reading this thread.
2 tiers of priest? Lower the standard? In what sense? Who are the 'masses' wanting inferior priests? Where do 'Readers' fit in to this inferior/superior structure?
Sorry. I was being excessively sarcastic.
As I understand it, all this makes most sense in rural areas where there are loads of village churches with tiny congregations. We're talking about situations where, given the available money and NSMs, it's not practical to do a service at a sensible time every week.
A slightly evangelical parish might persuade someone in the village to become a reader, figuring that a service at a predictable sensible time is better than random services lead by someone with a more thorough theological education.
A slightly more high church parish would be unhappy about not having a mass every week. However the rules look like they're saying that this reader is only allowed to preach (and can't get ordained) because they don't have time to learn how to preach properly. Hence they demand that some mechanism is invented for ordaining people who'd otherwise become readers.
And in a lot of rural areas this works well (in the sense that it keeps a lot of village parishes moderately happy).
Of course, in a lot of rural areas, people are very happy with the idea of local priests for local people. That doesn't prove the wider church should indulge them.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
And another general comment:
To become an NSM, you need to go through a selection process that takes a couple of years and is designed to determine if you're suitable to be the full-time leader of a parish. After that, you do a 3 year training course that's nominally an evening class, but most people find they need to drop at least a day a week from their paid job to find time for it. After that, there's often an explicit expectation that you'll do about 12 hours parish work a week (the implicit expectation is often higher).
There are people who feel called to combining priesthood with a secular job, but feel that they need to conform to society's views on how much time is put into a 'hobby'. If these people are wrong to want that, the church needs to do a better job of explaining why.
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
Just throwing this out there:
Q: Is the elephant in the room with all non-stipendiary clergy, Control & Discipline? And how that is applied?
Eg. Stipendiary clergy (mostly) are immersed in Church life and are dependent on the Stipend for their livelihood. This can mean they are less likely to get into trouble by 'going off on one' whether organisationally within a Parish or theologically in what they teach.
Whilst non-stipendiary clergy by virtue of not being dependent for their livelihood have much more flexibility to 'go off on one' regardless of what Parishioners or the Diocese say*.
But if there is only Carrot to keep non-stipendiary Clergy on the straight and narrow with no Stick of 'consequences' for disregarding Church positions/teaching there could be real issues for what the Church puts out.
I know that the Ship is often a place to let off steam, but there are several examples (one a recent sock-puppet) who self-identify as Clergy and fancy themselves “Reformers” and other examples cited by Shipmates of people who just want Anglican orders to get authority over a congregation – Carrot but no Stick for this lot, whether non-stipendiary or stipendiary seems like a recipe for chaos IMHO.
Though I do agree with the general view of the thread that a more coherent and flexible licensing and deployment system needs sorting out for OLM in particular.
*The caveat being that 'standing up to the bishop' can be good (wanting to stick to the Gospel and mission) or bad (wanting to keep the Parish as 'their territory' so no-one else 'spoils it')
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm bemused as I'm reading this thread.
2 tiers of priest? Lower the standard? In what sense? Who are the 'masses' wanting inferior priests? Where do 'Readers' fit in to this inferior/superior structure?
Sorry. I was being excessively sarcastic.
As I understand it, all this makes most sense in rural areas where there are loads of village churches with tiny congregations. We're talking about situations where, given the available money and NSMs, it's not practical to do a service at a sensible time every week.
A slightly evangelical parish might persuade someone in the village to become a reader, figuring that a service at a predictable sensible time is better than random services lead by someone with a more thorough theological education.
A slightly more high church parish would be unhappy about not having a mass every week. However the rules look like they're saying that this reader is only allowed to preach (and can't get ordained) because they don't have time to learn how to preach properly. Hence they demand that some mechanism is invented for ordaining people who'd otherwise become readers.
And in a lot of rural areas this works well (in the sense that it keeps a lot of village parishes moderately happy).
Of course, in a lot of rural areas, people are very happy with the idea of local priests for local people. That doesn't prove the wider church should indulge them.
Thank you for your explanation. I remain bemused, however. You paint a picture of an intellectual hierarchy in which priests hold a superior position to OLM's and Readers. The latter are inferior as preachers in any case due to lack of time and lack of thorough training, and as such they cannot be ordained (You're assuming that they would be if they had the capability?). OLM's are better educated than Readers, and more useful as they can be ordained and therefore may also preside at the Eucharist, but they remain inferior to paid clergy?
I'd be interested to hear what others think of this. My understanding was that there was no difference between the theological training or intellectual prowess of a priest, OLM or Reader.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
As I understand it, all this makes most sense in rural areas where there are loads of village churches with tiny congregations. We're talking about situations where, given the available money and NSMs, it's not practical to do a service at a sensible time every week.
A slightly evangelical parish might persuade someone in the village to become a reader, figuring that a service at a predictable sensible time is better than random services lead by someone with a more thorough theological education.
A slightly more high church parish would be unhappy about not having a mass every week. However the rules look like they're saying that this reader is only allowed to preach (and can't get ordained) because they don't have time to learn how to preach properly. Hence they demand that some mechanism is invented for ordaining people who'd otherwise become readers.
And in a lot of rural areas this works well (in the sense that it keeps a lot of village parishes moderately happy).
Of course, in a lot of rural areas, people are very happy with the idea of local priests for local people. That doesn't prove the wider church should indulge them.
Of course since the CofE doesn't know what it believes being a priest is about, it is fairly inevitable that it will have no idea what it should do with OLMs. If the purpose of being ordained is to 'do the magic bits', then we end up going one way. If it is about being authorised to fulfil a certain role of leadership in the church, we end up with another. If it's about being a visible representative of the church, then it's a third. And for those of us who have high expectations of 'small groups' within the church, their leaders constitute people who should be authorised to lead communion services for their group: I upset my small group leader when I objected to his leading a communion in the small group - for him it was 'obvious' that he should... Meanwhile I know that communion led by the leader is standard in the weekly small groups of a charismatic church. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
I too am bemused by *Leon*'s post quoted above. The central calling of a Reader is to a preaching and teaching ministry and the training emphasises this. Whatever else Readers may do they should be competent preachers. There are plenty of Readers with higher educational qualifications than some of the clergy they work with and there are also many NSM's and OLMs with higher qualifications than some stipendiary clergy.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
And another general comment:
To become an NSM, you need to go through a selection process that takes a couple of years and is designed to determine if you're suitable to be the full-time leader of a parish. After that, you do a 3 year training course that's nominally an evening class....
Same for all NSMs, including OLMs. And in this diocese its the same for Readers - for me, from the initial enquiries to licensing was going on five years.
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
Just throwing this out there:
Q: Is the elephant in the room with all non-stipendiary clergy, Control & Discipline? And how that is applied?
No, I don't think so. I think the big grey beast blocking the doors is the expectation of the congregation that the priest will do everything they are used to "the vicar" doing, whether or not they have a day job, or a family, or are pushing 70 and in poor health. They are expectred to work too hard and mostly do I think. As do many stipendary clergy.
We have the model in our minds of a solitary vicar who does all the jobs that the church needs to keep it going so everyoine else can turn up on Sunday morning to find everything being done decently and in order. They are supposed to be priest and pastor and preacher and presider all rolled in to one.
As for control and discipline, in the Church of England if a parish has an invumbent, all other ministers serve there entirely at the incumbent's pleasure. It doesn't make the slightest doifference what somneone's licence says, if the incumbent wants them to preach or preside they can, and if they don't they can't.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
A shipmate mentioned the distinction that there used to be between parish and diocesan Readers and how this was eventually abolished.
One might presume the same will happen with the difference between NSMs and OLMs.
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
quote:
@Ken
...We have the model in our minds of a solitary vicar who does all the jobs that the church needs to keep it going so everyone else can turn up on Sunday morning to find everything being done decently and in order. They are supposed to be priest and pastor and preacher and presider all rolled in to one.
I get the (sort of) impression in the Diocese of Lichfield that its becoming recognised that the Vicar does everything model is not going to work going forwards. I do appreciate that's obvious but there is a Diocesan initiative going round the Deanery's at the moment of “Imagining the Church without Clergy” - but really its about encouraging much more Lay leadership that works with a collaborative Clergy in 'covenanted' parishes.
Whether this is going on in other Diocese I do not know but the 'Covenanted Parish' is some sort of measure that defines whether Churches are run collaboratively between Clergy and Lay leadership. As far as I understand if a Parish and/or Benefice becomes 'covenanted' you get a big sloppy kiss from Bishop Jonathan. There probably are some other benefits too...
“We don't want little popes” is a line that describes this initiative.
Anyway, to get to this 'covenanted' thing, Lay leadership is being activity encouraged across the Diocese – OLM, SSMs, Readers – the lot.
Which I for one, think is a good thing regardless of whether we really understand what we want from a Priest other than we want more of them.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
However, all these acronyms probably don't alter the fact that if you are working class you still do not have a hope in hell of being ordained in the C of E.
PD
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
However, all these acronyms probably don't alter the fact that if you are working class you still do not have a hope in hell of being ordained in the C of E.
PD
And if your midle class you dont stand a chance of growing a working class church. The C of E don't grow where the olives don't show.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
A shipmate mentioned the distinction that there used to be between parish and diocesan Readers and how this was eventually abolished.
One might presume the same will happen with the difference between NSMs and OLMs.
It already has in Southwark!
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
However, all these acronyms probably don't alter the fact that if you are working class you still do not have a hope in hell of being ordained in the C of E.
PD
I don't think this is true. I can think of 5 clergy I know from a working class background - 3 of them having being brought up on council estates.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
However, all these acronyms probably don't alter the fact that if you are working class you still do not have a hope in hell of being ordained in the C of E.
PD
I don't think this is true. I can think of 5 clergy I know from a working class background - 3 of them having being brought up on council estates.
Well it might not be 'haven't a hope in hell' but there are fewer working class clergy and working class parishes do find it harder to recruit readers/olms to train.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Isn't the issue of working class clergy likely to be as much educational as anything else? Proving you have the academic ability to cope with training is going to be a lot harder if you left school at 16 and worked in a factory (regardless of your actual intellectual capability) than if you already have a degree and professional qualifications.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
There is a perception that working class = unintelligent = uneducated = poor. This isn't the reality. Many people of working class background are highly intelligent and many well-educated people are poor. This is especially so for women because their circumstances are often bound up with the primary need to care for children.
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on
:
At my bap, social discussion revolved around Downton Abbey (which I've never seen) and when i mentioned x-factor i got 'a look' and it was ignored. It was fairly clear I was in the minority. Yet at the social groups i'm normally involved in it would have been the opposite. The culture was definitely middle class. I have to confess that i felt my background put me at a disadvantage, despite my degree from a good university. And i'm at the middle class end of working class
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
There is a perception that working class = unintelligent = uneducated = poor. This isn't the reality. Many people of working class background are highly intelligent and many well-educated people are poor. This is especially so for women because their circumstances are often bound up with the primary need to care for children.
This is true as far as it goes, but there is a statistical reality that people in working class occupations tend to have fewer educational qualification and are more likely to live in poverty. There will always be exceptions. This certainly doesn't mean they're not intelligent, my point was that without qualifications it's harder to demonstrate academic ability. Jenn.'s point is interesting though, and suggests it probably isn't just about education.
The question that raises, though, is how do you avoid that sort of atmosphere? I avoid x-factor and similar programmes like the plague, but then I don't watch Downton Abbey either. Aren't we basically in a chicken and egg situation, where you need a critical mass of working class clergy before other working class Christians will be able to see themselves in that role?
Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Isn't the issue of working class clergy likely to be as much educational as anything else? Proving you have the academic ability to cope with training is going to be a lot harder if you left school at 16 and worked in a factory (regardless of your actual intellectual capability) than if you already have a degree and professional qualifications.
I have 3 'A' Levels and an honours degree in computer science, admittedly from the best part of 40 years ago and I struggled with the academic essays I had to write as part of my Reader training.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Shire Dweller - the Chelmsford Diocese version of looking at clergy and lay deployment is Transforming Presence
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
However, all these acronyms probably don't alter the fact that if you are working class you still do not have a hope in hell of being ordained in the C of E.
PD
And if your midle class you dont stand a chance of growing a working class church. The C of E don't grow where the olives don't show.
AtB, Pyx_e
I could point you in the direction of several examples of both of these. But I think you need a solidly working-class community: in socially mixed parishes it's easy for the middle class to dominate.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
A shipmate mentioned the distinction that there used to be between parish and diocesan Readers and how this was eventually abolished.
One might presume the same will happen with the difference between NSMs and OLMs.
It already has in Southwark!
Southwark has always been a diocese in front, as it were, and IMHO usually right about a numbrs of issues.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
There is a perception that working class = unintelligent = uneducated = poor. This isn't the reality. Many people of working class background are highly intelligent and many well-educated people are poor. This is especially so for women because their circumstances are often bound up with the primary need to care for children.
This is true as far as it goes, but there is a statistical reality that people in working class occupations tend to have fewer educational qualification and are more likely to live in poverty. There will always be exceptions. This certainly doesn't mean they're not intelligent, my point was that without qualifications it's harder to demonstrate academic ability. Jenn.'s point is interesting though, and suggests it probably isn't just about education.
The question that raises, though, is how do you avoid that sort of atmosphere? I avoid x-factor and similar programmes like the plague, but then I don't watch Downton Abbey either. Aren't we basically in a chicken and egg situation, where you need a critical mass of working class clergy before other working class Christians will be able to see themselves in that role?
It is srill quite common in my neck of the woods for people to say of someone else 'He has a nice educated voice'. I heard this said by the (working class to use an awkward expression) village gardener who happens to be the verger. It was actually said approvinglyabout a locum vicar.
Before I am jumped on, I am not saying this is my opinion or that I approve of it, only that there is a great underestimation of the role of accent. You can be as working class as you like, but the 'educated voice' (as it were) still opens doors in this part of the world. I once mooted that elocution lessons were possibly at the root of removing class ceilings as was heavily critcised. I was only repeating the view of a left-leaning member of the BBC of my acquaintence.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It is srill quite common in my neck of the woods for people to say of someone else 'He has a nice educated voice'. I heard this said by the (working class to use an awkward expression) village gardener who happens to be the verger. It was actually said approvinglyabout a locum vicar.
Before I am jumped on, I am not saying this is my opinion or that I approve of it, only that there is a great underestimation of the role of accent. You can be as working class as you like, but the 'educated voice' (as it were) still opens doors in this part of the world. I once mooted that elocution lessons were possibly at the root of removing class ceilings as was heavily critcised. I was only repeating the view of a left-leaning member of the BBC of my acquaintence.
I think there's a lot of truth in that. Having an middle class southern English accent makes life a lot easier for me in general, even in rural Scotland, and it probably does make it easier to sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Think about the authoritative voices we hear in the media. It's not necessarily RP accents any more, but they are middle class accents. John Humphries, John Sergeant, Jenny Murray, Eddy Mair, the Dimblebies, Jon Snow. You might hear working class accents on Radio 1, or from comedians, but very rarely from presenters on major news programmes or documentaries. We're trained to associate knowledge and authority with that tone and that accent.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Isn't the issue of working class clergy likely to be as much educational as anything else? Proving you have the academic ability to cope with training is going to be a lot harder if you left school at 16 and worked in a factory (regardless of your actual intellectual capability) than if you already have a degree and professional qualifications.
For some people it is proving it to themselves that is the issue. It is not about intelligence at all, but people who have never been involved in the education system, find it very daunting, or can think that things educational are not for them.
There is a working class lady at one of our group of churches, who runs everything with efficiency and intelligence. However she left school at 15 and openly calls herslf thick because she hasn't a paper qualification to her name.
She would have made a very capable reader but would never have had the confidence in herself to even think about it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
For some people it is proving it to themselves that is the issue. It is not about intelligence at all, but people who have never been involved in the education system, find it very daunting, or can think that things educational are not for them.
There is a working class lady at one of our group of churches, who runs everything with efficiency and intelligence. However she left school at 15 and openly calls herslf thick because she hasn't a paper qualification to her name.
She would have made a very capable reader but would never have had the confidence in herself to even think about it.
It makes me wonder whether there ought to be some sort of formal approach to theology available for study at a lower level. Most Christians, including me, would probably benefit from an evening class in theology at something roughly analagous to GCSE or A-Level standard. If it could be certified at that level then it would serve to give some reassurance to potential ordinands as well as improving the theological understanding of lay people in general.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Having an middle class southern English accent makes life a lot easier for me in general, even in rural Scotland, and it probably does make it easier to sound as if I know what I'm talking about. Think about the authoritative voices we hear in the media. It's not necessarily RP accents any more, but they are middle class accents. John Humphries, John Sergeant, Jenny Murray, Eddy Mair, the Dimblebies, Jon Snow. You might hear working class accents on Radio 1, or from comedians, but very rarely from presenters on major news programmes or documentaries. We're trained to associate knowledge and authority with that tone and that accent.
What's the name of the economics correspondent on (BBC or Channel 4, I'm not sure) who sounds very authoritative though with a strong Wigan accent? But I agree, he's an exception.
As a teenager I took it for granted that all clergy were 'posh' and spoke with an RP accent. It was quite a shock when some of them, in ordinary conversation, sounded just like me and my family. They put on a posh, 'telephone' voice for God in church. These days there are even some bishops with regional accents (the former Bishop of Sheffield for one).
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I've heard that 'vicar voice' I've met a bishop with one too
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
The correspondent with the strong Lancashire accent is Paul Mason.
I was born in the East End of London, and have retained my distinctive Cockney accent all my life, despite having lived in Yorkshire (as a child), Bristol, Cornwall, the East Midlands, West Bromwich, and now in West Wales.
Mind you, having a Welsh father and a Yorkshire mother has helped my natural mimicry ability, and I can assume a variety of accents with total authority.
I find that a flat, "general southern English" accent is unremarkable to most: but if I'm dressed in "mufti" and someone who doesn't know me asks me what I do for a living, I have on more than one occasion (including to the Police!) found it necessary to show my driving licence with "Rev" as the title to prove it! The response is usually "You don't look like a minister!"
What they mean, of course, is "You don't sound like a minister!"
If I speak in my father's Welsh, or my mother's Yorshire, accent - or if I assume a very upper middle class accent, which I can also do at will - no-one queries my profession at all.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Ordained is ordained, witever the legal nonsense about OLMs. I would imagine your order would/should be recognised by any group which has become detached from the CofE since the Reformation.
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
I have (so I am told) a strong Scottish accent despite 30 years in the deep South. However, although my accent is posh Dundee (despite growing up in Lochee), down here I have worked with very deprived families and have been seen as fairly classless. I suppose if I was un-posh Dundee even fewer people would understand me than is the case now.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I had it said to me by American soldiers in Kuwait 'With you Brits we can tell an officer - even in the dark'. They were referring to the majority of young officers speaking RP. The Yanks said they found it easier to understand and didn't have to strain their ears to make out the words - unlike the other way around.
Interestingly and more Ship of Foolsy, the only rank they seemed to recognise was that held by British chaplains. Clueless about UK rank slides, they would see the cross on a padre's uniform. An army padre walking with me was immediately given a salute by American soldiers with the exclamation: 'Chaplain! All the way Sir, all the way'.
The Guardian (I think) or The Independent ran a piece in 2003 called 'Don't you Love Our Tofficers?' it was uncharacteristically approving and made much of their looks, build and voices.
Even contemporary plays on Radio 4 use a sort of Oooo-arrhhh country voice to represent peasants or those deemed not to be taken too seriously; villains are often 'Northern' or 'Cockney' whilst doctors, and most certainly lawyers use RP. Listening to some actors, they seem to struggle to be able to do the last these days.
My BBC friend remarked that he could be dressed in the scruffiest cheapest clothes possible and be addressed as 'Sir' in some shops if he spoke RP, whereas if he adopted something more...regional...they usually said 'Mate'. This was in 2012.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
[Q
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Ordained is ordained, witever the legal nonsense about OLMs. I would imagine your order would/should be recognised by any group which has become detached from the CofE since the Reformation.
Not necessarily, especially if Mooky is female.
Meanwhile, where IS Mooky?
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
And to those parishes starting whole "raising a parish profile for OLM".... you would say WHAT?
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
There is a perception that working class = unintelligent = uneducated = poor. This isn't the reality. Many people of working class background are highly intelligent and many well-educated people are poor. This is especially so for women because their circumstances are often bound up with the primary need to care for children.
This is true as far as it goes, but there is a statistical reality that people in working class occupations tend to have fewer educational qualification and are more likely to live in poverty. There will always be exceptions. This certainly doesn't mean they're not intelligent, my point was that without qualifications it's harder to demonstrate academic ability. Jenn.'s point is interesting though, and suggests it probably isn't just about education.
The question that raises, though, is how do you avoid that sort of atmosphere? I avoid x-factor and similar programmes like the plague, but then I don't watch Downton Abbey either. Aren't we basically in a chicken and egg situation, where you need a critical mass of working class clergy before other working class Christians will be able to see themselves in that role?
For my sins I have just been to a deanery synod meeting where reducing stipendiary clergy numbers was under discussion.
I said maybe this was the opportunity to grow lay leaders and OLMs/readers.
One lady stood up and said that she thought being an OLM was now out of the question for many people since they had started having the same training as stipendiaries.
She said it was now too academic for 'her sort of people'
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Would the same diminution be argued for training of, say, ones GP?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
The analogy would probably be with 'Barefoot Doctors'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_doctor
[ 27. July 2012, 06:24: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I suppose that it's in the context of what was bing said upthread about people in working class areas, depsite intelligence not having the confidence or paper qualifications to go forward for ordination.
If OLM's are priest that come out of a local congregation then does making the training too academic disadvantage some area? and if OLM's is an incarnational ministry then shouldn't it be representative of an area?
Amos I like that analogy.
I was thinking about how the NHS is now training nurse practitiioners, having recognised that you do not have to be trained to be a doctor to treat some conditions.
Does every priest, in every area, have to have the same level of qualification? isn't there scope for similar thinking for priests emerging from out of a community?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It makes me wonder whether there ought to be some sort of formal approach to theology available for study at a lower level. Most Christians, including me, would probably benefit from an evening class in theology at something roughly analagous to GCSE or A-Level standard. If it could be certified at that level then it would serve to give some reassurance to potential ordinands as well as improving the theological understanding of lay people in general.
Chelmsford has something like that - Course in Christian Studies and it's the stepping stone into everything - all their licensed lay roles: Lay Pastoral Assistant, Lay Evangelist, Reader, and also ordination for quite a few people. One of the people on my course was hoping for ordination, another from the course before us went to BAP in March this year.
I managed a term. There were a couple of reasons I didn't do more:
- partly overload, it meant another evening out and I had enough evening meetings already, on top of full time work juggling two part time jobs and a lot of voluntary stuff, plus homework which included termly assignments. I'd taken it on with a promise of dropping a few things which hadn't happened.
- it was very accessible - lots of exercises and group work - as someone who's reasonably academic and had done a lot of what we were covering in Salisbury a few years before I found it frustratingly slow and wished we could just read something for half an hour, rather than spend 2 hours doing these exercises.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Strikes me that a problem here is a lack of conception of the development or change in gifts over time. Presumably some OLMs might develop and deepen their gifts in leadership over time - but there seems little obvious way of acknowledging or moving forward on that.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
It sounds like the foundation course in christian studies I have come across in other places.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Hopefully with lots of Greek.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Again, so much of this is internal. We tend to forget the representative role of all clergy and that (one can only hope) the majority of people amongst whom they spend their time will be non-church folk.
And once again, in an enlightened, scientific, educated, post-Reformation and more professionlly focused age, people have every right to expect a learned clergy. If you want something else as well, absolutely fine. But ministries such as clergy and, one might well argue due to its preaching role, Reader high standards should be maintained - and increased.
The following two essay titles were set to (1) first year students at a CofE theological college in 1986 and (2) second years in 1987:
1.'' 'Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Tetrateuch'. Compare and contrast the various methods of literary criticism, form criticism, and traditio-historical criticism in the Old Testament''
2. '' Is the Distinction of Persons in the Trinity adequately demonstrated in the New Testament, or is it proved only by elucidations of later theological writing? If this distinction does depend upon the ancient theologians, could modern theology dispense with it, and use Trinitarian terminology in a merely metaphorical manner.''
The nature of this particular theological college meant that most of the students doing these essays were non-graduates and from a variety of largely lower middle to 'working' class families. Some students had no-where to go in the college vacations.
Similar essays were required every two to three weeks. Most students were then examined after the Christmas vacation and then in the Summer of each year. Those`exempted the examination route were expected to add a number of assessed longer (still) essays. It was generally regarded that the extended essay route was the hardest.
Posted by mooky (# 15729) on
:
Hi
Thank you for all the replies. I have been reading, watching, and praying.
I am a person with vast experience of life. I also had a professional career.I became an OLM because of my age. I have been a OLM in two different dioceses.It was the latter that made me think, I don't want to be hear. I was allowed to help out in a vacancy. I felt like an unpaid skivvy, 167 services in ten months, no proper supervision, no real talk of expenses. What I saw in those ten months shocked me. As soon as the vacancy happened greed and power from the ministry team, and most Church wardens took over.
to my shame i was being pulled into this. I had no authorit to do anything about it. I did whistleblow though. So I rocked the boat, and there is a price to pay when that happens.
Especially when a new Rural Dean comes along who
is so power based too.
I was told to leave the parishes alone. I became quite ill, but no pastoral care, no communion.
The lovely peole in the congregations where not told what had happened to me I was spirited away for being truthful. I had my PTO taken off me for being unprofessional. I have been treated like a leper. I was told I was only an OLM, implying I didn't really matter.Those who cared for me changed tack as soon as they realised I wasn't new RD
flavour of the day. I have been used and abused.Now I am despised and rejected. Not one member of Chapter or Churchwarden has offered support.
But this did not happen in some strange cult, but witin my beloved C of E. Many months on after much prayer I have decided this is not what I want anymore. Good News! my faith in Our Lord is still very intact,and he is showing me and guiding me where my path should be heading.
Blessings
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
Good News! my faith in Our Lord is still very intact,and he is showing me and guiding me where my path should be heading.
Blessings
Very moving post, Mooky. I think this last sentence is very positive and shows that you haven't lost what it's all about.
Have you got a spiritual director? It seems to me that having someone to talk through this who has [a] a similar depth of faith, and [b] is completely removed from your situation (maybe outside the C of E altogether), could be very helpful. Meanwhile you know that your priesthood is still a reality despite having no external expression.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Dear Mooky,
I am very sorry you were so badly lead and treated, sadly your story of how pople misuse power is not as uncommon as it should be.
But for the grace of God there go I.
I hope you find you vocation and ministry again, I pray God leads you and you follow.
All the Best, Pyx_e.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Thank you for coming back to us Mooky, and letting us know the background to your op.
It helps us all to be made aware once again of the dangers of power & status.
I hope and pray that God leads you to the place where your ministry will be utilised to good effect.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Part of the problem with the situation of OLMs is that some incumbents deliberately select people who they believe will be, shall we say, malleable. That way, they get all the benefits of a free assistant, without any of the awkward stuff, like people who have minds of their own.
But, of course, people grow into ministry, and that's when the trouble starts. The insecurity of the "professional" clergy meets the frustration of the OLM, who will often understand the congregation better than the stipendary, and may well feel themselves as their defender, responding to their desire to move forward in their faith, as against a much more cautious vicar. After all, an OLM has much less to lose!
Posted by mooky (# 15729) on
:
Thank you folks. I am so sorry about my spelling. I never read through. I really do think the whole situation of OLM's should be looked at. Many of the collegues I trained with
have for the last 15 years been working fourty odd hours a week. One is given at least nine funerals a month. I believe they should be paid for these and weddings, and reimbursed for expenses.
My problem I think was caused by be very popular within my congregations. I knew, and they did that I was not the Vicar. I am just a human soul
who is very streetwise because of my paid profession (I am now retired). I was told by many I was a breath of fresh air. One of my main
worries was that the congregation never had any say in anything. The power base wardenss (all women of a certain age) really just made the decisions themselves. The congregation just go along with it. The new RD wanted communion by extension. Most of the congs didn't even know what it was. It was thrust upon them. Most of the PCC's are just voted on each year, and belong to the Churchwardens cliche. I hated it's hypocrisy. So being me I spoke up, not very professional always. Now this is where my big gob has got me.Living in the middle of the parishes and treated like an alien.
BUT, I am an intelligent, gusty old bird, with a huge personality. I was distraught and thought of suicide. I was so frightened I went to my doc's, and in front of a crowded waiting room of people I knew said."I am feeling very suicidal, may I see someone. I was told we have no more appointments until tuesday (this was friday) can you come back then!!!
C'est la vie.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Part of the problem with the situation of OLMs is that some incumbents deliberately select people who they believe will be, shall we say, malleable. That way, they get all the benefits of a free assistant, without any of the awkward stuff, like people who have minds of their own.
It maybe varies in dioceses, but the systems of selecting OLMs I was aware of, and actively part of, were that the candidating OLM was a submission from the congregation(s) - often a lengthy process of meetings, discussion and elections; - which would at some stage certainly include the input of the incumbent. Eg, the incumbent's speaking to the people named, and writing a report to the Bishop on the suitability of the candidate, though that comes a little later in the process.
I know of a few OLMs who were obliged to go to their selection conferences without the sponsorship of an incumbent. An OLM I was required to 'sponsor' was called by her congregation before I became vicar.
Again, the OLMs I know went to the same sort of national conference as stipes, and NSMs. Though I don't know whether the selectors had the same criteria for all candidates. In at least once diocese the would-be candidates would also go through the same pre-conference diocesan selection and interviews as any stipe and NSM and reader. And in at least two dioceses, the training was virtually identical.
I don't doubt some incumbents hook in like-minded people in the hope they'll be ordained and work alongside them. But there's a bit more to it than an incumbent 'selecting' their OLM. But I want to emphasize I can only refer to the experience of the couple of dioceses I knew of, and things may wildly differ elsewhere.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
Thank you for being so open and honest about your experiences and feelings Mooky. It may be uncomfortable reading for some within the CofE but these issues need to be faced. Unfortunately they are often faced only when some kind of formal challenge is made.
You mentioned an issue about claiming expenses. OLMs are entitled to full reimbursement of working expenses. This may not be the most important issue but it is a straightforward one and easy to pursue as an example of inadequate support. AFAIK you can use the grievance procedure for licensed ministers(pdf) which applies to all clergy and all licensed or accredited lay ministers. Even if your PTO has been removed you are still clergy. Also any matter of grievance which arises during a time of active ministry can be pursued even the permission to exercise that ministry has been removed.
You can also join the faithworkers' section of UNITE. I am sure they will be interested in your experiences and may be able to help.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
You can also join the faithworkers' section of UNITE. I am sure they will be interested in your experiences and may be able to help.
Possibly, but be aware that most unions will not deal with casework that arose before you became a member.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
You can also join the faithworkers' section of UNITE. I am sure they will be interested in your experiences and may be able to help.
Possibly, but be aware that most unions will not deal with casework that arose before you became a member.
AFAIK the faithworkers' section of Unite will give advice to non-members and once someone becomes a member they can ask for representation and help with any ongoing issue.
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
Mooky, I pray for your sanctuary and for whatever healing you and God work out together.
...
The expectations and responsibilities of the ministry of OLMs/NSMs/SSMs and Lay Ministry needs to be sorted out nationally before it becomes an “issue” across Diocese
In the Diocese of Lichfield there is a move to place more emphasis on non-stipendiary and lay leadership, particularly in multi-parish rural “team ministries”. For this to work it is not just the Clergy but the laity that MUST move away from notions of “I'm just interested in my own Church” and “We do things here the way we've always done”
The CofE does need to go through an adjustment away from a single Parish focus to seeing worshippers in all the churches (at least CofE ones) in the local area as brothers and sisters in Christ – so we can work together in mission.
Otherwise we just have cliques and cabals running Churches for the in-crowd.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
One is given at least nine funerals a month. I believe they should be paid for these and weddings, and reimbursed for expenses.
Unquestionably the OLM ought to be receiving the clergy fee for these occasions - as all ministers do, even stipendiaries. Stipes are required to pay it to the diocese; since they are 'full time', it is assumed that for them this is part of their ordinary work, and so they get their stipend instead. But all non-stipes should get the fees, and expenses. Are you sure that this person isn't? And if they are, this puts your comment into a different light.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I don't think all ministers do recieve fees, I have seen a post somewhere from an working NSM. Who said he didn't get the fees even though he had had to take time off work to officiate. However if he had been retired he would have recieved them?
We need some NSM to tell us the intricacies of the fee situation.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1167819/non-stipendiary%20ministers%20and%20retired%20clergy.pdf
the link to the CofE website abotu clergy expenses
It says Parishes shoould ensure all clergy including OLM's are paid their expenses
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Unquestionably the OLM ought to be receiving the clergy fee for these occasions - as all ministers do, even stipendiaries. Stipes are required to pay it to the diocese; since they are 'full time', it is assumed that for them this is part of their ordinary work, and so they get their stipend instead. But all non-stipes should get the fees, and expenses. Are you sure that this person isn't? And if they are, this puts your comment into a different light.
The situation regarding fees is changing.
Previously, the fees for weddings and funerals were split between portions for the PCC and portions "Towards stipend of incumbent". In other words, even if the wedding or funeral was taken by a retired priest or OLM/NSM, the fee was only really due to the incumbent. (The vast majority of incumbents had their fees assigned to the diocese, as it made calculation of stipends much simpler - so in effect the incumbent didn't get the fee anyway). Of course, in MOST cases, retired priests (and even NSMs) would get the fee.
The situation is different now. The PCC part of the fee remains, but the other part is now clearly labelled as belonging to the Diocesan Board of Finance. So what will happen is that once a month or quarter, all such fees will be sent from the parish to the diocese, regardless of who took the wedding or funeral. It will then be up to the retired priest, NSM or OLM to claim their fee from the diocese. Quite how this will work, I do not know as I have not seen anything about it. What I DO know is that even if something is paid to the priest, it will not be 100% of the fee, as a portion will be retained by the diocese.
My guess is that OLMs will NOT be able to claim these fees, except in unusual circumstances. I'm not sure that NSMs will be able to either. By definition, both of these are "non-stipendiary" and the diocese will probably say that this disqualifies them from the fees.
I also suspect that most retired priests will decide to work OUTSIDE the diocesan system, as "freelancers", so that they can keep 100% of their fees and not get tangled up in diocesan administration and wait who knows how long for their money.
Why is this happening? Who knows! It's all part of the C of E's insane obsession with centralisation and uber-control.
As for expenses, the system is clear. ALL priests should get their legitimate working expenses paid without quibble. Any parish that refuses to do this should be reported instantly to the archdeacon.
(I would also endorse the suggestion of joining the Faith Workers' branch of Unite.)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
It certainly does need sorting out if OLMs are to continue, as Mooky says. Whichever diocese she belonged to (I presume it's Lincoln) sounds inept.
No mandatory ongoing supervisory with incumbent?
No post-ordination ongoing joint training with incumbent-and-curate?
No yearly supervisory with Bishop?
No working agreement jointly signed off by incumbent and OLM, and noted by PCC?
No proper notification of eligible expenses?
Not at all like a modern-day diocesan way of doing things. I trained as a curate with two OLMs and we were supervised and 'agreement-ed' to an inch of our lives! Sadly, it didn't prevent some problems arising but the regulatory procedures were there and were very clear, including grievance procedures.
Presumably there is a grievance procedure in Lincoln, which obviously in this case should be used.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
There was an earlier thread about funeral fees being paid to NSMs and Readers. I can't find the thread but from what I recall it seems some dioceses have arrangements whereby Readers/NSMs/OLMs etc can claim a fee in addition to expenses.
Expenses however are the main issue here and there is statutory provision for all non-stipendiary clergy and lay ministers to be paid working expenses such as the cost of travel when taking services outside the home parish. There's nothing complicated about it so when the system fails to operate for some categories of minister it indicates lack of care.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
There was an earlier thread about funeral fees being paid to NSMs and Readers. I can't find the thread but from what I recall it seems some dioceses have arrangements whereby Readers/NSMs/OLMs etc can claim a fee in addition to expenses.
They should be allowed to claim a fee at least in cases of loss of earnings, when they take leave of absence from paid work in order to take a funeral etc. Does this ever happen?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Having checked with a local OLM I discover my understanding was wrong - indeed the fees are paid to the diocese. Whilst I can understand the desire of increasingly poverty striken dioceses to avoid the loss of income, it does prevent one of the ways that ministry should be funded at a local level: the parish has someone who gets paid as a result of fees and thus removes the responsibility from the paid clergy. IF we are serious about stipendiary clergy as leaders in ministry, tying them down to act as local shaman for performing marriages and funerals seems to be a mistake.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Here in the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn, the guidance for parishes is that non-stipendiary priests should not receive the casual service fees (for Sunday services, typically), but should receive travel expenses at the standard rate. I'm not sure what the guidance is, if there is any, for weddings and funerals.
This extends into retirement, as I recall. Retired stipendiaries should receive fees, but not NSMs who have retired from secular employment.
I understand the reasoning; NSMs can't become stipendiary by stealth, as it were. But with the changing shape of ministry, there has to be a recognition that NSMs may forego some secular income in order to exercise their ministry; weddings and funerals the prime example.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
In the Diocese of Lichfield there is a move to place more emphasis on non-stipendiary and lay leadership, particularly in multi-parish rural “team ministries”. For this to work it is not just the Clergy but the laity that MUST move away from notions of “I'm just interested in my own Church” and “We do things here the way we've always done”
The CofE does need to go through an adjustment away from a single Parish focus to seeing worshippers in all the churches (at least CofE ones) in the local area as brothers and sisters in Christ – so we can work together in mission.
Otherwise we just have cliques and cabals running Churches for the in-crowd.
This sounds like a very sensible strategy, but how much of this strategic desire meets the desires of individual churchgoers? Telling people that they must change doesn't always do the trick.
People have a need to feel as if they belong. You're expecting them to feel as if they belong to a wider group, while the cell church experience is finding that people thrive when they feel as if they belong within smaller groups (with the potential to become cliques ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
).
How might the two meet? Perhaps OLM's are one of the necessary layer ministries between lay and clergy.
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
I have to say that I find this topic very interesting, if rather baffling! Why not just have priests, and call them that? Not all of these strange acronyms: I imagine seekers are more turned off by words like OSM and NSM than narthex or nave.
As for turning over the fees to the diocese, this is confusing too. Do you all mean the registration fee for the actual sacrament? That is logical. But if the families give you, the priest, an honorarium, it is surely yours to keep and do with as you will. It shouldn't matter whether you're retired, lay vocation, student, full time, etc., etc. The families &/or participants gave it to the cleric, hopefully out of love and appreciation for the service.
I'm also surprised these volunteer/retired clergy aren't paid for each Sunday service they lead. in my metropolis, the rate is $350(+) for each liturgy, plus expenses! No priest should serve for the money, but it is essential for the parish to pay him for his years of training and experience.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Papouli, a priest is a priest. But a priest can serve many different functions: vicar, rector, assistant curate, sector minister, paid, unpaid, local licence, diocesan licence etc.
Not every pilot flies every kind of airplane. Not every doctor performs every kind of medical service. Not every priest (not any!) covers the whole gamut of what it is possible for a priest to do. An OLM is a priest who has committed to a particular kind of priestly ministry. A stipendiary is a priest who has committed to a particular kind of priestly ministry. But those two ministries are going to be exercised differently in some essential ways (usually).
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
In the Diocese of Lichfield there is a move to place more emphasis on non-stipendiary and lay leadership, particularly in multi-parish rural “team ministries”. For this to work it is not just the Clergy but the laity that MUST move away from notions of “I'm just interested in my own Church” and “We do things here the way we've always done”
The CofE does need to go through an adjustment away from a single Parish focus to seeing worshippers in all the churches (at least CofE ones) in the local area as brothers and sisters in Christ – so we can work together in mission.
Otherwise we just have cliques and cabals running Churches for the in-crowd.
This sounds like a very sensible strategy, but how much of this strategic desire meets the desires of individual churchgoers? Telling people that they must change doesn't always do the trick.
People have a need to feel as if they belong. You're expecting them to feel as if they belong to a wider group, while the cell church experience is finding that people thrive when they feel as if they belong within smaller groups (with the potential to become cliques ).
How might the two meet? Perhaps OLM's are one of the necessary layer ministries between lay and clergy.
Sounds good in theory - but in practise? I know long term teams and mulitple parish benefices which won't work together. People despite many years just won't co-operate, they want everything to happen in 'their church'.
For example if it is not the day that they have a communion service in their chrurch they just stay away, they don't dream of traveling to the next church to worship.
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Papouli, a priest is a priest. But a priest can serve many different functions: vicar, rector, assistant curate, sector minister, paid, unpaid, local licence, diocesan licence etc.
I think I like our method better: we have priests, priests with lay vocations, and retired priests! All are interchangeable. I have two graduate degrees in Theology, many have PhD/ThD's, most have MDiv's, and some have only a certificate or diploma: but we are all eligible for any position in our Archdiocese.
Much less confusing, ISTM!
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Papouli, a priest is a priest. But a priest can serve many different functions: vicar, rector, assistant curate, sector minister, paid, unpaid, local licence, diocesan licence etc.
I think I like our method better: we have priests, priests with lay vocations, and retired priests! All are interchangeable. I have two graduate degrees in Theology, many have PhD/ThD's, most have MDiv's, and some have only a certificate or diploma: but we are all eligible for any position in our Archdiocese.
Much less confusing, ISTM!
As I pointed out up thread the whole point of OLMs is to recognise the gifts of God in a local parish, not merely on a diocescan scale. It may be less confusing, but that doesn't make the RCC system the best way to go.
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
quote:
@Raptor Eye
You're expecting them to feel as if they belong to a wider group, while the cell church experience is finding that people thrive when they feel as if they belong within smaller groups
I'm not disagreeing that the Cell Group/Small Group experience is essential to growth in discipleship, fellowship and growth. BUT I am also suggesting that belonging (even in just a vague sense) to a wider group is also key to discipleship.
quote:
@Zacchaeus
Sounds good in theory - but in practise? I know long term teams and mulitple parish benefices which won't work together. People despite many years just won't co-operate, they want everything to happen in 'their church'.
For example if it is not the day that they have a communion service in their chrurch they just stay away, they don't dream of traveling to the next church to worship
This is very true. Churches I know in the same Benefice operate on a mindset of 'my church, my service, my vicar' and know next to no-one in the neighbouring parishes outside the Benefice.
My admittedly vague and not-thought-through properly comment is that:
Clergy and Stipendiary Clergy: Must see part of their ministry (in the context of numerous 'small' parishes in a Team) as building and strenghtening networks between Churches – I'm pretty sure this already happens
Non Stipendiary Clergy and Lay Ministers: In their Training and Development – Encouraging but never demanding that Non Stipendiaries & Lay Ministers consider their ministry across a range of different churches in the local area. There will always be those who only want to work in their own Church, but I think many others would like a chance to see their ministry flower in many Churches.
PCCs (The Tough One): There will be some PCCs who will be well up for engaging with other Churches. Others, as suggested, will want to block such activities. A possible route through this could be Diocesan training, or conferences or seminars on '21st Century Churches Working together' or some such PowerPoint thing.
If the CofE Chooses to explore such ideas, they may work. If the Ideas Must be imposed from top-down due to financial pressures alone – these ideas will fail.
I know the response to this is – That's all well and good and rather airy fairy but how can it be made to work – I dont know myself and I dont have the answers – these are just ideas being thrown out there
But if we (as in the CofE) don't explore these ideas (even if they're found to be wanting) then we'll end up hurting many sensitive, dedicated and committed Christian leaders with continued muddling through overwork and ridiculous expectations.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
In the Diocese of Lichfield there is a move to place more emphasis on non-stipendiary and lay leadership, particularly in multi-parish rural “team ministries”. For this to work it is not just the Clergy but the laity that MUST move away from notions of “I'm just interested in my own Church” and “We do things here the way we've always done”
The CofE does need to go through an adjustment away from a single Parish focus to seeing worshippers in all the churches (at least CofE ones) in the local area as brothers and sisters in Christ – so we can work together in mission.
Otherwise we just have cliques and cabals running Churches for the in-crowd.
This sounds like a very sensible strategy, but how much of this strategic desire meets the desires of individual churchgoers? Telling people that they must change doesn't always do the trick.
People have a need to feel as if they belong. You're expecting them to feel as if they belong to a wider group, while the cell church experience is finding that people thrive when they feel as if they belong within smaller groups (with the potential to become cliques ).
How might the two meet? Perhaps OLM's are one of the necessary layer ministries between lay and clergy.
Sounds good in theory - but in practise? I know long term teams and mulitple parish benefices which won't work together. People despite many years just won't co-operate, they want everything to happen in 'their church'.
For example if it is not the day that they have a communion service in their chrurch they just stay away, they don't dream of traveling to the next church to worship.
It is precisely the parochialism that you describe that makes OLM so iffy, IMO and badly thought out.
There can't be anything between lay or clergy. You are either or.
Interesting, the CofE found it expedient to abolish the plethera of minor orders and 'layers' at the Reformation.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
quote:
@Raptor Eye
You're expecting them to feel as if they belong to a wider group, while the cell church experience is finding that people thrive when they feel as if they belong within smaller groups
I'm not disagreeing that the Cell Group/Small Group experience is essential to growth in discipleship, fellowship and growth. BUT I am also suggesting that belonging (even in just a vague sense) to a wider group is also key to discipleship.
Why? I see little justification for that claim, A 'nice to have', no doubt, but 'key'?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
The RCC experimented with worker priests in the 1950s in France and elsewhere. It was a shame that they were eventually suppressed. They had secular jobs - usually in factories saying mass on the work bench when required - and spent their lives alongside the trades unions and workers
However most inportantly they received exactly the same training in seminaries as any other priest. Most returned at night to their local presbytery or clergy house where they lived with other priests.
There was no dimunition in training. It was where they worked out their vocation that was different. They were licenced to the diocese - as the local church.
A fine model.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
Mooky's situation is clearly deeply unpleasant, and is unlikely to be unique. OLMs seem to be a particular answer to a particular set of questions, some of which may well be in conflict.
Sometimes I think we need to go for radical measures, legal ones if necessary (i.e. acts of parliament) to dissolve parishes by force. We can't keep on and on fudging, and going for compromises which are never properly implemented. If people find themselves tipped off their rugs into the same pot, there will be no point in trying to hang on to the rug which they were sitting on because it will already have gone, and at that point they may find that those awful horrible people over there really aren't that bad after all, when they're over here, or as over here as you are.
At that point, OLMs can become exclusively an alternative model of vocation to the priesthood, and stop being an attempt on the part of the C of E to prove to itself, inauthentically, that its model of business as usual can continue indefinitely.
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
Sebby is absolutely correct! Priests, deacons and bishops are ordained for the Local Church, not a parish. Furthermore, a priest is clergy, always: he (she for the non-Orthodox) cannot act as an intermediate level or bridge between the clergy and the laity.
In Orthodoxy, we have maintained the minor ordained clergy of subdeacons and readers, as a more localized, parish-based ministry. Perhaps this is a more appropriate ministry for those aspiring clergypersons who don't want to go to seminary, or be transferable at the bishop's whim...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
[QUOTE] I am also suggesting that belonging (even in just a vague sense) to a wider group is also key to discipleship.
Why? I see little justification for that claim, A 'nice to have', no doubt, but 'key'?
Surely when you are baptised (or 'become a Christian', if you see any difference) you become a member of the Body of Christ throughout the world (and time), not just a cosy little support group?
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
A wider group could be
All Christians everywhere
Just the other denominations you get on with
Just your denomination
Just your own wider Church
Just your Diocese / Area
Just your Deanery / Sub-Division
But, whilst I am typing this quickly, I'd say that a sense of being part of something bigger than just a single Church where things are done in a certain way that you happen to be used to, is 'key' to developing a more mature appreciation of 'The Church' as a whole and also 'key' to growing personal maturity in faith to see others (even just within your own tribe) as your Brothers and Sisters in Christ, even when they get it wrong in your own opinion.
Perhaps I'm talking from my own --Cliché alert-- “journey of faith”.
But for me at least, it is 'key' that there is something bigger than just my own Church.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:
In Orthodoxy, we have maintained the minor ordained clergy of subdeacons and readers, as a more localized, parish-based ministry. Perhaps this is a more appropriate ministry for those aspiring clergypersons who don't want to go to seminary, or be transferable at the bishop's whim...
In the C of E we have Readers, not of course identical with those in the Orthodox Church, but the obvious parallel in this case. OLMs arose because of the (perceived) need for the eucharist where full-time priests were in short supply; if it was seen as just a matter of status then it was a mistake.
Judging by the number of times Mooky was relied upon to officiate, there must have been a perceived need for her services as a priest. That a new regime should manage without her suggests not just a personality clash but different priorities... maybe they have more Services of the Word these days. It must be hurtful to have been treated as essential at one stage and then just thrown aside with no explanation or apology.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:
Sebby is absolutely correct! Priests, deacons and bishops are ordained for the Local Church, not a parish. Furthermore, a priest is clergy, always: he (she for the non-Orthodox) cannot act as an intermediate level or bridge between the clergy and the laity.
In Orthodoxy, we have maintained the minor ordained clergy of subdeacons and readers, as a more localized, parish-based ministry. Perhaps this is a more appropriate ministry for those aspiring clergypersons who don't want to go to seminary, or be transferable at the bishop's whim...
The issue is the definition of the 'local church'. In Augustine's time, the diocese would have been about the size of a large parish these days. Within such dioceses, presbyters were ordained by the bishop. What I am suggesting is that in OLMs we are seeing the recognition, once again, of such presbyters. Probably by our standards they would have been laity - certainly not in charge of their own church, except in small vilages, almost certainly not celebrating the Eucharist regularly. It's because we've kept bishops as too high a level, and seen presbyters come to act as bishops in their parishes, that we then get twitchy about calling these presbyters 'priests'.
The world has changed: the tradition of priests that is viable within Christendom is an unhelpful burden now that Christendom has fallen. Are we prepared to engage with the new realities - or are we going to miss the chance for the church to reach out to the hurting millions because we can't cope with the idea that we need to abandon this sort of tradition now that the world has changed? Does the church exist to serve those outside it - or maintain the tradition of the elders... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:
Sebby is absolutely correct! Priests, deacons and bishops are ordained for the Local Church, not a parish. Furthermore, a priest is clergy, always: he (she for the non-Orthodox) cannot act as an intermediate level or bridge between the clergy and the laity.
In Orthodoxy, we have maintained the minor ordained clergy of subdeacons and readers, as a more localized, parish-based ministry. Perhaps this is a more appropriate ministry for those aspiring clergypersons who don't want to go to seminary, or be transferable at the bishop's whim...
The issue is the definition of the 'local church'. In Augustine's time, the diocese would have been about the size of a large parish these days. Within such dioceses, presbyters were ordained by the bishop. What I am suggesting is that in OLMs we are seeing the recognition, once again, of such presbyters. Probably by our standards they would have been laity - certainly not in charge of their own church, except in small vilages, almost certainly not celebrating the Eucharist regularly. It's because we've kept bishops as too high a level, and seen presbyters come to act as bishops in their parishes, that we then get twitchy about calling these presbyters 'priests'.
The world has changed: the tradition of priests that is viable within Christendom is an unhelpful burden now that Christendom has fallen. Are we prepared to engage with the new realities - or are we going to miss the chance for the church to reach out to the hurting millions because we can't cope with the idea that we need to abandon this sort of tradition now that the world has changed? Does the church exist to serve those outside it - or maintain the tradition of the elders...
Whilst there is much helpful idealism and emotive phraseology 'the tradition of the elders' in this response (I in no way do I mean that impertinently) it fails to engage with the OLM issue.
Only to an extent is your view of the local church correct. And the change you mention is largely confined to Europe. In the RCC the local church was regarded as the diocese by that most local-affirming Second Vatican Council. Catholic ecclesiology (in the broadest sense) has largely influenced the thinking of the contemporary CofE. The local church is the diocese. Were what you describe to be more desirable, then a deanery model would be more appropriate. Parochialism can be a danger, not a help to mission. And the tradtional parish system is just about broken down in many some anyway. I would argue that the OLM conception belongs to the past, rather more than a more`sensible and diocesan or deanery model.
Unlike the French model of the worker priest with comparable seminary training and licencing, the CofE has been trying to plug gaps and get clergy on the cheap. It hasn't always been honest enough to admit this. This is combined with the sacramentalist notion of the priest which, most certainly since the 19thC, has prevailed.
(1) I am all for a wider admittance of people to the church's ordained ministry and this is to be welcomed.
(2) I do not support diminution in standards of training (in fact present day needs probably make it more a requirement to be more rigorous and longer). The French worker priest model adapted to CofE needs would be better. A more centralised training perhaps is desirable.
(3) An end to (I would argue) an unfortunate parochialism with deployment of OLMs. The present system is not based on an inaccurate and ill-thought out ecclesiology but on no ecclesiolnoy at all. As we have discussed, the licence will eventually prove itself unworkable and be changed anyway. An example was the aboltion of the distinction between parochial and diocesan Readers and a more rigorous standard of training.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The assignment of fees is hardly surprising. I've seen (and whistle blown about 10 years ago) funeral fees being used as a very lucrative source of tax free income. Fees are additional earnings over and above the stipend if they are not assigned to the Diocese. If the incumbent assigns them they still have to be declared on tax returns and correlated with diocesan returns. The Church of England enforcing a centralised system is going to cut a certain amount of abuse and tax evasion. And with employers being held accountable for tax too I can see why the CofE is removing this liability
[ 01. August 2012, 20:10: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Though even if fees are not assigned they are meant to be declared and then taken out of stipend at a future date.
Assigning fees means thet the clergy person does not even have to touch the money - my vicar likes this, they think that by removing the money element from a relationship it helps pastorally.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Only to an extent is your view of the local church correct. And the change you mention is largely confined to Europe. In the RCC the local church was regarded as the diocese by that most local-affirming Second Vatican Council. Catholic ecclesiology (in the broadest sense) has largely influenced the thinking of the contemporary CofE. The local church is the diocese. Were what you describe to be more desirable, then a deanery model would be more appropriate. Parochialism can be a danger, not a help to mission. And the tradtional parish system is just about broken down in many some anyway. I would argue that the OLM conception belongs to the past, rather more than a more`sensible and diocesan or deanery model.
It is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows about them that the Anglican Evangelical mega-churches - at least in a UK context - of London: HTB, All Souls and St Helens preeminently - are de facto dioceses. Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming is merely desperately defining it otherwise. The only issue is how small a parish becomes before we lose interest and decide they aren't diocese on their own. And ecclesiastically the CofE is broken; libruls and conservatives have zero confidence in each other, so the persistent siren cries of the higher echelons for them to work isn't going to work out.
As I've said before about the area where I live; the CofE has spectacularly dropped the ball after a good recovery in the late 1970s. Instead we have at least three 'white' independent Evangelical churches of various flavours growing steadily (I suspect there are some black churches out there as well, but I haven't actively encountered them). Yet all the CofE can see and respond to is its own mess. THAT'S a failed ecclesiology - not the attempt to fit what's happening in the failed structures of the CofE.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Though even if fees are not assigned they are meant to be declared and then taken out of stipend at a future date.
Assigning fees means thet the clergy person does not even have to touch the money - my vicar likes this, they think that by removing the money element from a relationship it helps pastorally.
When I was ordained we could choose to have them assigned to the diocese, or paid via stipend with the proviso that the stipend was reduced accordingly. Much easier to take the first option, and as you say removed any question of 'paying the priest'.
Another point to make is that CofE fees for conducting services are intended to cover, or contribute to the cost of the ministry of a parish. With all its faults and subtle difficulties, the CofE model is to draw ministry costs from fees and parish share, pool it and distribute it across the diocese according to need, thus paying for the actual ministry itself; training, CME, expenses, stipends etc.
I know of one case of a reader who, whilst still licensed to the diocese, effectively free-lanced as many funerals as he could, allegedly grossing for himself the cost of two stipendiary priests over a number of years!
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
I really had no idea that there was such a wide difference between the Orthodox Church and Anglicans over clergy gifts! When my parishioners give me a gift for a baptism, wedding, funeral, house blessing, etc., etc. they would certainly be offended if I turned it over to the metropolis, or even the parish. It is my gift, not asked for nor expected, for being their priest at a special time in their lives. Also, it's not any business of the church whether I declare it on my taxes or not: in America, the clergy are one of the most audited professions by the IRS.
As for using "volunteer" or retired clergy to substitute for me, when I'm absent, if I found out my parish didn't give the substitute an honorarium plus expenses, I would pay it out of my own pocket!
I know some Episcopal priests, and would be interested in finding out whether they turn over all gifts to their dioceses.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Yes, Papouli, it's a good example of how the CofE does it differently - but it is a modern situation: historically CofE priests were paid out of the endowments of their particular parish, and received wedding and funeral fees on top of that; some clergy were well off, others far less well endowed. However these endowments were mostly fixed sums, with the result that their value has been destroyed as a result of inflation in the past 50 years As a result the concept of priests being paid from a central pot of diocescan money, which is also fed by what cash is still coming from the endowments, but mainly from the parish quota, came into existence. In this context centralising the payments of fees for weddings and funerals is entirely logical, assuming that the diocese has the slightest idea what it is doing, and that there is anything of value going on in most of the parishes of the dioceses. Personally I've not seen much evidence for either of these claims.
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...assuming that the diocese has the slightest idea what it is doing, and that there is anything of value going on in most of the parishes of the dioceses. Personally I've not seen much evidence for either of these claims.
Amen! See, we're not so different...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papouli:
I really had no idea that there was such a wide difference between the Orthodox Church and Anglicans over clergy gifts! When my parishioners give me a gift for a baptism, wedding, funeral, house blessing, etc., etc. they would certainly be offended if I turned it over to the metropolis, or even the parish. It is my gift, not asked for nor expected, for being their priest at a special time in their lives.
There's a difference. If we give our priest a gift, its theirs. Rarely because English people don't usually give money as gifts except to their children, but sometimes other things.
But the fees paid for baptisms and weddings and so on aren't gifts, they are a legal requirement, one of the last vestiges of the old system in which the parish paid for the parish church. That was the residents of the parish, or people who owned property within the parish boundaries, whether they were members of the Church of England or not.
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on
:
Baptisms don't have a fee attached...
Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on
:
Thanks Ken, I think I was confused over the nomenclature. In some of our parishes, we operate under the "dues" method, where each individual/family gives the parish a set amount per year (say $500), and then for each sacrament, they (either the family or the sponsors) pay a fee to the parish. We also pay a registration fee to the metropolis for each sacrament performed ($50 to $150); these are paid from parish funds.
I was more interested in the direct honorarium or gift paid to the clergyperson. So if I understand you, this isn't standard in the English culture...in Greek culture, it is very standard!
I believe you're a Reader, or training to be one: so, if your bishop asked you to serve at a funeral (I believe the Anglicans don't require priests for this) across your diocese, you wouldn't receive any gift/compensation for doing the service, even if it took you away from your job and family? The same theory applies to OLM priests as well...that's what doesn't seem fair or just to me.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Only to an extent is your view of the local church correct. And the change you mention is largely confined to Europe. In the RCC the local church was regarded as the diocese by that most local-affirming Second Vatican Council. Catholic ecclesiology (in the broadest sense) has largely influenced the thinking of the contemporary CofE. The local church is the diocese. Were what you describe to be more desirable, then a deanery model would be more appropriate. Parochialism can be a danger, not a help to mission. And the tradtional parish system is just about broken down in many some anyway. I would argue that the OLM conception belongs to the past, rather more than a more`sensible and diocesan or deanery model.
It is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows about them that the Anglican Evangelical mega-churches - at least in a UK context - of London: HTB, All Souls and St Helens preeminently - are de facto dioceses. Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming is merely desperately defining it otherwise. The only issue is how small a parish becomes before we lose interest and decide they aren't diocese on their own. And ecclesiastically the CofE is broken; libruls and conservatives have zero confidence in each other, so the persistent siren cries of the higher echelons for them to work isn't going to work out.
As I've said before about the area where I live; the CofE has spectacularly dropped the ball after a good recovery in the late 1970s. Instead we have at least three 'white' independent Evangelical churches of various flavours growing steadily (I suspect there are some black churches out there as well, but I haven't actively encountered them). Yet all the CofE can see and respond to is its own mess. THAT'S a failed ecclesiology - not the attempt to fit what's happening in the failed structures of the CofE.
I don't disagree with the main thrust of what you say here, although Ken would be pretty quick to jump on you for your use of 'mega-church' in relation to the ones of which you speak.
Big and self-sufficient they might be but it would be inaccurate to equate them even mildly to a diocesan model.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0