|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Retirement (or not)
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
I'm not sure if this should be here or ecclesiantics, but here goes.
Our vicar is due to retire later this year when he is 70. Neither he nor his parishioners are happy about this. He has written to the diocesan bishop to apply to stay for another year, since it will be the centenary year of the church (if you resign from an anglican church you're not allowed to go to the parish for a year). The church are all behind him. The bishop has replied that it's tough and we'll have to manage. All we can say is "bring on the bishop's retirement!".
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
What a shame all around. One can only pray that the bishop has a softening change of heart.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I think the compromise would be easier in the other direction: permit the retired vicar to attend the main centenary event as an honored guest. I can see the bishop's view on screwing around with retirement rules. But unlike a former vicar hanging around all year like a ghost of vicars past, I don't see the problem with a one off.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
I would have thought that he could attend in his private capacity. Our ex, and now sadly deceased, rector, came to quite a few jamborees of various kinds within a year of his retirement.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Codepoet
Best Bear On Board
# 5964
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
if you resign from an anglican church you're not allowed to go to the parish for a year
Can you provide a citation for this one year rule - I have never heard of it! Obviously it is very bad form to hang around a parish after you have left, and makes life very difficult for the next incumbent if you do, but I have never heard of the first year being any more significant.
As a general response to the OP it sounds to me as if both the vicar and congregarion need to grow up. He will have to leave at some point, and when he does both parties need to move on regardless of what significant date might be on the horizon. I feel sorry of any incoming incumbent if the congreagation are so quick to turn on the bishop! As a priest who is currently looking at parish profiles, this story would make the post seem significantly less appealing, and make me much less likely to want to apply. Frankly I am appalled.
--------------------
It's more important to be kind than to be right.
Posts: 1156 | From: Southampton | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
From Archbishop's Council's document on supporting the ministry of retired clergy 2007:
quote:
4.1 Incumbents and priests in charge are expected, and advised for their own sake, to move an appropriate distance from their last parish on retirement. This is to enable the new incumbent to develop their own new ministry without feeling inhibited by their predecessor and the parishioners to establish a relationship with their new incumbent.
4.2 Clergy are strongly recommended to take a six-month break immediately after retirement, and not to get involved in ministry or committed to other activities during this time.
I see it is for six months rather than a year as I had thought. This is a recommendation rather than a rule, unless it is just a Diocesan rule, but not to adhere to it would obviously create problems for both outgoing and incoming clergy.
They are not getting a new vicar afterwards. We already know the person who will be taking on this church as they are incumbent at the neighbouring parish.
There was another discussion on clergy retirement here:
Oblivion
Edited for spelling.
[ 11. May 2013, 18:12: Message edited by: Jude ]
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I thought it was now illegal to impose a default or mandatory retirement age? Or is this yet another piece of equal rights legislation the CofE has managed to wriggle out of? (Because religion is special.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
From Archbishop's Council's document on supporting the ministry of retired clergy 2007:
quote:
4.1 Incumbents and priests in charge are expected, and advised for their own sake, to move an appropriate distance from their last parish on retirement. This is to enable the new incumbent to develop their own new ministry without feeling inhibited by their predecessor and the parishioners to establish a relationship with their new incumbent.
4.2 Clergy are strongly recommended to take a six-month break immediately after retirement, and not to get involved in ministry or committed to other activities during this time.
I see it is for six months rather than a year as I had thought. This is a recommendation rather than a rule, unless it is just a Diocesan rule, but not to adhere to it would obviously create problems for both outgoing and incoming clergy.
But neither of these rules would prevent the previous incumbent accepting an invitation to attend a celebration service, as a special guest.
In general, though, both of these rules or recommendations seem very sensible, appropriate and important in allowing both congregation and priest to move on.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
These days 70 is young!
And one of the purposes of mandatory retirement is to make way for younger workers. Are there a lot of younger clergy looking for jobs?
But yes I was reared on the 1 year rule, that it is for the purpose of giving the new guy (it was all guys back then) a chance to lead the church instead of church members looking by habit to the retired guy. In a way it made sense, in a way it was hard on clergy who back them might spend an entire career in one place, and then have to leave everyone they know in old age. Back then people didn't live much past retirement.
I agree the one year rule should not bar a one-time return for a special celebration. But it would be more fun to help plan the event.
I can't see enforcing a 70 age limit if the person is performing competently and the church want to keep him/her, but "bureaucracy r us" (too often).
I thought appointment year by year was allowed after 70. No?
How about if he agreed to be paid retirement instead of usual income for that one extra year? If that's a money saver for the bishop, money often talks a bishop's language.
I don't mean that crassly, they all are struggling with the administrative problems of money. I know a Methodist guy must be near 80, has a church because he wants to stay active, management wants someone at that church, and he's free because he has his retirement income to live on, everyone's happy.
It is, of course, a church other clergy don't covet appointment to. If this is a prime church lots of clergy hope to move to, that's politically harder for the Bishop to make an exception to the rule so one guy can keep it longer instead of letting someone else have it.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
These days 70 is young!
And one of the purposes of mandatory retirement is to make way for younger workers. Are there a lot of younger clergy looking for jobs?
But yes I was reared on the 1 year rule, that it is for the purpose of giving the new guy (it was all guys back then) a chance to lead the church instead of church members looking by habit to the retired guy. In a way it made sense, in a way it was hard on clergy who back them might spend an entire career in one place, and then have to leave everyone they know in old age. Back then people didn't live much past retirement.
I agree the one year rule should not bar a one-time return for a special celebration. But it would be more fun to help plan the event.
I can't see enforcing a 70 age limit if the person is performing competently and the church want to keep him/her, but "bureaucracy r us" (too often).
I thought appointment year by year was allowed after 70. No?
How about if he agreed to be paid retirement instead of usual income for that one extra year? If that's a money saver for the bishop, money often talks a bishop's language.
I don't mean that crassly, they all are struggling with the administrative problems of money. I know a Methodist guy must be near 80, has a church because he wants to stay active, management wants someone at that church, and he's free because he has his retirement income to live on, everyone's happy.
It is, of course, a church other clergy don't covet appointment to. If this is a prime church lots of clergy hope to move to, that's politically harder for the Bishop to make an exception to the rule so one guy can keep it longer instead of letting someone else have it.
No. In the UK, the compulsory age for Anglican clergy to retire is 70 and although there are reasons you could apply for an exemption, I suspect that "It would be nice to be the vicar for the Church's Anniversary" isn't one of them.
As with many of these things, I suspect that there's more to this on both sides than is included in the OP. But the slightly unsympathetic comment that both the vicar and the congregation are going to have to suck it up and get on with it is probably the most helpful. There's no reason why the vicar can't be one of the guests of honour at the various celebrations, but hanging around week in, week out isn't helpful to either the vicar, the congregation or the new vicar. Everyone needs time and space to get used to the new situation.
Tubbs
[ 12. May 2013, 17:39: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Our previous vicar has chosen to adopt the 'don't return during the next incumbency' practice, unless specially invited. This could be a long time, depending on how long the next vicar wants to stay. Mind you, it's becoming increasingly common in our diocese for there to be a 1 year interregnum, so any celebration of an anniversary taking place during that year would have to go ahead without an incumbent.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our previous vicar has chosen to adopt the 'don't return during the next incumbency' practice, unless specially invited. This could be a long time, depending on how long the next vicar wants to stay. Mind you, it's becoming increasingly common in our diocese for there to be a 1 year interregnum, so any celebration of an anniversary taking place during that year would have to go ahead without an incumbent.
We're mates with the previous vicar in RevT's place and he's been back a few times since and keeps in touch with friends in the congregation. But he keeps well out of things.
There's also a previous minister from a few times before that in our congregation. He's lovely, offers help and advice when asked and does various other things. It can work, but based on comments from other friends in ministry our experience is unusual. This chap is very easy going and has developed a ministry elsewhere - he's one of the go to preachers for churches in the area who don't have a minister. Ministers seem to be terrible about retiring, most seem to just find other outlets / stuff to do.
Tubbs
[ 12. May 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
