Ship of Fools: You are a minor, know your place

Thread: You are a minor, know your place 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=026092

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There's something rather disturbing which I've come across in some Anglican churches: ones which would never dream of dividing along gender lines, yet instead make a division between staff and congregation, to the extent that the attitude is one of an autocratic headmaster in charge of a group of schoolchildren. The children are seen as a nuisance if they ask questions about anything, are expected to keep quiet and just accept everything that is done by the autocrat(s) in charge. It is convenient for the congregation to be kept in ignorance about theology, wider church politics and local affairs, because then the autocrat(s) cannot be challenged. There is a chief autocrat, then line managers, then those managed. What the hell is talk about line managers even doing in an individual church situation? Who is putting about these ideas in the first place? And why is the church supposed to be run like a school, an office or a business corporation?

Perhaps your church organisation is different - more co-operative maybe, more congregation-led, or perhaps others recognise the hierarchical structure (or at least the attitude) mentioned above?

What I'd like to know is, what shipmates think is the ideal way to organise a church so that members of the congregation feel able to play a full part without being herded like sheep, or schoolkids?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Maybe I'm just tone deaf when it comes to spotting "attitude" but I've never encountered this. I have a tendency to corner clergy after the service and argue something from the sermon, and I've never had one take (noticeable) exception to it. Most just seem pleased someone was paying attention.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I was a pastor, I was once asked how I saw myself, as a servant or as a shepherd. Trick question. In someways a pastor ends up being both.

Just this past week my pastor was discussing what it was like to be the pastor of my church. He said he knew it was going to be different when people began to question where he was coming from, but my congregation is made up of largely university types who aren't afraid to question authority.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
And now the kids will go out to their groups

Sigh.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

If you're treated as minors, think yourselves lucky.

As part of the choir here, we will be losing our Saturday tomorrow singing two services at Southwark Cathedral as part of a "Lancelot Andrewes Festival". (The festival doesn't seem very important if the lack of reference on their website is anything to go by.)

As usual someone decided the choir would do this without bothering to ask us in advance. It is just presumed that we (and the parents of the children) will give up the only free day we have in the week, the only time available to do a whole range of domestic and other tasks (given we will be singing two services on Sundays as a matter of course.)

So not so much minors as performing animals to be hired out (free) at will.

[ 27. September 2013, 12:44: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Oh dear. What do I observe as I listen to conversations of church-goers, clergy and lay? On both 'sides':
Insecurity, whinging, status-grabbing to the point of treading on others, good talk which fails to be translated into action, and plenty of ideas about what others should be doing.
Love of God, self-sacrifice, patience, kindness, laughter and love.

In other words, human beings......

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What the hell is talk about line managers even doing in an individual church situation? Who is putting about these ideas in the first place? And why is the church supposed to be run like a school, an office or a business corporation?

I know that safeguarding policies increasingly expect or require that volunteers who work with children or vulnerable adults will have role descriptions, and clear lines of accountability. Readers are expected to have annual reviews, and working agreements, and these are expected to who who they are accountable to. Ditto assistant clergy etc. (Incumbents also should have regular reviews/appraisals, although it is less clear who they are answerable to*) It is also generally regarded as good practice that any significant volunteer role should have some clear statement about what is involved, what lines of accountability there are (e.g. to PCC or incumbent, or to leader of pastoral visiting team), and a process of review and evaluation of the role and how a person is getting on with it. Outside the church someone who exercise that role in relation to another is called a line manager, so although (like you) I don't much like the term, I'm not surprised to find it creeping in.
(*Some incumbents seem actively to play bishop off against PCC and vice versa, others seem to find it very stressful trying to square the circle between what the hierarchy expect and what the parish wants/needs)

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When I was a pastor, I was once asked how I saw myself, as a servant or as a shepherd. Trick question. In someways a pastor ends up being both.

A few years ago, my boss thought it would be entertaining to send me to a day seminar on leadership. At one point the person leading the seminar got onto the subject of "servant leadership" - at which point she turned to me and said, "But you'll know about that because Christianity invented it."

I knew what she meant, of course, and I kept to myself my instinctive response - "Maybe, but in the CofE you'd never think so." But it struck me that if we ever came close to taking to heart what Jesus said about the servant-leader, we'd have happier laity and clergy.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What I'd like to know is, what shipmates think is the ideal way to organise a church so that members of the congregation feel able to play a full part without being herded like sheep, or schoolkids?

What does this question even mean? Churches can't plan for every emotional problem represented among their congregations.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It is convenient for the congregation to be kept in ignorance about theology, wider church politics and local affairs, because then the autocrat(s) cannot be challenged.

Really? People in churches don't read the news, watch TV or keep themselves politically informed? [Confused]

I've been in evangelical Anglican churches for 30 years, pretty much, and while I have at times witnessed sad/bad behaviour from both clergy and congregations, I've never encountered the situation you describe in your post. Honestly, I haven't. It's just never been that bad. [Big Grin]

I have seen some of that authoritarianism in more fundie circles, though.

I have seen some good vicars take abuse and flak from well-meaning people in their flock. I've seen at least two vicars of mine (neither of them wimps or shrinking violets) shouted at in a PCC by someone with serious anger management issues. That person was not someone vulnerable, they had quite an important position within the diocese.

I've also known some clergy who are control freaks and who DO treat their congregation rather like kids. And I've also known some lay people who are right royal pains in the neck.

Most of the people I know in the pews are more than capable of telling the clergy their unfiltered, uncensored opinions!

Servant leadership, yes. Absolutely.

And the people of God must recognise that their vicar/pastor has an anointing of God to carry out their ministry. That doesn't mean the vicar/pastor is infallible and can never be questioned.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

So not so much minors as performing animals to be hired out (free) at will.

Or pawns on a chessboard. I guess, in a strange way, it's a backhanded compliment to be treated thus.

So tell me more about servant leadership - it sounds intriguing.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I don't much like the term, I'm not surprised to find it creeping in.
(*Some incumbents seem actively to play bishop off against PCC and vice versa, others seem to find it very stressful trying to square the circle between what the hierarchy expect and what the parish wants/needs)

I'm sure that some of it comes from these sorts of pressures. OTOH there has been a trend for the last few decades from churches to try and borrow from the business world, and whilst this originally started in evangelical circles, I'm not surprised that it went from there to Evangelical Anglican and then more general Anglican circles.

Willow Creek invited Jack Welch to speak at their Global Leadership conference a couple of years ago, and no doubt these ideas then leech into other streams of Christianity. Some HBC influenced churches also seem rather in thrall to this sort of thinking.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I'm not disagreeing, but I do think the whole safeguarding agenda, and come to think of it issues around Common Tenure to do with capability procedures and also clergy discipline have all hastened the flow of this language into the church.

In the end, although I am not keen on the language of person specifications, job descriptions, and line managers (for reasons I haven't really explored), I do think it is important to think about the right kind of person for a task or role and what gifts and abilities they need; I do sympathize with people who want/need to be clear about what they are being asked to do who they are to work with and what are the limits of their authority; and who will support them or draw a line for them in their task.

Otherwise you end up with a situation where Mr. So-and-so is asked to play the piano for a service, and then discovers that he is also expected to choose the hymns. A couple of weeks later he finds that the organist has moved away and that no replacement is in sight. Finally he runs head on into an argument with the choir leader about what music should be played before the service begins which is in reality a proxy for her concern that she no longer has a role in choosing hymns which the previous organist did, but the minister didn't know about. The sotto voce argument they have in the vestry is then reported to be about something completely different (which as it happens neither of them knew about) and which doesn't exist in quite the form that rumour has stated, and the whole church will take a year to recover from it. (Except Mrs Beamish who has never liked the use of any hymn written since 1950 (and not many after 1900) and chooses this moment to worship in a neighbouring church. So the first thing the minister knows is when her ecumenical colleague in the neighbouring church sympathizes with her about the very difficult time she must be having.)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
So tell me more about servant leadership - it sounds intriguing.

Servant leadership is just what any good parent does - serve the child's needs to help the child grow healthy physically, emotionally, spiritually. NOT, think the child's job is to serve the parents needs.

Can be tricky, a leader may genuinely believe the best way to serve the needs of others is to impose the leader's will - which actually we do to kids, denying them candy just before supper, taking them to the doc for shots, making them go to school.

Also tricky when what is perceived as good for the group conflicts with what is good for a specific individual. Many churches (and charities and businesses) cover up misbehavior by "important people" on the grounds it's better to sacrifice one or a few mere members than lose the important contribution of the misbehaving one (major donor, organist, popular preacher, whatever).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Can be tricky, a leader may genuinely believe the best way to serve the needs of others is to impose the leader's will - which actually we do to kids, denying them candy just before supper, taking them to the doc for shots, making them go to school.

This is exactly what I'm getting at - yes parents have to do this, but when the child grows up they are given space to think for themselves. Perhaps some churches are just reluctant to let their congregations grow up?

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I think the situation is a bit like that which medical professionals face these days. In the old days, they were almost like gods, and no one dared question them. Now, with the internet providing so much information, and television presenting so many fallible doctors, that authority has broken down. And some medical professionals can't cope - I've never forgotten standing behind the reference desk when I worked in a medical library and listening to two (quite young) endocrinologists bewailing the fact that their patients felt they could ask questions. I wanted to shake them, and it certainly made me very wary when I had to go to one of them.

Likewise, in the old days, clergy didn't have to contend with parishioners who did theology degrees or joined Sea of Faith. I have had the experience of being slapped down by more than one clergyperson when I dared to offer a theological opinion. My mum, who bridges the gap, once had an argument with her vicar over whether he could share some of the insights he had gained from a clergy study weekend with some well-known theologian - he told her that she wouldn't be able to understand and wouldn't be interested, she told him to give it a go. He never did.

I was talking with an Anglican friend who is people's warden in her church yesterday. She made the comment that what she observes at Synod is an organisation that is still operating as though it doesn't have to convince anyone of its relevance to modern life, thus alienating more and more people, both young and old. I think she's got the same questions as you, Chorister!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps some churches are just reluctant to let their congregations grow up?

Well, one clergy person told me I cannot know God because I didn't go to seminary so I am obligated to believe and do what she tells me about God, without any questioning. TEC. And a different TEC clergy person shut down the local chapter of Order of St Luke the Physician because at the monthly meetings people were (quietly) praying for each other for relief of illnesses and the clergy guy said only clergy are allowed to pray for the sick, because the Bible says to ask your elders to pray for you, and only clergy are elders.

So yes, some clergy view lay people as permanently incompetent. And to be fair, so do some lay people, like those who complain because a lay person instead of a clergy person visited her in the hospital.

A different issue is churches resisting people "growing up" because - it's like when a boss discourages his secretary from going back to college, the real reason being he doesn't want to lose a good secretary and have to train a new one. One month (in a third world country) three different missionaries of different denominations told me their home church opposed their leaving to go to the mission field saying it couldn't possibly be God's will to remove from their church such a valuable volunteer worker.

Yup, just when the kid gets capable enough to give some real help with the house and yard, he leaves!

The ultimate goal of rearing kids is to send them out in the world (and hope they come back for an occasional visit.) A lot of churches are focused on building a local congregation partly by encouraging stagnation, your job is to fit into an existing activity slot and stay there the rest of your life serving the needs of that program slots (instead of noticing and serving the needs of people).

Like telling your kid he has to stay in third grade forever because the third grade program will fold if he doesn't re-enroll. In his nursing home he'll still be enrolling in the third grade because that's been defined by "authority" as his job in life, unless at some point he gets smart and turns to God and his own built-in talents/interests instead of church/clergy as his source of guidance.

Hard to "hear" God when you have been brainwashed about what God wants of/for you. God's ways are good.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I think the situation is a bit like that which medical professionals face these days. In the old days, they were almost like gods, and no one dared question them. Now, with the internet providing so much information, and television presenting so many fallible doctors, that authority has broken down. And some medical professionals can't cope - I've never forgotten standing behind the reference desk when I worked in a medical library and listening to two (quite young) endocrinologists bewailing the fact that their patients felt they could ask questions. I wanted to shake them, and it certainly made me very wary when I had to go to one of them.

Likewise, in the old days, clergy didn't have to contend with parishioners who did theology degrees or joined Sea of Faith.

I'm trying to work out whether it is driven by insecurity, or just that people are still operating under old, or past, ways of working. Perhaps a little of both?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'm trying to work out exactly what all of you going on about other than generic rants against generic clergy with an abstract solution (servant-leadership). As a priest, I hate that sort of thing. My vestry knows that if they expect me to take a complaint about anything seriously it had better specific. I also hate the, "Some people are upset." Oh, the ever famous some people who are members of every congregation (probably mosques and synagogues as well) in every denomination in every nation of the world. You never see their faces but boy do they like to whine about some of the pettiest shit.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

My mum's complaint was very specific - she wanted to learn more about a particular theologian's thinking - and her vicar blew her off, belittling her in the process.

How does it hurt him to share some of his learning with the congregation? My mum would have loved to go to hear the theologian herself, but he didn't give any public lectures, only seminars with clergy.

When I was a small child, that same parish had a wonderful vicar, a single man who helped adults and children grow in faith and knowledge - I still remember some of his sermons. Sadly, he was also lonely and alcoholic, due to having almost no support from his colleagues and bishop, and he was removed when I was 14 (my mum told me this later). Since then the parish has had mediocre priests with few pastoral or theological skills. For the men and women who were in their 20s and 30s at the earlier period, there is still a huge gap - their faith and understanding had been opened and extended, then ... nothing.

They're now in their 70s and 80s, and over the last 25 years have formed their own study groups completely outside the church. They still go to the eucharist, but they have given up on being fed spiritually in church (or for that matter, being given any pastoral care). They regard the vicar as nothing more than another, fallible, human, and believe that he has little to offer. There is no sense that he might have anything extra to offer them - because they have been doing theology for themselves for so long that its probably true.

Admittedly, this is only a brief case study of one parish, but I find it interesting that in this case it is the elderly who are drifting away. Mum said to me recently that she's not even sure why she attends the eucharist any more except that she sees all her friends there. This is a lady who was the first female layreader in her diocese, vicar's warden for many years, in charge of pastoral visiting, etc., until she lost her mobility two years ago.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The only thing specific is that once the vicar didn't tell her what the famous theologian had to say. I can think of a few reasons why he wouldn't. One, he wasn't paying attention. Two, he paid attention but thought it was boring and didn't want to repeat it. I attend these things all the time. Most of the time, the material is boring and not the least bit earth shattering. Some people, clergy and lay, get a lot out of these sorts of things. Others don't. Three, maybe he didn't understand what the theologian was saying. Four, maybe he did but didn't feel he could explain or that it wasn't worth the attempt at explaining (how long did the theologian talk). Five, he really thought your mother wouldn't understand. Understanding real theologians and not just the pop variety found on the religion shelf at the local bookstore chain requires not only a background in theology but in philosophy as well. Trying to explain all the background information would be an undertaking in itself even if the vicar had it himself.

One night in seminary, I remember reading a section of a book by Bulgakov to my carolmate. We were in our senior year of seminary. His response was a blank stare followed by, "Yeah, I got nothing." Now, let's say Bulgakov was alive and addressed a clergy gathering and my friend was in attendance. Bulgakov repeats verbatim the passage I read to my friend that night at seminary. Theology isn't my friend's thing. He may not be paying attention to Bulgakov at all. If he does, he's not going to understand what he's saying. My buddy goes to church the next morning. A parishioner of his has heard of Bulgakov and asks him what Bulgakov said. What will he say?

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only thing specific is that once the vicar didn't tell her what the famous theologian had to say. I can think of a few reasons why he wouldn't. One, he wasn't paying attention. Two, he paid attention but thought it was boring and didn't want to repeat it. I attend these things all the time. Most of the time, the material is boring and not the least bit earth shattering. Some people, clergy and lay, get a lot out of these sorts of things. Others don't. Three, maybe he didn't understand what the theologian was saying. Four, maybe he did but didn't feel he could explain or that it wasn't worth the attempt at explaining (how long did the theologian talk). Five, he really thought your mother wouldn't understand.

Six: he can't remember, but was too embarrassed to say so.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

The way I see it, the congregation pays its vicar to be its spiritual/religious councillor. When a member of the congregation asks him/her a religious question, he/she can't wave it away by not paying attention, or by finding it too boring. Of course, "I'm sorry, I don't have time to answer right now but I'll get back to you next week" or "To be honest I'm not very familiar with this theologician, but I'll try to find some sources that will tell you more about him" are acceptable. Anything else, and he simply isn't doing his job.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I also hate the, "Some people are upset." Oh, the ever famous some people who are members of every congregation (probably mosques and synagogues as well) in every denomination in every nation of the world. You never see their faces but boy do they like to whine about some of the pettiest shit.

If you hear that, always respond politely but firmly with the question "Who are we talking about here?" If no answer is forthcoming, then politely but firmly inform the person who gives you that information that you wish to hear no more of the matter.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Doesn't "Father" always know best in some circles?

It's actually a form of abuse if/when the written or unwritten rules require you to know your place. Yes, there are (IME) "clergy" who think they know best and yes, there are (IME) "lay" people who are serially abusive towards clergy. Some of the worst offenders on both sides are the lay players behind the scenes who support a clerical caste because it gives them (the players) the power.

Oh for a servant church without the power plays - thing is to those of us who have come into "ministry" from the outside world, its a joke. We don' think you're tough throwing your weight around in your little parish/deanery/diocese whatever - we've seen it all before for way longer hours each day to a far greater depth. Don't stop it hurting though.

The longer we have the clerical/lay divide, the tougher it gets to eradicate both problems. Especially as has been pointed out, denominational structures seem to have a vested interest in perpetuating the (incorrect) dualism that is clerical/lay. Even in denominations who are promoting lay involvement, you get the feeling that it's a case of "this far but no further" as people get to lose power if it goes too far. We're being exploited there too.

When we see lay celebrations of the eucharist in cathedrals (without reserved sacrament) then I'll know that the problem has been addressed. That's a real, authentic, worshipping community. Until then it's just window dressing or play acting and that's abuse in its own right.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

How does it hurt him to share some of his learning with the congregation?

It does seem such a waste when priests have undergone several years of theological training to doctorate level and beyond, if they only ever preach simple sermons without reference to any of it, because they think the congregation are too simple to understand. Yes, some of them probably are, but if the congregation also has a large number of educated persons that's a poor excuse.

It must be very difficult to get the balance right, but to always err on the side of 'nobody would understand' is really taking it too far. The Oxbridge (for example) educated, who take posts in far flung rural areas, should never assume the congregational IQ is universally low.

Or perhaps some priests see their theological education as a necessary evil to be forgotten about as soon as they leave their college? That might explain it.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

My own experience is that within a generally acceptable length of sermon in the rural CofE - not exceeding 20 minutes, say - it isn't really possible to explore theological issues in much depth. Obviously one hopes that there is some benefit to the depth and quality of the sermon from that level of training.

The alternative that I can see would be to provide some additional opportunity or forum for this kind of discussion within the life of the Church, but it does require a great deal of preparation, and a space in the Church's diary, and it probably needs to be more than a one-off event. For an incumbent looking after four or five rural churches, say, it is probably next to impossible to make it happen.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

The longer we have the clerical/lay divide, the tougher it gets to eradicate both problems. Especially as has been pointed out, denominational structures seem to have a vested interest in perpetuating the (incorrect) dualism that is clerical/lay.

IME there are a fair number of churches where the clergy are over-stretched and rely on a small group of helpful laity who help them run stuff. In consequence you get a little cabal of laity who have a large amount of influence, and while this is to some extent earned by virtue of being helpful, at the same time they lack the accountability of the clergy (and indeed of 'official' lay ministrants such as readers).

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Exclamation Mark:
When we see lay celebrations of the eucharist in cathedrals (without reserved sacrament) then I'll know that the problem has been addressed. That's a real, authentic, worshipping community. Until then it's just window dressing or play acting and that's abuse in its own right.

Yeah, it's all about your pet issue. [Roll Eyes]

I was raised in Baptist and Charismatic churches where nobody cared who presided at the Lord's Supper the four times a year they devoted a Sunday night to it. Did those churches have less conflict than the Episcopal parish? No, if anything, they had even more. Seemed like every time a new pastor came to the church a power play ensued. The pastor had three options. One, become the pawn of the lay people with the money and influence. Two, use his position to establish himself as the spiritual authority whose actions and teachings must be respected (sermons on not touching God's anointed were common). Spiritual abuse often followed even without any concept of Holy Orders at all. Three, resign or be voted out. All his enemies needed was a simple majority vote in either the congregation or board of elders depending on polity of the church. How hard was that? Spread some rumors and gossip. Make mountains out of molehills. Stop coming for a few Sundays. Next thing you know, members who had no problem with the pastor will vote for him to leave to keep the peace and appease their friends.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
My own experience is that within a generally acceptable length of sermon in the rural CofE - not exceeding 20 minutes, say - it isn't really possible to explore theological issues in much depth. Obviously one hopes that there is some benefit to the depth and quality of the sermon from that level of training.

The alternative that I can see would be to provide some additional opportunity or forum for this kind of discussion within the life of the Church, but it does require a great deal of preparation, and a space in the Church's diary, and it probably needs to be more than a one-off event. For an incumbent looking after four or five rural churches, say, it is probably next to impossible to make it happen.

And only two or three people come with any regularity and only if they have nothing else to do. [Biased]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: The pastor had three options. One, become the pawn of the lay people with the money and influence. Two, use his position to establish himself as the spiritual authority whose actions and teachings must be respected (sermons on not touching God's anointed were common). Spiritual abuse often followed even without any concept of Holy Orders at all. Three, resign or be voted out.

Wow, it certainly is sad when the relationship between a pastor and his congregation is defined by power relations like this.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Indeed

I prefer episcopal polity for that very reason. [Big Grin]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I also hate the, "Some people are upset." Oh, the ever famous some people who are members of every congregation (probably mosques and synagogues as well) in every denomination in every nation of the world. You never see their faces but boy do they like to whine about some of the pettiest shit.
If you hear that, always respond politely but firmly with the question "Who are we talking about here?" If no answer is forthcoming, then politely but firmly inform the person who gives you that information that you wish to hear no more of the matter.

Excellent advice.

I know what the OP is talking about. I've experienced it in previous churches. However, I'd say that dynamics within some (many?) congregations in the CofE empowers that kind of cleric. ISTM it isn't, usually, a case of an overbearing cleric imposing their will but a dynamic within a congregation that allows a certain type of cleric to manipulate them.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Five, he really thought your mother wouldn't understand. Understanding real theologians and not just the pop variety found on the religion shelf at the local bookstore chain requires not only a background in theology but in philosophy as well.

How did he know she wouldn't understand? She may have had a very sophisticated understanding of theology and philosophy; some lay people do.

If someone asks a question, they deserve an answer. If they don't understand the answer, that is their problem. Assuming they aren't capable of understanding shows a serious lack of respect.

Moo

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

quote:
I was raised in Baptist and Charismatic churches where nobody cared who presided at the Lord's Supper the four times a year they devoted a Sunday night to it. Did those churches have less conflict than the Episcopal parish? No, if anything, they had even more. Seemed like every time a new pastor came to the church a power play ensued. The pastor had three options. One, become the pawn of the lay people with the money and influence. Two, use his position to establish himself as the spiritual authority whose actions and teachings must be respected (sermons on not touching God's anointed were common). Spiritual abuse often followed even without any concept of Holy Orders at all. Three, resign or be voted out. All his enemies needed was a simple majority vote in either the congregation or board of elders depending on polity of the church. How hard was that? Spread some rumors and gossip. Make mountains out of molehills. Stop coming for a few Sundays. Next thing you know, members who had no problem with the pastor will vote for him to leave to keep the peace and appease their friends. [/QB]

Clergy abuse and laity abuse are present in churches everywhere, regardless of their polity. I've known of it in parishes with episcopal, presbyterial, and congregational government. I dare say that in most of these instances, Jesus left the building a long time ago.

The advantage to episcopal and presbyterian polity is that when such a problem exists in a parish, there is someone on the outside looking in who can address it (Ideally. It doesn't always happen when it needs to. Witness the Crystal Cathedral). Churches of congregational polity, OTOH, often kowtow to the local powers-that-be and don't dare to challenge them. One or two people with big mouths and strong opinions, claiming authority that isn't rightfully theirs, can tyrannize a church. So can a pastor (and a pastor's spouse. I've seen that happen, too).

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
There is a chief autocrat, then line managers, then those managed. What the hell is talk about line managers even doing in an individual church situation? Who is putting about these ideas in the first place? And why is the church supposed to be run like a school, an office or a business corporation?

Perhaps your church organisation is different - more co-operative maybe, more congregation-led, or perhaps others recognise the hierarchical structure (or at least the attitude) mentioned above?

You might have missed out some info here, Chorister? Who precisely has been talking about 'line managers'? Or who is saying the church is supposed to be run like a school or an office or a business operation? So far you appear to be the only one who has introduced that terminology in this thread, but presumably you feel someone somewhere is doing these things? Who and where? Is it some kind of official CofE policy thing?

There are certainly times I've seen elements of line managing going on in the church because of the practicalities of who's responsible for what, who's being paid to achieve what, how groups needs to be organized in order to be and do what they want to be and do etc. But in itself there's nothing wrong with that. It's called getting things done.

And all social/legal structures have elements of being like a school or a business. A church that doesn't take its business aspects seriously won't last long. And no parish I know is constituted of individuals who are all completely level spiritually, educationally, theologically, and in terms of ability and desire to serve. If a school is a place where pupils are grouped according to need and ability and responded to accordingly, for the furtherance of the pupils' education and benefit, then in some sense maybe a church has to have some elements of schooling to it.

However, if what is being complained about is the old chestnut of a tyrannical vicar/laity/PCC lording it over everyone else, then it looks like human nature is doing its usual thing. Good corporations and schools don't infantilize or tyrannize their members. Good churches shouldn't either.

Anglican churches have vestries or PCCs where lay people, voted into office by parishioners (not even necessarily churchgoers), have the opportunity to contribute essentially and largely to how their church is run. Some do it extremely well. Some don't. Some clergy, undoubtedly, are permitted to build private kingdoms by their PCCs. My experience has been of the other type, where the clergy are very welcome to chair the meetings how they like, make suggestions, share 'visions' and all that; but the final decisions about what actually happens to the church community end up being dependent on the consensus of the voting body, ie the PCC/vestry.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I have, however, noticed in large charismatic-evangelical Anglican churches (e.g. HTB "plants") that they are bringing in management styles from the business world. I can see how it happens - it's where the church members are coming from. At best it can greatly enhance the way the church operates. At worst it can be jargon-heavy and even inhumane (results-centred rather than people- or God-centred). I also suspect that it may disenfranchise folk who do not work in that way. There is a balance to be struck between "efficiency" and "messiness", between "programmes" and "the unpredictable wind of the Spirit".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Oh BTW, my church has found the perfect solution for this kind of problems between clergy and the congregation [Big Grin]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There are certainly times I've seen elements of line managing going on in the church because of the practicalities of who's responsible for what, who's being paid to achieve what, how groups needs to be organized in order to be and do what they want to be and do etc. But in itself there's nothing wrong with that. It's called getting things done.

FWIW, there was a situation at my parents' church where a member of the choir came into conflict with the vicar, and the vicar resolved it by routing his response via the choirmaster. The vicar was a former army chaplain and said he was following the principle of the 'chain of command', and he said this was a necessary part of resolving conflict. Some others who were tangentially involved in the situation seem to think it was effective.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

If I understand correctly, the problem is some people feel as if self-proclaimed "spiritual superiors" are trying to prevent them from growing.

When I get too focused on any church organization I feel like "someone is sitting on my head squishing me" to reduce who I am now, as well as prevent me from growing into being the fuller and more complete and healthy (therefore more contributing) person God had in mind when making me.

My solutions:

1. Stop regarding the church institution as any kind of spiritual authority or primary source of spiritual knowledge. In attitude, turn away from the institution, look to God instead, and start seeing God in many places/ways/people not just in the church.

The church institution is not your boss in any way, don't pretend it is!

2. Decide what you want/need to get out of church involvement, then take those wants/needs, and independently of the concept of formal churches think of how to fulfill them. (Note - your wants/needs include opportunities to grow and serve that the church may be blocking. Fulfilling who God intends you to be is not selfish, it means you are making your uniquely valuable contributions to others.)

Church might be part of the answer. Or more than one church. I have read 10% of regular churchgoers are involved in more than one church because there are things important to them not offered by their regular church. Like, I led VBS music at not-my-church. We both benefited, they were desperate for someone to lead the music program, I had never worked with kids and discovered a new intriguing "world" to enjoy.

Activities in the community or in private groups outside any churches may be important for your spiritual health and contrbutions, too.

Do not believe anything the churches tell you about who you are or should be (other than a dearly loved child of God). Church institutions view people in terms of fitting them into "essential for our self image as a church" programs or "our theology says" pigeonholes without regard for whether it's a healthy fit for the individual.

Try taking a break from church-going sometimes. I have found experimentally I am happier healthier more God-enjoying if I take at least one week off each month plus most of the summer off. We each need to find out own best balance.

The point is, focus on delighting God by becoming all you can be, do NOT focus on being approved of by the church institution. That's worshiping God's creation (moon, stars, churches) instead of worshiping God.

Irregular attendance means you will never be fully approved of, elected to church office, thought of as "spiritual," awarded "service to the church" plaque, thought of as a "valuable" or "loyal member". <Shrug/> Since when is approval of men the goal? </shrug>

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In reply to Anselmina, the second half of your post makes more sense to the situation I describe. But I did introduce the phrase 'line manager' because this term is used in my church and I was curious to know if it has been used elsewhere. In a previous church, business models were being overtly introduced as a way of organising the church - again I am curious to know if this is becoming more common. I live in a far flung corner of the British Isles, so it may be more of a Diocesan thing than Nationwide. (The Diocese has already been reorganised into Mission Communities and the number of priests allocated sparingly to them. There was plenty of jargon involved in that initiative, too!) And, of course, it may be empty terminology, with business jargon being used to mean something not so harsh-sounding. But it does bring you up short, especially when the autocratic style of leadership is already in evidence.

So, not whingeing or ranting, but trying to puzzle something out. The replies so far have been most helpful in this regard. I guess people won't understand what I'm talking about unless they have already come across similar attitudes and vocabulary in their own, or another, situation.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

I am line manager for a lay worker, I have been a lay worker before ordination and on paper had a line manager, but he only did paperwork re leave dates etc.

As a line manager it is my role to support R, challenge her when overworking, go in to bat for her when people have unreasonable expectations (often just unthinkingly) and yes I can do paperwork too when needed.

once a quarter there is a larger management/support group with representatives from the churches she works with where we can bounce around thoughts about how the role is evolving and opportunities to focus on and where to set something aside to avoid trying to do too much.

In comparison I had been appointed to a vague role with no guidance, sounding board, reflection on direction etc so there was no shared vision of the role.

The language of line management may sound business and formal but it is much, much more than that.

Power dynamics in churches predate management speak, can certainly exist within it and will outlast it. Some of the business style structures are about mitigating these issues, and have clarity of expectations and roles etc. They may or may not achieve that - but that is another matter.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
As a line manager it is my role to support R, challenge her when overworking, go in to bat for her when people have unreasonable expectations (often just unthinkingly) and yes I can do paperwork too when needed.

May be you could talk to my (non-church) line manager...?

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

Coming from Roman Catholicism, I often had the impression which the O.P. describes. As an Anglican for a few months, it was exactly the opposite situation! Perhaps the Canadian Episcopalians I knew were simply liberals, and thus too nice for "that sort of thing" - or perhaps all Canadians are too nice for "that sort of thing". [Smile]

We need hierarchy, regardless. The Apostles certainly had no problems withdrawing to pray and lead while the deacons served tables. Cessationist or Continuationist, someone always has to lead. It's possible to do it in a Christian way, however, without acting in an overbearing manner. Systems are not inherently bad or good; it's how we act within the framework.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
Systems are not inherently bad or good; it's how we act within the framework.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not necessarily the language used, but the attitude engendered which ultimately counts.
Thanks to Avila for showing that, sometimes, rather alarming management-speak can sometimes be used for positive reasons.

However, there is a little niggle of doubt - as I have observed (in my situation) that the more management-speak is used, the less is spoken of God, of Love, and other more usual church-related words which we have come to expect and be reassured by. Perhaps, in the end, it all comes down to concerns about money, and how effectively the church is marketed. At which point, I feel we have lost something important. [Confused]

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
As a line manager it is my role to support R, challenge her when overworking, go in to bat for her when people have unreasonable expectations (often just unthinkingly) and yes I can do paperwork too when needed.
May be you could talk to my (non-church) line manager...?

My own experience shapes my approach - I try to be what I needed. We are a good team and get on as people too. If we had radically different opinions then it might be different, and if any issues contractually I would be first in line to raise it. So things aren't always as straightforward.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Five, he really thought your mother wouldn't understand. Understanding real theologians and not just the pop variety found on the religion shelf at the local bookstore chain requires not only a background in theology but in philosophy as well.
How did he know she wouldn't understand? She may have had a very sophisticated understanding of theology and philosophy; some lay people do.

If someone asks a question, they deserve an answer. If they don't understand the answer, that is their problem. Assuming they aren't capable of understanding shows a serious lack of respect.

Why is it the clergyperson's job to supply that answer? Assuming s/he even knows the answer (see various explanations that preceded).

Even if the theologian doesn't give seminars for laity, s/he probably writes books that can be purchased or borrowed-- and if not, there are 1000s of theologians who do. It seems to me that it was the mom in question who was making the clergyperson the gatekeeper, not the pastor. If you want to learn more about some area of theology, there are plenty of ways these days to explore it without getting a permission slip from your clergyperson. (The Ship being just one of many.)

[ 28. September 2013, 20:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Why is it the clergyperson's job to supply that answer?

Maybe s/he should accept that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't think it's necessary for the clergy person to have to answer very single question. But, seeing as they have sometimes spent 6+ years studying theology, it would be rather strange if they kept most of it deliberately hidden and didn't even illustrate sermons with the information. What are they supposed to talk about instead - their train sets?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I don't think it's necessary for the clergy person to have to answer very single question. But, seeing as they have sometimes spent 6+ years studying theology, it would be rather strange if they kept most of it deliberately hidden and didn't even illustrate sermons with the information. What are they supposed to talk about instead - their train sets?

Of course. But we're talking about a specific situation where a specific woman cornered her clergyperson and demanded s/he fill her in on a specific theologian's work. As we've seen on this thread, there are all sorts of reasons why the clergyperson may have been unwilling or unable to meet her request, and I'll add another: far too often these requests come on Sunday mornings as I'm busy running from one thing to another, with a 100 items-- prayer requests, hospitalizations, scheduling conflicts, etc. that I've similarly been told on the run-- I'm trying to keep prominent in my mind long enough to be able to stop and write them all down.

Again, the woman in question is the one making the clergyperson the gatekeeper, not the pastor him/herself.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
cliffdweller: But we're talking about a specific situation where a specific woman cornered her clergyperson and demanded s/he fill her in on a specific theologian's work.

Were you there?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Chorister, I think you're onto something and it is important.

Also, if we adopt secular ideas of management, we're making the church like the society around us People have plenty of experience of being led by dishonest, lazy or incompetent managers. They don't want to come to church and hear the same c***p there that they get at work. We ought to saying, 'we believe there is a better way' and demonstrate that we actually do it that way. Jesus has a lot to say on this, much of it excitingly countercultural, e.g.

quote:
Lk 22: 25-27 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so with you. But one who is the greater among you, let him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves. For who is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Isn’t it he who sits at the table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves.

This is taken from the WEB Bible to spare Hostly panic about quotations and copyright.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom
My mum, who bridges the gap, once had an argument with her vicar over whether he could share some of the insights he had gained from a clergy study weekend with some well-known theologian - he told her that she wouldn't be able to understand and wouldn't be interested, she told him to give it a go. He never did.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo

If someone asks a question, they deserve an answer. If they don't understand the answer, that is their problem. Assuming they aren't capable of understanding shows a serious lack of respect.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
Why is it the clergyperson's job to supply that answer? Assuming s/he even knows the answer (see various explanations that preceded).

Even if the theologian doesn't give seminars for laity, s/he probably writes books that can be purchased or borrowed-- and if not, there are 1000s of theologians who do. It seems to me that it was the mom in question who was making the clergyperson the gatekeeper, not the pastor. If you want to learn more about some area of theology, there are plenty of ways these days to explore it without getting a permission slip from your clergyperson.

This was a question about a talk the vicar had attended. If the vicar had said he was sorry, he didn't have time, that would have been fine. What he said was that she wouldn't understand and wouldn't be interested. How the hell did he know that? It was an assumption on his part.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
cliffdweller: But we're talking about a specific situation where a specific woman cornered her clergyperson and demanded s/he fill her in on a specific theologian's work.
Were you there?

You've got a point-- "cornered" and "demanded" probably carry too much emotional weight (reading my own frustrations into it no doubt).

[ 28. September 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
cliffdweller: You've got a point-- "cornered" and "demanded" probably carry too much emotional weight (reading my own frustrations into it no doubt).

I can understand a bit what you mean. Some people just want to throw their pet theological theory at the vicar, and expect him/her to answer on the spot. I can imagine that this can be frustrating at times.

Nothing in Arabella's post suggested that this was the case here though. And even if it were, I think that a vicar should be able to deal with it in some way, even if that can be difficult.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
cliffdweller: You've got a point-- "cornered" and "demanded" probably carry too much emotional weight (reading my own frustrations into it no doubt).
I can understand a bit what you mean. Some people just want to throw their pet theological theory at the vicar, and expect him/her to answer on the spot. I can imagine that this can be frustrating at times.

Nothing in Arabella's post suggested that this was the case here though. And even if it were, I think that a vicar should be able to deal with it in some way, even if that can be difficult.

Yes, rereading the original post it does sound like he was unnecessarily snippy. Again, reading my own stuff into it. Sorry.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Knowing my mum, she would have been expressing an interest, certainly not "cornering" anyone - not her style at all. She's a widely read layperson, who has no university education. She thought it would be interesting to hear more, and she thought there was a significant group of the congregation who would also be interested. She has been extremely well regarded by all the clergy of her parish, often acting as apologist for them with other laypeople (most recently with the vicar who was a brilliant money manager with few pastoral skills - major renovation of the church buildings achieved, but almost everyone heaved a sigh of relief when she left. Mum rather liked her.).

I thought the vicar's response showed a distinct lack of charity (and even politeness). Mind you, his idea of a sermon was telling stories, so maybe Mum shouldn't have expected much theology from him.

Most of the clergy responses my posts have received have only increased my agreement with Chorister, sadly.

My own job requires me to be polite and positive with some very challenging individuals, and to answer every question openly and without assumptions about the source. I am required to assume blame if something goes wrong (as in, what did I forget to prepare this family for that led to this situation) even though I am working with families who regularly stuff up to the point where the police get called. That's just my job, and I love it. I'm helping families grow themselves into being competent - I'm not the expert, merely a coach. I am there for them to make use of, not to make them do what I think would be best (this is a key point of the model we use). My team has a 76% success rate over the last 12 years in helping families avoid further trouble with Police, child protection and special education. Not surprisingly, families love us to bits, and even most of the 24% that are not so successful feel they have been supported and cherished. We are always working to make ourselves redundant, and we celebrate with families when they are able to say that they don't want us any more.

That's my ministry, and it has no place for being defensive or dismissive. Yep, its stonkingly difficult some days, and I feel I want to run away at least once a month, but I have fantastic support from my boss and the team.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

Most of the clergy responses my posts have received have only increased my agreement with Chorister, sadly.

And that's after I apologized.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Possibly, cliffdweller, you were not the primary target that APW had in mind? Just a thought.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[QUOTE] FWIW, there was a situation at my parents' church where a member of the choir came into conflict with the vicar, and the vicar resolved it by routing his response via the choirmaster. The vicar was a former army chaplain and said he was following the principle of the 'chain of command', and he said this was a necessary part of resolving conflict. Some others who were tangentially involved in the situation seem to think it was effective.

That's actually something called "Triangling" (as in triangle). Involving a third party when you should be communicating face to face. It's often used to bring inappropriate power into a situation by getting someone with clout on your side.

I'd suggest that if the choirmaster was the "chain of command", then the reason why the complainant came direct should have been explored before involving the choir master. It may be that he'd complained to the choir master without any response: it might even have been about him.

The Vicar has committed (IMHO) one or two key mistakes here (based on the info you've supplied) and appears weak not decisive overall. Initially, he's delegated when he should have explored - perhaps by talking to both people separately. At that point (and only then) should he have involved the choirmaster. he's come over as a weak delegator not as a decisive leader in my book.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Btw - I'll answer anything at any time and I love questions!

Bear in mind though that the answer may be

- I don't know but I'll find out
- as above but "wait please while I find a pen to write it down!"
- as above but add - it'll take a bit of time
- (usually) as above and feed me some cake, give me a cup of tea and we'll see what we can work out together from the question

I try to turn all such things into opportunities for learning myself and discipleship.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QUOTE]Yeah, it's all about your pet issue.

I was raised in Baptist and Charismatic churches where nobody cared who presided at the Lord's Supper the four times a year they devoted a Sunday night to it. Did those churches have less conflict than the Episcopal parish? No, if anything, they had even more. Seemed like every time a new pastor came to the church a power play ensued. The pastor had three options. One, become the pawn of the lay people with the money and influence. Two, use his position to establish himself as the spiritual authority whose actions and teachings must be respected (sermons on not touching God's anointed were common). Spiritual abuse often followed even without any concept of Holy Orders at all. Three, resign or be voted out. All his enemies needed was a simple majority vote in either the congregation or board of elders depending on polity of the church. How hard was that? Spread some rumors and gossip. Make mountains out of molehills. Stop coming for a few Sundays. Next thing you know, members who had no problem with the pastor will vote for him to leave to keep the peace and appease their friends.

Yes, I really must get out more, mustn't I?
Joking aside, sorry if I'm beating a drum on this one.

I take all your points. I was trying heavy handidly to use this as an example of a power shift in denominations from control and oversight towards freedom and responsibility. Where better to demonstrate it than our approaches and attitudes to the most glorious celebration of all? Star there and you have a real model to follow ....

I agree that any and all church structures are inadequate because they're full of human beings and not Christ. It shouldn't stop us trying to root our power plays and spiritual abusers wherever they're found. The solution is to be open and honest - and loving and compassionate. What can be brought into the light of day must be done so (it's only a wink to most bullying policies after all) and it will have an effect.

Abuse flourishes where there's silence, darkness and a reluctance to expose. It may cost you and I if we do it, but think of the pain you'll be saving others from (the people who do this as serial abusers).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd suggest that if the choirmaster was the "chain of command", then the reason why the complainant came direct should have been explored before involving the choir master. It may be that he'd complained to the choir master without any response: it might even have been about him.

The Vicar has committed (IMHO) one or two key mistakes here (based on the info you've supplied) and appears weak not decisive overall. Initially, he's delegated when he should have explored - perhaps by talking to both people separately. At that point (and only then) should he have involved the choirmaster. he's come over as a weak delegator not as a decisive leader in my book.

Well, I don't really remember the details, except that it was a conflict specifically on a choral matter so by definition the choirmaster was already involved (i.e. wasn't just brought in for clout). If the chorister had been complaining qua member of the congregation then I'd agree with you.

I brought it up mostly because it was an example of where both the vicar and at least some of the interested parties thought a 'chain of command' approach helped to resolve conflict.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
(most recently with the vicar who was a brilliant money manager with few pastoral skills -

In TEC, the canons give the vestry responsibility for finances and building maintenance. Vestries accept that responsibility to varying degrees. When they do, a small cadre of parishioners often seize control of the finances and use that power in an unhealthy way. Ideally, the laity would manage the finances and property in a constructive way which would eliminate the need for priests who are brilliant money managers but have few pastoral skills.

quote:
originally posted Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I am required to assume blame if something goes wrong (as in, what did I forget to prepare this family for that led to this situation) even though I am working with families who regularly stuff up to the point where the police get called.

When I listen to calls to "empower the laity" from those of a certain age, it does seem that's what they want. Give us all the power and control. Do exactly what we say. Let us do whatever we want. When it all goes to Hell in a handbasket, we will blame you because after all we are only volunteers, don't you know. Power without responsibility is not a good combination. Stan Lee recognized that some 50 years ago.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In the examples people have given, I certainly don't recognise any demands to 'Give us all the power!', more that people want to be respected as the thinking adults that they are. And that should be true in any situation, not just the church.

Somewhere, once, I came across a parody of 'The Lord's my shepherd' which I seem to recall alluded to management speak and possibly even line managers in a church context. Sadly, I can't seem to find it by Googling (perhaps Google is too busy off celebrating its 15th birthday??) Does anyone have access to a copy of this?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chorister: Somewhere, once, I came across a parody of 'The Lord's my shepherd' which I seem to recall alluded to management speak and possibly even line managers in a church context.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Chorister, I think you're onto something and it is important.

Also, if we adopt secular ideas of management, we're making the church like the society around us People have plenty of experience of being led by dishonest, lazy or incompetent managers. They don't want to come to church and hear the same c***p there that they get at work. We ought to saying, 'we believe there is a better way' and demonstrate that we actually do it that way. Jesus has a lot to say on this, much of it excitingly countercultural, e.g.

quote:
Lk 22: 25-27 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so with you. But one who is the greater among you, let him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves. For who is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Isn’t it he who sits at the table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves.
This is taken from the WEB Bible to spare Hostly panic about quotations and copyright.

Well said, Enoch. From someone who's had the c**p and manipulation from 'line managers', and who doesn't want to see or hear it in church from either side of the 'clergy divide'.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for.

Not quite, as this one is more positive - but very interesting to read nonetheless.

The other reference I recall seeing was a parody by Fry and Laurie where the church was seen in terms of being a business.

Anyway, the reason for mentioning them is that I could see points of identification with both, even though they were obviously taken to extremes.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've found the Fry and Laurie sketch, anyway. Perhaps laughter really is the best medicine after all.

Do people want to carry on discussing this, or are we just going to put our feet up, watch and have a good laugh?

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

Chorister's OP exactly described my main experience of church life. It explains very clearly why I no longer belong to any church or denomination.

Part of the problem is that some churches have adopted 'managementspeak' without either understanding it or properly implementing the concepts. ie, using the nice sounding jargon while not making any changes. Thereby getting the worst of both worlds.

Someone posted that if the church adopted modern methods of organisation and process it would become just like the secular world. I find the that in the secular world I am treated with courtesy and respect and my opinions matter. Not so in the church sadly. If the church were more like the secular world maybe people like me would be more inclined to participate.

As it is people vote with their feet in droves and somehow, just as with Arabella's mum, the church decides they are the problem not the church. They just need to be brought to see the error of their ways.

Chorister posed a question

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What I'd like to know is, what shipmates think is the ideal way to organise a church so that members of the congregation feel able to play a full part without being herded like sheep, or schoolkids?

But so far the answers seem to be carry on doing exactly the same except maybe do it a bit better. Or, well, it's all part of being a fallible organisation innit, so we just have to put up with it? Just because there are few bad apples doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten.

Well no, we expect badly run organisations to change or be reformed or go out of business in real life.

Clifford Longley writes a column in 'The Tablet' - the leading Roman Catholic weekly in the UK - and last week's was exactly on this topic albeit for a different reason. The online version is subscription only so I can only quote a brief sample:

He talks about "the disease of clericalism, which
lies behind most of what has gone wrong in the Catholic Church"

and says

"The lesson of the past 50 years is that the traditional hierarchal system, the so-called three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon
arranged in a pyramid of control and prestige, is no longer fit for purpose"

My solution is that the Churches should abolish all distinctions between clergy and laity. I think they should abolish the role of priest/vicar/pastor/minister as a salaried employee.

I think a church organised according to the 12 traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous would be one where servant leadership has a chance of becoming a reality.

This is what the Anglican Bishop of Buckingham was on about in his blog post I quote in my sig:

30th March 2012
"the Church of the future may be less a civil service or conventional business, and more a movement like Alcoholics Anonymous, the ultimate locally delivered life-changing non profit. The job of the hierarchy will be to enable this, not to represent it or control it.

To represent the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and be good news to those within its care, the Church needs, not a re-brand or a bailout, but a reboot."

[ 30. September 2013, 16:31: Message edited by: Thyme ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Does it need to be abandoned altogether, though? Or is the royal model more fitting - we keep the Queen but her position is much more of an honorary one now, rather than wielding real, brutal power?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Thyme:
My solution is that the Churches should abolish all distinctions between clergy and laity. I think they should abolish the role of priest/vicar/pastor/minister as a salaried employee.

I think a church organised according to the 12 traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous would be one where servant leadership has a chance of becoming a reality.

What are you waiting for then? Get together some like minded people and start your own church organized along the lines of AA. Should be easy. You don't want clergy or paid staff. Just do it. Succeed and others will adopt your model.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Thyme:
My solution is that the Churches should abolish all distinctions between clergy and laity. I think they should abolish the role of priest/vicar/pastor/minister as a salaried employee.

I think a church organised according to the 12 traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous would be one where servant leadership has a chance of becoming a reality.
What are you waiting for then? Get together some like minded people and start your own church organized along the lines of AA. Should be easy. You don't want clergy or paid staff. Just do it. Succeed and others will adopt your model.

There are actually several churches already using differing variations of that model, at least here in the US. Not all of them have been successful, but many of them have.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0