|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Young members of synod?
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
If my 14 year went to - well, anything, really, and on their return home their account of their experience included being elected onto a committee as a representative, I'd be astonished and concerned.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If my 14 year went to - well, anything, really, and on their return home their account of their experience included being elected onto a committee as a representative, I'd be astonished and concerned.
That would be my reaction as well ... And I'd be sharing that with the vicar.
It seems bad practice to elect a completely unknown person of whatever age to a position of responsibility in church. In our place, to be elected as a deacon you have to have two year's continuous membership if you joined here and one year if you transferred from elsewhere. That gives everyone a chance to get to know each other and discern if you're a suitable person to lead in this place. Previous experience is a bit of a red herring as well, as someone who works as a leader in one place might not work in another.
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The problem with this thread ... is that we all agree!
So there's not really much left to say, is there?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
The Church Representation Rules which are enacted by Statutory Instrument under the Synodical Government Measure 1969 require that a person needs to be sixteen or over to be on a church's Electoral Roll.
For a person to be elected to Deanery Synod (which also makes them an ex officio member of the PCC (and a trustee of PCC assets)), they need to be an actual communicant under Rule 54 which means they need to have quote:
received communion according to the use of the Church of England or of a Church in communion with the Church of England at least three times during the twelve months preceding the date of election…
have their name on the Electoral Roll, and be sixteen or over.
So, a 14 year old elected to Deanery Synod can't have been validly appointed.
There is room for argument about what lower age limit is appropriate, but I would think some rule of thumb about a general level of maturity is a good idea, and Deanery Synod business etc. is structured around an assumption that people function more or less as adults, and know something about, and are answerable to the church in their own parish.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
Sorry for causing all this fuss. I was wrong about his age- he is actually 16.
I have been 'police checked', as required in the UK for adults in Church who have a leadership role. As I have moved Church, my new Vicar will need to renew my 'police check'.
My professional background is in Child Protection, at a Senior level.
I am old enough to be the young mans grandmother.
I will take on board your concerns about me ferrying him to meetings and will ensure we travel with someone else- the Vicar, perhaps.
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes
What age would be too young by your reasoning? What about a 8 year old with a super-high IQ? Surely, as in most things, an arbitrary age limit has to be set?
A very intelligent eight-year-old is still an eight-year-old. Intelligence and maturity are two different things.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The ruling here I think is that anyone under the age of 18 cannot be a member of synod and I think there is sense in that. There are issues addressed at synod that I'm not sure I would feel entirely comfortable with a child sitting through. Sometimes debates can be heated and also go into some detail. I would not be comfortable with a child hearing details about issues surrounding abuse, sexuality or euthanasia which are even difficult and painful for some adults to have to sit through.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes
What age would be too young by your reasoning? What about a 8 year old with a super-high IQ? Surely, as in most things, an arbitrary age limit has to be set?
A very intelligent eight-year-old is still an eight-year-old. Intelligence and maturity are two different things.
Moo
Yes, you're absolutely correct. In my defence, I was trying to put the case for requiring age limits even though they may sometimes exclude suitable candidates.
[ 14. April 2014, 12:09: Message edited by: Tulfes ]
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem with this thread ... is that we all agree!
So there's not really much left to say, is there?
Is this a first on the Ship?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem with this thread ... is that we all agree!
So there's not really much left to say, is there?
Is this a first on the Ship?
It seems to happen a lot but for some reason not many people notice ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
Sorry for causing all this fuss. I was wrong about his age- he is actually 16.
If the Annual Church Meeting was his first day in the Church, he presumably was not on the church electoral role - since the role has to be finalized before the meeting. You cannot be on the PCC or a deanery synod rep without being on the role. (Curiously if you are over eighteen, you need to have been on the role for at least six months, but not if younger. If not resident in the parish, you have to have been worshipping regularly for six months to be on the role. Also, you have to have been baptised to be on the role).
Also, a requirement on reps is that they are "actual communicant members of the CofE", which means I think that you have received communion at least three times in the previous year.
Does this lad meet these requirements?
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'd like to raise something general arising out of a comment made further up the thread. There seems to be a question about whether someone on the Synod is representing their church, or whether they are representing a certain category (eg. young people). If someone new is there to represent their church, then you would expect they would have to do a lot of meeting and getting to know the rest of the congregation before they could properly represent them. And that would take time. But if they were there to represent a category, eg. young people, then they are already well qualified to do so and don't necessarily need specific church experience.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am certainly surprised by the idea that any teenager would willingly be on Deanery Synod - I'm surprised that anyone would put themselves through that, let alone a teenager!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'd like to raise something general arising out of a comment made further up the thread. There seems to be a question about whether someone on the Synod is representing their church, or whether they are representing a certain category (eg. young people). If someone new is there to represent their church, then you would expect they would have to do a lot of meeting and getting to know the rest of the congregation before they could properly represent them. And that would take time. But if they were there to represent a category, eg. young people, then they are already well qualified to do so and don't necessarily need specific church experience.
True but they are also representing young people in a context - i.e. the church. The representation is twofold: categoric and contextual - one is needed to understand the other.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
But if they were there to represent a category, eg. young people, then they are already well qualified to do so and don't necessarily need specific church experience.
Not sure. If you were creating your list of delegates by random sampling, it would be enough for each delegate to speak their own mind.
That's not what you do - the list of delegates has a huge selection bias in favour of the kind of person who wants (or is prepared to be) on a Deanery synod, and it is not obvious to me that those people are representative of the church as a whole.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
But if they were there to represent a category, eg. young people, then they are already well qualified to do so and don't necessarily need specific church experience.
Not sure. If you were creating your list of delegates by random sampling, it would be enough for each delegate to speak their own mind.
That's not what you do - the list of delegates has a huge selection bias in favour of the kind of person who wants (or is prepared to be) on a Deanery synod, and it is not obvious to me that those people are representative of the church as a whole.
Agreed. This has caused huge problems for General Synod re Dead Horses - those with an agenda are vastly overrepresented.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
What is the point of deanery synods? What would no longer happen if they ceased to exist?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
My primary concern for the adult is vulnerability to false assumptions or false accusations, from being alone with a child not his own.
I'm not really in a position to comment on this specific instance. But, there are levels of risk. I think someone who describers herself as a retired child protection worker would be a considerably lower risk than many people - and more aware than most about child protection issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
In a different situation (not child protection), I have experience of someone with all the right credentials, and they happen to mean fuck-all. I say if something alarms your gut instincts, trust yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Putting aside credentials. Afterall, we only have what people put in their profiles to verify those.
Taking a general point. If a middle aged man spends time alone with a boy people will start to think he's abusing the lad. Change that for a woman in her 60s and the general assumption changes, people think of their grannies rather than potential abuser.
I don't know the stats as to whether middle aged men really are more likely to be abusers than little old ladies. The (very small) risk to the child may not be that much different. But the risk to the reputation of the adult is vastly different.
In trying to figure out why I felt that you had missed my point, I reread carefully and now see what I think I missed before: that you are talking about the risk to the adult's reputation. Yes, I probably agree with you, rightly or wrongly, that in our current culture men are more likely to be suspected of wrong behaviour in this situation than women are. Although we have had some well-publicized cases in the U.S. of female teachers having sex with teenage students of theirs.
I wasn't thinking of the narrow concern about risk to the adult's reputation that Belle Ringer raised. I was thinking more broadly, about the kind of concern one might have about a situation like this, for any of the parties.
And there I stand by what I said. The degrees are a red herring in what I said. Let me try to say it differently: if a situation presents itself to you where it seems like it formally ticks the right boxes for "situation that should be trusted", whether that be by degrees, coursework, past experience in the church, job experience, gender, claims to a call from God (that has apparently been validated by ordination), claims to always feel God's presence, etc. but your gut instinct feels that something is wrong I think that you should trust your gut instinct, and not just defer to the formal ticking of mental boxes that would normally add up to "normally we don't suspect this situation".
I've been deferring for nearly a decade but I'm done with that now. I wish to hell I had known more and known better at the very beginning; maybe my own situation wouldn't have turned out so awfully both for me -- and for the person on the other side of the issue I'm involved in.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Yes listen to gut instinct. I've been sorry when I haven't, when I let "reason" over-rule that ever so slight tinge of unease.
But as to a mid-teen attending a boring meeting - I use to love sitting in the living room while the grownups chatted about grownup things. Economics, politics, I don't think I understood half a sentence at a time but just being there, a glimpse into the grown-up world, I can imagine a kid being thrilled by attending. Not all kids, but a certain personality of kid.
I've usually seen rules like "must have been a member of the denomination for X years and an active member of this church for the most recent two years."
But churches seen to have a hard time finding people to go to these things. My current church sends 4, and elects 4 alternates, or tries to, but rarely finds 8 willing to be elected; and some years all four appointees can't go and there aren't enough alternates. I'm not sure what the church does about the shortage. Sending a willing kid as a last minute sub when the adults have backed out might not be a bad idea.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think that you should trust your gut instinct, and not just defer to the formal ticking of mental boxes that would normally add up to "normally we don't suspect this situation".
I would agree too. And, if those formal tick boxes are present then there should be someone to discretely approach about that gut instinct. Discrete, because there are reputations at stake. Of course, it would require knowledge of the situation to know who to talk to, and if all we had was some posts on an internet forum under a pseudonym that's possibly impossible to know who to talk to.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Belle, yes, I know the feeling of being interested in quite different things than many other people are.
Alan, I agree with you about the discrete approach. I don't know what one does if the person has also gaslit everyone else, but one has to start somewhere.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is the point of deanery synods? What would no longer happen if they ceased to exist?
Staffing parishes and closing churches would not be discussed democratically. The bishop would do it all on his own without recourse to people on the ground.
Work best done by cross-parish teams wouldn't be coordinated.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think that you should trust your gut instinct, and not just defer to the formal ticking of mental boxes that would normally add up to "normally we don't suspect this situation".
I would agree too. And, if those formal tick boxes are present then there should be someone to discretely approach about that gut instinct. Discrete, because there are reputations at stake. Of course, it would require knowledge of the situation to know who to talk to, and if all we had was some posts on an internet forum under a pseudonym that's possibly impossible to know who to talk to.
In one of my professional roles I had a lot of training in how to spot certain types of fraud. It was serious stuff.
The thing that was always emphasised was that the fraudsters succeed because they have a good story and no-one suspects.
We had a pattern of fraud indicators to look for. If it ticked the boxes, then no matter how 'respectable'/unlikely the individuals/institution involved then it had to be reported.
Somewhat to my surprise I have found this training and approach extremely useful in all sorts of situations.
There is also the problem that 'whistle blowers' are never popular and no one wants to feel they have unjustly accused someone.
So most organisations have some sort of mechanism where people can report any suspicions anonymously, or with the guarantee that it will be dealt with confidentially.
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
PS, I forgot to say, that the other important point of the fraud reporting was that we did not have to have proof, or evidence, or investigate. Our job was to report a pattern when we spotted it and let others take over.
I feel this can also be applied to a lot of other situations. We can only do what we can do, but if we have concerns about a vulnerable person it should be flagged up.
A friend had to go on a training session about elder abuse in residential care homes and in this different context the same principles were emphasised.
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is the point of deanery synods? What would no longer happen if they ceased to exist?
Staffing parishes and closing churches would not be discussed democratically. The bishop would do it all on his own without recourse to people on the ground.
Work best done by cross-parish teams wouldn't be coordinated.
Surely clergy appointments are made by some esoteric combination of the PCC, the patron of the living, and the bishop? I've never heard of the next door neighbours having a say just because they're in the same deanery.
As for cross-parish teams, I don't even know which other churches are in our deanery, much less what we do together. (It's hard enough getting other churches in the team ministry to work together.) And that's been more or less true of every church I've attended.
IME cross-church activities are most successful when the initiative comes from the churches themselves seeing a point of mutual benefit.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is the point of deanery synods? What would no longer happen if they ceased to exist?
Staffing parishes and closing churches would not be discussed democratically. The bishop would do it all on his own without recourse to people on the ground.
Work best done by cross-parish teams wouldn't be coordinated.
Surely clergy appointments are made by some esoteric combination of the PCC, the patron of the living, and the bishop? I've never heard of the next door neighbours having a say just because they're in the same deanery.
That is the case when it comes to decide who to appoint. The decision of whether to appoint someone or whether to merge with another parish or to suspend the living or whatever else goes for consultation at deanery level.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Our DS was very much in favour of us losing our PP, so much so that when it was pointed out that the proposed amalgamation wouldn't work they recommended that we be declared redundant.
Bearing in mind that per head of population we have the highest electoral roll numbers in the deanery, that we always meet our 'parish share', there were only two possible reasons for DS behaving in this way - either prejudice (they think we're a 'wealthy' parish) or sheer stupidity.
As it is we found our own PP (house-for-duty); we pay all his costs, including the cost of getting the repairs done to the rectory before he arrived.
The only 'cross-parish' activities organised officially at deanery level are shared confirmations - sadly these are usually in the cathedral and of the 'supermarket sweep' variety: when we can we organise a retired bishop and do our own to which other churches in the deanery are invited to send their candidates.
Other than that, we have regular choir bring-and-sings to which other deanery choirs are invited: we're the only parish that does anything like this.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
That is the case when it comes to decide who to appoint. The decision of whether to appoint someone or whether to merge with another parish or to suspend the living or whatever else goes for consultation at deanery level.
I'd have thought that's a fairly rare event though (rare at least relative to the frequency of deanery synod meetings).
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Our DS was very much in favour of us losing our PP, so much so that when it was pointed out that the proposed amalgamation wouldn't work they recommended that we be declared redundant.
Bearing in mind that per head of population we have the highest electoral roll numbers in the deanery, that we always meet our 'parish share', there were only two possible reasons for DS behaving in this way - either prejudice (they think we're a 'wealthy' parish) or sheer stupidity.
As it is we found our own PP (house-for-duty); we pay all his costs, including the cost of getting the repairs done to the rectory before he arrived.
The only 'cross-parish' activities organised officially at deanery level are shared confirmations - sadly these are usually in the cathedral and of the 'supermarket sweep' variety: when we can we organise a retired bishop and do our own to which other churches in the deanery are invited to send their candidates.
Other than that, we have regular choir bring-and-sings to which other deanery choirs are invited: we're the only parish that does anything like this.
Hardly the body of Christ is it? What does it say to everyone around?
Has any one really tried to sort this out?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It sounds a perfectly reasonable way for an independent congregation to operate. Just with the requirement of appearing Anglican, including the rent-a-bishop when needed, which most independent churches wouldn't bother with.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
That is the case when it comes to decide who to appoint. The decision of whether to appoint someone or whether to merge with another parish or to suspend the living or whatever else goes for consultation at deanery level.
I'd have thought that's a fairly rare event though (rare at least relative to the frequency of deanery synod meetings).
Not rare at all. There's nearly always at least one parish vacant or about to become vacant, so these discussions happen quite frequently
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by ExclamationMark quote:
Hardly the body of Christ is it? What does it say to everyone around?
Has any one really tried to sort this out?
From a central point of view do you mean? As far as I'm aware, no.
In our parish we are trying to be the body of Christ in our area: we are also trying to stick with the hierarchy in place, but they make it very difficult.
For example, confirmations: the bishop's office only gave a date for the latest deanery confirmation 3 weeks and 4 days before the service. Until that point, it was more than likely there wouldn't have been a confirmation this year. How are churches supposed to do meaningful confirmation preparation with that sort of uncertainty?
It would be much easier for us if we didn't have to find one of the local retired pointy-hats but at least that way we can fix on a date to (a) give candidates, parents and godparents sufficient warning, and (b) ensure that in our parish candidates follow a proper course in preparation for confirmation. I know that in other parishes it has come down to 'put your name down and turn up on the day'.
Across the deanery as a whole the 'supermarket sweep' confirmations are very unpopular (they are also very much resented by candidates and their parents) and this has been communicated to the bishop but that is still the preferred model - so not a lot of listening going on there.
(They're unpopular partly because the official line is 1 candidate plus a maximum of 4 guests which, bearing in mind a child has 2 parents plus maybe siblings as well as godparents, is just not good enough. The service as compiled by the bishop's staff is dire, there's no choir or feeling of 'specialness' at all.)
Parish confirmations at our shack, by contrast, have no limit on numbers, full choir, creche for tinies, and an old-fashioned Confirmation Tea afterwards.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
True, but if parishes only have one or two confirmands at a time (is there such a word?), then the confirmation services will be disappointingly thin, and the bishops will be rushing around everywhere trying to do them all.
Perhaps the parishes with more candidates could have their own services, those with fewer be grouped together?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
True, but if parishes only have one or two confirmands at a time (is there such a word?), then the confirmation services will be disappointingly thin, and the bishops will be rushing around everywhere trying to do them all.
Perhaps the parishes with more candidates could have their own services, those with fewer be grouped together?
This varies in Canada- in most places, even if there only be a few candidates, the bishop will be there and use the occasion for an informal pastoral visit to the parish. Multi-point parishes will have one confirmation, and every now and then two or three rural parishes are grouped together. The few larger dioceses (with more than 80-100 parishes) usually have suffragans or retired bishops helping out.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is the point of deanery synods? What would no longer happen if they ceased to exist?
Staffing parishes and closing churches would not be discussed democratically. The bishop would do it all on his own without recourse to people on the ground.
Work best done by cross-parish teams wouldn't be coordinated.
Surely clergy appointments are made by some esoteric combination of the PCC, the patron of the living, and the bishop? I've never heard of the next door neighbours having a say just because they're in the same deanery.
As for cross-parish teams, I don't even know which other churches are in our deanery, much less what we do together. (It's hard enough getting other churches in the team ministry to work together.) And that's been more or less true of every church I've attended.
IME cross-church activities are most successful when the initiative comes from the churches themselves seeing a point of mutual benefit.
In this diocese, the bishop delegates clergy appointments to the area dean and the archdeacon. (The area dean gets one day per week free from his parish for this work).
It is up to deanery synod how to deploy clergy - sometimes they get taken out of the parish to which they were originally appointed and placed somewhere else - that is the prerogative of the area dean now that freehold has gone.
It is the deanery synod which has an devolved budget and can decide to pay for youth workers, retail chaplains etc. which are used across the deanery rather than attached to one particular church.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Insisting that every deanery and diocesan synod has a bare minimum % of under 25yr olds would at least save us all from unending boredom.
Have you any idea how pompous most long standing members of these committees are?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by ExclamationMark quote:
Hardly the body of Christ is it? What does it say to everyone around?
Has any one really tried to sort this out?
From a central point of view do you mean? As far as I'm aware, no.
In our parish we are trying to be the body of Christ in our area: we are also trying to stick with the hierarchy in place, but they make it very difficult.
For example, confirmations: the bishop's office only gave a date for the latest deanery confirmation 3 weeks and 4 days before the service. Until that point, it was more than likely there wouldn't have been a confirmation this year. How are churches supposed to do meaningful confirmation preparation with that sort of uncertainty?
It would be much easier for us if we didn't have to find one of the local retired pointy-hats but at least that way we can fix on a date to (a) give candidates, parents and godparents sufficient warning, and (b) ensure that in our parish candidates follow a proper course in preparation for confirmation. I know that in other parishes it has come down to 'put your name down and turn up on the day'.
Across the deanery as a whole the 'supermarket sweep' confirmations are very unpopular (they are also very much resented by candidates and their parents) and this has been communicated to the bishop but that is still the preferred model - so not a lot of listening going on there.
(They're unpopular partly because the official line is 1 candidate plus a maximum of 4 guests which, bearing in mind a child has 2 parents plus maybe siblings as well as godparents, is just not good enough. The service as compiled by the bishop's staff is dire, there's no choir or feeling of 'specialness' at all.)
Parish confirmations at our shack, by contrast, have no limit on numbers, full choir, creche for tinies, and an old-fashioned Confirmation Tea afterwards.
I'd carry on with your DIY stuff if "the pointy hats" elsewhere can't get their croziers in gear quick enough. No wonder the CofE looks like a museum piece in some places.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
OK, I stand corrected - deanery synods do do stuff.
(Although I still suspect it varies by diocese.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Insisting that every deanery and diocesan synod has a bare minimum % of under 25yr olds would at least save us all from unending boredom.
Have you any idea how pompous most long standing members of these committees are?
You could start by setting strict limits on how long you can serve without a break. You could also make synod totally lay so the people who make up the church, make the decisions.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There are limits on PCC membership. Someone can serve two terms of 3 years consecutively (been there, got the t-shirt, very glad I couldn't be re-elected). If deanery and diocesan reps were elected from the PCC some of these problems would disappear. Unfortunately deanery and diocesan reps are elected at the APCM and are then automatically on the PCC.
The APCM is a meeting open to everyone within the parish but it's not the most interesting meeting in the world so tends not to be well attended. It takes a certain sort of person to want to be elected onto another committee with another series of meetings, someone who doesn't know what they are doing or someone with a particular agenda to drive through.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are limits on PCC membership. Someone can serve two terms of 3 years consecutively
That's not always the case. Some parishes elect their PCC annually and the vast majority set a time limit as to how long anyone can serve, but there is no hard and fast rule about this and each parish sets its own policy on the matter.
However, the three year term raises another issue when it comes to recruiting young people. How many 16 year olds would be prepared to commit themselves for three years? When you're 16, three years is a very long time.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
No idea CofE situation but in Methodism the members of church councils, circuit meetings etc are legally managing trustees - so some elements of age restriction are about protection from/ ineligibility for? legal responsibilities.
At church council level we can have younger council members but have to carefully note any 'under the age of majority' for legal reasons.
We have had a youth conference for many years, it used to be formal and committee style (attracting like the older versions those with a leaning to committee-itis, whilst really turning off others) Recent years it has been combined with a really good youth weekend, with activities, and discussion and background info groups on a range of issues from those that affect all to those of particular concern to young people, and offered in age streams.
Every district has reps voted (and paid for) and I think any formal vote has to be by the reps. But all can express views, lobby their rep whatever. And in context of an engaging fun weekend.
They report back to the main Methodist Conference who have the legal governance and can put proposals that are discussed and voted on there,the voice is heard and we can be challenged by them. Oh yes and a youth president is elected each year who is a full member not just of Conference but gets in on various national committees etc with the remit of representing youth conference and young people generally.
PS Methodism considers young people as under 25s so possible for the 18-25s to sit on both if get elected reps by district.
I think this is a good model, and they have worked to drop the lower age of those able to attend 3Generate as currently called to about 8. Hence the age streams - in how issue addressed and as easier to speak up if not intimidated by the student aged ones (or maybe the other way around).
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
No idea CofE situation but in Methodism the members of church councils, circuit meetings etc are legally managing trustees - so some elements of age restriction are about protection from/ ineligibility for? legal responsibilities.
True for all bodies who approve budgets and spend money. Minimum age for decision making is 18 - you cannot enter a contract under that age
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Minimum age for decision making is 18 - you cannot enter a contract under that age
How is it you can join the army at 16 then? Or marry, for that matter...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Or get a job, or buy things in shops.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Info on contract law for under 18s
Or, in other words, "No-one under the age of 18 can be a trustee of a charitable trust or unincorporated association. However 16 is the minimum age for the appointment of a director, and so a trustee, of a charitable company ."
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
However, the three year term raises another issue when it comes to recruiting young people. How many 16 year olds would be prepared to commit themselves for three years? When you're 16, three years is a very long time.
And if you're planning on going to uni, one that you know you won't be around to fulfil. That's why I turned down PCC at 17. General synod is even worse with its 5 year terms. I'm in my 4th diocese in the 16 1/2 years since going to uni, and they've alternated between Wales and England. Who knows where I'll be 5 years hence (except perhaps God)?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
