Thread: Young members of synod? 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=027054
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
As requested by Hosts concerned comment posted here from All Saints
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
To give you the background. I am a Licensed Lay Minister and although I am very new to the Church, I am known, as I live in the Parish. The Vicer also knows me from a project we worked on back in the day.
The lad is new, but eager. I will be looking after him- taking him to meetings, helping him to understand what is going on.
I see it all as very positive.
All well and good but ...
1. From a Safeguarding point of view I have serious concerns about you taking him if you are travelling alone. I'm also concerned that he is being placed in a situation where he will either be ignored or treated as a "trophy": neither of those are acceptable and constitute inappropriate behaviour.
2. It still doesn't answer the question why a church has nominated a 14 year old to Synod. Not only is it daft - just what will he think/do - it's also proscribed under the legislation.
Spike did enquire as to your location? is it possible to know by PM where this has happened?
However well the Vicar knows you what on earth is a church doing in electing someone who's only been a few weeks and presumably isn't even on the electoral roll? You both may have changed since "back in the day" [Whatever that ghastly phrase means ...]
[edited thread title for clarity. Again]
[ 14. April 2014, 11:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Sorry! Missed link to OP
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=005802#000026
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
In response to SvitlanaV2's comments on the All Saints thread ...
Yes some 14 year olds get involved in leading etc. but in their own church and under supervision of SS/youth leaders.
It's happening here today. But that is appropriate behaviour: electing a first attendee 14 year old to represent the church denominationally with no training, little understanding of the nuances and even the agenda involved, and being ferried to meetings under the care of The Weeder, is not. Very very far from it.
Has parental permission been obtained? Has safeguarding protocol been followed? Has no one but no one in the church raised any questions at all? Are they blind to the needs and ability of 14 year olds or just starry eyed at the possibility of having the youngest Synod member?
We're not told but the implication is that the 14 y/o will travel with The Weeder, alone. That, on its own, is a disclosure of inappropriate expectations and behaviour.
There's lots of children involved in our church life here - we had 77 of them plus 40 adults at messy church yesterday. But, we are very very careful about expecting unrealistic things from them. That doesn't seem the case here, sad to say - I just hope and pray that it doesn't end in tears.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
The reason I asked about location was because I wasn't sure if Weeder is in England or not.
This lad may well be very eager, and Weeder may well be known to,the Vicar, but it seems the parish isn't terribly concerned with the legal aspect. As Imsaid on the other thread, a candidate for Deanery Synod must be over 16, a communicant member of the church and to have been on the Electoral Roll of the parish for a minimum of six months.
Putting age aside, I have a problem with anyone wandering into a church for the first ever to "see what it's about" immediately being elected to a tier of church government. This is potentially damaging to the person concerned as they will almost certainly find themselves out of their depth.
I'm sure the church members and the Vicar are very well meaning, but they really haven't thought this through properly.
I would be interested to hear the Area Dean's reaction to all of this.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The details given in The Weeder's profile suggest that s/he is just within England.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I see that The Weeder is a retired child protection worker - that should give background knowledge of what's sensible behaviour. I'd be very surprised if giving a 14 year old lifts to and from church functions unaccompanied came within the local rules as to what is sensible. It certainly would not here. If for no other reason than self-protection, The Weeder should ensure that there's another adult around all the time.
As to the young fellow - 14 sounds far too young to be representing the parish at a synod. He could not do that here, no matter how many years he had been at the church. It makes you wonder quite what's going on with the rector and congregation that they could think it appropriate.
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. It still doesn't answer the question why a church has nominated a 14 year old to Synod. Not only is it daft - just what will he think/do - it's also proscribed under the legislation.
Whatever the legalities of synod (which I have no experience of), I'm concerned that you seem to think that including the future of the church in deciding the direction of the church is daft and (from the other thread) doomed to failure.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
He's not saying that at all. In fact a few posts up, he is saying explicitly that the young people in his church have an active role.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I find it odd that business meetings are seen as attractive to enquirers anyway.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
The hostly invitation for a new thread in Purgatory rather than All Saints was to discuss the issues involved. The invitation was not to discuss the individuals involved.
If anyone has concerns about the specific situation described on the thread in All Saints, they can express them via PM (note that the Ten Commandments apply to PMs too though).
Anyone continuing to bear down on the personal aspects on this thread is going to attract less benign hostly attention.
/hosting
[ 13. April 2014, 12:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
He's not saying that at all. In fact a few posts up, he is saying explicitly that the young people in his church have an active role.
Absolutely. The young people here have had a significant input into the vision of this church and the expression of the vision, including, on occasion, leading groups of adults.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Surely a 14yo would be elected to the Youth Synod? I don't know what the minimum age is though. Certainly, young people getting a say on the future of the church they are full and important members of is of vital importance.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely a 14yo would be elected to the Youth Synod? I don't know what the minimum age is though. Certainly, young people getting a say on the future of the church they are full and important members of is of vital importance.
I would've thought youth synod yes. And yes - involvement of and listening to young people is vital.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I can't think of any reason why a young teenager (under 16) couldn't make a contribution to the deliberations of the church at a regional or national level. There may be practical issues relating to child protection legislation, accommodation during the meeting etc. But, in principal a young teenager is as much a member of the church as an adult, and should be able to have as much of a say as an adult.
I can understand guidelines that say any representative at such meetings should be a member of the church they represent, and have been active in the committees of their home church. That makes a lot of sense for anyone - someone who is not active in church committees and a member of a church isn't in a strong position to represent that church.
Just saying "they should be at the youth forum" is equivalent to forcing them out of the service to Sunday School, and IMO just as wrong. It defines them as something other than members of the church. If young people have the desire to participate in the running of the church they are a full part of then they most certainly should be given the chance.
The usual complaint of church committees is "we can't get any young people involved". Fobbing the young people off when they want to be involved is a sure fire way of making sure they end up not wanting to be involved.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely a 14yo would be elected to the Youth Synod?
How well publicized is that? I've never heard of one and while obviously vicars and (if present) youth leaders are more likely to have than me...I don't know if it's certain.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely a 14yo would be elected to the Youth Synod?
How well publicized is that? I've never heard of one and while obviously vicars and (if present) youth leaders are more likely to have than me...I don't know if it's certain.
The Youth Synod (or rather, the CoE Youth Council, the official name escaped me before!) runs alongside General Synod as a national forum for young people in the CoE, analogous to the Youth Parliament. It isn't particularly well-publicised though and seems to mostly be clergy children (my housemate is a former member, that's how I first heard of it!).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't think of any reason why a young teenager (under 16) couldn't make a contribution to the deliberations of the church at a regional or national level. There may be practical issues relating to child protection legislation, accommodation during the meeting etc. But, in principal a young teenager is as much a member of the church as an adult, and should be able to have as much of a say as an adult.
I can understand guidelines that say any representative at such meetings should be a member of the church they represent, and have been active in the committees of their home church. That makes a lot of sense for anyone - someone who is not active in church committees and a member of a church isn't in a strong position to represent that church.
Just saying "they should be at the youth forum" is equivalent to forcing them out of the service to Sunday School, and IMO just as wrong. It defines them as something other than members of the church. If young people have the desire to participate in the running of the church they are a full part of then they most certainly should be given the chance.
The usual complaint of church committees is "we can't get any young people involved". Fobbing the young people off when they want to be involved is a sure fire way of making sure they end up not wanting to be involved.
I definitely wasn't saying 'they should be at the youth synod', rather that I didn't know if a 14yo would be able to be elected to the adult synod and that it might automatically for the youth one for age reasons. I personally have no issue with a 14yo sitting on General Synod and think it is a good thing.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't think of any reason why a young teenager (under 16) couldn't make a contribution to the deliberations of the church at a regional or national level. There may be practical issues relating to child protection legislation, accommodation during the meeting etc. But, in principal a young teenager is as much a member of the church as an adult, and should be able to have as much of a say as an adult.
I agree with you 100%. The issue I have isn't about age. My concern is whether it's a good thing, either for the church or the individual concerned, for somebody (whatever their age) who has never been inside a church before to immediately be pounced on to take up a leadership role.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The usual complaint of church committees is "we can't get any young people involved". Fobbing the young people off when they want to be involved is a sure fire way of making sure they end up not wanting to be involved.
If church committees are anything like Conservative Party associations, the cry of 'we can't get any young people involved' describes everyone from about 15 - 50.
Separately, surely teenagers can lose interest in things as quickly as they discover interest in things? Appointing an inexperienced teenager to an important position so quickly can mean that you'll be finding someone else for the post very quickly?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't think of any reason why a young teenager (under 16) couldn't make a contribution to the deliberations of the church at a regional or national level. There may be practical issues relating to child protection legislation, accommodation during the meeting etc. But, in principal a young teenager is as much a member of the church as an adult, and should be able to have as much of a say as an adult.
I agree with you 100%. The issue I have isn't about age. My concern is whether it's a good thing, either for the church or the individual concerned, for somebody (whatever their age) who has never been inside a church before to immediately be pounced on to take up a leadership role.
Which is why my post went onto say I recognise that guidelines that people representing a church are members of that church and otherwise involved in church committees were good.
I think it's upto the church who they appoint as their representatives, and there may be times when someone who doesn't qualify according to the guidelines would be the best person. But, if the church decides that someone who's not been a member for very long is qualified then they should be able to support that choice when challenged. Almost certainly much better than "no one else volunteered" (which IME is the usual basis for selecting someone to a committee).
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
The issue I have isn't about age. My concern is whether it's a good thing, either for the church or the individual concerned, for somebody (whatever their age) who has never been inside a church before to immediately be pounced on to take up a leadership role.
I must admit that the example given in the OP is rather unusual. But, as a general principle, if anyone of that age shows an interest it's important to try to accommodate it as far as possible. Perhaps it's rather similar to a role in the church choir, where a good singer could be given a solo almost immediately if he showed promise, regardless of how much he understood of the Christian faith. We are happy to accept any singers into the church choir - they can always pick up the religious understanding on the way.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
The issue I have isn't about age. My concern is whether it's a good thing, either for the church or the individual concerned, for somebody (whatever their age) who has never been inside a church before to immediately be pounced on to take up a leadership role.
I must admit that the example given in the OP is rather unusual. But, as a general principle, if anyone of that age shows an interest it's important to try to accommodate it as far as possible. Perhaps it's rather similar to a role in the church choir, where a good singer could be given a solo almost immediately if he showed promise, regardless of how much he understood of the Christian faith. We are happy to accept any singers into the church choir - they can always pick up the religious understanding on the way.
I'm not sure singing in a church choir can be equated with representing a church/parish in a denominational governing body. In a choir you are singing the words of someone else, not writing the hymns or worship songs.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'm thinking that "a denominational governing body" is a fairly grand term for most such bodies. At any given meeting very few decisions will actually be made there and then. Lots of recommendations to pass a matter to one of the working groups that will exist. Lots of revisiting discussions from previous meetings, or discussing what working groups have come up with about what they were given at previous meetings.
Yes, there may be "rogue members" with an agenda set on changing the church to their image. But, the nature of passing things on for deliberation elsewhere and coming back to review them, often for years, is a process that is inherently self-correcting. The final decision, if it's ever made, may not be right but it's very rarely something that doesn't carry with it the acceptance, if not support, of the majority.
The influence of a young man, younger than the recommended minimum age and with limited church background, on the decision making process will be minimal. The impact of being trusted with such a responsibility on him, however, could be considerable.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
My primary concern on the youth's behalf is boredom. I've never been to one of these meetings but I assume they are mostly boring, otherwise it would be easy to find volunteers. Attending a major boring event doesn't seem like a great way to entice someone into long-term church membership. More like the opposite. "I went to the biggest event they have - dullsville!"
My primary concern for the adult is vulnerability to false assumptions or false accusations, from being alone with a child not his own. Organist used to give lessons and if there was a noisy meeting in the hall he would close the door. One man, one child, alone together in a soundproof room for an hour. I didn't worry about the kid, I worried about the man, his reputation, what people might think even if no outright accusation. (He was fired two years later. Ignoring safe child policies wasn't the specific cause but didn't help him appear to respect the church and it's ways!)
As to the church, I doubt a 14 year old understands the issues even while thinking he does, but he probably won't make any worse decisions about votes than adults have made for centuries.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
My concern is whether it's a good thing, either for the church or the individual concerned, for somebody (whatever their age) who has never been inside a church before to immediately be pounced on to take up a leadership role.
Pardon the double post but yes I have seen this before.
In civil rights days a friend's church practically pounced on a black couple who came to the church. Get him on the vestry, get her on a committee. They wanted to look like a progressive church to the community. Or maybe they just wanted to be assuring to the couple "we really do believe black people can be competent leaders." That they didn't know THIS couple at all kinda undercut whatever the message was suppose to be. My friend said the black couple were embarrassed by the enthusiastic attention and declined the invitations to public roles.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
My primary concern on the youth's behalf is boredom. I've never been to one of these meetings but I assume they are mostly boring, otherwise it would be easy to find volunteers. Attending a major boring event doesn't seem like a great way to entice someone into long-term church membership. More like the opposite. "I went to the biggest event they have - dullsville!"
If he's been told that it's a business meeting with all the usual finances and stuff, then he'll know a lot of it will be tedious.
It's not an "event" - at best, a place to organise events.
quote:
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.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
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.
[ 14. April 2014, 06:26: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
More aware of the issues and potentially more aware of how to get round things. Didn't we once assume that children were safe when placed in the care of children's homes? All those nice kind people looking after those broken, hurting children?
Please don't assume anything where children are concerned: that's a key idea in Safeguarding Training.
It may be that everything is innocent, if a trifle daft. But, it may not be and having had some experience of dealing with such issues irl - it's right IMHO to be concerned. In the day job, I'd be following certain other protocols at this point.
[code]
[ 14. April 2014, 07:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's upto the church who they appoint as their representatives, and there may be times when someone who doesn't qualify according to the guidelines would be the best person. But, if the church decides that someone who's not been a member for very long is qualified then they should be able to support that choice when challenged. Almost certainly much better than "no one else volunteered" (which IME is the usual basis for selecting someone to a committee).
It was his first visit if the post is to be believed! The church knows nothing about him other than he's breathing ... and he knows nothing about the church other than it's people who meet.
I'm all for encouraging young people - and it happens here on all sorts of levels but we must be realistic. What's described as having taken place is just wrong from almost every pov.
Granted that's possibly true in a lot of other cases too but this is compounded by age and all sorts of concerns about the appropriateness of such an appointment and The Weeder's self nomination as his mentor. Do the child's parents know?
Either we are being misled - in which case it's time for the Weeder to own up - or it's the truth. In which case, in most organisations - schools and churches and uniformed groups included - you're looking at numerous breeches in Safeguarding on the information provided.
[code]
[ 14. April 2014, 07:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
1. I must admit that the example given in the OP is rather unusual.
2. ....a general principle, if anyone of that age shows an interest it's important to try to accommodate it as far as possible.
3. Perhaps it's rather similar to a role in the church choir, where a good singer could be given a solo almost immediately if he showed promise, regardless of how much he understood of the Christian faith.
1. One of the most unusual I've ever seen.
2. True - but notice your words "as far as possible." This is too far because he'd hadn't expressed an interest - just, according to the OP, found himself elected. I agree that we accommodate and encourage young people and I've had teenagers lead and speak here. But, like the rest of us it has to be in proportion to gifts, experience and potential. They haven't known him long enough to establish any of these.
3. Yes that example is fine and illustrates 2 above. There's a gift, it's recognised and affirmed in use. I would though be concerned about the issue of faith and belief: it's not a question of how much he understands but of how little.
[code]
[ 14. April 2014, 07:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's upto the church who they appoint as their representatives, and there may be times when someone who doesn't qualify according to the guidelines would be the best person. But, if the church decides that someone who's not been a member for very long is qualified then they should be able to support that choice when challenged. Almost certainly much better than "no one else volunteered" (which IME is the usual basis for selecting someone to a committee).
It was his first visit if the post is to be believed! The church knows nothing about him other than he's breathing ... and he knows nothing about the church other than it's people who meet.
Well, I was discussing a general issue rather than a specific individual, about whom we know practically nothing.
And, as I've said, if it was his first visit with no prior connection to the church then that does raise questions of his suitability as a representative. It doesn't IMO automatically follow that all 14 year old young adults should be
excluded from participating in church committees at all levels.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
And he leaves himself wide open to possible false allegations by the lad.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Either we are being misled - in which case it's time for the Weeder to own up - or it's the truth. In which case, in most organisations - schools and churches and uniformed groups included - you're looking at numerous breeches in Safeguarding on the information provided.
ExclamationMark, pursuant to my previous host post here, please stop commenting on the specifics and individuals involved in the original scenario. Now.
To repeat: this thread is not the right place to discuss the specific instance originally described. That includes speculation about the truthfulness or otherwise of the poster describing it.
If anyone feels they need to address the personal situation, on any level and for any reason whatsoever, they are invited to do so by PM.
To be crystal clear, Alan and Boogie are doing a fine job of addressing the general case. Let's keep it that way here on the thread, please.
/hosting
[ 14. April 2014, 07:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
This is a terrible idea, and the Incumbent, the PCC, and the Weeder (as a Licensed Lay Minister and as a retired child protection worker) should really have known better.
A 14 year old cannot be a member of Deanery Synod, and a retired child protection worker ought to know enough not to be ferrying him around unaccompanied. Since the necessary enhanced CRB checks aren't transferable, s/he would, in any case, need to be recertified for this parish.
Above all, though, the whole scenario suggests that this parish is more desperate for new blood than a starving vampire. It suggests an exhausted PCC, Wardens, and Incumbent shutting their eyes and grasping at straws.
[ 14. April 2014, 07:46: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
This is a terrible idea, and the Incumbent, the PCC, and the Weeder (as a Licensed Lay Minister and as a retired child protection worker) should really have known better.
Amos, seeing as how you posted within minutes of my host post, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you hadn't read it. But now you have.
Everyone, for the last time, lay off the personal references or expect attention from an admin.
/hosting
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
A 14 year old cannot be a member of Deanery Synod,
Why not?
Other than the rules don't permit it - because, if a hypothetical 14 year old with the necessary other credentials (eg: long standing membership of the church, previous involvement with church business, respect of the congregation) was to be the best person for the job I don't think the mere letter of a rule should be a problem that can't be surmounted.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Sorry, Eutychus: I was editing my post: you're right that I didn't see your hostly warning.
Put generally, my point is that people coming for the first time to a particular church, or to church in general, should not be immediately co-opted as representatives of the church in wider church bodies. The very fact of it being done is a sign that that particular church is in bad shape.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
A 14 year old cannot be a member of Deanery Synod,
Why not?
Other than the rules don't permit it - because, if a hypothetical 14 year old with the necessary other credentials (eg: long standing membership of the church, previous involvement with church business, respect of the congregation) was to be the best person for the job I don't think the mere letter of a rule should be a problem that can't be surmounted.
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Either we are being misled - in which case it's time for the Weeder to own up - or it's the truth. In which case, in most organisations - schools and churches and uniformed groups included - you're looking at numerous breeches in Safeguarding on the information provided.
ExclamationMark, pursuant to my previous host post here, please stop commenting on the specifics and individuals involved in the original scenario. Now.
To repeat: this thread is not the right place to discuss the specific instance originally described. That includes speculation about the truthfulness or otherwise of the poster describing it.
If anyone feels they need to address the personal situation, on any level and for any reason whatsoever, they are invited to do so by PM.
To be crystal clear, Alan and Boogie are doing a fine job of addressing the general case. Let's keep it that way here on the thread, please.
/hosting
Eutychus
Sorry - I've written in haste and without thought to your advice. Apologies - confining myself to PM's now on specifics.
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on
:
I recall a young man who was desperate to become a volunteer at the local hospice day centre, doing simple things like helping with the garden, pushing the coffee trolley round, sitting and chatting to people and playing board games with them. He was exactly right for the role, as was recognised by the staff there, and may have turned out a much different young man later in life if he had been given the opportunity to develop a sense of purpose in this way. The lady who organised the volunteers was devastated to have to turn him down because he was deemed too young by the powers that be...... especially as the same day a leaflet arrived on her desk about avoiding age discrimination (obviously aimed at encouraging OLDER people to become involved in volunteering). Her view was that it should always depend purely on aptitude for the task in hand.
Personally I think young people, and people of any age who are experiencing church for the first time, have a lot to give in situations where many of the people involved may have become set in their ways or immune to the impression they give to newcomers. Indeed, the hardest part sometimes is to get the others to listen. I have no real knowledge of deanery synod and do wonder whether it's the best forum for newcomers to represent the church, but certainly I think it important that a range of people be involved in decision making and discussion and that that should include a range of ages and experience.
I've experienced the rather ironic situation of my own young people being TOLD what they want to experience in church!
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Alan, I agree with you that all baptised Christians, of whatever age, are fully members of the Church. The general rule that representatives to Deanery Synod need to be communicant members of a Parish's Electoral Roll, and at least 16 years of age, may exclude some people who would make good representatives. It seems to me, though, that some kind of a rule is needed. Sixteen is the age at which a minor can join the armed forces in this country or get married (with parental consent). Would you extend your argument about age to child brides and child soldiers? Or is this just child Deanery Synod reps?
Posted by frin (# 9) on
:
I'm trying to remember how old I was when I first went to the URC's regional (provincial, as was) Synod meeting. I think I was 16, but maybe 15. Our denominational structures had an explicit expectation that 2 members of a church council were below the age of 25, and I was already regularly attending the local area church council (district, we called it) from 14 onwards, to report on things coming from the Youth structures of the church. I first went to the General Assembly when I was 18, representing the regional synod. At that level, somewhere around 6-10% of the gathered assembly was an under 25 year old. With good support from youth workers, we often followed the agenda and the issues better than a newcomer 50+ year old would.
I was a committed and engaged member of any meeting the church sent me to. I saw major changes and policies driven by thoughtful engagement by young members of the church at all sorts of levels of the church.
That the young man is very new to a church and ends up representing it throws up more questions for me than his age. But in one of my past (Anglican) churches, I ended up on the PCC within 2 visits to the church, because I stayed behind for the meeting...
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on
:
Sometimes I feel that when it comes to church matters people will often find acceptable things that would not be in 'Real Life', maybe because there is this subconscious feeling that if it's church it doesn't matter very much. In fact I think this has been expressed further up the thread. here here if I've managed to link correctly. Maybe that's not the point Alan Cresswell was trying to make, but that is how I read it.
I am wondering in what other adult organisations it would be considered appropriate to elect an unknown 14 year old with no experience or knowledge to a position of public governance.
I'm trying to think of an example. Maybe a Parish or Town Council? Member of a Planning Committee?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
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.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The problem with this thread ... is that we all agree!
So there's not really much left to say, is there?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
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)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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 ....
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
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?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Has anyone else noticed the multiple hostly warnings about sticking to a general topic instead of discussing one teen? Will be discussing with the other hosts, but I'm putting this thread on notice that we may decide to close it for being completely unable to avoid personal situations.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
What is the point of deanery synods? What would no longer happen if they ceased to exist?
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on
:
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.
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Area Dean can be involved in supporting clergy appointments - I've seen that happen before.
Useful page on deanery synod from Salisbury Diocese.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
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
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
OK, I stand corrected - deanery synods do do stuff.
(Although I still suspect it varies by diocese.)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
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.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
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.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
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).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
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...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Or get a job, or buy things in shops.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Info on contract law for under 18s
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
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 ."
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0