Ship of Fools: Olaf

Thread: Olaf 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=027147

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Heh...I've long given up expecting clergy to do their job.

from; here

Screw you.

Some people say to me "Pyx_e you are supposed to be, forgiving and kind, humble and generous, call yourself a Christian?, call yourself a priest?" Well I am not that sort of Christian.

I too am tired of your whining, your weak inability to deal with the minor trouble of your liturgical expectations and the cowardly way you transfer your frustrations with your pastor to every clergy person.

There are some crap clergy about, God knows I have my moments. There are some laity about who seem to be really struggling too.

There seems to be a type of laity who is always complaining, be it the music, the modern language, the liturgy, the colour of the curtains, the pews, the seats, the hymn choice, the cracked paving slab, the towels in the loo, the dust on the window sill, the joke in the sermon, the lack of joke in the sermon, the expectation that we may be disciples, the encouragement to join a bible study, the coffee ........... and every one of these comes to me.

And I am happy to hear everyone of them.

But do not make the mistake of thinking I give a toss. I know why we are here and I know how a complaining heart if just another way of avoiding God's love. Of just throwing a handful of shit in the air to ensure none of the fragrance of heaven is smelt.

The devil pricks up his ears when you complain, he rubs his smutty paws together and get ready to take a another brick out of the Kingdom wall while dripping a little more despair onto the complainers soul.

I too often laugh at complainers, it seems the only way to stay sane. I have no idea who you are but honestly you sound a little like someone who needs to be laughed at. If you kept complaining to me after a while I would stop hearing you and just put up the shutters, hear you out (whatever it was you were mumbling and withering about this time) and move on.

Here's an idea, instead of going to another church service which does not seem to be making any difference to you go and have a coffee and try and strike up a conversation with someone, you might be able to share your faith even. Or offer to pray for your pastor. Or heaven forbid, walk, drive or catch a bus to a nearby church and go to another Ascension day service to slap another layer of religion on your atrophied soul.

Stop Whinging and get on with "it" for (literally) heavens sake man get some gratitude in your life.

Pyx_e

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Olaf's comment came out of left field and ultimately I was either too gutless or on this occasion too nonchalant to make the call - at any rate Pyx_e made it anyway. Maybe I'll steer away from Olaf specifically be cause he has apologised to me. But there are issues, and while I'm in cruisy space at the moment I'm not always ...

... like the time I'd come home from working with, consoling, trying to breathe hope into the life of the mother who had given birth to still born triplets, come home to an angry warden who asked why I was ten minutes late for a meeting about drains.

But that was long ago and far away. Nowadays clergy don't get asked to do that, because there is so much cynicism in society about Christianity, at least in my antipodean world, that civil celebrants just say a few words about stars and fluff in the sky while we stay at home and wonder whether it's really worth muttering words about a costly resurrection.

Instead I try to breathe hope into a moribund community of septa- and octo-genarians whose every meeting is about shrinking finances and growing expenses, try to mutter words about a risen ascended glorified Christ when most people I meet would prefer to talk about fluffy angels and down-looking stars ...

And if I dare to suggest that the music be just a wee tad faster so that the young people don't die before the first stanza of "The Church's One Foundation" is half finished then the choir threaten blue fucking murder because clearly I don't love them and am trivializing the effort they put in to every elongated breve that sends youth scurrying to the local Jesus of the Left Whoopy Doodah Church down the road ...

So I'm afraid occasionally my cynicism radar loses calibration and I get a little stung by observations that "I've long given up expecting clergy to do their job" because while, actually I quite like my job, I find it just a miniscule hard to please the obstreperous fixations of every passing opinionated participant who is so darned sure that all I do is scratch my pious bum from day to day.

[ 02. June 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Wait for it......wait for it....... somebody will post soon enough that every day job is the same as an indicator that they can't listen, don't actually want to engage in what's being said, and they prefer pissing contests on the boards. It's just an observation I've made here.

I must confess - unless I'm just not reading the right threads - that laity 'bashing' (if it can even be called that) would appear to be done largely by laity. I could be very mistaken though. Clergy 'bashing' that I've seen on the ship can sometimes be particularly cruel, sometimes even verging on wanting to publicly shame someone in a public way among anonymous critics. Sometimes its that same old crippling moaning humans like to engage in.

God knows clergy are particularly adept at identifying which rug under another cleric to pull in order to instigate the catastrophic tumble. Laity are very adept at this game too, and that's the point. There is a vampiric character type who get their kicks from this kind of thing whether they be clergy or laity. It's a shame that such people need to post widely to hone their habit and garner a certain acceptability in their malaise. As Pyxe says, there is something rather 'devilish' in this type of activity, be it from clergy or lay, whose desires drive them to suck the life out of someone or something and won't stop until it, or they, are a smouldering wreck that they can stand over in self aggrandised triumph. And before anyone else says it; no, it isn't common only to the church. It is rife in our society and not just in churches that have become another product to consume, and if we don't feel we get what we pay for, we sling it out on capitalisms slag heap with all the other dross that we deem doesn't work for us anymore.

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at sundown
we drink it at noon in the morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink it

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I am so glad Olaf posted on Sunday night. Had he posted on say, Friday pm, it could have influenced sermons, messages, talks and even homilies delivered all over the World on the following Sunday.

For the greater good, or at any rate the comfort of many laity (and clergy too in the only slightly longer term), Olaf posted on Sunday. And there is Hell to respond in. God truly works in mysterious ways.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Um, maybe I'm missing something, perhaps an irony, but why would it have influenced sermons the world over?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

No irony intended, we have members all over the World, and some 12% of the membership are ordained (IIRC - there was a survey years ago) and some of these might have been irritated, even angered, by Olaf's post in Eccles.

Had Olaf posted that while the clegy were composing sermons etc, then while the text might not have changed much, the delivery and tone could well have done. By next Sunday however, things should have seetled down a bit.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

It must be a mug's game being a priest.

I remember hearing some colleagues complaining about a priest who wouldn't give them the keys to the church on his day off. "Being a priest is a vocation", they said. Fuck taking any kind of break from work, so it seems.

In my old parish a priest left to another parish (after nine years), then died of a heart attack aged about 45. The next priest stayed for a few years, then left to another parish, and also had a heart attack (though survived). In this parish was an ultra-conservative and prickly choir master/organist and an ultra-conservative, stubborn but could be nice reader; there were other standard mutterings against things like new hymn books/family services from a few others, but largely they were well liked. I believe that the stress of being there had a contribution towards their heart attacks.

When I worked in a cathedral I met a lot of clergy and also saw types of laity, such as the High-Anglican woman who left her own parish as it went lowish, went from one high parishes to another, always falling out with people there. This falling out involved letters of complaint by her to the bishop. Maybe with her, but deffo with others I've seen women with father issues getting attached to priests, woe betide those priests.

Some people with psychological problems project all manner of stuff onto priests, so many hopes, fears, hurt and so much malice. You also occasionally have "youth friendly" older people who have big emotional arguments as to why we should be more emotional in services and not have eucharists and the such in order to get "the youth" in; these people of course have God on their sides.

You have many well-meaning people who want a better world, less racism, more peace, that kind of thing, who then see priests (here men are meant)/older men as being part of the whole system of oppression.

In my experience priests (with one notable exception; luckily he had very patient church wardens) are likely to be into social themes (to the left of the congregation), give good pastoral care and dedicate themselves for others. These same face bother from all sides.

Thank God I've not been called to be a priest, and I pray for those who are.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are lots of versions of The Perfect Pastor around.

Clearly we need to add:
"Always ready and able to lead a Eucharist for every feast of the church, whatever day of the week. At a time and location convenient to all members of the church. Still be able to fulfil all other duties despite taking time out for preparing these mid-week services".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Some people just enjoy complaining. Preferably from a comfortable position. Such as an armchair.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The summary: Taking care of people sucks a lot of the time. Taking care of constantly complaining people sucks more.

I've tried to train myself to respond to all complaints with, "Great insight! Why don't you fix it?"

For some reason the conversation usually ends right there.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Clergy are no different from other people / professions / callings: there are some brilliant clergy, there are some OK clergy, and there are some clergy who, frankly, may be doing more harm than good and are almost certainly in the wrong job.

This has been the case for generations: what has changed is that some of today's clergy (I'm talking CofE here) are far more likely to complain about their lot than in previous generations.

The other change is that for generations the laity have been used to (in their idea of best-case scenario) male clergy who could/ did devote all of their time and energy to the parish, regardless of how many hours they worked, frequently not having or taking a fixed day-off, and all of this supported by a wife who also did things for the parish. Of course, in a larger parish the PP might have the services of a curate but, by-and-large he was his own boss.

That was also dangerous, because as well as the many hard-working priests there always were some who did the absolute bare minimum: what has changed today is that many clergy are far less visible than heretofore but all the laity hears is how stressed they are and how hard they work.

Unfair? A little, but then I think a parish priest's reaction to being told of her churchwarden's wife's death should be other than "It's my day off, write me a note or leave a message on the parish line." And that, or the equivalent, happens more often than people want to believe.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I've tried to train myself to respond to all complaints with, "Great insight! Why don't you fix it?"

Except that Olaf's point was that he can't fix it. He's not a priest - he can't offer a Mass.

It seems clear to me from his postings that Olaf holds rather high church views - significantly higher than the average Lutheran pastor. For someone who leans towards the low church end of things, holding a communion service on a weekday that will be attended by three old ladies and Olaf is a waste of time. For Olaf, offering Mass on a major feast day is just about the most important part of the priest's job.

Isn't this the fundamental issue? It's a question of whether or not you see offering Mass on Ascension as being of the same order of importance as being on time to the weekly meeting of the drains subcommittee.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Or whether Olaf is in the correct church.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Which takes us back to my post here.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That last bit on my post was not aimed specifically at Olaf's situation.

But if it were...

What is there to prevent Olaf, or anyone else, from beating the bushes to raise up enthusiasm about attending midweek services? I can't think of a single Lutheran pastor who would not be delighted to have to put on a non-Sunday service because there were a bunch of people eager and ready to attend one.

If the problem is non-attendance, any lay person who volunteers to take on that issue with enthusiasm and care will earn the grateful respect of their over-burdened* pastor.

* and no, this is not a statement of my position on whether Ascension Day services constitute overburdening. It's simply a description of the average pastor I know, who doesn't have enough hours in the day and is forced to cut corners he'd rather not cut. (Yes, I know a few hundred of them**)

** A few hundred pastors--but also a few hundred corners. [Frown]

[ 02. June 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by L'organist:

quote:

This has been the case for generations: what has changed is that some of today's clergy (I'm talking CofE here) are far more likely to complain about their lot than in previous generations.

Lol; where did you glean this nugget of wisdom from?

posted by LC,

quote:

For Olaf, offering Mass on a major feast day is just about the most important part of the priest's job.

I have a lot of sympathy with this, but I'm not sure that point was made particularly well. If he had said, '...the church (in general) seems to be suffering from ascension deficit disorder these days', then the conversation might have progressed somewhat differently, or maybe not at all, seeing this is a hell thread and all. But I do have a lot of sympathy with that. I also stare at Michaelmas every year and wonder to myself when such a major feast was suddenly downgraded, and it is about fluffy angels and stars looking down. I just don't blame a bunch of clergy for it though.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

Stop Whinging and get on with "it" for (literally) heavens sake man get some gratitude in your life.

Pyx_e

Your rant rather reminds me of Bonhoeffer's words on Christian Community.

“God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious.”

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by L'organist:

quote:

Unfair? A little, but then I think a parish priest's reaction to being told of her churchwarden's wife's death should be other than "It's my day off, write me a note or leave a message on the parish line." And that, or the equivalent, happens more often than people want to believe.

I know I need to be a little careful here so as not add further offence, but it's interesting that we would actually accept this in other professions, such as the coroner and a GP. Granted, we aren't necessarily told that they are on a day off or whatever, but we accept it nonetheless.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

IMHO that's because pastors are precisely in the business of caring for people. In my opinion and in that of a lot of other people, not everybody.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by L'organist:

quote:

Unfair? A little, but then I think a parish priest's reaction to being told of her churchwarden's wife's death should be other than "It's my day off, write me a note or leave a message on the parish line." And that, or the equivalent, happens more often than people want to believe.

I know I need to be a little careful here so as not add further offence, but it's interesting that we would actually accept this in other professions, such as the coroner and a GP. Granted, we aren't necessarily told that they are on a day off or whatever, but we accept it nonetheless.

Well, if you're one of the denominations which believes in ontological change at ordination, then a priest is always a priest even on his/her day off.

Answer - you answer the phone and offer support: after all, how often does something that bad happen? Admittedly everyone else doesn't have to but believers aren't everyone else - go the extra mile just this once.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I suspect that if a priest gets to a degree of needing a break such that even a death in the congregation is too much to interrupt a break for, said priest should avoid answering the phone!

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I would have thought that being a GP is just as much a caring profession. I wasn't saying it to get a rise or start a flame/baiting war. I wouldn't expect that type of response from any cleric personally, but I know I would from a GP and that's what made me curious.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clergy are no different from other people / professions / callings

Yes, yes they are. My parish priest's choice to live the life he does is a continuous witness of faith and love, whether he does it "well" or "badly" on Olaf's or your terms.

Thank God for him, for all priests, deacons, ministers of whatever kind, for seminarians too.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Suppose it depends... if it's a case of burnout that makes that phone call the one that breaks the camel's back, then something's gone wrong long before that and that needs looking at.

If they're just refusing to go because "It's my day off and I'm not going to be interrupted" then I'd agree that's out of line.

My problem comes when anecdotes like that get thrown about and it stops being about "that priest/minister/vicar" to "the clergy" in general. I would suggest most of us are not[ like that.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But if the clergy are "always available" then their phone will be constantly ringing with people wanting to talk about trivia which could easily wait till the next day.

What I tend to do is set the phone to answer on my days off, but listen to the call afterwards and phone back if necessary. Very often all that is needed is a short call to say, "I hear you" and offer assurance; I can then deal with things properly on the morrow. (Emails and texts however are more insidious).

Even Jesus did not always make himself available 24/7!!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
but it's interesting that we would actually accept this in other professions, such as the coroner and a GP. Granted, we aren't necessarily told that they are on a day off or whatever, but we accept it nonetheless.

My grandfather was a GP "back in the day", and would always get called out for seriously ill patients. The only time he wasn't on call was when he went away for a holiday, when there was a locum in his place.

GPs these days have on call arrangements, so if you are sick in off hours, you can see a doctor, even though your own personal doctor might be having a day off. The duty magistrate gets phone calls at 3 in the morning when the police need a warrant for something.

So while there is a tendency for no individual professional to be continuously on call these days, there is a recognition that continuous on-call coverage is necessary.

IME, that is what priests do, too - anywhere that has more than one priest will have the priests coordinate their days off so that there's always someone on call.

As Baptist Trainfan points out, there is a rather large difference between being called on your day off because someone is dying and being out having a picnic with your family when you are accosted by a parishioner wanting to talk about a new doormat for the church hall.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I understand Olaf's frustration. As we're in hell, I'm going to get this off my chest and condemn the system to hell forever. It's natural to react with complaints when frustrated due to powerlessness. From the lay 'side' it can seem as if some clergy don't see lay people as equals, but as inferiors, those to pull rank on and rule, those not to be allowed to get too big for their boots. At times, the humble foot-washing loving service of all doesn't even seem as if it's an aspiration, it may be reserved for obviously 'needy' people.

If power isn't shared so that lay people may participate fully in the church according to calling and ability, inevitably all functions fall upon the clergy so that they are run ragged, they won't ever please everyone, and the complaints will continue on both sides that the other doesn't do enough.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
A complaining heart is just another way of avoiding God's love. (typo fixed)

You won the thread in the OP. Well done!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There is a rather large difference between being called on your day off because someone is dying and being out having a picnic with your family when you are accosted by a parishioner wanting to talk about a new doormat for the church hall.

Ah, but said Parishioner has JUST HEARD that "they" are going to buy a green doormat instead of a blue one and they have never heard of anything so ridiculous in ALL THEIR LIFE and they are just TOTALLY FED UP with all the changes that are going on the church which their family has attended for SIX GENERATIONS and they are going to resign their membership unless the Minister does something about it RIGHT NOW.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

And wouldn't it just take the wind out of their sails if the Minister said ' OK then you can have your blue doormat'.......!! [Killing me]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Clergy are no different from other people / professions / callings: there are some brilliant clergy, there are some OK clergy, and there are some clergy who, frankly, may be doing more harm than good and are almost certainly in the wrong job.

This has been the case for generations: what has changed is that some of today's clergy (I'm talking CofE here) are far more likely to complain about their lot than in previous generations.

I'm not that good at history but which King wanted rid of a "Troublesome priest"?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

Stop Whinging and get on with "it" for (literally) heavens sake man get some gratitude in your life.

Honest to God, Pyx_e. [Overused]

This is something we all need to hear from time to time. I'm as guilty as anyone of bitching instead of being grateful.

On the other hand, I don't want to be too hard on Olaf. He is a high-church Protestant in a resolutely MOTR denomination. So the options are 1) adjust expectations, 2) move to another denomination/communion/jurisdiction, or 3) stay and try, possibly fruitlessly, to influence the way things are done.

Being in a place which is for me a good fit, I'm very thankful I don't face that situation.

Counterpoint, though : the essence of the priesthood is, it seems to me, the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the central act of Christian worship, and from it everything else flows. The top priority of a priest (in any church with a catholic conception of the priesthood) ought to be the celebration of the Holy Communion. Bounden duty and service, right?

Sadly, I've met too many priests who seem to feel that the liturgy is an unpleasant duty to be avoided when possible and to be dispensed with as quickly as possible when it can't be avoided. These are the people who, when asked why the became priests, say "Because I want to help people." Fucking hell, Jack, if you want to help people become a social worker. The job of a priest is to bring people closer to Jesus.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

My Other Half was once present at a PCC meeting featuring a long argument over one of the most important issues facing the Church today.

That's right: whether to have a real or an artificial Christmas tree as part of the Christmas decorations (the battle over whether to have a Christmas tree at all was fought by previous generations). Each side had a passionate advocate: by the end of the debate, each had convinced the other to change their mind, leaving the PCC exactly where it was before the argument started. I think in the end the vicar's suggestion of going with the cheapest option was adopted.

(posted in reply to Stephen)

[ 02. June 2014, 17:04: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There is a rather large difference between being called on your day off because someone is dying and being out having a picnic with your family when you are accosted by a parishioner wanting to talk about a new doormat for the church hall.
Ah, but said Parishioner has JUST HEARD that "they" are going to buy a green doormat instead of a blue one and they have never heard of anything so ridiculous in ALL THEIR LIFE and they are just TOTALLY FED UP with all the changes that are going on the church which their family has attended for SIX GENERATIONS and they are going to resign their membership unless the Minister does something about it RIGHT NOW.

To which the most effective answer is, "Well, if you feel that strongly about it, go ahead." The problem I have seen in our parish in the last 20 years is forceful laity blackmailing the clergy in this sort of fashion and getting away with it because said clergy were terrified of losing anybody. Our current Vicar refuses to be blackmailed in this fashion and will invariably call the blackmailer's bluff. So, we have lost a few people, but we have also lost a lot of complainers - and not all have left.

I have remarked elsewhere that in any voluntary organisation, there is always a small core of individuals who will roll their sleeves up and get on with the work, and a much larger group of others who will stand around and complain, but not do a hand's turn themselves. I wonder why this is? [Mad]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
in any voluntary organisation, there is always a small core of individuals who will roll their sleeves up and get on with the work, and a much larger group of others who will stand around and complain, but not do a hand's turn themselves. I wonder why this is?

Because there is a much larger group who will say "Why did you do it that way?" than one who will say "Thanks for doing it that way."

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not that good at history but which King wanted rid of a "Troublesome priest"?

Henry II.

(Apparently Archbishop Thomas Becket didn't hold an Ascension Day service at Canterbury Cathedral.)

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But if the clergy are "always available" then their phone will be constantly ringing with people wanting to talk about trivia which could easily wait till the next day.

What I tend to do is set the phone to answer on my days off, but listen to the call afterwards and phone back if necessary. Very often all that is needed is a short call to say, "I hear you" and offer assurance; I can then deal with things properly on the morrow. (Emails and texts however are more insidious).

Even Jesus did not always make himself available 24/7!!

Although the key phrase here is "if necessary". An awful lot of things don't require a response that day and it can wait until the next day.

And it is important to manage expectations - the congregation needs to know when the minister's day off is and that it shouldn't be abused.

Emails - I always have a church specific email address, quite distinct from my personal one. People in the church don't normally get my personal email address. And I set up my email program to filter work emails into a separate folder. So I can check personal emails on a day off and can also see if I have any work ones, but I don't have to read them. Because once you've read them, it is so hard to ignore them...

Txts are easy - just don't give the congregation your mobile phone number. Only trusted people (which includes the church administrator) get my mobile phone number. Giving this to all and sundry opens the door to madness.

On the whole, though, I no longer get bothered by lay accusations of laziness. Those who really understand never make those accusations. But what really gets my goat is when senior clergy start making general comments about "lazy clergy". In all my years in churches I don't think I have ever met a lazy minister. I have met plenty of ministers who are burned out. And plenty who have become discouraged by the way that they and their family have been treated by congregations or by the hierarchy. I have met plenty who work hard in ways that most people just don't see. But lazy clergy? Not a single one. Honestly.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
in any voluntary organisation, there is always a small core of individuals who will roll their sleeves up and get on with the work, and a much larger group of others who will stand around and complain, but not do a hand's turn themselves. I wonder why this is?
Because there is a much larger group who will say "Why did you do it that way?" than one who will say "Thanks for doing it that way."

This reminds me of a story a rector of ours told of painting the interior of her former mission church. She and a few hearty souls devoted a long day to doing the job to save on labor. When the congregation gathered the next Sunday she heard a boatload of complaints (from the non-painters) that they painted the walls Navajo white instead of eggshell white. [Eek!]

She got so ticked off that she let the unappreciative whiners have it during the sermon and excommunicated the lot of them for the day."No bread and wine for you!!" [Waterworks]

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Screw you..... But do not make the mistake of thinking I give a toss...

Pyx_e

Over the years you have moaned so much about the burden of being a priest. - usually with a side swipe at the laity. It's clear you give more than a toss. Plenty of professions, including mine, get piled on. Stop being so sensitive about yours. Some clergy are good, some are bad. I've even met some good estate agents but people still refer to them as assholes. Just deal with a bit of collective criticism.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Did somebody mention lawyers?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
She got so ticked off that she let the unappreciative whiners have it during the sermon and excommunicated the lot of them for the day."No bread and wine for you!!"

I really don't know how to feel about that one. I definitely see the temptation...!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... and it does remind me of that loosely translated quotation from Jesus:

quote:
Why do I even talk to you at all?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Screw you..... But do not make the mistake of thinking I give a toss...

Pyx_e
Over the years you have moaned so much about the burden of being a priest. - usually with a side swipe at the laity. It's clear you give more than a toss. Plenty of professions, including mine, get piled on. Stop being so sensitive about yours. Some clergy are good, some are bad. I've even met some good estate agents but people still refer to them as assholes. Just deal with a bit of collective criticism.

Is it time for my annual St Valentine already?

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Is it time for my annual St Valentine already?

Bi-annual surely? I barely give you a thought except when
I see a post defending the clergy or moaning about your lot.

Do you remember your post from October 2006 containing the line: "To lead in a Christian context is to be hated, reviled and mocked. Priests learn that one week after ordination."? (I've kept the quote because it is in a short thread of PMs I exchanged at the time with Erin).

When I challenged you back then you slunk off and never replied. You've done the same every time when challenged since. So a final time. Why are priests not to be criticised? What is it about a priest's life (hated, reviled, mocked) that's so different from other professional experiences?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Spawn, for goshsakes. Why is it that I only ever see you around when you're having a go at someone?

I've got some Maalox here, if you need it.

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Spawn, for goshsakes. Why is it that I only ever see you around when you're having a go at someone?

I've got some Maalox here, if you need it.

It's Hell and it's Py-xe. And I don't post very often. That's my excuse anyway.

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

IDK, Spawn, I do suspect that clerics are a lightning rod for hatred more so than other professions even journalists and lawyers for all the jokes at their expense.

I served for six years in my denomination shepherding seminarians through to their first call. The first thing we'd do is put them through psychological tests for any red flags that might indicate that they would not be able to handle the role. Then we'd meet with them at least once a year to assess how well they were taking care of themselves physically and emotionally. We'd try to see if they were good at building support networks around themselves. We'd do all that because we know that they will be thrown into the chipper-shredder of church politics at some point. I do not believe that other professions typically require such measures. Other professions may well have adversarial features, but generally they are structured and compartmentalized. Unless the individual cleric is adamant at setting boundaries and the polity of the local church governance respects and supports those boundaries, church politics can become unrelenting and toxic.

Not that pastors are or should be expected to be saints. The priesthood of all believers has its share of fuck-ups. Ruling elders (as my denomination is wont to call them) are often called because they have the ego and narcissism necessary to lead, and, therefore, a disproportionately high percentage of any sect's fuck-ups are the leaders.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've tried to train myself to respond to all complaints with, "Great insight! Why don't you fix it?"

For some reason the conversation usually ends right there.

This week I have told three different meetings (including a PCC) that I never again want to hear the phrase 'someone should....', but that 'can I help with...', 'what can I do about....' or 'Do you need a hand with....' are always acceptable.

As it happens, we celebrated the heck out of Ascension day, with Messy Church in the afternoon and a sung evening eucharist (congregation 12) both on Thursday and an Ascension flavoured Easter 7 on Sunday. It was, as always, a privilege to celebrate with God's gathered people. The joy of this privilege is slightly marred by the small minority of God's people who need to complain about the absence of WW1 memorial poppyseed/the late arrival of their taxi/the altered layout of the pewsheet/whatever in the 10 minutes before the service. And if I am not available in church to complain to, are prepared to walk into the vestry to find me. Without knocking. I swear that one of these days I will strip naked in the vestry for the last 20 minutes before the service and see if that teaches them to knock. Or at least gives them a new more interesting cause for complaint.

Anne

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

In my experience, Anne, church people often complain that they don't see enough of the minister... that might also remedy that problem!

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I did say 'wait for it...' and oh look, we didn't have to wait too long before Spawn turned up for the pissing contest. If I was a betting man I could have conned some poor sap out of £50

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Being on call 24/7 is unbiblical. Stop trying to make your local priest breach the basic principles of Godly living.

Priests: take comfort in the fact that even Jesus got nagged when he was trying to get some rest. "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?" (Mark 4:38)

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

Stop Whinging and get on with "it" for (literally) heavens sake man get some gratitude in your life.

Honest to God, Pyx_e.

This is something we all need to hear from time to time. I'm as guilty as anyone of bitching instead of being grateful.

On the other hand, I don't want to be too hard on Olaf. He is a high-church Protestant in a resolutely MOTR denomination. So the options are 1) adjust expectations, 2) move to another denomination/communion/jurisdiction, or 3) stay and try, possibly fruitlessly, to influence the way things are done.

Being in a place which is for me a good fit, I'm very thankful I don't face that situation.

Counterpoint, though : the essence of the priesthood is, it seems to me, the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the central act of Christian worship, and from it everything else flows. The top priority of a priest (in any church with a catholic conception of the priesthood) ought to be the celebration of the Holy Communion. Bounden duty and service, right?

Sadly, I've met too many priests who seem to feel that the liturgy is an unpleasant duty to be avoided when possible and to be dispensed with as quickly as possible when it can't be avoided. These are the people who, when asked why the became priests, say "Because I want to help people." Fucking hell, Jack, if you want to help people become a social worker. The job of a priest is to bring people closer to Jesus.

Well, yes, I'm grateful for that, Fr. Weber.

I quit my UMC after many years because the new pastor had been there for eight months without a single communion. I slipped away quietly because I didn't like to complain (really.)

The new church was a perfect fit for me and I loved the pastor as did every other person I talked to during the two years he and I were both there. So it's not true that everyone complains all the time.

Then he left and we got a new pastor. She was there for over a year and during that time she did one thing only. She did the Sunday service complete with Eucharist and a fluffy ten minute sermon. That was all. She never once kept the Wednesday or Saturday office hours she had promised, she went to zero meetings or home visitations, and worst of all, she never returned a single phone call. Lifetime members of that church died and were buried without her help.

So should those nice people have been grateful for her, Pyxe?

I would love to have a priest like Pyxe. I imagine his sermons are awesome and he would give me many, much needed kicks in my flimsy faith, but there are bad pastors and its really all too important for entire congregations to have to depend on them.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Oh my. A few points:

First, I never suggested clergy be available 24/7. I fully support not one but two, yes two consecutive days off each and every week. I'd love to see more ecumenical collaboration to make this happen, by handling each other's emergencies. Our church does it this way with vacations, and it seems to work well. I'd also be perfectly okay with a month or more of vacation per year--real, drop-everything vacation--including Sundays. That is far more than most Americans receive.

Second, I realize clergy are busy. Most of us are very busy people. Yet even on my busiest day, I am able to squeeze some time out when needs arise. Thirty minutes out of a week certainly isn't the same as jumping to 24/7 availability, yet with any suggestion of further clerical responsibility, the discussion seems to gravitate toward this. I did something like this just today.

I reiterate what I mentioned earlier: we laypeople are at your mercy on sacramental issues. I actually get along fine with my own pastor, and I simply shrugged off the incident about Ascension. I did not expect there to be an instant agreement to my request, and my pastor knows very well that my help could be expected in such an instance. I do so all the time.

As for my high church leanings, as mentioned above, you are absolutely right. I am certainly not alone in Lutheranism, but I am farther that direction than many nowadays.

The honest answer to why I don't leave is simply that I belong doctrinally where I am. Not perfectly, perhaps, but we all know that finding the perfect fit is not always a given. Issues of churchpersonship in Lutheranism very often rest with the pastor, who in Lutheranism far more than in Catholicism or Anglicanism has control in a congregation. Sure, there might be push-back or complaining from a congregation, but if a pastor chooses to dismiss the church musician, hire another one, and completely change the worship style, it can and does happen. Pastors come and pastors go, but their tenure can be quite long in many cases.

Hopefully this clarifies my position, which is far less calculated than many suggest. I am making my best effort to understand it from a pastor's perspective, and I certainly hope that the ordained here will do likewise.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Your synod must be very very different than mine. A pastor here attempting to interfere in a major way with the music is likely to get it back from the church council up any of several orifices.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
in any voluntary organisation, there is always a small core of individuals who will roll their sleeves up and get on with the work, and a much larger group of others who will stand around and complain, but not do a hand's turn themselves. I wonder why this is?
Because there is a much larger group who will say "Why did you do it that way?" than one who will say "Thanks for doing it that way."

Or, "You did that wrong."

Or, "It took you long enough/why didn't you do that earlier/read my mind?"

Or, "why aren't you/why isn't someone else doing more?"

Lyda*Rose - awesome story.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I fully support not one but two, yes two consecutive days off each and every week... I'd also be perfectly okay with a month or more of vacation per year--real, drop-everything vacation--including Sundays.

In other words, you support normal middle-class working conditions. It's possible that in an American employment context, this makes you enlightened.

quote:
Second, I realize clergy are busy. Most of us are very busy people.

How patronizing.

quote:
Yet even on my busiest day, I am able to squeeze some time out when needs arise. Thirty minutes out of a week certainly isn't the same as jumping to 24/7 availability

Do you mean this to refer to an Ascension Day service? Do you think this would involve thirty minutes? Let's review the math.

Does your pastor live in a little tower in the belfry? No? Add travel time to and from home.
Would you like your pastor to be prepared to lead the liturgy? Add liturgical preparation time.
Would there be a sermon, even a brief one? Add homiletical preparation time.
Does your pastor have a family (gasp!) with activities that may need to be rearranged around this? Add rearrangement time. Does all of this still add up to thirty minutes?

quote:
I reiterate what I mentioned earlier: we laypeople are at your mercy on sacramental issues.

If you are in a remote area and find it difficult to find access, this is a problem. Which of the various mooted solutions do you support: local ordination, reserved sacrament, licensed laypersons?

quote:
I actually get along fine with my own pastor, and I simply shrugged off the incident about Ascension.

No. You did not shrug it off. It stung you to the point that you played it up in the Styx, in order to gain sympathy. "Poor Olaf! He was laughed at - yes, actually laughed at - for this perfectly legitimate request!" If you had shrugged it off you wouldn't have mentioned it.

quote:
The honest answer to why I don't leave is simply that I belong doctrinally where I am.

Then you might consider finding more productive ways of coping with your frustrations than taking potshots at clergy. No doubt you will have learned Luther's explanation of the Eighth Commandment somewhere along the way: "We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain his actions in the kindest possible way." Give it a try, my Internet neighbour.

quote:
Hopefully this clarifies my position, which is far less calculated than many suggest. I am making my best effort to understand it from a pastor's perspective, and I certainly hope that the ordained here will do likewise.

You give no evidence of attempting to understand a pastor's perspective. On the contrary, you spend a great deal of effort justifying yourself. Such efforts are pointless, you know; you ARE justified by grace through Jesus Christ.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

Olaf, what the ever-living fuck are you on?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

"We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain his actions in the kindest possible way." Give it a try, my Internet neighbour.

So was that Leaf, defending Olaf and explaining his actions in the kindest possible way?

Are some of you actually saying that on a message board dedicated to expressing Christian unrest we aren't supposed to complain about clergy?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

No at all, but they sure as hell get to complain back. Especially since ordinarily they have to shut up and deal with complaints in a benevolent, pastoral manner. Here they get to be rageaholic savages, praise God.

Ain't the Ship wonderful?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Is it time for my annual St Valentine already?
Bi-annual surely? I barely give you a thought except when
I see a post defending the clergy or moaning about your lot.

Do you remember your post from October 2006 containing the line: "To lead in a Christian context is to be hated, reviled and mocked. Priests learn that one week after ordination."? (I've kept the quote because it is in a short thread of PMs I exchanged at the time with Erin).

When I challenged you back then you slunk off and never replied. You've done the same every time when challenged since. So a final time. Why are priests not to be criticised? What is it about a priest's life (hated, reviled, mocked) that's so different from other professional experiences?

Paperboy, of course I remember that quote, I have an encyclopaedic brain, remembering everything everybody ever wrote. 2006 !!!??? Sheesh.

Anyway your options are:

1/ Start a Purg thread, I can put up an argument which support my alleged statement. This will give you the chance to get over your 8 year old resentment.

2/ Continue to be pretty much ignored by me because my Mum taught me to never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Also I find you (or the be precise your online persona) to be unfriendly, unfunny, unrepentant and pedantic. Whilst many shipmates fall into a couple of those categories you are one of the few who ticks all the boxes.

As others have noted, time to stop salivating every time someone rings my bell.

Pyx_e

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Gentlemen, may I invite you to purgatory?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

You can if you can find any gentlemen.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Boom tish.

I think you'll find my standards sufficiently low.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I'm not certain Olaf has always expressed himself in the most tactful way possible, but I do have some sympathy for his surprise that a major feast receives short shrift in a liturgical church. Except for Christmas, Easter, and perhaps Pentecost I'd be hard pressed to name a more important feast day.

I don't think that's really the issue, though--somehow Olaf managed to step into the cow-pat of lay-clerical relations. After that, Ascension Day became a very minor footnote.

I don't think it's fair to then saddle Olaf with every resentment for every parishioner that makes an inappropriate call on the rector's day off. Perhaps I'm not the best person to comment on that, though--in my trade I've discovered priests and ministers are no more likely to respect my time off either.

I get a LOT of exposure to priests and ministers and from a wide variety of denominations. Some of them are truly the salt of the Earth. There are some on the Ship that I am quite certain are living saints. I would stop and reflect on any post they chose to make. If I found myself near their parish on a Sunday, I would make extraordinary efforts to attend.

A lot of priests and ministers also truly suck at their jobs, and one wonders how they managed to slip through the discernment process. Even when I agree with what they may be saying, they make me cringe at the unhelpful way in which they manage to say it. To pretend these people do not exist is to lose credibility; we all know they do, whether or not we choose to admit it to each other over the clerical-lay divide.

Most, though, are in the middle--muddling along the best they know how, trying to be better Christians and sometimes mucking it up. Surprisingly, perhaps, these are the clerics I like best and from whom I usually learn the most.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Most, though, are in the middle--muddling along the best they know how, trying to be better Christians and sometimes mucking it up.

In other words, people.

quote:
Surprisingly, perhaps, these are the clerics I like best and from whom I usually learn the most.

Not really surprising. Both Superman and Lex Luther are remote and not particularly approachable. And, their life experience is so different from you and me it's difficult to know what they can teach.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Precisely, Alan. And we have a lot of that type on the Ship, too.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
A lot of priests and ministers also truly suck at their jobs, and one wonders how they managed to slip through the discernment process. Even when I agree with what they may be saying, they make me cringe at the unhelpful way in which they manage to say it. To pretend these people do not exist is to lose credibility; we all know they do, whether or not we choose to admit it to each other over the clerical-lay divide.

I don't think I've ever had a parish minister or priest who I thought was genuinely lousy at it. Some are better than others, to be sure, and some I disagreed with profoundly, but I don't think I've encountered any who were really bad. Lousy Archdeacons, on the other hand... [Devil]

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not really surprising. Both Superman and Lex Luther are remote and not particularly approachable. And, their life experience is so different from you and me it's difficult to know what they can teach.

Losing your hair can make you bitter and twisted, and underpants should always be worn underneath.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
A lot of priests and ministers also truly suck at their jobs, and one wonders how they managed to slip through the discernment process. Even when I agree with what they may be saying, they make me cringe at the unhelpful way in which they manage to say it. To pretend these people do not exist is to lose credibility; we all know they do, whether or not we choose to admit it to each other over the clerical-lay divide.

I don't think I've ever had a parish minister or priest who I thought was genuinely lousy at it. Some are better than others, to be sure, and some I disagreed with profoundly, but I don't think I've encountered any who were really bad. Lousy Archdeacons, on the other hand...

So bad you had to go a place without them, eh?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'm not certain Olaf has always expressed himself in the most tactful way possible, but I do have some sympathy for his surprise that a major feast receives short shrift in a liturgical church. Except for Christmas, Easter, and perhaps Pentecost I'd be hard pressed to name a more important feast day.

Whereas I don't recall any of my churches EVER having an Ascension Day service.

Or maybe it was just so trivial in my world that I ignored it.

But my experience has always been that Ascension is mentioned as part of the following Sunday.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Olaf should come over to the dark side. My Church always celebrates Ascension - it is always translated to the nearest Sunday.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I suppose some of that might be regional--more decades ago than I care to admit when I was in college in the Midwest US, one could even find the occasional Baptist church with an Ascension Day service (and it is difficult to find a less liturgical creature than a US Baptist).

Ascension Day marks a major event in the life of Jesus. At a time when just about every church in the US has a service on the national Thanksgiving Day, one might think that worthy of a yearly service.

I've sung in Ascension Day choirs at least three times that I can still remember; it's not quite as unusual as a Celebration of the Feast of King Charles the Martyr.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

It seems that the ordained stick together, which is quite admirable. Do keep in mind that some of you are dedicated shepherds, while there are others in the world who are not. Maybe not many, but they do exist. My statement, while it may have inadvertently hurt those dedicated people who have given their lives to the ministry (for which I have apologized, and for which I even apogize again), comes from a world where not every person is as zealous in their vocation as others. If you've never had to deal with this in your own experience with your own clergy before the laying on of hands, then you are fortunate. If you've never had to deal with colleagues like this, then you are likewise fortunate. I am not as fortunate, nor is my congregation.

Yet, the instant reaction to my comment, which is more reflective of my experience than anybody else's here, leads me to wonder. My own profession takes quite a bit of jabbing, yet I am able to separate attacks on the profession itself from attacks on my person. Notably, personal attacks are something I did not do here to you, but many have done so to me. I'm not prepared to state that your vocation is better than anybody else's, or that it deserves to be held as a privileged caste. That is the Protestant side in me, I know, but it seems many who have jumped into this discussion also fall on this same side of the Reformation. Maybe my mind will change with time, but it doesn't seem right at this moment for me.

As many of our churches face dwindling numbers, many of you here are more and more often going to have to justify your duties. Do you keep and report an inventory of your time management? Do you share and report it to your councils or superiors? I'm sure many do. I'd never ask a pastor to do this, and I would speak up against it happening as a requirement, but I certainly know many congregational council members, treasurers, etc. who certainly would do this. I wouldn't ask a pastor to even keep an eight-hour office day, but this was actually stated and echoed by many in my congregation. My own congregation, and many of its neighbors, have considered hiring part-time ministers. Yes, they exist around here. They're mostly retired folk looking for extra money. We must give great credit to the "tent-makers" among us who already work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Do I support local ordination? Yes. Do I have a problem with reserved sacrament? Absolutely not. Am I calling out the fact that some pastors are busier than others, in some cases having very little to do and in others being overwhelmed? You bet. You can contradict it all you want, but I've spent way too much time in church offices to know better. There's also a lot to be said for the sole priest of a "small" parish of 10,000 with three vocational deacons who all have day jobs and can't help during the week (an extremely common occurrence around here), who says mass five to six times a week. Then there's the sole priest of a parish of 100 with an average attendance of 30, and one mass a week.

It's easy to jump to the defense of simply because they are both ordained, but I'm not so sure that deference to the fact that they are both ordained justifies defending both of their jobs as equally grueling.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

It shouldn't be that difficult to admit that there are clergy who are unfit for the job. Even Jesus had an 8.3% failure rate when he chose his Apostles.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

"We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain his actions in the kindest possible way." Give it a try, my Internet neighbour.

So was that Leaf, defending Olaf and explaining his actions in the kindest possible way?

Well yes, actually. I did not call Olaf names (although I do keep a selection of choice adjectives and nouns in a jar beside the keyboard, and I admit I was tempted. But in this case I did not choose to use them). I did not attribute his comments to malice or stupidity but to frustration. I provided solid spiritual advice. I did challenge him when I felt his interpretation of his own actions and motivations was overly generous to himself, but I rather think that fits the thrust of Luther's commentary.

You, on the other hand... I think I might deal with you differently
[Axe murder]

but that is because you are not Olaf.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Olaf,

Thank you for your apogy. However, this bit of your post was surprising, filled with straw, and misdirected:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Am I calling out the fact that some pastors are busier than others, in some cases having very little to do and in others being overwhelmed? You bet. You can contradict it all you want, but I've spent way too much time in church offices to know better.

Who is contradicting you? What are you talking about? Is this a point that anyone was arguing? Why this sudden narrative of knowledge and superiority on your part, about something only you seem to be arguing?

I would be interested in hearing a more direct response from you to Pyx_e's OP, as there were some pretty strong challenges to you in there. Ah well.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
It seems that the ordained stick together, which is quite admirable.

Great. And now you might want to formulate some kind of meaningful reply to the laity among us.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yep.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
My statement, while it may have inadvertently hurt those dedicated people who have given their lives to the ministry (for which I have apologized, and for which I even apogize again), comes from a world where not every person is as zealous in their vocation as others.

Ah, so you're from the "better to kill 10 innocent men than let one guilty man go free" school. Very Christ-like, I'm sure.

quote:
Yet, the instant reaction to my comment, which is more reflective of my experience than anybody else's here, leads me to wonder.

"Gee, I wonder why, when I took a vicious slash at a whole group of people, only some of whom have offended me, people reacted badly. I can't even possibly imagine. If only someone could explain why my vitriol and red-hot spleen weren't greeted with more acceptance!"

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Olaf:

quote:

I'm not prepared to state that your vocation is better than anybody else's, or that it deserves to be held as a privileged caste

Perhaps you could indicate the 'many' who have stated this on this thread? I seem to be missing that on my screen here.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
My statement, while it may have inadvertently hurt those dedicated people who have given their lives to the ministry (for which I have apologized, and for which I even apogize again), comes from a world where not every person is as zealous in their vocation as others.

This is true in every single occupation.

Sweeping generalisations simply don't cover it. And this is your problem, sweeping generalisations. I would stay away from them here if I were you.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I could not survive on a CofE clergyperson's stipend, still less on that of a Catholic clergyman. Hats off to those who do.

[ 04. June 2014, 10:39: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I'm not certain Olaf has always expressed himself in the most tactful way possible, but I do have some sympathy for his surprise that a major feast receives short shrift in a liturgical church. Except for Christmas, Easter, and perhaps Pentecost I'd be hard pressed to name a more important feast day.
Whereas I don't recall any of my churches EVER having an Ascension Day service.

GASP! In the CAPITOL??? (double gasp).

My coupla hundred congo local has one.

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It shouldn't be that difficult to admit that there are clergy who are unfit for the job. Even Jesus had an 8.3% failure rate when he chose his Apostles.

No. He had a 100% failure rate. They were all rather stupid knobs most of the time. Oh. And they deserted him too when push came to shove...

As for Judas. He wasn't a failure. He was destined for that role.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
...
As many of our churches face dwindling numbers, many of you here are more and more often going to have to justify your duties. Do you keep and report an inventory of your time management? Do you share and report it to your councils or superiors? I'm sure many do. I'd never ask a pastor to do this, and I would speak up against it happening as a requirement, but I certainly know many congregational council members, treasurers, etc. who certainly would do this. I wouldn't ask a pastor to even keep an eight-hour office day, but this was actually stated and echoed by many in my congregation. My own congregation, and many of its neighbors, have considered hiring part-time ministers. Yes, they exist around here. They're mostly retired folk looking for extra money. We must give great credit to the "tent-makers" among us who already work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Most Pastors work well over an eight hour day, but you seem to be implying that most do considerably less than that.

Part time ministry is already happening. Part time works when the congregation accespts that part time means really means part time. Rather than full time hours for part time money. The church would still have stump for accomodation, expenses etc. Most of the people who go for it are either retired ministers, married to someone in a well paid job or working two jobs.

Hiring a retired minister who's willing to work for less money may solve one problem - but means there are less positions available for ministers coming out of college or looking for their next role. If churches aren't offering opportunities for the next generation to develop their skills and career etc, then they're going to have real issues when those retired ministers finally retire for good.

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

Do I support local ordination? Yes. Do I have a problem with reserved sacrament? Absolutely not. Am I calling out the fact that some pastors are busier than others, in some cases having very little to do and in others being overwhelmed? You bet. You can contradict it all you want, but I've spent way too much time in church offices to know better. There's also a lot to be said for the sole priest of a "small" parish of 10,000 with three vocational deacons who all have day jobs and can't help during the week (an extremely common occurrence around here), who says mass five to six times a week. Then there's the sole priest of a parish of 100 with an average attendance of 30, and one mass a week.

It's easy to jump to the defense of simply because they are both ordained, but I'm not so sure that deference to the fact that they are both ordained justifies defending both of their jobs as equally grueling.

Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass. [Roll Eyes]

The Minister with an attendance of 30 and a Parish of 100 might also be running a food bank, doing pastoral visits, schools work, building inter-church relationships, organising the safeguarding programme etc

The minister with a small parish of 10,000 might have a team who does the pastoral visits and runs the food banks etc, but is also doing schools work, running the youth club, the safeguarding etc.

How about giving equal credit to all who serve in church regardless of whether they're ordained or not?! Rather than playing the numbers game to work out how is a slacker and who isn't.

Tubbs

[ 04. June 2014, 14:48: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass.

No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

If the rest of the congregation wants a youth group, foodbank or closer relationship with the parish next door but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they can do it anyway. If the rest of the congregation wants an extra Communion service but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they're shit out of luck.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass.
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

If the rest of the congregation wants a youth group, foodbank or closer relationship with the parish next door but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they can do it anyway. If the rest of the congregation wants an extra Communion service but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they're shit out of luck.

Shit out of luck and bus-timetables. Bummer.

Pyx_e

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I've not met the pastor who refuses to put on an extra communion service for a congregation that wants it (and will turn up) because he'd rather do social work. Seriously.

What I have met are pastors who would gladly do the extra services (many agitate for them) but nobody will turn up. While at the same time the pastors are under constant pressure to do the food bankery, ecumenicalwhatsit, bus route, administrivia, etc. because "it's your job, Pastor, and we have to work and take care of our families."

Perhaps the pastor ought to say "Hell no, you can do the stuff you're pressuring me to do and I'll hold an Ascension Day service to which one or two people will turn up, no more." Perhaps he ought. But given the immense pressure from the whole congregation to do the reverse...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It is extremely disheartening when, in our Congregationalist tradition, we spend time in Church Meeting deciding to put on an event - only to find, on the day, virtually no-one comes.

This has happened with our Harvest Evening service; many people say, "Oh, we must have that" but then stay home watching TV.

It seems that people are often quite good at making decisions like this, which they then feel should only apply to other people.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass.
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

If the rest of the congregation wants a youth group, foodbank or closer relationship with the parish next door but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they can do it anyway. If the rest of the congregation wants an extra Communion service but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they're shit out of luck.

What actually happens in many places is that they want a youth group, foodbank and closer relationship with the parish next door - or say they do - but 'want' it in a kind of intellectual, I can have a warm satisfied glow if we have these things kind of way. Which involves not lifting a bloody finger to generate these things but having a fit of pique if the Minister withdraws from supplying them in order to provide the other warm, satisfying glow of having an Ascension Day service.

Congregations can sometimes be little more than consumers of theological services.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass.
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

If there's a requirement for a particular service, that can be arranged by non-ordained members of the church. If you can't find an organist, or someone else to play music, you can decide whether to have hymns and if so select hymns that can be sung unaccompanied. If no one is willing to preach a 20 minute homily, find people to share short thoughts on the readings.

In many, but not all, traditions if you want Communion then that part of the service would need to be lead by an ordained minister. If you can't get an ordained minister interested then you'll have to have a service without Communion.

It's not rocket science. If someone thinks marking Ascension with a service on Thursday is important then they can arrange a service to mark that. The nature of that service - choice of music/hymns, existence and length of sermon, with or without Communion - is going to be a function of those who can attend and want to assist in organisation. If it's important to celebrate an event with a church service it must surely be better to have a service that doesn't tick all the boxes than to have no service at all.

If you can organise a service of 20 people but there's no minister for Communion that puts you in a strong position to get the minister to participate next year, or good basis to write a letter to complain that the minister couldn't be arsed to come. On the other hand, if you can't get anyone else interested in holding such a service then you can't blame the minister for considering his other duties are more important than leading a Communion service for you.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

[Overused]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Yes, hear hear, Alan. And I think orfeo is bang on the money about church attenders sometimes (often...?) being little more than consumers. If people think something is important then surely, surely, surely they should put whatever effort they can into making it happen themselves, instead of merely complaining that someone (usually the minister, of course) should make it happen.

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

As we planned for Christmas Eve, some years ago, I told Parish Council my plans. I minister in a very remote and rural parish, in a special denominational unit that deals with the utterly remote ministries. I will travel two hours out from our tiny town, to one of my frontier churches, I said, and do a Christmas Eve service, and then drive home. (With another two hour drive). But here in town, I suggested "you all attend the ecumenical Christmas BBQ and carols in tne park (Christmas is in summer here). If you want a midnight service, and as I would not yet be home, you could walk across the road, from my church, to the Anglican Church, and go there." I would do a morning service, however, on Christmas Day.
Most people thought that was reasonable. Some were very distressed that I was abandoning the town church, the mother church, as it were, and leaving them alone and unloved at this most holy of nights. So, I said that if they were that set on an Eve service, then they could do it themselves. Whilst initially excited, in the end, they saw reason, and agreed with my plans...
For weeks after, people around town asked me if it was true I had cruelly laughed at the church council and told them they had to do all Christmas worship services whilst I had parties and orgies and stuff. Even tne hairdresser asked, in all seriousness, about this. Sighsighsigh.
Eventually though, in the end, we had a lovely Christmas. But I am sure some parish councillors still believe the old orgy/party perspective.
Sometimes you can't win.

[ 05. June 2014, 08:27: Message edited by: Rowen ]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you can organise a service of 20 people but there's no minister for Communion that puts you in a strong position to get the minister to participate next year, or good basis to write a letter to complain that the minister couldn't be arsed to come. On the other hand, if you can't get anyone else interested in holding such a service then you can't blame the minister for considering his other duties are more important than leading a Communion service for you.

In traditions that center on the Mass, however, it is the focal point of the worship service. Music, a sermon, etc. can all be considered extraneous, but the Mass itself cannot.

In my high-church parish, daily mass entails only the priest and one attendant server, and even he is technically superfluous. The liturgy itself does not have to change, so there really is very little effort needed. In nearly all traditions, the Ascension ranks right behind Easter/The Triduum in terms of importance. Furthermore, if the priest really has an unavoidable conflict, he can always arrange for someone from another parish to celebrate the Mass instead. If attendance is the main concern, multiple parishes can combine for a single service, as some parishes local to me regularly do.

I am unsure if there are many good excuses for omitting observance of the Ascension.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What actually happens in many places is that they want a youth group, foodbank and closer relationship with the parish next door - or say they do - but 'want' it in a kind of intellectual, I can have a warm satisfied glow if we have these things kind of way. Which involves not lifting a bloody finger to generate these things but having a fit of pique if the Minister withdraws from supplying them in order to provide the other warm, satisfying glow of having an Ascension Day service.

Congregations can sometimes be little more than consumers of theological services.

Well then the congregation can just fuck off. I've got no time for that shit, and if they don't really want to do it then that's on them.

But the dynamic is just not the same when it comes to a service of Holy Communion. That is the one and only thing a church can do where the minister does not have the option of saying "if you wanted it that badly you'd do it yourself". Oh, and it also happens to be the single most important and foundational act of worship in the entire religion.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rowen:
Eventually though, in the end, we had a lovely Christmas. But I am sure some parish councillors still believe the old orgy/party perspective.
Sometimes you can't win.

They're just jealous.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass.
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

If the rest of the congregation wants a youth group, foodbank or closer relationship with the parish next door but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they can do it anyway. If the rest of the congregation wants an extra Communion service but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they're shit out of luck.
What actually happens in many places is that they want a youth group, foodbank and closer relationship with the parish next door - or say they do - but 'want' it in a kind of intellectual, I can have a warm satisfied glow if we have these things kind of way. Which involves not lifting a bloody finger to generate these things but having a fit of pique if the Minister withdraws from supplying them in order to provide the other warm, satisfying glow of having an Ascension Day service.

Congregations can sometimes be little more than consumers of theological services.

They can sometimes want things in the same way a child wants a hamster - they're less enthusiastic about cleaning its cage, changing its bedding and taking it to the vet.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Yeah, because all Ministers do is say Mass.
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

If the rest of the congregation wants a youth group, foodbank or closer relationship with the parish next door but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they can do it anyway. If the rest of the congregation wants an extra Communion service but their Minister doesn't want to be involved, they're shit out of luck.
What actually happens in many places is that they want a youth group, foodbank and closer relationship with the parish next door - or say they do - but 'want' it in a kind of intellectual, I can have a warm satisfied glow if we have these things kind of way. Which involves not lifting a bloody finger to generate these things but having a fit of pique if the Minister withdraws from supplying them in order to provide the other warm, satisfying glow of having an Ascension Day service.

Congregations can sometimes be little more than consumers of theological services.
They can sometimes want things in the same way a child wants a hamster - they're less enthusiastic about cleaning its cage, changing its bedding and taking it to the vet.

Swop the hamster for gerbils and I know exactly what you mean. Feeding and petting is fine, but cleaning the cage and hoovering up the sawdust they flick ...!

It’s actually a bit more complicated … Each congregation is going to have its own set of expectations – spoken and unspoken – about what the Minister does. And most of them only start at, “Says Mass”.

Congregations will also expect pastoral visits, keeping an eye on the church fabric, community work, inter-church relations etc. In a larger church, there may be people to help with that. In a smaller church, the Minister does that. All that needs to be fitted around planning the service, any wider responsiblities you have in the demonination and family life.

Each congregation works differently. Some congregations will just run stuff by the Minister and then get on with making it happen. Others will want things, but may need a Ministerial shove to get on with it. Once they’re getting on with it, the Minister can take a step back. Others will expect the Minister to do everything, and if the Minister doesn’t, then it doesn’t happen.

There is a fairly compelling argument that if congregations want the warm and fuzzy glow from having things, but aren’t prepared to do any of the work – or even turn up if they’re arranged - they deserve a hearty “fuck you”. But no Minister with any sense is actually going to come out and say that.

But it’s the old double standard. Congregations want church resources used wisely – until it means something they value stops. It’s fine for congregations to be too busy during the week to do anything, but the Minister should always be available and there should always be something going on. But if a one off service is only attended by 10 people, 3 of whom are only there because they’re needed and takes a few hours to plan, then should it take place?

This dialogue is going to get more pointed as Ministry changes. Olaf wants Ministers to embrace part time and post retirement working, justify how they spend their time etc. All very sensible – but that means congregation’s expectations also need to change. In some cases, these changes mean Ministers will be doing less. If your Minister is part time and only works two days a week at church, plus Sunday then you’re not going to get a special, one off service for blah if it falls on a day that the Minister doesn’t work. Even if it means that it can’t happen because s/he’s not there. Part time means exactly that and there won’t always be someone else available to cover.

Tubbs

[ 05. June 2014, 10:57: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am unsure if there are many good excuses for omitting observance of the Ascension.

And yet a great many people, on multiple threads now across multiple boards, have pointed out that their own personal history involves vast swathes of the church that haven't observed the Ascension on a Thursday, only on the following Sunday.

This doesn't appeared to have been a schism-worthy failing, until now.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am unsure if there are many good excuses for omitting observance of the Ascension.
And yet a great many people, on multiple threads now across multiple boards, have pointed out that their own personal history involves vast swathes of the church that haven't observed the Ascension on a Thursday, only on the following Sunday.

This doesn't appeared to have been a schism-worthy failing, until now.

GCabot does appear to base his statement on what goes on in his own high-church parish, which follows tradition and liturgy.

There are many churches that do not celebrate Ascension Day on a particular Thursday OR Sunday, but they probably celebrate the Ascension every week, if not more often.

[ 05. June 2014, 11:21: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I remember being trekked from school to church on some day of festivity which must have been Ascension day. There was still an Easter garden filling the chapel of the local saint. ("Miss S may not have taught you to read," said a fellow teacher years later, "but she will have taught you the saints' days." No she didn't - my mother took me away after the reading thing.) I was very naughty and did not bow my head to the local saint because we didn't do saints in our church. (Sorry - I missed out respecting a teenage female Jutish engineer who died at 22 from nursing plague victims.)

[ 05. June 2014, 11:29: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

My church did not have an Ascension service. I would have liked to have one very much. However, in general our rector does an excellent job, and he's a very nice human being.

I have accepted the fact that I can't have everything.

Moo

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet a great many people, on multiple threads now across multiple boards, have pointed out that their own personal history involves vast swathes of the church that haven't observed the Ascension on a Thursday, only on the following Sunday.

This doesn't appeared to have been a schism-worthy failing, until now.

I'm not sure it can be called "schism-worthy" even now, but I'm too guilty of using hyperbole myself to justifiably criticize someone else for it.

I do think it is interesting to note that when the topic first came up in Ecclesiantics, though, almost everyone who commented on the first page was celebrating Ascension and most, though not all, were doing so on Thursday. It may not be that unusual--Eccles has its continuing cast of characters just as the Hell board does, but I think it does show that in strongly liturgical traditions the thought of an Ascension Thursday Mass shouldn't be considered beyond the pale whether or not one's own parish may be choosing to offer it.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have accepted the fact that I can't have everything.

Easy to say when you're a rational adult who doesn't think the world revolves around you.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Organ Builder and Moo are very wise.

Until we get "like" buttons, I'm just going to do that from now on.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Until we get "like" buttons, I'm just going to do that from now on.

"Until?" Hell will freeze the fuck over before anyone here allows stupid shit like that to take root. Fight the facebookification of the Internet, comrades!

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I do not belong to Facebook and I never will.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Olaf should come over to the dark side. My Church always celebrates Ascension - it is always translated to the nearest Sunday.

Ha! The Plot™ always celebrates Ascension -- ON ASCENSION. Although we have our share of bitter and troublemaking converts at the moment, so never mind.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It’s actually a bit more complicated … Each congregation is going to have its own set of expectations – spoken and unspoken – about what the Minister does. And most of them only start at, “Says Mass”. ...

Congregations want church resources used wisely – until it means something they value stops. It’s fine for congregations to be too busy during the week to do anything, but the Minister should always be available and there should always be something going on. ...

This dialogue is going to get more pointed as Ministry changes. Olaf wants Ministers to embrace part time and post retirement working, justify how they spend their time etc. All very sensible – but that means congregation’s expectations also need to change. In some cases, these changes mean Ministers will be doing less. If your Minister is part time and only works two days a week at church, plus Sunday then you’re not going to get a special, one off service for blah if it falls on a day that the Minister doesn’t work. Even if it means that it can’t happen because s/he’s not there. Part time means exactly that and there won’t always be someone else available to cover.

Strangely enough, within a few minutes of Tubbs writing that, a (supposedly national) meeting of Baptist Ministers in London was saying exactly the same thing ...

Or was Tubbs secretly posting from the back pew?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE] No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.

Is it not time to rethink, then, just who can say Mass and reflect on what "ordination" might mean in a 21st century context?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tubbs:
[qb] Strangely enough, within a few minutes of Tubbs writing that, a (supposedly national) meeting of Baptist Ministers in London was saying exactly the same thing ...

Or was Tubbs secretly posting from the back pew?

Cor, what was that and why wasn't I invited? (screams). That's your liberal partiality against us radicals, that is.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is it not time to rethink, then, just who can say Mass and reflect on what "ordination" might mean in a 21st century context?

Some ideas on this

No 6 is my favourite, but I suspect the CofE will opt to continue its default mode of 12.

The masses will continue not attending church unless they have to for the rites of passage, or giving any more money than they have to, and the church will continue doing what it is doing in the hope that suddenly the masses will see the light and flock in. [Confused]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

6 is good. I think that most congregations could find, from their number, a responsible and respectable and sensible person who could be ordained to ensure that the sacraments are celebrated. Just a 'Mass priest', some might say, but why not? Better that than no Mass at all. If s/he can preach, too, that's good: otherwise, provide a new version of the Book of Homilies, presumably as an online resource.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Strangely enough, within a few minutes of Tubbs writing that, a (supposedly national) meeting of Baptist Ministers in London was saying exactly the same thing ...

Or was Tubbs secretly posting from the back pew?
Cor, what was that and why wasn't I invited? (screams). That's your liberal partiality against us radicals, that is.

It was open to all (mind you, there were only about 35 present) ... they're going to do another but it will be in Huddersfield. (I'm not a member of the Baptist Ministers' Fellowship BTW, I heard of this through my Association).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Sorry: this is the link.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is it not time to rethink, then, just who can say Mass and reflect on what "ordination" might mean in a 21st century context?
Some ideas on this

No 6 is my favourite, but I suspect the CofE will opt to continue its default mode of 12.

Heh, if ordination is still judged to be necessary for one to preside at a communion service, then indeed why not offer ordination to everyone? I like it!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not ordained as Minister of Word & Sacrament, though I am ordained as an Elder. I am authorised, by decision of Church Meeting and confirmed by the denomination, to preside at Communion in my church. I lead worship, preaching and presiding, about 6 times a year. I can only preside at another church if the Church Meeting there decides to permit me. It works for us, it means we can celebrate weekly Communion with a minister who serves two churches. We do have a bit of palaver (limiting to Elders, an input from the denominational offices confirming the call to preside, some training) to temper our natural inclination that anyone the congregation recognises may preside for ecumenical reasons.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.
Is it not time to rethink, then, just who can say Mass and reflect on what "ordination" might mean in a 21st century context?

Ooh, YES PLEASE!

Option 6 from that other link is the way to go.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm not sure this is a 'fix', although I do think there are some advantages to locally ordained 'massing priests'. In some circumstances, depending on where it happens some would weigh up the time and effort out in to creating a service to which only one person turns up. Personally that would not bother me, but I can understand that for some it would eventually dishearten. An issue that hasn't really been touched on, which I suspect is actually a very real contributing factor for many parishes, is the cost of heat and light (depending of course when the feast falls), especially in any parish where there are seriously limited resources.

I don't know if it was on this thread or another, but the idea of having a joint or combined service within a particular geographical area is one that to my mind makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Strangely enough, within a few minutes of Tubbs writing that, a (supposedly national) meeting of Baptist Ministers in London was saying exactly the same thing ...

Or was Tubbs secretly posting from the back pew?
Cor, what was that and why wasn't I invited? (screams). That's your liberal partiality against us radicals, that is.
It was open to all (mind you, there were only about 35 present) ... they're going to do another but it will be in Huddersfield. (I'm not a member of the Baptist Ministers' Fellowship BTW, I heard of this through my Association).

Your link is busted. [Big Grin]

No one in their right mind is going to invite me to a national minister's conference. [Killing me]

Churches that operate on a self funding model for minitry - with a very small central pot for those that can't - face the danger that full time, paid Ministry is going end up being the preserve of wealthy churches. And there's a limited nubmer of those.

Other churches will either not be able to have a minister, share one with others, have a part timer or non-stipendary.

That's going to mean a fairly radical change in the understanding of Ministry and the Call as well at all levels - Assocation, Ministers and congregations. As well as the day to day challenges mentioned previously.

Then there's all the practical things - like how many people train for Ministry if there are less jobs for them to fill. (Not the same as how many get called btw). Some new grads may be in a position to go part time, combine Ministry with another job or be non-stipendary. But some won't. (This could skew things regionally as well due to differences in employment prospects).

OTH, if they do want to invite me to speak, my rates are quite cheap! [Biased]

Tubbs

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not ordained as Minister of Word & Sacrament, though I am ordained as an Elder. I am authorised, by decision of Church Meeting and confirmed by the denomination, to preside at Communion in my church. I lead worship, preaching and presiding, about 6 times a year. I can only preside at another church if the Church Meeting there decides to permit me. It works for us, it means we can celebrate weekly Communion with a minister who serves two churches. We do have a bit of palaver (limiting to Elders, an input from the denominational offices confirming the call to preside, some training) to temper our natural inclination that anyone the congregation recognises may preside for ecumenical reasons.

I, too, am an elder (PC(USA)), but for us it works a little differently. Presuming I undergo necessary training, I could be commissioned by presbytery to preach and celebrate the sacraments, for a limited time, in a congregation (other than my own) that lacks a minister. Only elders may be commissioned by presbytery in this way.

The other thing that strikes me as I read through this thread and the Ascension Day thread is that in our set-up, only the Session—the council of elders that governs and has care for the congregation—can authorize celebration of the sacraments. That means that while a minister must preside at the Eucharist, the decision whether or not a service will include the Eucharist is not made by that minister alone. In most congregations, the Session typically approves a year-long calendar that specifies all celebrations of the Eucharist during that time, though this can ne revisted at any time. This means, for example, that were an Ascension Day Eucharist desired, the decision would not be the minister's, though it certainly would not be made without her input and awareness of her availability. The decision of whether to have a service that day and whether that service would include Communion would be Session's.

The theory behind both authorization of celebration of the sacraments by Session and presidency by the minister is to ensure order and that celebrations of sacraments are acts of the church, not of individuals within the church. But reading this thread I think a practical purpose is that celebrations on special days other than Sundays have some vetting and buy-in in advance, as well as a chance for discussion as to when the congregation might particularly want "special" services and might want the Eucharist celebrated at them.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, but saying Mass is the only thing they do that cannot be done by anyone else.
Is it not time to rethink, then, just who can say Mass and reflect on what "ordination" might mean in a 21st century context?
Ooh, YES PLEASE!

Option 6 from that other link is the way to go.

I'm not sure about option 6. There surely is a difference between callings and God-given authority. Whether ordination still means to everyone a calling into a holy order is questionable however, and I do think that a lot of reflection and prayer is needed.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Then he left and we got a new pastor. She was there for over a year and during that time she did one thing only. She did the Sunday service complete with Eucharist and a fluffy ten minute sermon. That was all. She never once kept the Wednesday or Saturday office hours she had promised, she went to zero meetings or home visitations, and worst of all, she never returned a single phone call. Lifetime members of that church died and were buried without her help.

Twilight, just so it's clear, I'm not saying that this is how a priest or pastor should be. Your minister was short-changing her parish, obviously. What I mean to say is that Eucharist is foundational, and neglecting to celebrate it on a holy day for which the BCP provides propers in order to conduct meetings or whatever is a sign that one's priorities are ass-backwards.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Never mind the BCP (the RCL provides readings, in fact, for morning prayer and evening prayer of the day), within the Anglican church Ascension Sunday is one of the eight Principle Festivals.

My guess that a Mass (or whatever you may wish to call it) would have taken place in parishes where it hadn't, if enough people would have shown willingness to attend/sing in the choir, if they have one/do sacristan duties/open and close the church/handle lighting and books or service sheets. Generally, a less priest-focussed orientation (while reserving the sacraments to them but with flexible things like having Eucharistic Ministers like the RCs do) would be better for everyone.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

I am very late to this thread. But I want to distance myself from those clerics who have got so worked up about this. I think Olaf is right, because I think it's about priorities. Every now and then I need someone like Olaf to remind me what my priorities should be.

There is a true story of a priest visiting Nepal. His guide tells him "We love your Catholic Church. You build us hospitals, you give us clinics, you provide us with schools, you feed the poor people. But we are puzzled. Why do you not have any holy men?"

Indeed.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

Triple Tiara [Overused]

Thank you!

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am very late to this thread. But I want to distance myself from those clerics who have got so worked up about this. I think Olaf is right, because I think it's about priorities. Every now and then I need someone like Olaf to remind me what my priorities should be.

How nice for you. All that it means is that you have misread the thread.

Olaf has repeatedly whined in Ecclesiantics about clergy not doing what he wants. Some of what he wants is legitimate, some is ridiculous, some merely matters of taste. All of it demonstrates that he has no understanding or sympathy with actual pastoral ministry as it is lived in his context. He was called to Hell for saying, "Heh...I've long given up expecting clergy to do their job." That includes you, my dear distancing brother. Do you think you would be the one and only clergy who could please Olaf? Blessed art thou if that would be true!

Anyone who thinks that this is about clergy not wanting to lead worship on Ascension Day has got it entirely, back-assward, up the wazoo wrong. Lamb Chopped (I think it was) pointed out "I can't think of a single Lutheran pastor who would not be delighted to have to put on a non-Sunday service because there were a bunch of people eager and ready to attend one." This is also my experience.

You may point out that expectations around leading worship are different between RC's and Lutherans, and you would be correct. Lutherans would be extremely, vanishingly unlikely to initiate or keep holding a service at which there was only one other participant. In Lutheran polity, that does not make them lazy, but sensible.

Olaf suffers from a doctrinal/liturgical split in which he professes to love Lutheran doctrine while also loving an RC sensibility about worship leadership. I pity him, because rare is the Lutheran parish which would fit his needs (and no clergy, apparently [Frown]

). But the Hellish point is that no clergy, anywhere, by his own admission, lives up to his standards. Not even you, TT.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

And I think you protest too much.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Ha! My sins are as scarlet, but liturgical laziness is not one of them.

If anything you may accuse me of sensitivity to unfairness, as I find myself in the crosshairs along with other less defensible clergy. But then I wonder, "Jesus, why are any of us in the crosshairs? Why are we shooting at our own army?"

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]

No one in their right mind is going to invite me to a national minister's conference.

OTH, if they do want to invite me to speak, my rates are quite cheap!

Tubbs

Nor me - I'm expensive as well. Consultancy Rates start at £130 per hour ....

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am unsure if there are many good excuses for omitting observance of the Ascension.
And yet a great many people, on multiple threads now across multiple boards, have pointed out that their own personal history involves vast swathes of the church that haven't observed the Ascension on a Thursday, only on the following Sunday.

This doesn't appeared to have been a schism-worthy failing, until now.

I did not mean to imply that Baptist ministers, for example, should be castigated for failing to observe the Ascension on Thursday. My point was directed towards those denominations where the importance of the Ascension is specifically promoted as a feast of the highest order. It seems odd to affiliate with a denomination with such views, yet spurn this observation, not even based on theology, but based on logistics.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Nor me - I'm expensive as well. Consultancy Rates start at £130 per hour ....

Does that include expenses, sustentation and/or VAT?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Heh, if ordination is still judged to be necessary for one to preside at a communion service, then indeed why not offer ordination to everyone? I like it!

Marco Polo's Travels contains an anecdote somewhere about a very isolated Nestorian community in Central Asia which received a visit from its bishop about once every fifty years. In consequence absolutely everyone in the community got ordained, on the grounds that they wouldn't get a second chance for another half-century ...

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am very late to this thread. But I want to distance myself from those clerics who have got so worked up about this. I think Olaf is right, because I think it's about priorities. Every now and then I need someone like Olaf to remind me what my priorities should be.

There is a true story of a priest visiting Nepal. His guide tells him "We love your Catholic Church. You build us hospitals, you give us clinics, you provide us with schools, you feed the poor people. But we are puzzled. Why do you not have any holy men?"

Indeed.

Just to be clear TTT are you suggesting that having a Ascension Day Eucharist (or being more devoted to the Eucharistic generally) equates directly to being a holy man?

Pyx_e

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I am very late to this thread. But I want to distance myself from those clerics who have got so worked up about this.

And I for one am grateful for your distancing, keep it up!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
My point was directed towards those denominations where the importance of the Ascension is specifically promoted as a feast of the highest order. It seems odd to affiliate with a denomination with such views, yet spurn this observation, not even based on theology, but based on logistics.

And which part of theology says that the only way you can legitimately observe Ascension Day is with a communion service?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Nor me - I'm expensive as well. Consultancy Rates start at £130 per hour ....
Does that include expenses, sustentation and/or VAT?

The first two, not the latter: I can get there on that and feed myself. As regards VAT I'm currently under the threshold.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
My point was directed towards those denominations where the importance of the Ascension is specifically promoted as a feast of the highest order. It seems odd to affiliate with a denomination with such views, yet spurn this observation, not even based on theology, but based on logistics.
And which part of theology says that the only way you can legitimately observe Ascension Day is with a communion service?

Certainly this is not strictly required, but if one worships in a tradition that considers the Holy Eucharist to be the core of the worship service, it is certainly odd to omit it, particularly on such an important day that outranks the importance of normal Sunday observations, for example.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Ha! My sins are as scarlet, but liturgical laziness is not one of them.

If anything you may accuse me of sensitivity to unfairness, as I find myself in the crosshairs along with other less defensible clergy. But then I wonder, "Jesus, why are any of us in the crosshairs? Why are we shooting at our own army?"

Olaf is taking up way too much space in your head. If you want to keep reading Ecclesiantics and not be troubled by his posts, just scroll right past them. So that we weak creatures need not be bothered by such things was in fact the very reason God created the scroll feature.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]

No one in their right mind is going to invite me to a national minister's conference.

OTH, if they do want to invite me to speak, my rates are quite cheap!

Tubbs
Nor me - I'm expensive as well. Consultancy Rates start at £130 per hour ....

If they went for the twofer, I reckon their little heads would explode. [Snigger]

TT, what I resent about Olaf's comments is the unspoken assumption that when something doesn't happen in church / something happens that you don't approve of, it's always because the Minister is a lazy git or a bad lot etc. Whilst there will be times when that's the case, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's because the congregation don't see the need to combine wanting something with actually doing something about it. Like turning up.

Tubbs

[ 07. June 2014, 22:10: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Olaf is taking up way too much space in your head.

I am sorry I gave that impression. Mostly my headspace is taken up by Jesus and gardening these days.

quote:
If you want to keep reading Ecclesiantics and not be troubled by his posts, just scroll right past them. So that we weak creatures need not be bothered by such things was in fact the very reason God created the scroll feature.

I am aware of this option, thank you. If your sage advice were equally applied all over the Ship, there would be no need for Hell to exist. Yet people continue to be irritated by other people's remarks and call them to Hell, such as Pyx_e has here.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Pyx_e, ignoring Ruth's advice since 2001.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And look what happens.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Yeah, but it's entertaining!

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

I'm looking for the "like" button so hard on that!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0