Thread: Is nepotism alive and well in the church? 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=027329
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
We have all hear about Joel Osteen's church in Texas (the biggest in the USA apparently). He took it over from his Dad. Even in Billy Graham's fiefdom his son has taken on the mantle of the esteemed man himself.

Is nepotism a factor in the UK church?

Saul the Apostle
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well...
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well...
Oh..............dear..............

Saul [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
Why couldn't he have stuck with the snooker?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Interestingly, there were accusations of nepotism when Paul Beasley-Murray was appointed Principal of Spurgeon's College (Baptist) back in the 80s - his father George had been Principal, although with someone else in-between.

The accusations were unfounded, although I suspect that some members of the College Council may have been a bit entranced with the B-M name - after all, George had been a very distinguished theologian.

[ 28. April 2014, 06:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
'Staying in the family' seems to be more common among the charismatic churches. Not only do we have instance of Terry & Joel Virgo linked to above, but Colin Urquhart's Kingdom Faith church is now led by his son Clive. Also, Roger & Faith Forster, who founded Ichthus, though still in oversight of all the churches in that network, have left the leadership of their home congregation to their daughter, Debbie.

I would hesitate to go to calling it nepotism, though. I think more understanding would be needed as to how the children of these ministers came to be in ministry themselves. More often than not, it's a case of them seeing what their parents do (as any child does) and choosing to follow in their footsteps.

When it comes to their particular appointments, though the circumstances may well warrant a susoicion of nepotism, I would rather be gracious and consider all parties innocent until proven guilty.

After all, shouldn't we know them by their fruit?
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
'Staying in the family' seems to be more common among the charismatic churches.
I don't think the fact that they are charismatic has anything to do with it. It's really independent churches that do not have a structured ordination process, that have this issue.

In the Church of England many vicars' children enter ministry themselves. The difference is that they have to go through the studies and training. It's not possible for someone to just announce that their son will be the next parish priest.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In the Church of England many vicars' children enter ministry themselves. The difference is that they have to go through the studies and training. It's not possible for someone to just announce that their son will be the next parish priest.
Do you know there is no training, or do you presume? I have known all of those I mentioned above and am aware that at least one did go through an intensive training course. The others I am unaware if they did or did not, but without knowing, I wouldn't cast aspersions.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
[Do you know there is no training, or do you presume? I have known all of those I mentioned above and am aware that at least one did go through an intensive training course. The others I am unaware if they did or did not, but without knowing, I wouldn't cast aspersions.
I didn't say there was no training. I said there is no structured ordination process. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong. I spent many years in an independent evangelical church and my view is based on that. I did a lot of research on some of these churches in the UK when I was coming back to Christianity and the lack of clear structure in selection of leaders was what led me to avoid them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I wouldn't cast aspersions, either. I know a few people who've entered the same profession as one of their parents (because of my age, usually the father) - my boiler engineer's son will inherit the business, for example, and my best man is a Rev, like his dad.

But. I think there's a difference between hoping and expecting. A friend has written a book on the problems family businesses face in handing off the company from its founder to the next generation down: there's a great deal of expectation that sons/daughters will not only know the business, but love it. Children will want to please their parents, no matter what dreams and ambitions they have of their own.

I'm therefore wary of dynasties - whatever competency that enabled the first of that line to succeed isn't necessarily transmissible either through genetics or teaching (Olympic athletes aside - the best indication of getting a medal is to have one or both parents former athletes). The idea in this case that the best person to lead a church is the child of the person who led the church previously - out of all the other people in the church - smacks of failure, not of success.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think there can also be a spousal thing too, often in the sense of wives marrying a famous-name son in the expectation that this will secure them a leading place in a church or other organisation they admire. This too can put pressure on the son.

I'm really adverse to in-the-family appointments. I want my kids to be them, not extensions of me. In my secular job, one of my daughters is now project manager contributing to a programme I'm also subcontracting to, but by a completely independent route, and for a different aspect of the job. Which is weird in a nice kind of way.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Are any of these people occupying jobs you'd like and feel you're better qualified to do?

If not, does any of this matter?
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Are any of these people occupying jobs you'd like and feel you're better qualified to do?

If not, does any of this matter?
In the church I grew up in, I knew people who wanted to go into leadership and were hurt by being passed over for the child of a minister or the spouse of a minister's child.

It's not good for a church to have that type of resentment stewing in the pews.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
With regard to churches, to me it all comes down to checks and balances. While a son or daughter may be well-qualified for the position, it is going to be really hard to ensure relationships with them are not affected - and judgement not coloured - by their family ties.

As Doc Tor says, it's a source of potential weakness.

For similar reasons, I don't think it's a good idea for people to take on leadership positions within social action type charities of which they themselves have been beneficiaries.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Are any of these people occupying jobs you'd like and feel you're better qualified to do?

If not, does any of this matter?
If someone holds a job because, to some extent, of who they are (who's child they are), that will affect how they fill the role. There could be a sense of entitlement. They might bring a legacy or authority wrapped up in their name.

You wouldn't be expected to receive their leadership simply because of its quality, but because of its source. To question that leadership would be to challenge the tradition of the church.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
In the US at least it seems to be very much a borrowing of the mentality that is common amongst most family businesses - albeit applied to the church. Even before direct succession it's not unusual to see mega churches where the majority of the leaders immediate (and in some cases extended) family is employed within the church in some capacity.

I think it's common amongst some churches in the UK which naturally look to North America as a model for some of the same reasons. I'm not sure that's the case with all the churches mentioned above, but it is a factor for some.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The problem exists among some of the mainline denominations that are ethnically sourced, for example, the Lutherans who came out of Saxony. I remember having a perfectly normal relationship with the mother of my son's classmate (planning playdates, etc.) until somebody at work whispered to me "She used to be a Preus," as if we were talking about the Son of God--and then I started realizing that promotions were flowing thick and fast in that direction, and others were eyeing our friendship as if I were trying to curry favor! It must be a terrible handicap for a talented young Preus, or Walther, or whoever, to have all their sucesses put down to nepotism--and sometimes to have that really be the case, and never to know the difference. Some of my colleagues spent all their time discussing other people's genealogies. [Disappointed] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
Alethiophile is correct --- the custom of "handing down" a pastorate to one's descendants is fairly common in American Pentecostal and charismatic churches. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the rule, but I have known of many churches in which it has been the case. A family to which I am close had, for nearly a hundred years, a kind of dynastic relationship with the church it founded. The founding pastor's children all got ordained, and the family oversaw the church for generations.

This is a phenomenon quite common in African-American Baptist churches as well: again, not the rule, but not unknown either. In both instances, while in theory the local church is congregationally governed (sometimes through an eldership or similar board), the pastor is the "mover and shaker" in a major way, and symbolically represents the church's ethos in a way not dissimilar from that of the sovereign in a monarchy. (That assertion is really not a stretch --- there is decidedly a "Touch not God's anointed" mentality at play, unless some serious ethical or moral breach takes place.)
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Did Westboro pop into anyone else's mind? [Devil]

Of course, there seemed to have been quite a leadership shake-up even before the old man went to his reward,
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Is nepotism a factor in the UK church?
Does the Supreme Governor of the Church of England count?
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Not UK, but you also have the Jensen Clan in Sydney...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
There used to be an element of nepotism in the C of E because of patronage.

The board which lists vicars of Sherborne Abbey had a continuous line of names ending 'Wingfield-Digby' up to about 1980.

Then a new name appeared - it turned out that he was married to a Wingfield-Digby.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
'Staying in the family' seems to be more common among the charismatic churches. Not only do we have instance of Terry & Joel Virgo linked to above, but Colin Urquhart's Kingdom Faith church is now led by his son Clive. Also, Roger & Faith Forster, who founded Ichthus, though still in oversight of all the churches in that network, have left the leadership of their home congregation to their daughter, Debbie.

I would hesitate to go to calling it nepotism, though. I think more understanding would be needed as to how the children of these ministers came to be in ministry themselves. More often than not, it's a case of them seeing what their parents do (as any child does) and choosing to follow in their footsteps.

When it comes to their particular appointments, though the circumstances may well warrant a susoicion of nepotism, I would rather be gracious and consider all parties innocent until proven guilty.

After all, shouldn't we know them by their fruit?
That's very balanced of you and I generally go along with it.

The liturgical wing of the church is generally exempt from such things. There are worrying concerns, IMHO, if some of the US model , flows across the Atlantic. But this seems to be restricted to Pentecostal, Independent and Charismatic groups mainly , both here and in the USA.

Of course the problem comes when we regard a church as a sort of quasi family business. The old chestnuts of:

money,

sex,

power,

all raise their heads and of course if their ''fruits'' are less than sweet there will be scandal and profiteering. Also with very strong family run churches there is a sense if one isn't a ''Smith'' or a ''Jones'' then one hasn't quite arrived. Especially if ''the annointing'' is especially present with a Smith or a Jones or a whoever.

I think checks, balances and discernment must come into play here otherwise real harm may be done - after all the Italian Mafia model is not very wholesome (and I'm not talking about the Roman curia here [Smile] )

Saul the Apostle [Biased]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Also with very strong family run churches there is a sense if one isn't a ''Smith'' or a ''Jones'' then one hasn't quite arrived. Especially if ''the annointing'' is especially present with a Smith or a Jones or a whoever.
It also happens that one can be the wrong 'Smith' or 'Jones'. e.g By most accounts Billy Graham's Daughter (Anne Graham Lotz) is seen as much more gifted in the relevant regard than his son Franklin.
 
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 
I Timothy 5:8

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Paul regards it as a Christian duty to support one's own family.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Given that sport is, for some people, their "religion": what about having Darren Ferguson to manage Manchester United?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yes, nepotism is alive and well in independent and congregationalist churches. It always has been. It likely always will be. One of the reasons I'm not a fan of that polity. Then again, I'm also suspicious of bishops coming from the same family.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Then again, I'm also suspicious of bishops coming from the same family.
Mississippi is on its' third Bishop Duncan Gray- the current bishop's father and grandfather both held the post. I'm not qualified to say if there was a more qualified candidate, but presumably he had to have done something more than have the same name as the guy who helped escort the first black student at Ole Miss through a Klan-filled mob to the registrar's office.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yes, nepotism is alive and well in independent and congregationalist churches. It always has been. It likely always will be. One of the reasons I'm not a fan of that polity. Then again, I'm also suspicious of bishops coming from the same family.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the New Testament tells us almost nothing about the Apostles' children.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
When becoming a member of the clergy in the CoE was more of a steady job for upper-middle to upper class men rather than a vocation, sons following their fathers into the clergy was common, as was clergy's daughters marrying their fathers' curates (eg Charlotte Bronte). It certainly kept the priesthood within particular class barriers.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
I suppose that the difficulty with independent churches e.g. the charismatic/Pentecostal ones is that they can become nice little earners for the ''annointed ones''.

Of course to be fair many churches in this tradition are run well, but the sad thing is, that the Lord's people are being ''taken in'' by some of the more unscrupulous ones and where money is concerned they fleece people out of hundreds of thousands in some cases.

I know of many examples in the USA but less examples in the UK. I am sure there are but I know of only one or two cases.

Unless Shipmates can enlighten me?

Saul
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I suppose that the difficulty with independent churches e.g. the charismatic/Pentecostal ones is that they can become nice little earners for the ''annointed ones''.

Of course to be fair many churches in this tradition are run well, but the sad thing is, that the Lord's people are being ''taken in'' by some of the more unscrupulous ones and where money is concerned they fleece people out of hundreds of thousands in some cases.

I know of many examples in the USA but less examples in the UK. I am sure there are but I know of only one or two cases.

Unless Shipmates can enlighten me?

Saul
In my (admittedly limited) experience, the "going rate" for an independent church leader is about £22-24k per year, a little under the national median income, going down to about £15-17k if the church provides them with a manse. For the higher paid ministers, look to the prosperity gospel preachers. I was looking at the accounts for a Redeemed Christian Church of God congregation the other day and under the charity SORP they have to disclose the number of staff paid in excess of £60k. This particular church had 2 which met that criterion.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Isn't the litmus test: "was anyone else considered and/or interviewed for the job"?

I am no fan of family appointments - either direct descendants or through extended family "ministries". It all gives the impression of a cosy little club and baptists are as guilty of it as anyone.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
One argument against clergy dynasties is that they take the clergy further and further away from the lives and experiences of the ordinary people whom they claim to serve. Put brutally, this means that priest and people are likely to become less and less able to understand each other.

Apparently, this (along with clergy specialisation) became an increasing problem among the Victorian and Edwardian Nonconformists. It seems to have hurt them more than the CofE, probably because the CofE could rely on its status and a culture of deference to keep people attached, whereas Nonconformist churches were meant to be intentional communities of like-minded people. If chapelgoers couldn't identify with the culture, attitudes and ideas of their preachers any more, what was the point of being a Nonconformist?

What this implies, though, is that having a son follow a father into the ministry of the same church is no guarantee that you're going to get the same theology or the same anything else from one generation to another: Joel Osteen's theology is said to be very different from his father's.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
Paul regards it as a Christian duty to support one's own family.
But he doesn't say you should do it by giving them jobs in the church.

Moo
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I am reminded of a cartoon in Private Eye, c1985, with someone standing before three thrones labelled 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. The caption underneath read 'Nepotism is an ugly word, young man'.

I have met a number of clergy brats who have subsequently taken Holy Orders themselves (in various denominations) and who all seem like quite a good thing. As long as they have had the chance to consider accountancy, working in a shop, pole dancing or whatever and have decided that, actually, that is where their gifts lie and that is what they think God is calling them to do, then they are no different to the rest of us. If they have been obliged to assume the hereditary pastorship of the First Church of Simon Magus and Cesare Borgia because that was the expectation of mum and dad then I would advise fleeing for the hills but I think such instances are vanishingly rare, even in informal denominations.
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Given that sport is, for some people, their "religion": what about having Darren Ferguson to manage Manchester United?
I wouldn't think that to be likely, but I could well see Paolo Maldini take over as coach for Italy or AC Milan, positions previously held by his father Cesare Maldini.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Isn't the litmus test: "was anyone else considered and/or interviewed for the job"?
You mean the kind of interview where we talk to three well-qualified candidates, but hire the curate's spouse anyway?
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
This site called ''Cultwatch'' puts nepotism in some sort of overall context.

Church abuse rarely happens on one level; rather nepotism is one of many aspects of a church that is in it for nefarious purposes.

Normally you see a catalogue of abuse. This site is interesting, as it lists nepotism as one of the many church abuse ''ingredients''....

http://www.cultwatch.com/howpastorsgetrich.html

Saul the Apostle
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Independant Churches in the UK? Well yes, i can think of a fair few who have the leadership passing down from parent to adult child. In all of those cases the adult child has been through a solid training, theological + ongoing on the job training as well.

Being in a city, it's been facinating to see so many independant pastors taking very seriously indeed their ongoing ministerial education.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
We personally aren't doing this, of course, since my son doesn't appear to have pastoral gifts, but it seems to me that one less-than-despicable reason for wanting to hand on a ministry or church community to a family member is the fear that someone else won't be adequately invested in it--won't care enough--won't watch over the concern (whatever it may be) as well as someone brought up in a life centered around that concern. I can see how this might be a driving motivation for handing a specialized ministry off to an adult child who has already had a lifetime of emotional investment in it. It doesn't work so well, of course, for non-specialized ministries where there are likely to be loads of outside candidates with equally great knowledge and gifts.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Independant Churches in the UK? Well yes, i can think of a fair few who have the leadership passing down from parent to adult child. In all of those cases the adult child has been through a solid training, theological + ongoing on the job training as well.

Being in a city, it's been facinating to see so many independant pastors taking very seriously indeed their ongoing ministerial education.
Yes, it is fascinating. And I imagine that the sons these days are often better educated than the fathers when it comes to theological training.

In the future, I estimate that more rather than fewer clergy will come from clergy families. This is because the strong lay Christian family is likely to decline, so fewer children from outside clergy families will receive a consistent Christian influence at home. (Of course, not all clergy families are Christian, nor are they all stable. It's relative.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A thought arises on reading this.

An argument for the origin of the rule of celibacy was that priests were tending to establish dynasties, particularly in cultures where it had been the norm for a well off man to be the local priest of whichever the local deity was, have the temple on his land, and pass the ritual rules on to his son. On conversion, it appears that some thought this could carry on - see the sites where the church is almost attached to the local big house, rather than where most of the people live. In some places (eg Notgrove in Gloucestershire), access is through the private road of the big house, by grace and favour. This was considered by the early medieval Church to be A Bad Thing, as it alienated church property into private hands, hence celibacy.
So it has been a long established problem, though not necessarily for the reasons in that CultWatch piece.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A thought arises on reading this.

An argument for the origin of the rule of celibacy was that priests were tending to establish dynasties, particularly in cultures where it had been the norm for a well off man to be the local priest of whichever the local deity was, have the temple on his land, and pass the ritual rules on to his son. On conversion, it appears that some thought this could carry on - see the sites where the church is almost attached to the local big house, rather than where most of the people live. In some places (eg Notgrove in Gloucestershire), access is through the private road of the big house, by grace and favour. This was considered by the early medieval Church to be A Bad Thing, as it alienated church property into private hands, hence celibacy.
So it has been a long established problem, though not necessarily for the reasons in that CultWatch piece.
A very long established problem indeed. Even teh term "nepotism" has an ecclesiastical origin, deriving from the Latin nepos, meaning "nephew" and was originally applied to prominent members of the clergy securing similar positions for their "nephews" (who were, more often than not, really their illegitimate sons). The Borgias were a particularly vibrant example of this.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Then again, I'm also suspicious of bishops coming from the same family.
Mississippi is on its' third Bishop Duncan Gray- the current bishop's father and grandfather both held the post...
But isn't pretty much everybody in Mississippi rather closely related to everybody else? (Dives for cover)

[ 29. April 2014, 21:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I was horrified to see that our deanery is plugging an event led by Nathan Foster, son of Richard Foster.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
(Please note that I am deliberately choosing to omit the names in what follows. I don't want this to be about specific people, but about a system that is less than just)

A Church of England Bishop had two sons. Both were ordained. Both found themselves in 'plum' curacy posts. It seems clear that the good bishop had smoothed the way for his lads. They may both be very talented, but it seems unlikely that they were both the cream of the crop.

Is this fair or right? I don't think so. But it is all a part of the long-standing C of E culture whereby who you know (or are related to, or if you went to the same school) gives you an undeniable 'edge' when it comes to preferment.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
And while understanding both previous posts...what to do if an offspring feels led to follow the same path as a parent?

Teachers? Plumbers? Doctors? Builders? Clergy? Mechanics? Law?

We can all think of family members who naturally follow their parents into a profession.

And surely the church is no different?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I was horrified to see that our deanery is plugging an event led by Nathan Foster, son of Richard Foster.
Why?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I was horrified to see that our deanery is plugging an event led by Nathan Foster, son of Richard Foster.
Why?
See the OP.

He is advertised solely on the grounds that he is the son of his father rather than upon any merits of his own.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
And while understanding both previous posts...what to do if an offspring feels led to follow the same path as a parent?

Teachers? Plumbers? Doctors? Builders? Clergy? Mechanics? Law?

We can all think of family members who naturally follow their parents into a profession.

And surely the church is no different?
I don't think that is the same as a particular family monopolising key roles within the church, or any other industry.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
And while understanding both previous posts...what to do if an offspring feels led to follow the same path as a parent?

Teachers? Plumbers? Doctors? Builders? Clergy? Mechanics? Law?

We can all think of family members who naturally follow their parents into a profession.

And surely the church is no different?
I don't think that is the same as a particular family monopolising key roles within the church, or any other industry.
No one ever said of their surgeon, "Well, his father had an excellent reputation..."
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
And while understanding both previous posts...what to do if an offspring feels led to follow the same path as a parent?

Teachers? Plumbers? Doctors? Builders? Clergy? Mechanics? Law?

We can all think of family members who naturally follow their parents into a profession.

And surely the church is no different?
I don't think that is the same as a particular family monopolising key roles within the church, or any other industry.
No one ever said of their surgeon, "Well, his father had an excellent reputation..."
It happens in accountancy, I can assure you. I've known a few who were the sons or daughters of those who were partners in the big firms. It was expected that, in time, they would also be partners.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
I find the Joel Virgo post interesting.

http://www.cck.org.uk/people/joel-virgo

He is either truly called to that role or he is following in Daddy's footsteps because, well, he is the son of the great man himself.

Either way, taking this route must be embarked upon very carefully, there are many many pitfalls.

I am not surprised we see quite blatant nepotism in the USA. I suppose if I do see it here in the UK I am a little more surprised. After all we seem less attracted to the cult of personality don't we?

In non conformity, which widens it out from just Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, it was common to have schisms and rifts. Often these would be regular , acrimonious and family splits.

I can't help think that some of the schism in non conformity come from good old fashioned greed. After all, if a church, say today, has an income of about £1 million per annum, there are some nice little earners to be had aren't there?

Of course the opportunity to make a ''nice little earner'' is far less in the UK as church attendance is probably about 40% less here in the UK than the USA.

Nevertheless it is clear nepotism can be very harmful indeed.

More examples?

Saul
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
Hillsong Church, which is Australian but a large player in the UK and South Africa as well, has a family legacy as well.

Frank Houston - founded Sydney Christian Life Centre. Confessed to sexual abuse of children and was deposed and replaced with his son Joel.

Joel Houston - turned SCLC into what is now Hillsong Church, which he runs with his wife Bobbie. As for his children:

Brian Houston - chosen to lead the mission team to set up Hillsong NYC where he is co-head pastor

Ben Houston - chosen to lead the mission team to set up Hillsong Los Angeles

Laura Houston - runs Hillsong's youth ministry in Australia with her husband

This strikes me very much as a family business attitude towards the organization - especially giving the plum church planting jobs in New York and LA - highly desirable places to live for most 20-30 somethings - to their kids.
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
I don't know if he's been given the job you attribute to Brian Houston, but Joel is the son. It's Brian that's the father.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
I don't know if he's been given the job you attribute to Brian Houston, but Joel is the son. It's Brian that's the father.
My bad - mistype! Yes Bobbie and Brian are the couple in charge, Joel is in NYC.

BTW for anyone who cares about silly celebrity gossip, after his recent arrest pop singer Justin Bieber went to Hillsong NYC asking to be baptized. They declined.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
[Talking Church of England here]

Of all of the curates or vicars who have clerical parents that i know, Not One has ever been introduced to me as "Such and Such's son or daughter".

In fact, i would guess that any clergy offspring is grilled ruthlessly at selection and the bishops advisory panal.


Plus, the offspring is hardly going to be placed in the same church as the parent. So what's all this about nepotism?

Holy Orders are open to all who are suitable and anyone can encourage their young people to consider this. Maybe Vicars just naturally have this option for their Parental Career Advice Chat with their own/ other youngsters.
Do the rest of us?
Could we?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I am happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think nepotism plays a role in the current CoE. However, it did play a role in its history, which contributed to the drop in church attendance in the 1800s and the view of clergy as seeing themselves as 'above' the ordinary folk in their flock. It still has an impact on the CoE.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I was horrified to see that our deanery is plugging an event led by Nathan Foster, son of Richard Foster.
Why?
See the OP.

He is advertised solely on the grounds that he is the son of his father rather than upon any merits of his own.
Sure, but on the flip side, purely the fact that his father was a minister shouldn't rule him out of being a minister right?

Plus you didn't mention to start with that he was "advertised solely on the grounds that he is the son of his father" without seeing the advert in question I can't comment on the substance of it.
 
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :
 
Gavin Calver does a job heading up YFC.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I've read that after WWI the no. of young men following their fathers into the CofE ministry was dropping. The reason given is that they were increasingly opting for better paid alternatives. I'm wondering if that's still the case today, or whether difficult employment conditions for young graduates have made a career in the CofE ministry more attractive again, and hence more attractive to clergy children.

(Yes, I understand the value of the ministry as a vocation, but I think it's only realistic to assume that financial considerations come into play, especially if the young people concerned are highly educated and presumably highly employable - as clergy children often are.)

[ 03. May 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've read that after WWI the no. of young men following their fathers into the CofE ministry was dropping. The reason given is that they were increasingly opting for better paid alternatives. I'm wondering if that's still the case today, or whether difficult employment conditions for young graduates have made a career in the CofE ministry more attractive again, and hence more attractive to clergy children.

(Yes, I understand the value of the ministry as a vocation, but I think it's only realistic to assume that financial considerations come into play, especially if the young people concerned are highly educated and presumably highly employable - as clergy children often are.)
CoE ministry is very poorly paid, and increasingly, unpaid.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'm sure it is. All the more reason for bright young things with top qualifications to think carefully before they decide to commit themselves....

(But maybe I've been too influenced by accounts of clever but poverty-stricken clergy with resentful wives and grumpy children!)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


1. I've read that after WWI the no. of young men following their fathers into the CofE ministry was dropping. The reason given is that they were increasingly opting for better paid alternatives.


2. I'm wondering if that's still the case today, or whether difficult employment conditions for young graduates have made a career in the CofE ministry more attractive again, and hence more attractive to clergy children.
1. A large % of clergy in the pre WWI era were the third sons of rich families. Their cash got them through the process not their talent. It was less true after WWI as there was a more open process - although some denominations still have a fair quota of upper class twits.

2. IMHO 9and perhaps IME) if a clergy son or daughter ants to follow on, they have it much easier and rise quicker than the rest of us. It might be talent but then again it might be contacts
 
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :
 
What I meant to post above is that "Gavin Calver seems to do a good job heading up YFC" - just because someone is the son or daughter of a church/parachurch ministry leader doesn't disqualify them from being a good leader. Having said that it seems worrying if churches or ministries are treated like family businesses because they are not and shouldn't be...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Green Mario, welcome to the Ship! If you haven't already done so, please take a moment to check out our Ten Commandments, FAQs, and posting Guidelines for the boards. We also invite you to say hi on the Welcome Aboard 2014 thread in All Saints.

Enjoy the voyage!

Eutychus
Purgatory Host

/hosting
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
What I meant to post above is that "Gavin Calver seems to do a good job heading up YFC" - just because someone is the son or daughter of a church/parachurch ministry leader doesn't disqualify them from being a good leader. Having said that it seems worrying if churches or ministries are treated like family businesses because they are not and shouldn't be...
This is so. For example, I know nothing of Joel Virgo, here in the UK. He may be an excellent leader and may have all the attributes of a very good leader. As I know nothing of that Ministry i can also say that his father was and is a well known Christian leader.

The main dangers, IMHO, lie in the charismatic/pentecostal/ non-liturgical church areas simply because they , in many cases, have little or no accountability to their punters.

I accept the C of E did have a degree of upper class nepotism pre World war 1. This has effectively vanished now and paid Ministry in C of E is a very average (or under average) salary and attracts little celebrity societal status.

Conversely, a ''successful'' charismatic outfit blisfully ignores, very often, Annual General Meetings, passes on their leadership from father to offspring, pays inflated salaries and totally chooses virtually all it's directions and decisions. Much like a private company - BUT - it is not a private company, it's supposed to be a servant led church following in the footsteps of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even here in the UK I suggest that incredibly unethical decisions are being taken by independent church outfits. We have generally faced up to sexual abuse in the church, but have we really tackled incestuous family benefice and nepotism?

I don't think we have - it is a far wider and deeper thing than many of us may realise.

Saul

[ 04. May 2014, 07:30: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Regarding nepotism, I suspect that it's more likely to happen in churches that are able to hold on to their young people, and such churches are usually evangelical, and are frequently independent charismatic/Pentecostal churches. These days CofE vicars are probably more likely to see their children leave the church, so the issue wouldn't arise so often in their context.

[ 04. May 2014, 12:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
I think mainstream denominations have the checks and balances so son/daughter has to apply on their own merit/testimony of vocation. But we do have problems of the committee keen and those who end up in the central powers being a closed shop that only open the doors to those like them. Not nepotism but a serious issue if unable to challenge.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
1. I think mainstream denominations have the checks and balances so son/daughter has to apply on their own merit/testimony of vocation.

2. But we do have problems of the committee keen and those who end up in the central powers being a closed shop that only open the doors to those like them. Not nepotism but a serious issue if unable to challenge.
1. Yes that's the theory but it's surprising how many "known" candidates have sponsors on the interviewing team who put in an extra word for them.

It happened on my first set of interviews when I didn't get the nod. {I think I remember the reason as being that I hadn't engaged with the Totonto Blessing and wasn't sensitive to the Spirit" Well, it was 1996, after all].

One guy (who did) was being interviewed by a close friend (possibly even his own minister) who was also giving him a bit of coaching in the corridor when I passed them. They looked a bit sheepish when they saw me.

Now on the other side of the fence, it's not unknown for someone to pick up the phone pre interview just for a chat, you understand.

2. Yep I agree - it's a big problem which stifles change and involvement
 
Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :
 
Nepotism is implicit in the very fabric of Christianity.

Look at that Jesus guy getting the big gig….just ‘cause of who his dad is!!!
[Biased]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0