Ship of Fools: Vocations thread - specifying the vocation?

Thread: Vocations thread - specifying the vocation? 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=029461

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

The vocations thread in All Saints, as far as I understand, is for discerners for both ordained minstry (which can take many forms) and the religious life. I would appreciate it if when posting for the first time, people could specify what they are discerning about - the implication otherwise being that vocation = being a vicar. This is the opposite of what church culture needs!

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

While I often read it and might have benefited from actual participation in it, I always avoided the vocations thread precisely because I felt uncomfortable about the degree of revelation that might be expected.

In the particular jurisdiction of Orthodoxy in which I was exploring a vocation to ordained ministry, it isn't the custom to be the driving force behind one's own progress. There isn't a fixed process but it generally involves observation of the candidate, conversations about the candidate in which the candidate may at some point be invited to take part, and a decision made by the bishop to call the person to ministry within the church.

There's no sense in which a person puts himself forward for ordination, and meets with someone to explain why he feels he is called to serve in a particular capacity. That sort of approach is generally frowned upon. To be seen to be seeking or desiring ordination is not in keeping with the wider Orthodox understanding of vocation, and a degree of discretion is required and expected if ever discussing these things openly.

Therefore, to require that people state the sort of information upfront as suggested in the OP seems unnecessarily exclusive.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Thanks for that info Scrumpmeister. I didn't suggest it in order that people would expose themselves to an uncomfortable degree, just that it feels like there is an assumption that vocation = vocation to the priesthood. It is somewhat excluding and frustrating to those of us discerning a different vocation. Do you have any suggestions as to how to deal with that?

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

I too assumed that "Vocations" on this thread referred to a call to the religious life as a professed/ordained "professional" religious.

I would therefor also assume that the vocation/calling many of us have to other ways of life were effectively excluded from the discussion. Was I mistaken?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Thanks for that info Scrumpmeister. I didn't suggest it in order that people would expose themselves to an uncomfortable degree...

I understand. It's just that with people IRL knowing my Ship persona, for me to state that I was exploring a vocation to the diaconate would have been too far for me. For that to be a requirement would have made it impossible for me to take part at all.

As it happens, I still never moved beyond the stage of reading that thread as an observer, although I did find that helpful.

quote:
...just that it feels like there is an assumption that vocation = vocation to the priesthood. It is somewhat excluding and frustrating to those of us discerning a different vocation.

I can relate to that. Especially where there are a large number of Catholics & Anglicans, the assumption is often that ordination = priesthood, and if you're from a tradition that has minor orders and a very present diaconate (that is not treated as a stepping-stone to priesthood apart from a minority of cases), conversation can feel as though priesthood-only is the default setting. Anything else may be accepted if you remind them of it but the very fact that you have to do that merely serves as a reminder that the group that shares elements of your journey and to which you feel you ought to belong actually views you as little more than a welcome outsider rather than part of the family.

When the discussion is about vocation more widely understood than just ordination I can see how that could become even more wearing after a while.

Drawing a parallel, I come across numerous monosexist ideas expressed each week in the news media, in internet discussions, on social media, on television programmes, and in real life conversation. These are (usually) not intended to exclude or to marginalise those of us who are not monosexual but they are just an expression of the experience of the people saying/posting/broadcasting them, which is naturally bound to be limited in some way.

The cumulative effect of this over time is a sense of being made to feel second-rate, being made to feel invisible, and that our concerns - and even our existence - are not of any consequence. This feeling is heightened when it comes from within the queer community.

quote:
Do you have any suggestions as to how to deal with that?

My experience, which may well have some relevance to discussion of vocations from the perspective of somebody not exploring priesthood, is that the only way to find a place in the family is to challenge the assumptions whenever you encounter them so that people stop thinking that their experience is the only one worth being acknowledged or viewed as mainstream. Most people will realise what they have done and try to be more accommodating.

If you find the group intransigent or that having to remind them constantly that people like you exist means that you never actually get to discuss what you went there to discuss in the first place, you may wish to consider accepting defeat and taking the discussion elsewhere, with like-minded people of similar experience to your own, where you can discuss and explore without having to justify or remind others of your existence.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Or you could have more than one thread ? So discussion can be focused in regard to different traditions and/or vocations ?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I too assumed that "Vocations" on this thread referred to a call to the religious life as a professed/ordained "professional" religious.

I would therefor also assume that the vocation/calling many of us have to other ways of life were effectively excluded from the discussion. Was I mistaken?

Well - it is for those pursuing some kind of ordained ministry or those investigating the religious life (which I take to mean monks/nuns/brothers/sisters), but that is a much wider group than just stipendiary parish priests. Permanent deacons, non-stipendiary priests/ministers, pioneer ministers, Church Army evangelists, etc etc.

My comment was more on the way that ordained stipendiary priesthood is seen as the default vocation within church culture, even amongst other ordained/professed vocations. It was prompted by a comment by a newcomer which implied that 'discernment' = 'discernment to the priesthood' by default - I had commented just a couple of posts above about exploring the religious life, as if that isn't discernment too!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Would it work, as per Doublethinks suggestion, one thread that covers those who are explicitly pursuing some clear form of ordained ministry, and one for those who are pursuing vocation in a broader sense.

The latter could include those who are pursing some form of vocation, without revealing what it is. It might include those for whom ordination is a possibility, but are not able or prepared to reveal this. It could also include those who are exploring something undefined, some form of vocation that may never have a name, but who would find value by working it through with others here.

People would then be able to declare whether they were explicitly exploring ordination or more general by which thread they go with.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

That is a good idea, but ordained ministry is still a wider category than CoE parish clergy. And where would the professed religious life go? I don't think it would be common enough to warrant its own thread, but is more specific than a general vocation thread. But then again those in the CoE responsible for vocations don't seem to know what to do with it either!

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

I have never seen the Vocations thread to be just about CofE clergy things, though it seems to be that most of the time - my view of vocation is miles wider than that. In my own life I thought at one time that my vocation was to the ordained CofE ministry then to a Benedictine priory then I found it in social work. Parishes across Britain, or the world, can be grateful I found my calling elsewhere!

Vocation is about what God calls us to do and I have no problem at all with widening the brief of the thread.

NB: I haven't talked to my fellow AS Hosts on this topic so this is a purely personal view.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I have also experienced the confusion Pomona describes, when I've gone to that thread to see if there are other people who are discerning a monastic vocation. It took me a while to realise that people were talking about a priestly vocation, as they didn't tend specify that directly. I understand some people don't want to reveal too much, but often it isn't so much a privacy thing (people eventually give enough info that you can piece it all together), but more an assumption that talking about vocation refers to the vocation of being a priest.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
My comment was more on the way that ordained stipendiary priesthood is seen as the default vocation within church culture, even amongst other ordained/professed vocations. It was prompted by a comment by a newcomer which implied that 'discernment' = 'discernment to the priesthood' by default - I had commented just a couple of posts above about exploring the religious life, as if that isn't discernment too!

Yes, this describes it well. It's not that people discerning religious life aren't welcome or included in the thread. If you say you're doing that, people are encouraging and supportive. But the default seems to be priestly vocation. So if you don't specify you're discerning monastic vocation, the assumption seems to be that you're discerning becoming a priest. Now when I go to that thread, I have learnt to understand that when people use the words 'vocation' and 'discernment' they are using them as a shorthand to talk about ordained ministry, unless they specify otherwise.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Drawing a parallel, I come across numerous monosexist ideas expressed each week in the news media, in internet discussions, on social media, on television programmes, and in real life conversation. These are (usually) not intended to exclude or to marginalise those of us who are not monosexual but they are just an expression of the experience of the people saying/posting/broadcasting them, which is naturally bound to be limited in some way.

The cumulative effect of this over time is a sense of being made to feel second-rate, being made to feel invisible, and that our concerns - and even our existence - are not of any consequence. This feeling is heightened when it comes from within the queer community.

Sorry to post three in a row - there are a lot of posts to read and process! - but yes, this is the same parallel I was thinking of (as an asexual person, I frequently find the default tends to be that you are sexual, that you are monosexual, and often that you are heterosexual, unless you specify otherwise). And as the non-default person, you're the one having to challenge it.

I agree it's better to challenge it within discussion, rather than have a set rule that people must declare their particular vocation. Even this sort of discussion brings it to people's awareness. Though I suppose possibly there could be more inclusive guidelines, or even a thread title that draws attention more obviously to the fact that there are different sorts of vocation. The initial post says:

quote:
For those who are in the official "discernment process", and for those who hope (or fear) the calling of God to some form of ministry (whether or not it may lead to ordination).

That sort of makes it sound like ordination is the ultimate goal of discernment, with the additional info that it can lead to other things on the way. But for monastic vocation, ordination may be completely irrelevant, and not the ultimate goal at all.

Not saying that to be critical or nitpicking - but when I first was looking for where to post about monastic vocation I was unsure whether this thread was the right one because of this.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I have never seen the Vocations thread to be just about CofE clergy things, though it seems to be that most of the time - my view of vocation is miles wider than that. In my own life I thought at one time that my vocation was to the ordained CofE ministry then to a Benedictine priory then I found it in social work. Parishes across Britain, or the world, can be grateful I found my calling elsewhere!

Vocation is about what God calls us to do and I have no problem at all with widening the brief of the thread.

NB: I haven't talked to my fellow AS Hosts on this topic so this is a purely personal view.

This. I've always thought the thread was for everyone who felt as if God was giving them a nudge. Vocation isn't only about religious orders, whether of an organised church or a monastery, it covers lay calling as well, doesn't it?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think that lay vocation is a 'higher' calling than ordained ministry because we are on the front line.

Clergy exist to feed us to do battle out there for the kingdom.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I thought the thread was about support for those feeling a call to vocation - with a question here about what that covers.

I didn't realise it was a competition about who has the 'higher' calling.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

Tragically the term vocation has been almost hijacked by the church to mean ordained - at a stretch accredited lay - ministry/ religious life. Even in their own diocesan vocations publications this is all too obvious. The only other vocations they seem to be capable of recognising are caring professions (in a rather narrow medical sense), teaching ("we need Christian teachers!"), the military (sometimes called "the public sector"), and - wait for it: motherhood/ bringing up a family. Note: not parenthood, nor fatherhood. No surprises here.

Surely feeling drawn to becoming "a butcher, baker or candlestick-maker" is no less of a vocation. Somewhere things got muddled, and the term profession began to be applied to the three "learned professions" (law, medicine and theology). This tendency still persists. Its Latin origin means no more than "affirmation" and contains a huge element of choice. Vocation on the other hand is a divine "call". It requires a personal and conscious response to whatever that call may be.

The general problem is the linguistic shift away from the term "profession" to "job" and "work" which leaves "vocation" with a very narrow definition. Languages other than English fare better in this context (German for example). Fortunately the secular world is re-discovering the origins of the term and applying it to good effect as in "vocational subjects".

For the purpose of a thread here that is not about ordained or accredited ministry as evidenced in the vocations thread, how about "Christian Ministry". This should encompass all work from a Christian perspective and would leave the "vocations" thread to those who usually alight there.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

The current thread in AS was started by Charlie 5 years ago all but a month or so. This one could be closed and a new one started with a more tightly worded OP by anyone who feels the urge.

That said, you can't insist that people share lots of details about their particular religious vocation or the process they have to go through. Once the OP's done, you have to let it get on with it.

Does that sound like a plan?!

Tubbs

[ 11. November 2015, 14:56: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
Tragically the term vocation has been almost hijacked by the church to mean ordained...

Surely feeling drawn to becoming "a butcher, baker or candlestick-maker" is no less of a vocation....

For the purpose of a thread here that is not about ordained or accredited ministry as evidenced in the vocations thread, how about "Christian Ministry".

I was with you until the phrase "Christian Ministry" which sounds to my ears like a variation of a church organization focused life or else sounds like what we do with a few spare hours when we are away from the job that pays the rent. When people ask "what is your ministry" they want to hear how you spend spare hours, like you lead a prayer circle or spend Saturday mornings teaching the Bible to kids. They aren't looking for your job description "I make and sell candlesticks."

The candlestick maker can indeed be following a calling from God, I've long argued (tongue only semi in cheek) the most important calling is farmer, without the farmer the apostles prophets evangelists and all the formally ordained starve.

What's a good wording for the concept that the reason for choosing be a candlestick maker is because the work provides the community with something it deeply needs that the worker delights to make, not solely because it's a job, a way to make money and pay the rent?

"Calling" would do, but maybe with a word attached to make clear "other than to a position in a church institution." "Secular calling" is not quite the right wording. Life activity calling?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The current thread in AS was started by Charlie 5 years ago all but a month or so. This one could be closed and a new one started with a more tightly worded OP by anyone who feels the urge.

That said, you can't insist that people share lots of details about their particular religious vocation or the process they have to go through. Once the OP's done, you have to let it get on with it.

Does that sound like a plan?!

Tubbs

Oh no, I don't mean that people have to share lots of details - just that if people are specific about what vocation they are exploring, it's less likely that everyone assumes vocation = priesthood in the CoE. I was really just hoping for a gentle hostly reminder in the current thread or something like that, just for an awareness that there are more forms of even ordained Christian ministry beyond the priesthood in the CoE and that the Ship's international/diverse readership means there will be lots of people from other traditions.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I'll post this on the AS thread as well...

My only observation here would be that the Ship "Vocations thread" is one of the very few places those of us discerning whether we are called to a specific church-based ministry (be that lay, diaconal, priestly, or the religious life) can come for support and advice, confidentially if need be.

In the "real world" it is much harder to get that sort of support and advice if you don't happen to know the right people. I cannot stress how important this particular thread has been as a source of information and support on my own journey of discernment up to this point.

Whatever happens to the thread, it would be a great shame for this resource to be lost.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I think it is a great support thread for people pursuing a vocation to be a priest, as that is what the majority of people posting seem to be doing, and they have a lot of advice and encouagement for each other. And it would be a shame to lose that.

I wonder if it would be helpful to have two different threads - one for priestly vocations, and one for non-priestly vocations (not specifically monastic life, but still, monastic vocations would have more of a space, and not feel like some sort of distant cousin intruding!). I posted once in there about monastic vocation, amidst all the priestly vocation posts, and I did feel a bit out of place. People were nice and encouraging but didn't know much about it, and the conversation moved swiftly back to priestly vocations. If there was a separate space, it might be easier for people exploring monastic vocations to find each other, and talk about it.

I think monastic vocation is so unusual nowadays that people who may be interested are often hesitant to explore it, not knowing if it's a genuine option, not knowing much about it. So to have a non-priestly vocation space might be really helpful, and encourage people to ask questions and have courage to explore something that is often viewed as a bit odd and outdated and often not taken seriously.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The current thread in AS was started by Charlie 5 years ago all but a month or so. This one could be closed and a new one started with a more tightly worded OP by anyone who feels the urge.

That said, you can't insist that people share lots of details about their particular religious vocation or the process they have to go through. Once the OP's done, you have to let it get on with it.

Does that sound like a plan?!

Tubbs
Oh no, I don't mean that people have to share lots of details - just that if people are specific about what vocation they are exploring, it's less likely that everyone assumes vocation = priesthood in the CoE. I was really just hoping for a gentle hostly reminder in the current thread or something like that, just for an awareness that there are more forms of even ordained Christian ministry beyond the priesthood in the CoE and that the Ship's international/diverse readership means there will be lots of people from other traditions.

This host post from TonyK seems to have covered this off nicely.

Tubbs

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Several years ago I entered the vocations thread with some comments about struggling to discern my vocation that is not part if the institutional church, and people were gracious, no one said "you don't belong in this thread" or "only church vocations are real vocations"; they agreed that everyone has (or can have) a vocation.

But the conversation was focused on the narrow meaning of the word because that's the intense interest of those active in the thread.

A different thread for those seeking guidance, and encouragement, in discerning and pursuing their vocation or the next step in following their calling, might be valuable. If I had had any encouragement from anywhere I'd be much further along by now!

I've seen others not pursue their obvious calling because they don't believe themselves adequate and unlike with priestly callings there is no structured help (although how effective that help is might be questioned!). Christians seem to do a lot of discouraging each other. "You didn't go to seminary, you can't write a book about God." "You didn't go to music school, so you can't write songs." "You're just a kid;" "you're too old," "you don't have any credentials," and I've been intrigued how many mainline women, not just conservatives, feel hindered by the "women should be silent and not teach" verses.

A mutual support group for people with callings other than being a full time church professional church might be useful. Or might not. Worth a try?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Several years ago I entered the vocations thread with some comments about struggling to discern my vocation that is not part if the institutional church, and people were gracious, no one said "you don't belong in this thread" or "only church vocations are real vocations"; they agreed that everyone has (or can have) a vocation.

But the conversation was focused on the narrow meaning of the word because that's the intense interest of those active in the thread.

A different thread for those seeking guidance, and encouragement, in discerning and pursuing their vocation or the next step in following their calling, might be valuable. If I had had any encouragement from anywhere I'd be much further along by now!

I've seen others not pursue their obvious calling because they don't believe themselves adequate and unlike with priestly callings there is no structured help (although how effective that help is might be questioned!). Christians seem to do a lot of discouraging each other. "You didn't go to seminary, you can't write a book about God." "You didn't go to music school, so you can't write songs." "You're just a kid;" "you're too old," "you don't have any credentials," and I've been intrigued how many mainline women, not just conservatives, feel hindered by the "women should be silent and not teach" verses.

A mutual support group for people with callings other than being a full time church professional church might be useful. Or might not. Worth a try?

There is only one way to find out. Start a thread and see if it flies.

Tubbs

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

There is a thread in Purgatory now, about whether monastic life is selfish. Possibly off-putting for some, but hey, there are probably several potential nuns/monks who wonder the same, as it is a very common view, and so it's a good topic to discuss.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Within Anglicanism, as soon as one starts to paddle in these waters the term "Vocation" comes up fairly early on.

My pennyworth is that not necessarily identifying where one might be ending up is a Good thing.

Granted it is also a Confusing thing!

But that is the nature of the beast that is discerning a vocation.

Posted by Nanny Plum is a Legend (# 18497) on :

I think my own situation is relevant here, and somewhat ironic.

I approached my incumbent with a sense of the "nudge" someone higher up the thread mentioned, and an open mind about what "vocation" might mean for me. It could be a change of direction at work, or training to be a Reader, or ordination... or something else entirely.

I thought the process of discernment was meant to be about discerning God's particular call on your life, and not imposing one's own opinion on that or pre-empting the conclusion. Not an easy thing to do by any means!

The irony is that the moment I opened the conversation, hoping for a general discussion, it was my incumbent who decided that for me that nudge means Priest. I'm still working that one out...

For what it's worth I thought the other thread was intended for every sense of vocation - but happy to be corrected or pointed somewhere else if need be!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0