Thread: Disliking things that accompany 'lady vicars' 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=030701
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
This is bound to be controversial, I know.

Let me start by saying this: I am not opposed to the ordination of women. I will happily receive the sacrament from a priest who happens to be a woman and consider it every bit as much the body and blood of Christ as I would a sacrament consecrated by any other priest. I have friends who are women and ordained and have attended the ordinations of some of them.

However, for years I was extremely reluctant to go to any church with an ordained woman 'on staff'. This wasn't the result of any theological conviction on my part (it might have been more defensible if it were), but because experience seemed to show that such churches were deficient in other regards. The big offended seemed bland five minute 'talks' about the importance of being nice, rather than serious sermons, and a sort of 'de-cath' middling liturgy executed indifferently were the main offenders.


Of course there are churches staffed entirely by male priests that have those faults, and I've since met ordained women who are by no means in that mold. But I still can't shake the stereotype. I've met priests of both sexes who, frankly, should never have been ordained, but amongst women there seems to be a higher proportion who are very nice people but don't seem to have anything that I can recognize as a distinctly priestly vocation. Call it the 'Vicar of Dibley' effect, if you will (the Rev'd Geraldine Granger being a grotesque and comic exaggeration of the type of priest I have in mind).

Is this just innate misogyny showing through, or have other experienced something similar? If I am on to something, then I think it must be due to some form of social conditioning ( in theological college, after ordination, or much earlier).
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
It might be worth reflecting on your experiences in terms of a) relative age and/or training generation of said priests and b) class.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It might be worth reflecting on your experiences in terms of a) relative age and/or training generation of said priests and b) class.
Yes, those may be relevant. I have noted that the priests I admire most tend to have trained for ordination at a relatively early age (before 35, say), although not always at the traditional residential colleges (although I must say I've never met a Mirfield-trained priest that I didn't like). I suppose the first generation of female priests to be ordained consisted very disproportionately of those trained later in life.

For what it's worth I have compiled a short list of what I think makes a good priest:
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think the error is in attributing such things to gender. I was, for several years, a member of a church with two female priests, neither of whom were always quite on the ball liturgically. In one case this was because she was an evangelical in a MOTR parish and so didn't take liturgy very seriously (it was my third year before there was even a service on the afternoon of Good Friday, much less the Solemn Liturgy of Good Friday) and the other (an OLM) who was of a higher inclination but with a tendency to ramble off piste at inopportune moments. They could pull out the stops on occasion and I remember a very moving service on Maundy Thursday. I do not have any doubts, however, about their priestly vocation. They have, as all priests do, their own eccentricities and their lack of flair for liturgy was more than made up for by their genuine love for God and for other people.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Given your comments about male priests in the OP, SB, there may be something about you noticing female priests more acutely, and, maybe, giving a bit more leeway to the men.

Which would make it your problem, not the priests'.

There are extremely-liturgical priests who are also extremely pastoral - we are afflicted with one in my deanery - but there is a tendency for the liturgy freaks to be tongue-tied outside the sanctuary.

In a parallel world, my extremely-mathematical son-in-law (himself a PK) says that an extroverted mathematician is one who looks at YOUR shoes.

I'd rather have someone who is alive to the parish, even if only adequately competent at the liturgy. YMMV
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It might be worth reflecting on your experiences in terms of a) relative age and/or training generation of said priests and b) class.
Yes, those may be relevant. I have noted that the priests I admire most tend to have trained for ordination at a relatively early age (before 35, say), although not always at the traditional residential colleges (although I must say I've never met a Mirfield-trained priest that I didn't like).
How long ago did they train - this may be more pertinent.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It might be worth reflecting on your experiences in terms of a) relative age and/or training generation of said priests and b) class.
Yes, those may be relevant. I have noted that the priests I admire most tend to have trained for ordination at a relatively early age (before 35, say), although not always at the traditional residential colleges (although I must say I've never met a Mirfield-trained priest that I didn't like).
How long ago did they train - this may be more pertinent.
The male priests I admire have trained at all points in the last 30 years! And at a mixture of colleges (ranging from Wycliffe through to Staggers) and regional courses. A very wide range of ages as well.

I must say that, with the notable exception of one fantastic female priest in later middle age (one of the ones who really did a lot to convince me that my previous stereotype was wrong), all of female clergy of whom I've thought highly have been youngish (under 40). I would probably attribute this to the fact that it seems to me (and others have agreed) that the CofE has recently trained up and is currently training, an unusually excellent selection of priests. Perhaps the best lot we've had since the early 1960s was one opinion I've heard.

You've mentioned class and I suppose that could also be relevant. The female priests I've admired have all been pretty solidly middle class; in fact I think they were all at either Oxford or Cambridge (or in some cases both) and all have served very middle class parishes. Male priests I've admired have come from much more diverse backgrounds ('and one was a teacher, and one was a nurse/ and two played the organ, you could do much worse') but those from more working class backgrounds have tended to serve in a very specific kind of parish, which also happens to be the sort of parish that's very unlikely to agree with the ordination of women (think a church surrounded by modern council estates with liturgy from the Modern Roman Rite and the sort of statues that horrify the John Lewis good taste of the middling churchmen). It may be that the opportunities for non-middle class ordained women to develop into the sort priest I have in mind.

[ 07. September 2013, 20:08: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
What a bizarre thread.

You have said you are being controversial, I think you really, really to consider how much of this is prejudice, or at very least a sort of 'observer bias'. Many of us have encountered female clergy and noticed no such thing. If anything, I think the early generations of ordained women within the CofE were liturgically somewhat higher up the candle than the average. (As others have noticed, this might be because those who were willing to wait for so long for a chance to be ordained were likely to have a high view of the Sacraments).

[Duplicate posts deleted]

[ 07. September 2013, 22:13: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What a bizarre thread.

You have said you are being controversial, I think you really, really to consider how much of this is prejudice, or at very least a sort of 'observer bias'.
It's possible, of course. It would also be hard to deny that female clerics in the Church of England have fewer opportunities to 'shine' in prominent roles than their male counterparts (most obviously, they can't become bishops, but it may actually be more relevant that so many curacies in flagship parishes seem to be reserved for men, even when no resolutions have actually been passed).
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Evangelicals of any gender are highly unlikely to do the first two on your list - why are they automatically excluded from being good priests? It seems like your list of 'good priesthood' is heavily biased towards very high church churchmanship - even as someone who is high-ish up the candle, that strikes me as being very unfair. Not doing sacramental confession does not make one a less competent priest, any more that priests who do sacramental confession are automatically better at the job.

Also, bear in mind that many women who would make excellent priests are in churches who do not encourage women's ordination. Imagine how hard it must be to be a conservative evangelical woman going for ordination! To then suggest that their churchmanship makes them less capable of being a priest seems pretty mean.

One of the first female priests (Can we please not use such an abhorrent phrase as 'lady vicar', especially since not all priests are vicars!) I encountered is absolutely fantastic at her job and the church is growing rapidly. Communion is fortnightly, alb and stole only for vestments, no sacramental confession. She's still a brilliant priest. She prepared me for confirmation and I am still moved by the memory of her prayer for me as we prayed at the end of the last preparation session.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Evangelicals of any gender are highly unlikely to do the first two on your list - [...] are they automatically excluded from being good priests?
You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Not doing sacramental confession does not make one a less competent priest.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure I can actually agree with that statement. Not every parish need have advertized confessional times (although it helps if they do, in my experience) but I'm not sure what to think about a priest who had never heard anyone's confession. It seems to such a basic part of what it means to be a priest. It would be like a priest who had never said mass. It's NOT just a 'high church' thing: the Book of Common Prayer assumes that a priest will hear a confession at least at the time of death (an explicitly encourages the practice elsewhere as well). At the very least, I would expect every ordained person to make it clear that he or she was available to the laity to provide counsel and instruction. The Church were I received most of my religious instruction used to conclude every parish newsletter by saying something along the lines 'all of the priests are available and happy to hear confessions, help in preparation for the sacraments, give instruction in the Catholic faith as received by the Church of England, or to talk about any issue whatsoever'. The curate of that church, by the way, is still foremost in mind when I think of a 'good priest': I doubt if many days went by when he didn't hear a confession (he'd be in the box for hours), and he celebrated mass most days as well, and preached a serious sermon every week as well. The man was practically a saint in my view, but he was hardly alone, even in (what I've been known to call with tongue only partly in cheek) 'these debased times'.

But perhaps my standards were set unreasonably high as an impressionable child (perhaps 'unreasonably high' in more than one sense!) I've certainly grown more accommodating as I've entered adulthood.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Also, bear in mind that many women who would make excellent priests are in churches who do not encourage women's ordination.
That I do accept utterly and without reservation.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Can we please not use such an abhorrent phrase as 'lady vicar', especially since not all priests are vicars!
'Lady vicars' was meant in jest, because it it conveys some of the irrationality of my stereotype.
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
S. Bacchus I know someone who fits your bill. Unfortunately, she is located in Tomah, Wisconsin.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
S. Bacchus I know someone who fits your bill. Unfortunately, she is located in Tomah, Wisconsin.
[Smile]

Actually, anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that parishes that 'fit my bill' and have a female priest on staff are much more common in North America than in England. Perhaps because you ordained women well before we did.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
No, it's because TEC is uniformly high-church (or high-church from an English Anglican perspective). The CoE is just more diverse in terms of churchmanship (this is not a criticism of either church FWIW).

Re sacramental confession - most priests I know would offer it if requested, regardless of churchmanship, but in an evangelical context confession tends to be considered a more personal thing - and evangelicals would doubtless interpret the concepts of priesthood and sacraments differently anyway. I don't see how you have the right to impose your own theological preferences on such a theologically diverse group as the CoE. That's all they are - preferences. And male priests fail in them just as much as female ones. Are you possibly holding women to higher standards than men because women are the newcomers, and you might be giving bad male priests more leeway?

A point on you saying that a priest who has never heard confession to be like a priest who has never said mass - an awful lot of evangelicals (and a goodly number of MOTRs) would never consider themselves to have said mass. Celebrate the Lord's Supper, yes. Many would be OK with lay celebration of Holy Communion too. Theology of priesthood and sacrament does differ with churchmanship.

[ 08. September 2013, 00:52: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
S. Bacchus:
quote:
For what it's worth I have compiled a short list of what I think makes a good priest:

Celebrates the Eucharist in a dignified manner and according to the rubrics, and does so regularly (preferably several times a week).

Is a good confessor, encouraging his or her congregation to make sacramental confession, and providing compassionate and considered counsel in the confessional.

Prays the Daily Office diligently, preferably in at least one the churches in his or her benefice.

Preaches memorable, insightful, and relevant sermons.

Is serious, but doesn't take himself/herself too seriously (a sense of humour should probably be a requirement for a priest).
Merely a "good" priest, not a "perfect" priest? I'd find it amazing to find a priest of either gender who hits all your marks. In fact, looking back, I think I've only known one. He's now the ordinary of a lucky diocese on the East Coast.

But I've also known some pretty damn good female priests in my time. They just had strengths, weaknesses and quirks like the rest of us. Fortunately they didn't have to fit my criterion of a "good" priest, just their bishop's.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Surely the use of sacramental confession is, by definition, a high church phenomenon? Given that the CofE in general recognises only two sacraments, it could hardly be otherwise.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Bear in mind that many women who would make excellent priests are in churches who do not encourage women's ordination. Imagine how hard it must be to be a conservative evangelical woman going for ordination! To then suggest that their churchmanship makes them less capable of being a priest seems pretty mean.

What gluttons for punishment! The CofE is supposedly designed to cater to a variety of theological positions, so why would you attend an a church that's anti women's ordination if you earnestly believe that you as a woman should be a priest?

Mind you, perhaps these serious-minded Christian women act as a kind of fifth column in these serous-minded churches if their very piety eventually makes them question the theological constraints on women's ministry.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
I'm a bit taken aback to discover that my list of priestly attributes was considered to consist of Anglo-Catholic shiboleths. The Public Daily Office and a regular (and rubrical) celebration of the Eucharist are canonical requirements for all priests with the cure of souls in the Church of England. I admit that sacramental confession is much rarer, although I do strongly feel that it should be universal and in no way a party badge, not least because it is specifically allowed for (even recommended) by the Book of Common Prayer. However, I would allow that a priest who did not advertize confessions but was known, for instance, to be a good spiritual director would satisfy the spirit of what I meant (not that reconciliation and spiritual direction are the same thing, but you see what I mean).

At the most basic, I feel that a priest should 'rightly and duly administer the holy sacraments', model a life of prayer, preach more competent sermons with reasonable consistency (nobody is brilliant all the time), and be pastorally sensitive.

When we're on the substance of shiboleths, on reflection a lot of it comes down to this:

If I am in a strange town and see a church whose sign says:

The Parish of the Most Sacred Heart of the Infant of Prague
Parish Mass Sundays at 10:30
Parish Priest: Fr Chantry Chasuble, SSC
A Forward in Faith Parish,

Then I have some idea what to expect. Although I do not agree with Forward in Faith's raison d'être, I can nevertheless be reasonably assured that this church is serious about its beliefs (it would have to be to take a decidedly unpopular position so publicly), the the sacraments will be celebrated with reverence and devotion (which does NOT mean with the priest wearing his tatiest maniple, or at least not necessarily), and that the preaching won't stray too far from Christian orthodoxy. In short, I have the sort of assurance that any lay Roman Catholic might have going into any Roman Catholic parish in the world.

Unfortunately, however, if the signs says

St Botolph's by the Bookmakers
Sunday Worship at 10:30 (see board for details)
Vicar: The Rev. Angela Ambulatory

Then I simply don't have the sort of assurance that I would have had with the FinF parish. It may be a wonderful parish with an excellent priest, but unless I've been tipped as to this by a friend whom I trust, I would probably go to the FinF parish across the way.

This may make me sound like an extremist Anglo-Catholic, which would be consistent with the picture of my views that others have painted above. But I'm more than happy at a bog-standard CofE Parish Communion with hymns. In fact, in many ways, that's closer to my 'home tradition' than a Roman Rite Mass at a FinF shack. When traveling to distant cities where I don't know the church landscape very well, I often opt for a very early BCP service: I find that these are usually celebrated very reverently (it helps that the congregations tend to be tiny and ancient, and thus remember a time when even central churchmen fasted before Communion and recited the confession 'meekly kneeling'), and there usually isn't a sermon to worry about.

It's important to me that main service be Eucharistic every week, that the preaching be orthodox, and that the sacraments be celebrated with visible reverence and more or less according to rubric. Unfortunately, outside of cathedrals and certain other flagship churches (certain civic churches and the college chapels), it sometimes seems that, to be assured of that those criteria will always be met, one has to stick to parishes without women priests (not that they may not be met elsewhere, but that there isn't the same sort of assurance that they will be). That seems a shame to me.

Of course, as ever, I could be wrong.

[ 08. September 2013, 12:35: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
IOW: "For them that likes this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing they will lie"

The rest of us ...whatever.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Since you started with 'this is bound to be controversial', I'll make a possibly-controversial reply.

I wonder whether there is a difference between those parishes that place great emphasis on doing things the correct way given the particular Anglican tradition that they view as 'theirs', and on those that place great emphasis on meeting the needs of the people in the parish, despite the fact that these needs aren't tidy from the point of view of church politics.

The first group probably are going to have services where the 'performance' is done a lot better.

The vast majority of FiF parishes are going to be in the first group.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I can't really see how the BCP can be said to endorse sacramental confession when the 39 Articles identify two sacraments only.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
*Leon*, could you elaborate. I feel you may be on to something, but I'm not sure if I entirely catch your drift.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I can't really see how the BCP can be said to endorse sacramental confession when the 39 Articles identify two sacraments only.
Sigh. Tangent alert.

quote:
And because it is requisite, that no man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.
— 1662 BCP Communion Office


quote:
Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
— Office of the Visitation of the Sick, 1662 BCP

quote:
Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.
— The Form and Manner of Ordering Priests, 1662 BCP

Not only do those passages all mention confession, but they talk about it in exactly the same way one would find in any Roman Catholic source, up to and including the idea that the ability to absolve sins was given by Christ himself to his ministers in perpetuity. If that's not a sacramental understanding of confession, then I'd be hard pressed to think of what constituted a sacramental understanding of it.

[ 08. September 2013, 13:15: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
So what do you think this means?
quote:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
I agree with you that confession is, or at least can be, sacramental. My point is that this is an Anglo-Catholic understanding of the sacraments; not one that is common to all Anglicans.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have worked with one woman vicar and two women curates.

Each of them preaches serious sermons about serious theology (and one of them needs to lighten up a little since there's too much theology stuffed into her sermons).

Each of them presides with sufficient gravitas and presence.

I don't know if they hear confessions regularly because anyone they will have seen is 'under the seal' - though our current curate has only recently been priested and it is customary to wait at least two years before starting, except in cases of emergency.

Churchpersonship wise, two of them are 'liberal catholic', the other 'extremely' catholic.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have worked with one woman vicar and two women curates.

[snip]

Churchpersonship wise, two of them are 'liberal catholic', the other 'extremely' catholic.
"Extremely" catholic in all but her theology, presumably... What exactly does that leave?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have worked with one woman vicar and two women curates.

[snip]

Churchpersonship wise, two of them are 'liberal catholic', the other 'extremely' catholic.
"Extremely" catholic in all but her theology, presumably... What exactly does that leave?
Good to know that all of Catholic theology can be determined by one's attitude to the ordination of women.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Bear in mind that many women who would make excellent priests are in churches who do not encourage women's ordination. Imagine how hard it must be to be a conservative evangelical woman going for ordination! To then suggest that their churchmanship makes them less capable of being a priest seems pretty mean.

What gluttons for punishment! The CofE is supposedly designed to cater to a variety of theological positions, so why would you attend an a church that's anti women's ordination if you earnestly believe that you as a woman should be a priest?

Mind you, perhaps these serious-minded Christian women act as a kind of fifth column in these serous-minded churches if their very piety eventually makes them question the theological constraints on women's ministry.
I was mostly talking about women who are unaware of (or don't admit to themselves) their vocation - but there are women who are actively pursuing ordination who are in churches not friendly to the idea.

The most obvious reason is geographical location - if you're an Anglo-Catholic and the only A-C church in town is Forward In Faith (and you can't travel outside of town due to buses being crap on Sundays, etc), then that's where you have to go. Yes, the CoE caters for a range of theological positions as a whole but not always in every location! If you live in a small town or village, you have to take what you're given. When I lived in Sussex (a historically conservative diocese), there were NO liberal churches in my town - even across denominations, the only liberal church were the Quakers. I didn't agree with everything my church (conservative evangelical Anglican) taught but I liked most of it, so that's what I based my decision on. I would imagine that other women do the same. I did consider leaving for another church at times, but didn't fancy being part of local church gossip and also felt guilty about it, so didn't.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I think that in the early days there may have been an unconscious trend on the part of some selection boards not to test/question vocation in women in the same way as they did men. I do know a few people who were on selection boards back then and they all say that they were very anxious (and were told to be) that they didn't discriminate against the women...

I think there may have been more easily identified differences in the way that some women have approached taking services partly because, certainly in the early days, not only did women not have own-sex ordained role models but also in many instances they hadn't had the same experience of being servers, etc, as had male ordinands.

Yes, I too have encountered women clergy who have been of the "ordained social worker" type. And I have also encountered tremendous female clergy. Likewise one of the laziest, most slapdash priests I ever had the dubious privilege of trying to work with was male and ex-Staggers.

One of the differences between clergy today and 40+ years ago is that many are thrown in at the deep end almost as soon as they are ordained, simply because of the shortage of personnel. 40+ years ago clergy would spend a year as a deacon and then have a first curacy where the PP would supervise their first steps - I even remember a time when a second curacy was not uncommon!

Fact is, some clergy aren't up to scratch - some are male and some female.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
*Leon*, could you elaborate. I feel you may be on to something, but I'm not sure if I entirely catch your drift.
I'll try.

In the world as it appears on Ship of Fools, Anglican churches have nice clear positions. This one is Anglo-Catholic. This one is Open Evangelical and so on. You can almost arrange a nice neat spectrum of different churches from conservative evo to extreme anglo catholic. (with a few confusing branches off for radical liberalism, charismatic evo and so on). But everyone knows where they are. It makes sense to argue about whether or not a church with confession is automatically 'anglo-catholic', or whether you can be 'extremely catholic' and accept women priests. I think you want a church that occupies a range of this spectrum (and it doesn't matter to my argument where that range is, or how big it is)

The trouble is that for many suburban or rural parishes, this isn't how they see things. What they really want is a very broad assortment of stuff that makes sense together for them for reasons of their local history, but would utterly confuse church historians with a tidy view of history. What they get is restricted by all sorts of practical issues. But they want to be the local church in that parish as best they can, so that's what they want to be.

I think these are the parishes that you want to avoid.

Now, since FiF parishes have a clear doctrinal and party view on one issue (women priests), it's probably to be expected that they'll have similarly clear views on other issues. So the vast majority of FiF parishes will know clearly where they are on the spectrum. Hence it makes statistical sense that most FiF parishes will be what you're looking for.

If I'm right, you might be able to expand your choice by looking for churches with strong views on women priests, whatever those views are. What you want to avoid is churches whose main reason for supporting women priests is that the CofE has women priests.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have worked with one woman vicar and two women curates.

[snip]

Churchpersonship wise, two of them are 'liberal catholic', the other 'extremely' catholic.
"Extremely" catholic in all but her theology, presumably... What exactly does that leave?
Good to know that all of Catholic theology can be determined by one's attitude to the ordination of women.
Inasmuch as accepting the purported ordination of women is a failure to hold entire the deposit of the Faith, yes. Catholicism is all or nothing.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Inasmuch as accepting the purported ordination of women is a failure to hold entire the deposit of the Faith, yes. Catholicism is all or nothing.
So you're jumping into a discussion about an alleged Anglican phenomenon to declare that Anglicans cannot be Catholic? That sounds like a worthwhile pursuit...
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have worked with one woman vicar and two women curates.

[snip]

Churchpersonship wise, two of them are 'liberal catholic', the other 'extremely' catholic.
"Extremely" catholic in all but her theology, presumably... What exactly does that leave?
Good to know that all of Catholic theology can be determined by one's attitude to the ordination of women.
Inasmuch as accepting the purported ordination of women is a failure to hold entire the deposit of the Faith, yes. Catholicism is all or nothing.
So cradle Roman Catholics who believe in the ordination of women aren't real Catholics?
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have worked with one woman vicar and two women curates.

[snip]

Churchpersonship wise, two of them are 'liberal catholic', the other 'extremely' catholic.
"Extremely" catholic in all but her theology, presumably... What exactly does that leave?
Good to know that all of Catholic theology can be determined by one's attitude to the ordination of women.
Inasmuch as accepting the purported ordination of women is a failure to hold entire the deposit of the Faith, yes. Catholicism is all or nothing.
So cradle Roman Catholics who believe in the ordination of women aren't real Catholics?
They do not hold the Catholic faith whole and entire, no.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Inasmuch as accepting the purported ordination of women is a failure to hold entire the deposit of the Faith, yes. Catholicism is all or nothing.
So you're jumping into a discussion about an alleged Anglican phenomenon to declare that Anglicans cannot be Catholic? That sounds like a worthwhile pursuit...
My impression is that Vade Mecum is an Anglican (and a priest? he certainly works at a church).


quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:

The trouble is that for many suburban or rural parishes, this isn't how they see things. What they really want is a very broad assortment of stuff that makes sense together for them for reasons of their local history, but would utterly confuse church historians with a tidy view of history. What they get is restricted by all sorts of practical issues. But they want to be the local church in that parish as best they can, so that's what they want to be.

I think these are the parishes that you want to avoid.
Yes, well I'll admit to having something of a dislike for village Anglicanism. All those lovely churches, but I've more than once found myself out in the wilds of England looking for a simple communion service. The last time, I couldn't find any Eucharistic service in any of the nearest five benefices (which had perhaps eight churches) to the cottage I was house sitting. Not even a simple early morning one. It was the Sunday before Christmas and it was all Christingles and carols; nice enough, but no substitute for the Eucharist. I ended up walking into the nearest town of any size (a good 15 miles in the rain!), where the vicar of a moderately Anglo-Catholic parish was clearly genuinely shocked that his rural brethren were so negligent of their duties (perhaps significantly he'd done his curacies in London and one of the big northern cities).

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:

Now, since FiF parishes have a clear doctrinal
If I'm right, you might be able to expand your choice by looking for churches with strong views on women priests, whatever those views are. What you want to avoid is churches whose main reason for supporting women priests is that the CofE has women priests.
Well, I can say for certain that I really, really don't like WATCH. One friend of mine had a tendency to share their press releases around the time of the Synod and I've found them spiteful, lacking in Christian charity, and sometimes mendacious (in comparison, I thought the equivalent material from Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in Synod showed admirable restraint and charity — they've clearly learned their lesson in this regard; the Reform material was horrible, of course, but I've never met anyone who takes Reform seriously as a group). I've had more mixed experiences with Affirming Catholicism, which in my experience the former ranges from serious orthodox Christians in the Catholic tradition who happen to support the ordination of women (Rowan Williams, Jeffrey John, etc) all the way through to those who live up to the 'unitarians in chasubles' stereotype.

As I alluded to before, the places where I felt I could belong that had women priests have tended not to be parish churches, but instead cathedrals or chapels. Strangely, both cathedrals and chapels strive to be 'all things to all people' (usually Anglicanism's downfall) but tend to avoid the worst excesses of the dumbing down of the post 1960s church.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Well then, it seems like your issue is with village Anglicanism, and not female priests. Given the tiny congregations and necessity of team benefices in rural areas or even towns, priests being ordained nowadays are likely to be in that situation - and it's worth pointing out that many congregations object to weekly Eucharist, and the priest might be trying to change things with no success! I do sympathise (preferring to receive the Eucharist weekly or more often myself), but it's not to do with female clergy but with team benefices and the parish system in general (not to mention congregations who are not used to weekly Eucharist).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
Preaches memorable, insightful, and relevant sermons.
Four of the five best preachers I know are women. In my experience, male preachers are more likely to preach rambling, vague, dull and irrelevant sermons.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
Preaches memorable, insightful, and relevant sermons.
Four of the five best preachers I know are women. In my experience, male preachers are more likely to preach rambling, vague, dull and irrelevant sermons.
I've certainly heard some very good sermons in my time from ordained women. URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhPxT4NfBok]The Rev'd Dr Cally Hammond [/URL] would certainly rate as one of the best preachers that I've ever heard. I've heard good things about the Rev'd Lucy Winkett as well, although I've never personally heard her preach. But that would seem to support my point: talented female clergy tend to end up in cathedrals or college chapels rather than in 'normal' parochial ministry (admittedly Lucy Winkett is now an incumbent, but she's spent much of her ministry as a canon of St Paul's).

The problem may be this: good preaching tends to fall into one of a few types. Either it is very academic (and I must say that Dr Hammond is perhaps the single most academic preacher I've ever heard, although she refrains from quoting large amounts of Homer in Greek in the above YouTube video, which shows that she can perhaps tone the donnishnes down), which is not appropriate in many parish settings, but tends to be more suitable in cathedrals or collegiate churches. Or it is passionately evangelistic, a style that tends to be found in very high Anglo-Catholic parishes and, of course, in evangelical parishes (which, of course, are the two types of parish least likely to have an ordained woman on staff). It may be that Middle of the Road parishes disproportionately suffer from the 'wee word' about how 'Jesus is a bit like a sunbeam', and that it is in such churches that ordained women are disproportionately found both as incumbents and assistant curates.

[ 08. September 2013, 20:27: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Fact is, some clergy aren't up to scratch - some are male and some female.
Too true, too true!

Just doesn't seem to be an avenue open to get rid of them permanently unfortunately so for years we get landed with priest's who struggle with the liturgy, lack pastoral sensitivity and in general destroy my time with god made present in the sacrament... but ah well, can't have everything in life, but it worry's me about the direction of the Church in general, with fewer and fewer clergy, and of a diminishing quality...
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Fact is, some clergy aren't up to scratch - some are male and some female.
Too true, too true!

Just doesn't seem to be an avenue open to get rid of them permanently unfortunately so for years we get landed with priest's who struggle with the liturgy, lack pastoral sensitivity and in general destroy my time with god made present in the sacrament... but ah well, can't have everything in life, but it worry's me about the direction of the Church in general, with fewer and fewer clergy, and of a diminishing quality...
I don't think the diminishing quality thing is true - there have always been bad priests surely, and there must have been more when going into the clergy was seen as a good upper-middle class profession. Now, I would have thought that it's a less desirable job, and tougher to get into.

What does concern me is that with fewer clergy, the clergy we have may well be excellent but are overstretched which in turn makes them less good at their job - just as being overstretched makes anyone less good at their job.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Fact is, some clergy aren't up to scratch - some are male and some female.
Too true, too true!

Just doesn't seem to be an avenue open to get rid of them permanently unfortunately so for years we get landed with priest's who struggle with the liturgy, lack pastoral sensitivity and in general destroy my time with god made present in the sacrament... but ah well, can't have everything in life, but it worry's me about the direction of the Church in general, with fewer and fewer clergy, and of a diminishing quality...
I don't think the diminishing quality thing is true - there have always been bad priests surely, and there must have been more when going into the clergy was seen as a good upper-middle class profession. Now, I would have thought that it's a less desirable job, and tougher to get into.

What does concern me is that with fewer clergy, the clergy we have may well be excellent but are overstretched which in turn makes them less good at their job - just as being overstretched makes anyone less good at their job.
You are probably right on that one! Although it may be a case that it is merely the mediocre ones that have been squeezed out and we have been left, in the majority, with those who inhabit the extremes of the ability range...

But I can think of two Priests I know that make me surprised about the Bishop's decision to ordain... surely the deficiencies they have were evident earlier, or they do a good job of covering them up... which leads me to wonder about your more difficult bit... The Church seems to have a tick list of what it wants and that's it, no time for serious moulding of people and no time for those who are not 'Pauline missionaries' as it were... if you don't tick the bureaucratic boxes, then tough luck on your calling...
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Fact is, some clergy aren't up to scratch - some are male and some female.
Too true, too true!

Just doesn't seem to be an avenue open to get rid of them permanently unfortunately so for years we get landed with priest's who struggle with the liturgy, lack pastoral sensitivity and in general destroy my time with god made present in the sacrament... but ah well, can't have everything in life, but it worry's me about the direction of the Church in general, with fewer and fewer clergy, and of a diminishing quality...
I don't think the diminishing quality thing is true - there have always been bad priests surely, and there must have been more when going into the clergy was seen as a good upper-middle class profession. Now, I would have thought that it's a less desirable job, and tougher to get into.

What does concern me is that with fewer clergy, the clergy we have may well be excellent but are overstretched which in turn makes them less good at their job - just as being overstretched makes anyone less good at their job.
You are probably right on that one! Although it may be a case that it is merely the mediocre ones that have been squeezed out and we have been left, in the majority, with those who inhabit the extremes of the ability range...

But I can think of two Priests I know that make me surprised about the Bishop's decision to ordain... surely the deficiencies they have were evident earlier, or they do a good job of covering them up... which leads me to wonder about your more difficult bit... The Church seems to have a tick list of what it wants and that's it, no time for serious moulding of people and no time for those who are not 'Pauline missionaries' as it were... if you don't tick the bureaucratic boxes, then tough luck on your calling...
I think Pioneer Ministry is doing something to correct that - although if the training could be expanded to theological colleges outside of the evangelical ones, that would help a great deal.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I've met priests of both sexes who, frankly, should never have been ordained, but amongst women there seems to be a higher proportion who are very nice people but don't seem to have anything that I can recognize as a distinctly priestly vocation. Call it the 'Vicar of Dibley' effect, if you will (the Rev'd Geraldine Granger being a grotesque and comic exaggeration of the type of priest I have in mind).
The Vicar of Dibley amused me a lot back in the day, and I don't find the character of Geraldine Granger intrinsically grotesque, granted of course that this was the Richard Curtis Version of Spirituality (God help us).

I've been evangelical practically all my Christian life and I've met very few hopeless cases of the kind you seem to describe, man or woman.

I've known many male evangelical clergy and heard many fine preachers - not just Anglicans but other folk.

Same goes for the women clergy I've encountered.

I don't doubt there are some hopeless cases among the women (human nature and all) ... I just haven't met them.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
S. Bacchus
quote:
But that would seem to support my point: talented female clergy tend to end up in cathedrals or college chapels rather than in 'normal' parochial ministry...
Well, all the people I was thinking of are in what you refer to as 'normal' parochial ministry. One of the worst sermons I ever heard was preached by a bishop.

I'm glad to hear that you approve of talented clergy being 'promoted' to cathedrals and college chapels, though.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think Pioneer Ministry is doing something to correct that
I'm sorry, but my impression has always been that 'Pioneer Ministry' is (to paraphrase a Fry and Laurie sketch about the SAS) less of a reality on the ground and more of masturbatory aid for aging archdeacons and balding bishops who want to prove they're 'still with it'. The same is broadly true, although perhaps to a lesser extent, of 'Fresh Expressions' (which is conclusively and damning discussed by the Rev'd Prof. Alison Millbank, a brilliant theologian who also happens to be a woman and ordained).

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

I'm glad to hear that you approve of talented clergy being 'promoted' to cathedrals and college chapels, though.
My point was actually that many of the most talented male priests are famous precisely for their work in parish ministry. Amongst priests serving today, one might point to the Rev'd Nicky Gumbel (whom I personally can't stand, but who is undeniably successful at what he does) and Fr Philip North, on more or less opposite ends of the churchmanship spectrum. (Of course, Fr North should have been made a bishop, but that's another story).

Given that, as yet, women cannot be bishops in the Church of England, one would actually expect the most talented female clergy to be MORE concentrated in parochial ministry. That does not seem to have happened.

My argument has never been that women can't make good parish priests (I'm sorry if that hasn't been clear). It has much more to do with the sorts of parishes that tend to call female priests.
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Given that, as yet, women cannot be bishops in the Church of England, one would actually expect the most talented female clergy to be MORE concentrated in parochial ministry. That does not seem to have happened.

My argument has never been that women can't make good parish priests (I'm sorry if that hasn't been clear). It has much more to do with the sorts of parishes that tend to call female priests.
A lot of the top women, for precisely this reason, occupy Deaneries and Archdeaconries, and are thus perhaps less visible/audible as preachers.

I think the point about the parishes which tend to call women is that the sample has a lot more bland MotR churches in it, which would be bland whoever the priest was (or wasn't). Whereas the oppoosite of a resolution C church is not a resolution X church which only calls women, so the sample is skewed: the male half is more diverse, being more broad in churchmanship.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
S. Bacchus:
quote:
Given that, as yet, women cannot be bishops in the Church of England, one would actually expect the most talented female clergy to be MORE concentrated in parochial ministry. That does not seem to have happened.
You're forgetting that the current crop of senior female clergy includes many women who had been waiting for years for Synod to decide that they could be ordained, and who cannot (yet) be made bishops. This may account for some distortion.

And just for the record, 'middle-of-the-road' does not necessarily entail 'bland and boring'. I used to worship at a parish that described itself as MOTR*. It was sometimes embarrassing, sometimes moving, often thought-provoking, occasionally irritating, but never boring.

* Most evangelicals would say it's on the high side of the candle; FiF types would disapprove as it has women priests - Shock! Horror! - and no incense. So it probably is middle-of-the-road, because both types of extremist would disapprove, though for different reasons.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Some random anecdotal observations:

[a] it's only fairly recently that we have seen younger women clergy coming through the more traditional university-theological college route that most priests now in their 50s and 60s did. So the first wave or two of ordained women included a large backlog of those with less 'structured' (liturgically at least, and maybe theologically) backgrounds.
[b] the OP's comments could, and probably should, apply to many (though by no means all) priests of either gender trained on non-residential courses. My impression is that although the courses try to give a good understanding of all traditions in the C of E (more than most traditional colleges did), they cannot provide a disciplined liturgical framework which IMHO is necessary for the basis of a priest's life. So unless an ordinand comes from one of the diminishing number of parishes with a clear liturgical and devotional structure, s/he is likely to be floundering somewhat. Not just about the 'correct way to say mass' but in owning a particular discipline (either traditionally 'catholic' or 'evangelical')
[c] I've not come across many women priests with hardline evangelical views: in my experience many who come from evangelical backgrounds become more 'catholic' in all sorts of ways. But they are less likely than men to be liturgical pedants.
[d] leaving aside the red herring of whether there are 7 or 2 sacraments (surely something can be 'sacramental' even if it is not in itself a sacrament) the 'Sacrament' of Reconciliation (Penance/Confession) should be something that all priests are trained for and that all are prepared to offer. There should be no 'no-go' areas in the C of E for sacramental Christians who wish to make their confession through a priest. Any priest who says 'I don't hear confessions' is in dereliction of duty IMHO.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
By Jove! I think Angloid's got it. All of his points seem to me excellent, and to really get to the point of what I was feeling.

I hadn't realized it, but ALL of the priests I had in mind as 'good priests' were either trained at a residential theological college OR served their title (or, more often, their first posting as a NSM) in the sort of large urban Anglo-Catholic parish that has daily mass and where the incumbent and his* curate(s) gather twice a day to say the office together in church.

Some priests, of course, will be lucky enough to have both trained in a traditional college and served a curacy in such a place, but it seems that it's fundamentally an issue of formation. I think that, maybe, the first few generations of female clergy had, on average, fewer opportunities in terms of formation? I suspect (and hope) that this is changing.

*Almost always still HIS, I think, in these sorts of places (in England, perhaps not in North America), but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[Duplicate post deleted]

[ 10. September 2013, 07:43: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Angloid:
quote:
...the 'Sacrament' of Reconciliation (Penance/Confession) should be something that all priests are trained for and that all are prepared to offer. There should be no 'no-go' areas in the C of E for sacramental Christians who wish to make their confession through a priest. Any priest who says 'I don't hear confessions' is in dereliction of duty IMHO.
Agreed. I don't do it myself but would not wish to put obstacles in the way of those who find it helpful.

The MOTR parish I spoke of earlier offered it.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I
40+ years ago clergy would spend a year as a deacon and then have a first curacy where the PP would supervise their first steps...
.
That's exactly what happens now.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
I just wanted to say that, this evening, I heard a wonderful sermon from an ordained woman. I'd me her and heard her preach before and knew she was the real deal, but I felt I should mention this. She trained at Westcott and, as far as I know, had a normal training curacy. The whole service was well done (although the celebrant was a bishop and thus obviously male): a real model of MOTR Cathedral Anglicanism at its absolute best. If services all MOTR Anglican services were like that (albeit on a smaller scale), then I would be very happy.

I think Angloid and (in a totally different way) *Leon* got got to the route of my problems.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Yes, the CoE caters for a range of theological positions as a whole but not always in every location! If you live in a small town or village, you have to take what you're given. When I lived in Sussex (a historically conservative diocese), there were NO liberal churches in my town - even across denominations, the only liberal church were the Quakers. I didn't agree with everything my church (conservative evangelical Anglican) taught but I liked most of it, so that's what I based my decision on. I would imagine that other women do the same. I did consider leaving for another church at times, but didn't fancy being part of local church gossip and also felt guilty about it, so didn't.
Ah, the rural issue.

I'd imagined that rural churches would either try to avoid extremes and stick to being MOTR, or that they'd be quite conservative, in the manner of close knit communities. One doesn't connect theological liberalism with small places where people try to avoid 'church gossip'. Women (and indeed men) have to go to the big city or to the great seats of learning if they want liberal theology. 'Twas ever thus, perhaps.

I was originally interested in this thread because it made me reflect on Methodist women clergy. I don't think they face quite he same issues, partly because they've been around for longer, and also because there's less diversity of churchmanship in Methodism. Some clergy are more evangelical than others, but the liturgical and sacramental practices have been more or less the same in every Methodist church I've attended, so this talk about Anglican women ministers falling short in this way is rather strange to me. Methodist sermons are also remarkably consistent. If anything, the distinction is between lay and clergy preaching, not between men and women.

[ 10. September 2013, 01:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[QUOTE] I'm sorry, but my impression has always been that 'Pioneer Ministry' is (to paraphrase a Fry and Laurie sketch about the SAS) less of a reality on the ground and more of masturbatory aid for aging archdeacons and balding bishops who want to prove they're 'still with it'. The same is broadly true, although perhaps to a lesser extent, of 'Fresh Expressions' (which is conclusively and damning discussed by the Rev'd Prof. Alison Millbank, a brilliant theologian who also happens to be a woman and ordained).
My experience is rather different. Although not an Anglican I've experience of Anglican Pioneer and Fresh Expressions across the UK. IMNE most of them are working and making a difference to their community. If only I could say that about the churches around them.

The distaste for them in some circles ("learned academic theologians") firstly goes over the heads of those doing it on the ground and secondly has an uncomfortable reek of disliking a "new" way of being/witnessing as a church community. A lot hinges round the fact that such pioneer churches don't care about liturgy but find liturgy in the communal life. It's all very sad esp when it's once again a case of shooting one's own side.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Ah, the rural issue.

I'd imagined that rural churches would either try to avoid extremes and stick to being MOTR, or that they'd be quite conservative, in the manner of close knit communities.
Theological liberalism is alive and well in rural areas - often of the most wishy washy kind. I suppose though that with a greater number of churches in the cofe you'll always find some like that. n some areas I've come across, you have to work hard to find anything else - which is why cofe churches are declining faster than average in such areas where other denominations are holding ground or growing.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Ah, the rural issue.

I'd imagined that rural churches would either try to avoid extremes and stick to being MOTR, or that they'd be quite conservative, in the manner of close knit communities.
Theological liberalism is alive and well in rural areas - often of the most wishy washy kind. I suppose though that with a greater number of churches in the cofe you'll always find some like that. n some areas I've come across, you have to work hard to find anything else - which is why cofe churches are declining faster than average in such areas where other denominations are holding ground or growing.
I suppose it depends what you mean by liberalism, and it depends on the area. In Sussex, it's hard to find anything but conservative churches outside of Brighton & Hove, but then Sussex has its own history of conservative evangelicalism.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Yes, the CoE caters for a range of theological positions as a whole but not always in every location! If you live in a small town or village, you have to take what you're given. When I lived in Sussex (a historically conservative diocese), there were NO liberal churches in my town - even across denominations, the only liberal church were the Quakers. I didn't agree with everything my church (conservative evangelical Anglican) taught but I liked most of it, so that's what I based my decision on. I would imagine that other women do the same. I did consider leaving for another church at times, but didn't fancy being part of local church gossip and also felt guilty about it, so didn't.
Ah, the rural issue.

I'd imagined that rural churches would either try to avoid extremes and stick to being MOTR, or that they'd be quite conservative, in the manner of close knit communities. One doesn't connect theological liberalism with small places where people try to avoid 'church gossip'. Women (and indeed men) have to go to the big city or to the great seats of learning if they want liberal theology. 'Twas ever thus, perhaps.

I was originally interested in this thread because it made me reflect on Methodist women clergy. I don't think they face quite he same issues, partly because they've been around for longer, and also because there's less diversity of churchmanship in Methodism. Some clergy are more evangelical than others, but the liturgical and sacramental practices have been more or less the same in every Methodist church I've attended, so this talk about Anglican women ministers falling short in this way is rather strange to me. Methodist sermons are also remarkably consistent. If anything, the distinction is between lay and clergy preaching, not between men and women.
It's not a rural issue as such, but also about the historical emphasis of various dioceses. Sussex, as I've mentioned, has always been strongly evangelical and even today, the only place you can really find properly liberal churches is Brighton & Hove - the town in Sussex where I lived wasn't rural at all, but very strongly conservative theologically-speaking. Coventry, for example, is also historically evangelical and there are only two Affirming Catholic churches in the entire city. Churchmanship varies by geographical location.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The clergy I've encountered in rural areas have tended to be liberal in terms of attitudes toward gay people and women, and in fact tending towards universalism. That said, they have a genuine believe in the core doctrines of Christianity: the divinity of Christ; the physical resurrection; the Trinity; and life beyond this one.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The clergy I've encountered in rural areas have tended to be liberal in terms of attitudes toward gay people and women, and in fact tending towards universalism. That said, they have a genuine believe in the core doctrines of Christianity: the divinity of Christ; the physical resurrection; the Trinity; and life beyond this one.
Well, I wouldn't mind that too much, or at all for that matter. (I note, though, that you're in rural Scotland, which I think may be very different from rural England, not least because the SEC is less of a liturgical and theological free for all).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Research apparently shows that female clergy (and women worshippers) are more liberal on the whole than male clergy (and male worshippers). This probably means there's more of a gender balance in conservative churches. The situation could create some interesting challenges for the future.

If dynamic Christian women are attracted to conservative churches because they appreciate the positive mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics, they might still have to deal with the negatives of patriarchal attitudes. And if these more liberal women are entering the priesthood but the available churches are increasingly likely to be conservative, that'll create tensions too.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Well, I wouldn't mind that too much, or at all for that matter. (I note, though, that you're in rural Scotland, which I think may be very different from rural England, not least because the SEC is less of a liturgical and theological free for all).
I lived in England until 18 months ago.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Research apparently shows that female clergy (and women worshippers) are more liberal on the whole than male clergy (and male worshippers). This probably means there's more of a gender balance in conservative churches. The situation could create some interesting challenges for the future.

If dynamic Christian women are attracted to conservative churches because they appreciate the positive mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics, they might still have to deal with the negatives of patriarchal attitudes. And if these more liberal women are entering the priesthood but the available churches are increasingly likely to be conservative, that'll create tensions too.
Dynamic Christian women are found in all churchmanships. I would imagine that evangelical churches tending to excel in youth and children's work and having an energetic atmosphere (and maybe more things for students, if relevant) would be more of a draw than 'positive mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics' (what does that even mean?). Plus, as I've said above, churchmanship varies regionally and some areas still have strong historical links to particular kinds of churches.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would imagine that evangelical churches tending to excel in youth and children's work and having an energetic atmosphere (and maybe more things for students, if relevant) would be more of a draw than 'positive mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics' (what does that even mean?).
My point was that some women might be attracted to evangelical churches because they are more likely to be even gender-wise. Not because these women want a husband (as some might suspect), but because they value the atmosphere created by that mixture.

Of course, other women (and other men) might have other priorities.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would imagine that evangelical churches tending to excel in youth and children's work and having an energetic atmosphere (and maybe more things for students, if relevant) would be more of a draw than 'positive mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics' (what does that even mean?).
My point was that some women might be attracted to evangelical churches because they are more likely to be even gender-wise. Not because these women want a husband (as some might suspect), but because they value the atmosphere created by that mixture.

Of course, other women (and other men) might have other priorities.
But I don't see why evangelical women in particular would be attracted to a church that has a more even gender balance? That's what's confusing me - I don't see what it is about having a more gender-balanced congregation that's inherently more evangelical.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Just to say that in the last ten years, the majority of times I've made a confession was to a woman priest.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
So have I, with one exception, over 20 years.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't see why evangelical women in particular would be attracted to a church that has a more even gender balance? That's what's confusing me - I don't see what it is about having a more gender-balanced congregation that's inherently more evangelical.
It's not that more gender-balanced congregations are inherently more evangelical, but that evangelical churches generally have a more even gender balance than other types of churches. It seems that certain factors make some evangelical churches a bit more attractive to men, and may also make them attractive to certain kinds of women.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But I don't see why evangelical women in particular would be attracted to a church that has a more even gender balance?
I think the point is that some women prefer churches that have a more even gender balance, and evangelical CofE churches tend to have more male members - particularly younger single ones. If one is unattached and seeking a Christian partner, the numbers are better at the evangelical parishes.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
This is a slight tangent from the OP, but comes under the related heading of 'disliking things that accompany being a 'lady vicar'.'

Earlier this week I took a difficult funeral. Tragic circumstances, complex family relationships, packed church, all the sort of things that those of us used to funeral ministry will recognise under the heading of 'difficult.' The difficulty doesn't reduce the privilege of committing one of God's children into His hands, or of accompanying a family and helping them. It's just difficult.

As I was dusting the dirt from my hands after the interment a member of the extended family came across to me and said
"A man couldn't have done a better job."

Oh. Good. Thank you. And knowing that he meant it as a compliment doesn't really help.

anne
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
anne:
quote:
As I was dusting the dirt from my hands after the interment a member of the extended family came across to me and said
"A man couldn't have done a better job."

Oh. Good. Thank you. And knowing that he meant it as a compliment doesn't really help.
[brick wall] [Votive]

In other news, I heard a truly terribly sermon preached by a male priest a couple of days ago. It was rambling, incoherent and about ten minutes too long. However, in spite of this I still think men who are called to the priesthood should be allowed to be ordained.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:

As I was dusting the dirt from my hands after the interment a member of the extended family came across to me and said
"A man couldn't have done a better job."

Oh. Good. Thank you. And knowing that he meant it as a compliment doesn't really help.

anne
Well, I would take it as a genuine compliment, anne.

Consider that not everyone is coherent, not everyone can find the right words to say. And that what he actually intended to say was; 'I cannot imagine anyone at all conducting this funeral better than you have; you have made a very difficult time easier than it might have been, and I thank you for it. I will always be grateful for your help at this time.'

That is the deep structure to his rather clumsy surface structure, imo. You may be very good with words, and very good at public speaking. And you may also forget how difficult it can be to approach a Vicar and say anything. I know my own dad would find it very challenging, but would want to say thank you, and in saying thank you would very likely say something that would not sound particularly complimentary. My dad left school at 14 to become a builder, and is now 80 years old. He would not know how to say the right thing in this situation, but would want to say something.

I honestly think it was far more of a compliment than it sounded. And it was nothing to do with you being a woman; everything to do with thanking you for your love and compassion.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:



Oh. Good. Thank you. And knowing that he meant it as a compliment doesn't really help.
Does it help to think that you've shifted someone's view for the better, even if not all the way to where you'd like it? And that the next time he talks about the subject it will be in more positive terms.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:

As I was dusting the dirt from my hands after the interment a member of the extended family came across to me and said
"A man couldn't have done a better job."

Oh. Good. Thank you. And knowing that he meant it as a compliment doesn't really help.

anne
Well, I would take it as a genuine compliment, anne.

Consider that not everyone is coherent, not everyone can find the right words to say. And that what he actually intended to say was; 'I cannot imagine anyone at all conducting this funeral better than you have; you have made a very difficult time easier than it might have been, and I thank you for it. I will always be grateful for your help at this time.'

That is the deep structure to his rather clumsy surface structure, imo. You may be very good with words, and very good at public speaking. And you may also forget how difficult it can be to approach a Vicar and say anything. I know my own dad would find it very challenging, but would want to say thank you, and in saying thank you would very likely say something that would not sound particularly complimentary. My dad left school at 14 to become a builder, and is now 80 years old. He would not know how to say the right thing in this situation, but would want to say something.

I honestly think it was far more of a compliment than it sounded. And it was nothing to do with you being a woman; everything to do with thanking you for your love and compassion.
Yes, I think it was intended as a genuine compliment - and really, my feelings are of such vanishing unimportance at a time like that. Whatever matters at that moment it's not my chances of being offended.

And yes, talking to the vicar can be difficult; I spent most of my life not being one and I remember the feeling. People say all sorts of odd things. I suppose that I'm just sad that this thing is the first thing that came into his head, that it's still an issue, that he thought it was even worth commenting. Because we could have been talking about his late family member, or about how he was coping, or about his faith or about... anything that really mattered at that moment.

So I do understand what this poor, grieving man was trying to say, and I thanked him for saying it.

I think that I'm just tired of talking about my gender first and my priesthood second, just really, really tired of it constantly being the first thing that people want to talk to me about - or that they think that I want to talk about. It's the difference between 'our lady vicar is called anne' and 'our vicar is called anne' and it made me a little sad that this gentleman had seen a 'lady vicar'.

anne
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:

I think that I'm just tired of talking about my gender first and my priesthood second, just really, really tired of it constantly being the first thing that people want to talk to me about - or that they think that I want to talk about. It's the difference between 'our lady vicar is called anne' and 'our vicar is called anne' and it made me a little sad that this gentleman had seen a 'lady vicar'.

anne
In other words it is not about him at all. It is about you.

You are highly sensitive to those particular words, and so when they are said they have a particularly strong effect on you. If you were a doctor or a dentist would you mind being called a 'lady doctor' by a patient who needs you?

If so, I suggest that the issue lies in you. And that this will always be an issue until you stop caring about it, and just get on with being a Vicar.

I am sorry if I sound heartless: I don't mean to be. You are ordained; nothing more is needed. Being called a 'lady' is simply part of the cross you have to bear. There are far worse ones, imho.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
I'd say Anne was getting on with it, but acknowledging that she sometimes finds that cross heavy and hard to bear. Even if she suppresses the emotion she feels to be pastoral, that does actually stop the hurt, and sometimes you need to say aaargh to someone

Carys
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
One of the arguments sometimes used for having women clergy is that they bring something distinctive to the ministry. If so, then their femaleness isn't something to be ignored or neutralised away, but something to be valued.

For example, my mother started going to church again partly because the female minister at a local Methodist church used to give her big welcoming hugs at the threshold. She needed that kind of welcome at that time. A male minister might have been equally wonderful in other ways, but in this situation, and for my mother, it probably had to be a woman.

Or, let's say a certain kind of woman. I can imagine that some women ministers, consciously or otherwise, try not to be that touchy-feely 'lady vicar'. Perhaps it's a bit of a cliché? One group of researchers found that when some female Anglican clergy were tested they were shown to have psychological traits that were in some notable respects closer to the English average for men than for women. I suspect that such women are unlikely to appreciate their femaleness being a focus of attention.

[ 23. September 2013, 01:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
In other words it is not about him at all. It is about you.

You are highly sensitive to those particular words, and so when they are said they have a particularly strong effect on you. If you were a doctor or a dentist would you mind being called a 'lady doctor' by a patient who needs you?

If so, I suggest that the issue lies in you. And that this will always be an issue until you stop caring about it, and just get on with being a Vicar.

I am sorry if I sound heartless: I don't mean to be. You are ordained; nothing more is needed. Being called a 'lady' is simply part of the cross you have to bear. There are far worse ones, imho.
anne shared her perspective, which is, you know, her perspective and therefore by definition about her. Since some people label her with the category found in the OP, it is reasonable for her to do so without being made to seem self-centred.

As to the last part of your post opining on the relative size of one's crosses, no, I wouldn't say it sounded heartless. Pompous, yes. You mistook the nature of anne's post, which read as an expression of weary frustration ("aargh" per Carys). You chose to describe it as a cross size comparison contest - a tasteless exercise from my point of view, but obviously YMMV.

anne is surely entitled to be weary of being described in terms resembling Dr Johnson's dog.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
anne is surely entitled to be weary of being described in terms resembling Dr Johnson's dog.
Agree completely.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
... You are ordained; nothing more is needed....
Well now, if everyone agreed that it was that simple we could spare the Ship quite a few threads, couldn't we?

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
... anne's post, which read as an expression of weary frustration ("aargh" per Carys).
Yes, 'weary frustration' is about right.

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
anne is surely entitled to be weary of being described in terms resembling Dr Johnson's dog.
Thank you (!)

anne
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

anne is surely entitled to be weary of being described in terms resembling Dr Johnson's dog.
Entitled to be weary?

Well, I suppose so. But surely if she stopped caring about other people being who they are, and as they are, and accepted instead that they will take time to change, then she could be happier.

Personally, I would prefer anne to be happier, rather than weary. But it is indeed her choice. She can postpone happiness until the whole world reaches enlightenment, or she can accept it today, by accepting her ordination as complete, regardless of who still calls her a 'lady vicar.'

I did not want to sound heartless. I wanted to sound encourageing. I am sorry if it came out wrong.

[ 24. September 2013, 08:16: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One of the arguments sometimes used for having women clergy is that they bring something distinctive to the ministry. If so, then their femaleness isn't something to be ignored or neutralised away, but something to be valued.
This is true. When I have gone to the Abbey for a service and a woman has presided, the whole feeling of the service is different. It is difficult to explain why, but there is a different dimension; the Eucharist which has been so familiar for so long becomes richer and more complete.

One service I went to was one of the Feasts of Our Lady, and it had a woman president, and the girls' choir. The combination was truly beautiful.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I don't think it is always possible to choose to be happier about things, or even right to do so, in some instances.
To suggest it is is rather like someone who has not known depression talking about snapping out of it. Or the evangelicals who suggested to a very devout member of their congregation who had a nervous breakdown in front of a class in school that if she had truly let Jesus into her life it wouldn't have happened.
If anne feels that way, she feels that way, and if she had chosen to feel that way, I doubt she would be posting about it on here in the way that she has.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0