|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Interviewing applicants for clergy post
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.
In what precise way is this different from saying:
``I know best; you are wrong'' ?
Is `confused', in the sense it used here,not the same as `having the audacity to hold opinions that I, and my right-thinking colleagues, ascribe no value to'?
In fact, does not the very use of the term `laity' in this sentence automatically divide the world into two classes: people who are entitled to a say in how things are done, and people who are not?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lumensis
Shipmate
# 10272
|
Posted
And one might ask about the C of E application form which, as clergy are office holders not employees, goes against all the anti-discrmination (age, marital status etc) legislation that applies to the vast majority of job-seekers......
Should a (now gay, civilly partnered, divorced, black, old,)lay representative be privy to personal information that is irrelevant to the applicant's fitness to do the job?
Posts: 57 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
quote:
You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School. or has some other useful skill, like music or plumbing. You also invite the clergy spouse so that the candidate may demonstrate his or her heterosexuality.
[/QB]
Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days - please tell me clergy spouses are not part of the interview process! .....I'm usually considered presentable and sane, but the clergy spouse is definitely not there to plug the gaps. Usually he/she has a job or occupation of their own.
Having a spouse and children isn't a reliable indicator of heterosexuality, either. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
Drat - bad code - apologies.
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.
In what precise way is this different from saying:
``I know best; you are wrong'' ?
In the way that a leader defines both the direction and the morale, neither of which are about "right and wrong."
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
In my diocese, about twenty years ago, the lay reps of a certain church vetoed the possibility of teaming up with an adjacent one solely because the vicar of the latter was a black man. How are you with that, Nightlamp? Is there any case you can think of where the veto of the lay reps of a parish should be overruled? At all?
When a church is being teamed (united Benefice?) up with a neighbouring church it would not be the lay reps it would be the PCC who would need to agree to the teaming up and under the 1983 measure the PCC can be overruled although the objections might reach the Privy Council but the PCC can still be overruled. A Priest can be appointed priest in charge of a parish and the lay reps can be overruled in that situation. To be honest I think that the lay people should be given more authority particularly in the appointments of Priests-in-charge.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.
In what precise way is this different from saying:
``I know best; you are wrong'' ?
He means that clergy and bishops have had an ontological change that means they know what is best for those poor laity who are less able and not that bright anyway.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
But the laity are often dreadfully confused about things.
In what precise way is this different from saying:
``I know best; you are wrong'' ?
Is `confused', in the sense it used here,not the same as `having the audacity to hold opinions that I, and my right-thinking colleagues, ascribe no value to'?
It's different because I used 'confused' on purpose and not 'wrong'. The laity are given almost no teaching or instruction about the nature of priesthood and nature and expectations of a priestly life. All too often the lay representatives make the decisions based around what has happened before that they liked and disliked and tailor their desires accordingly.
It's not that their opinions are of no value, it's that their opinions are often nothing to do with who would be the best person for a particular job but more to do with they personally want.
Two examples:
1) A catholic parish in a large city recently advertised for an Incumbent. The Parish Profile was, essentially, a list of what they liked about the former one and how he was a saint and how they expected a new priest to 'fit the same mould'. In other words, they just want their old priest back and the applicant that most fits that profile will be the one they want even though that's probably just the person it shouldn't be.
2) A country benefice of five churches also recently advertised for an Incumbent. Three of the churches were, until recently, strongly catholic in ethos. But the Profile describes these churches as MOTR and a new Incumbent would be expected to work in that tradition. The reason: a small group of retired people moved into the area ten years ago and took over the running of the Benefice. They don't like Anglo-Catholicism and have driven the Benefice down the candle over the last few years. When it came to writing a new Parish Profile they, as those who run the benefice, wrote it themselves for what they want. A new Bishop and Archdeacon know no better and so the Parish Profile stands despite the fact that many of the rest of the congregation are sad that the catholic tradition has gone but have been browbeaten by a determined group of intelligent ex-professional people who know how to talk to bishops properly. Thus any applicant who looks as though he might be a bit too catholic will be rejected in favour of the grey-shirted man who wants MOTR family services because 'children are the future'.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Of course, this 'Church of England way' has only been in existence for about 30 years. Before then the laity had absolutely no choice over their incumbent. He was chosen solely by Bishop and Patron.
And, with the exception of a few livings in the gift of the Bishop or another local clergyman, the Patrons were until the mid-19th century overwhelmingly lay people. After that they were increasingly in the hands of patronage trusts and missionary societies, which tend to hae lay and clerical members, but are often more or less run democratically by their membership (well, the evangelical ones are) Bisops could veto (though rarely did) but not impose their own candidate. Much the same system as obtains with choosing CofE bishops, where in effect the government acts in a similar role to the patron.
Bishops probably have more choice now in who to appoint to an English parish than they have had for a thousand years.
So you aren't really objecting to lay people - you are objecting to ordinary lay people, the man in the street or the bum in the pew, neither ariostos not experts nor politicians.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Of course, this 'Church of England way' has only been in existence for about 30 years. Before then the laity had absolutely no choice over their incumbent. He was chosen solely by Bishop and Patron.
And, with the exception of a few livings in the gift of the Bishop or another local clergyman, the Patrons were until the mid-19th century overwhelmingly lay people.
Although many livings were in the hands of Oxbridge colleges, whose governing bodies were, until the mid-19th century, almost entirely composed of clergymen.
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
Not to mention Crown Livings and Lord Chancellor Livings which were administered then, as now, by the Prime Minister (or equivalant figure) who always took advice, especially for the more important appointments, from bishops and other clerics.
Have a look at the Extraordinary Black Book to see just how many livings were administered by other clergy and Oxbridge colleges.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:Three of the churches were, until recently, strongly catholic in ethos. But the Profile describes these churches as MOTR and a new Incumbent would be expected to work in that tradition. [/QB]
Again I agree with Cosmo. I have seen the same thing happen far too often.
The catholic tradition has been weakened more and more over the past twelve years without this added problem.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
In that case make sure you ask all the attenders, not just the busybodies.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
As you might expect, I'm peed off with the notion that the Ecclesiastical Trade Union should persist in its corrupt protection racket.
Laypeople subsidise clergy to play at being a druid. By and large, laypeople are better educated than clergy, increasingly they are more highly theologically educated than clergy are. They work more hours in a week for sacred and profane causes than clergy do in a month. If that American wally's Rapture occurred tomorrow, it would be a great thing for Christ's church if the clergy disappeared before the believers. Laypeople have a surer grasp of how to communicate the gospel in contemporary word and music. Laypeople haven't wasted four years of their life in an irrelevant, out-of-touch seminary. Laypeople are scandalised when a bishop stacks a diocese with nondescript placemen and women in a vain attempt to buttress Apathetic Succession against exponential growth in evangelical and orthodox catholic congregationalism. Laypeople think that cleaning the toilets is a vital component of ministry. Laypeople are indispensable to the Real Presence, further, they are the Real Presence. Laypeople don't ask for the next day off after they've spent all night with a sick, dying or bereaved friend. Laypeople have a highly developed and scripturally-founded sense of sexual morality.
Laypeople would like to see a tad more humility and gratitude from the recipients of their largesse, and no more OPs like this.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Foaming draft I think I agree with some of your sentiment but you post lacked a certain amount of clarity.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Back on page 1 I think Cosmo made some very good points about why in the CofE the laity shouldn't currently interview prospective parish priests. I've sat in on a few of these, and been interviewed by a couple, and not one of them came anywhere close to employing fair interviewing techniques and application criteria. In my experience, such panels of laity are ageist, sexist, single-person-ist and homophobic. One one occasion I witnessed, also breathtakingly racist (one of the panel commented on a candidate's "foreign accent", and the rest of the panel conspicuously failed to slap him down on it).
However, given a couple of centuries of dragging these panel members into something resembling the civilised world, I'd say a very good set of questions can be found here. (Scroll down to "The Liturgy of Ordination" and the questions are about a screenful of text further on.)
Of course, a priest with his or her wits at the ready would respond to each of these questions with another:
"Will you let me?"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
It lacks charity, too, but laypeople have extended too much of that to clergy.
I mean that if the OP doesn't want laypeople to be involved in search and selection, let clergy pay congregations to allow them to dress up and indulge in ritual. Otherwise, the funding sources are jolly well going to take an interest in what they're getting for their money.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
A slight tangent, but it's unclear to me why people don't write Parish profiles on a "warts-and-all" basis. This occurred to me recently when Channel 4 was showing "Priest Idol" and the parish in question got very few applicants for the post.
I guess my impression of clergy (perhaps this is a loony evangelical thing) was that having felt a strong call by God to his service, they would want something interesting and challenging to do. Hence, in my (obviously incorrect) picture successful parishes looking for a caretaker would be less popular than those that needed change and renewal, or had specific probelms to solve. Obviously, not every Priest wants to try and build up a congregation from a starting point of 3 old ladies in a dangerous inner-city area, but I would have thought that someone would feel called to this kind of thing. Or is God not very efficient at calling people? Or am I totally wrong about things needing to be done?
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Tortoise
Apprentice
# 10720
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I feel strongly that the laity should have almost no part in interviewing clergy for parochial positions and certainly not the present situation whereby parish representatives can effectively veto a candidate even if the Bishop and the Patron of the Living want a particular person (this in the Church of England of course).
For the most part the laity have absolutely no idea what it is to be a priest and no knowledge of the skills and competencies needed. Their questions, as shown by the few replies so far on this thread, are all always about 'what will you do for us if you come here?' and, if the priest shows any ideas of his own, he gets rejected in favour of the 'safe pair of hands'. The 'safe pair of hands' is always a man, married with two children who have left home, had one but preferably two incumbencies before, is aged about 55 and looking for a last job before retirement.
The laity have no idea what it means to be a priest? I think this is rubbish, but in cases where it is true, surely the only people to blame are priests?
In my experience lay people can be very effectively used in the process of selecting new priests/ministers. By using lay people from different areas of the church and different age groups and asking them their vision for moving the church forward, you get a broad range of perspectives and you get people thinking about change, not staying still.
Surely one of the jobs of a priest/minister is to educate/nurture people so that they are able to discern the will of God in these situations?
It seems to me that a group of people, composed of clergy and lay members is preferable to putting all the emphasis on one person who, despite ontological change and a silly hat is still human and can make mistakes.
Some of the wisest people i know are lay folk, as are many top theologians and, to quote Darth Vader, i find your lack of faith disturbing.
Posts: 28 | From: The Cabbage Patch | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Foaming Draught --
You have a right to your opinions.
You do not have a right on the Ship to claim that all clergy are corrupt -- "the Ecclesiastical Trade Union should persist in its corrupt protection racket" or that clergy are "playing at being a druid."
Provide evidence (not just your opinion) for your allegations or clean up the act.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boopy:
quote:
You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School. or has some other useful skill, like music or plumbing. You also invite the clergy spouse so that the candidate may demonstrate his or her heterosexuality.
Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days - please tell me clergy spouses are not part of the interview process! .....I'm usually considered presentable and sane, but the clergy spouse is definitely not there to plug the gaps. Usually he/she has a job or occupation of their own.
Having a spouse and children isn't a reliable indicator of heterosexuality, either. [/QB]
Seriously, Boopy, at least in the CofE the notion of 'spouse as unpaid curate' is not going gentle into that good night. Spouses aren't formally interviewed (at least I've not run into it) but there's always an event where they are invited for mutual inspection. A good spouse gets you extra points. The lack of a good spouse loses you points. Children get you points too, but they have to be the right kind of children.
This isn't officially part of the appointment process, but, as with the appointment of Fellows to Oxford Colleges, a lot of things that aren't official are crucially important.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Just like some people are useless in exams, I'm hopeless in interviews (not that good at exams either, but they are long in the past). And despite Cosmo's Trollopean rhetoric I agree with much that he says. But in the absence of competitive interviews, what a parish is faced with when looking for a new priest, is the number one choice of the bishop (or patron), with no-one to compare him or her with. So if the lay reps turn candidate no.1 down, there is the fear that no.2 will be even less good and so on.
Cosmo's comment that few laypeople understand what priesthood involves, while it invites the response 'that's the fault of priests for not teaching them', nevetherless rings true. Inevitably the inner circle of worshippers relate to the priest as a leader of worship, preacher and sacramental minister, and possibly see s/he has some pastoral role towards the sick and infirm members of the congregation. But few laypeople really understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and real priesthood involves relating to the wider community, to those inconvenient callers at the vicarage door, to staff, children and parents of the local school...etc... Not to mention the fact that most people are happiest with the status quo and therefore don't like to be challenged spiritually... a priest who feels called to help his/her people grow (in depth more than in numbers) might not come across well in interview, because such tend to be more introverted than the gung-ho superficial types.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by angloid: quote:
Not to mention the fact that most people are happiest with the status quo and therefore don't like to be challenged spiritually
Which, of course, gives us two very useful definitions in the CofE context -
Liberal - Those members of the congregation who want the new priest to be a clone of the last one.
Conservative - Those members of the congregation who want the new priest to be a clone of one who was here 35 years ago.
In the last parish I worked in, I'd say the congregation were 60% liberal, 40% conservative.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julian4
Shipmate
# 9937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Julian4:
quote:
Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"
That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"
Forgive me quoting myself, but I couldn't pick on just one of the others that quoted/replied to me. So, do I understand from the various responses that we don't think the issue of an applicant actually being called to the job is important? Do we expect to get a number of applicants who just think it would be a good career move, and then select the one we best like the style of? Or, to put a more positive spin on it, is it up to the "selection comittee" to discern God's will in the situation, rather than to their potential spiritual leader?
Posts: 305 | From: Dorset | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
2) A country benefice of five churches also recently advertised for an Incumbent. Three of the churches were, until recently, strongly catholic in ethos. But the Profile describes these churches as MOTR and a new Incumbent would be expected to work in that tradition. The reason: a small group of retired people moved into the area ten years ago and took over the running of the Benefice. They don't like Anglo-Catholicism and have driven the Benefice down the candle over the last few years. When it came to writing a new Parish Profile they, as those who run the benefice, wrote it themselves for what they want. A new Bishop and Archdeacon know no better and so the Parish Profile stands despite the fact that many of the rest of the congregation are sad that the catholic tradition has gone but have been browbeaten by a determined group of intelligent ex-professional people who know how to talk to bishops properly. Thus any applicant who looks as though he might be a bit too catholic will be rejected in favour of the grey-shirted man who wants MOTR family services because 'children are the future'.
Cosmo, in this example, how would not having lay participation stopped a MOTR guy taking over what used to be an AC place if the Bishop and Archdeacon are too new to know what is different?
[ 15. December 2005, 15:22: Message edited by: ferijen ]
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Tortoise
Apprentice
# 10720
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Julian4:
is it up to the "selection comittee" to discern God's will in the situation, rather than to their potential spiritual leader?
The only problem with leaving it up to the potential new spiritual leader to discern if he/she is called to a particular place is that you may get several people who all think God is calling them to a particular place, some of whom may be wrong. For all the faults of any type of selection committee, the idea is that they are there to test whether the applicants have discerned God's call correctly. Hopefully, if everyone/the majority feels God is saying the same thing we get the candidate God really wants.
Posts: 28 | From: The Cabbage Patch | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ferijen:
how would not having lay participation stopped a MOTR guy taking over what used to be an AC place if the Bishop and Archdeacon are too new to know what is different?
ALSO, some bishops and archdeacons make a point of appointing someone of a different churchpersonship. I know of one liberal who always tried to appoint liberals to catholic parishes (he was scared to annoy the evangelicals because they pay big quotas). He seemed to think that if they learned how to swing a thurible he could 'pass' as catholic.
I know of an evangelical bishop who is appointing fellow evangelicals to senior appointments in his diocese and it is rumoured that catholics are 'escaping in droves'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Julian4:
quote:
Originally posted by Julian4:
quote:
Originally posted by BanneR LadY:
Although the question I would most want to ask is "Why do you believe God is calling you here?"
That's the one I'd want to ask, if not something more provocative along the lines of "When God told you to apply for this job, what was your initial response?"
Forgive me quoting myself, but I couldn't pick on just one of the others that quoted/replied to me. So, do I understand from the various responses that we don't think the issue of an applicant actually being called to the job is important? Do we expect to get a number of applicants who just think it would be a good career move, and then select the one we best like the style of? Or, to put a more positive spin on it, is it up to the "selection comittee" to discern God's will in the situation, rather than to their potential spiritual leader?
It often happens that the language of faith and vocation itself becomes careerist. When this happens, as many have pointed out, from Langland to Bonhoeffer, it's especially noxious:
'I heard God call me to come be your servant-leader at St Uncumber's. And I said, "No, Lord! No! I am not ready, I am not worthy, I am a man of unclean lips!" And the Lord said to me, "You are called, and I have called you. I shall cause you to increase the electoral roll and the annual giving. I shall give you power to get rid of pews, and the Diocesan Architectural Committee shall be as chaff before the breath of your mouth. And you shall visit the old ladies every day, yea, and the little children of the nearby estate also." And I said, "O Lord, be with me then before the Interviewing Panel." And you see, He was, and I am here.'
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Amos is right. It's another case for the Christian-to-English dictionary -
"I feel God is calling me to be here." Translation: "This place is in the catchment area for the school I'd like my kids to go to."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
As a lay person, I found being part of a search committee a formative and educational process. For one thing, it did much to educate me about the nature of the priesthood. This in turn helped me to later teach other lay people about the real nature of the priesthood, that it wasn't a job where you just worked on Sundays, etc.
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadKaren
Shipmate
# 1033
|
Posted
I was part of the interview panel for the appointment of a new Uni chaplain last year. Like mgeorge says, it is educational for a lay person.
Our panel was a mixture of clergy and laity, representing various Christian groups on the campus who the Chaplain would have course to work with. The bishop chaired the panel, but we all contributed and asked questions.
The current incumbent wasn't my personal first choice, but they have been great for the job, and I'm glad that this person is there.
Unfortunately, I have forgotten what we asked the applicants, sorry.
MadKaren
--------------------
--
Why do people who claim to love God embarrass him in public?
Posts: 866 | From: Jumping along the line between genius and insanity.... | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Trying to think offline around this one for a couple of days and looking for a point of agreement with Cosmo; I think I can agree with:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If the laity have to be involved, then the only question they should need to ask is this:
'If you were to come to this church, what can we do for you and how can we help you?'
A brilliant question !
I don’t think I can agree with anything else that Cosmo said (which is different from he might be thinking) and I am near calling him and others to Hell for their complete rubbishing of lay opinion/discernment/ability in a number of statements along the lines of and expanding e.g.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
For the most part the laity have absolutely no idea what it is to be a priest and no knowledge of the skills and competencies needed.
Well actually Cosmo's statement is one of the least offensive and one I do sometimes have sympathy with when I look at other members of the laity ........but then I don’t see a step change amongst the clergs.
But I know that I am too busy to put the effort in to survive in Hell so I’ll try and be as non-hellish as possible – having pointed out the generalisation that seems to being used here.
I want to go further than trying to point out that a priest is the servant of the servants of God (T said it rather well : quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I see you have a well-defined ecclesiological view of the priest as servant, Cosmo.
T.
)
and say that, in the same way many laity may have a limited view of the role of the priest, so do some priests ! Views have been expressed that a priest should not be the chaplain of his congregation but I hope to show that is exactly what he should be and that that role is greater than some people might see it for.
Taking Angloid’s comment as a starting point:
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
................
Cosmo's comment that few laypeople understand what priesthood involves, while it invites the response 'that's the fault of priests for not teaching them', nevertheless rings true. Inevitably the inner circle of worshippers relate to the priest as a leader of worship, preacher and sacramental minister, and possibly see s/he has some pastoral role towards the sick and infirm members of the congregation. But few laypeople really understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and real priesthood involves relating to the wider community, to those inconvenient callers at the vicarage door, to staff, children and parents of the local school...etc...
I agree that this is the tip of the iceberg – the priest, through the church, needs to care for the needs of the whole community. I found having 400 people in my last (secular) job exhausting as one dealt with people who had experience death, estrangement, suicide of family member, daughters pregnancy, abortion, issues over coming out, rejection by church, redundancy, debts, weight problems, stress, drink and drugs problems. I found it hard to care for 400 individuals as a manager. If a priest tries to get alongside 7,000 parishioners to meet their need ? So back to my thesis, the priest needs to be the chaplain to the congregation equipping them to get alongside their neighbours. It is not just the sacrament that should equip the faithful to witness to Christ (and I don’t just mean mission or pew filling) during the week; the priest needs to equip the saints to carry out a wide task way beyond one individual.
So I am interested in the priest who can help prepare the laity to be Christ in their community as well as exercising the reserved priestly functions. My starting point may well be Cosmo’ question. But I do feel that some members of the laity may have as much the gift of discernment as do many clergy and that this wider ministry put forward by Angloid can and is (often unseen by the clergy) also exercised by the laity in the community.
Maybe there should be a separate thread on the role of a priest and probably many will have a different view but why should the practitioners view be the only valid one ? and why should not other members of the people of God play a part in discerning the right person for the post ?
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
Another point:
If laity are not involved in the search process, then they are cut off from an opportunity to learn about the priesthood.
I would argue, therefore, that if the laity are not involved they have a greater chance of remaining ignorant about the priesthood, rather than learning more about it. And from my experience, an educated laity can really help a priest in his/her ministry.
The search committee experience also enhanced my respect for the priesthood, simply because I learned more about it in the process.
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader: quote:
quoting angloid: Inevitably the inner circle of worshippers relate to the priest as a leader of worship, preacher and sacramental minister, and possibly see s/he has some pastoral role towards the sick and infirm members of the congregation. But few laypeople really understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and real priesthood involves relating to the wider community, to those inconvenient callers at the vicarage door, to staff, children and parents of the local school...etc...
I agree that this is the tip of the iceberg – the priest, through the church, needs to care for the needs of the whole community. I found having 400 people in my last (secular) job exhausting as one dealt with people who had experience death, estrangement, suicide of family member, daughters pregnancy, abortion, issues over coming out, rejection by church, redundancy, debts, weight problems, stress, drink and drugs problems. I found it hard to care for 400 individuals as a manager. If a priest tries to get alongside 7,000 parishioners to meet their need ? So back to my thesis, the priest needs to be the chaplain to the congregation equipping them to get alongside their neighbours. It is not just the sacrament that should equip the faithful to witness to Christ (and I don’t just mean mission or pew filling) during the week; the priest needs to equip the saints to carry out a wide task way beyond one individual.
So I am interested in the priest who can help prepare the laity to be Christ in their community as well as exercising the reserved priestly functions. My starting point may well be Cosmo’ question. But I do feel that some members of the laity may have as much the gift of discernment as do many clergy and that this wider ministry put forward by Angloid can and is (often unseen by the clergy) also exercised by the laity in the community.
Maybe there should be a separate thread on the role of a priest and probably many will have a different view but why should the practitioners view be the only valid one ? and why should not other members of the people of God play a part in discerning the right person for the post ?
I agree. The role of the priest in forming the church as the Body of Christ is crucial. And of course the laity are the ones who do most of the relating to the community. But there are (at least in the way the church is currently structured) lots of distinctive ways in which the priest relates to non-church people, which are demanding of time and energies and which many of the 'inner circle' are unaware of. Happy the parish where the laity live up to MT's vision of them: too many churches are run by self-obsessed cliques who see the priest at best as a personal spiritual guru, if not simply the manager of their private club.
To get back to the OP, if laity are often blinkered in this way, and bishops can be either obtuse or manipulative, perhaps the C of E has got it more or less right if it is moving towards a partnership in making appointments (though that doesn't apply everywhere yet by a long chalk).
[code]
[ 16. December 2005, 18:34: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
But in the absence of competitive interviews, what a parish is faced with when looking for a new priest, is the number one choice of the bishop (or patron), with no-one to compare him or her with. So if the lay reps turn candidate no.1 down, there is the fear that no.2 will be even less good and so on.
Certainly the only interviewing of a potential vicar I have been involved was a competitive interview between three clergy. I gather the Bishop or someone had created the shortlist of three out of about 20 applicants with some advice from the lay reps.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
What interests me about this thread is the high level of cynicism expressed within it. I make no value judgment, but if one were to paraphrase it, it would read "bishops are either obtuse or manipulative, or forcing their own agenda upon a parish; laity are all ignorant and only want what the last priest did - or the one before that; and priests are motivated by school catchment areas and comfortable livings."
Now, I may of course be a sadly misguided and self-deluded bishop, but that is not my experience when it comes to interviewing for clergy. I do find:
(1) that the lay representatives take it very seriously. They work hard at producing a pretty honest S11 statement; they are sometimes overawed by the responsibility of their right of veto; they are prayerful and realistic that they can't get a carbon copy of the last priest; and they struggle with how they carry over their experience of secular job interviews into a realm which they admit is different in kind, because it's not just filling a JD and person specification. They also understand that you can't interview the spouse. In fact, it's a privilege to work with them.
(2) that most clergy are getting used to the competitive interview context. Not all like the idea; some are much more used to the old "tap on the shoulder" (which bishops can't get away with these days), but they recognise that shortlist and interview are here to stay, and they are getting training in CV writing, job applications, and the interview context. Many of them say, after an interview, that they thought it was an exercise in spiritual discernment, and they have enjoyed the experience. (I must be careful - there are those on the Ship who have been interviewed for posts in Willesden; they may have a different testimony to give).
(3) that patrons (we don't have many in London - a place where episcopal patronage is rife!!) appreciate the strong emphasis we have on interviewing against the criteria of the S11 statement, and the fact that we interview as a team - patron, bishop and reps together.
(4) that taking seriously the need for clergy to be able to lead a parish in mission and not just to mark time in ministry in the old style parsonical role means that you can end up with a fantastic and diverse bunch of clergy. I guess that in London, because people want to work here, it's possible to be quite choosey, and not to appoint if you don't think you have an adequate field. That may be a luxury we have which is not available to the rest of the country. But I would say that interviewing (which I share with the Archdeacon and Area Dean, as well as the patron and parish reps) has normally produced better results than any other way of appointing. The exception to that is where I have seen a "fit" between one of the clergy in the diocese and a vacant parish, and slotted them in - but this becomes harder to do these days, when expectations on consultation are high.
I think I'm arguing that interviews, when done prayerfully and professionally, are actually the best way forward for the CofE. Perhaps it's the "prayerful and professional" that some in the thread find lacking.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lumensis:
And one might ask about the C of E application form which, as clergy are office holders not employees, goes against all the anti-discrmination (age, marital status etc) legislation that applies to the vast majority of job-seekers......
Should a (now gay, civilly partnered, divorced, black, old,)lay representative be privy to personal information that is irrelevant to the applicant's fitness to do the job?
Lumensis, first of all I must apologise for referring to Cosmo's post as the OP, when it was your well-put question which kicked the discussion off. In my rage against Cosmo, I indulged in some transference. I'm sorry.
As to fitness to do the job, we're stuck with wildly differing understanding about what the job is. Any three or four anglicans could argue about ministry until they're blue in the face, as we could about communion or soteriology, for example, and still achieve nothing more harmonious than a willingness to respect diversity.
I think by now you all know that my position is that, as Article XIX has it, the visible church of Christ is the congregation of faithful men and women meeting around the pure Word of God and the sacraments, and that local congregation has a duty to enquire into a presiding elder's adherence to the pure Word of God and his or her ability to teach it. The duty cannot be delegated up or down, although it might be shared.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
pete173 -
I've been involved for the last 18 months with the NHS "agenda for change" in which we look very carefully at job descriptions, person specifications, appraisal procedures, recruitment and retention, etc.... And I can certainly tell you that - as I've seen it, experienced it, and had it described to me - the CofE's appointments procedure is still decades out of date.
The prejudices I described are real - I've experienced them. And if they were displayed in an NHS interview then the interviewers would be subject to disciplinary action probably leading to dismissal. Would that happen in the CofE? No, I didn't think so.
And Cosmo is right - the person specifications for parish posts (where such things exist) are not based on skills and competencies. I've never seen a parish profile based on evidence and measurable outcomes.
And who actually suffers in this process? The clergy, of course - who are mis-sold parishes by bishops and parish profiles alike, who are subjected to unfair interviewing techniques, and who if they do get the post are left on their own to pick up the pieces of all this afterwards.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But Adeodatus, is a position in a parish the same as a job in the NHS?
Surely a difference in theology and practice can become very important when you are meant to be leading a church, but is of minimal importance when you're an NHS employee.
Of course that does not excuse racism or homophobia.
I'm not sure how/where you draw the line.
A church is inevitably going to be asking personal questions that would not be acceptible elsewhere. I dunno. I guess I'm struggling to see how Clergy are really the same as any other employee in that they are supposed to be an example for the rest of the community, however unrealistic that is.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
But Adeodatus, is a position in a parish the same as a job in the NHS?
Surely a difference in theology and practice can become very important when you are meant to be leading a church, but is of minimal importance when you're an NHS employee.
Of course that does not excuse racism or homophobia.
I'm not sure how/where you draw the line.
A church is inevitably going to be asking personal questions that would not be acceptible elsewhere. I dunno. I guess I'm struggling to see how Clergy are really the same as any other employee in that they are supposed to be an example for the rest of the community, however unrealistic that is.
C
Personally I don't see why applying for the post of parish priest should be any different from applying for the post of, say, HR co-ordinator in a hospital. Others will disagree because of their own perspective on the issue.
But what the CofE seems to be doing is to introduce some interview techniques (ones that might have been fashionable 40 years ago, I think) but not going all the way. So we have parish profiles, but not evidence-based parish profiles. We have person specifications but not complete person specifications. We have interviews but not fair, impartial, scored interviews. And the person who's disadvantaged by these half measures in the applicant.
There is nothing wrong with the interviewers asking personal questions - but to be fair, those issues must be stated as either "essential" or "desirable" on the person spec. beforehand. In modern interviews it is not permitted to ask questions that have no bearing on the job, as that job has been defined in the documentation. For instance, if the person spec didn't say anything about computer skills, you can't then bring up computer skills at the interview. It's not fair on the applicant.
But the most basic element of fair interviewing is that all applicants for a post must be asked exactly the same basic questions at interview - and I know for certain the CofE doesn't do that.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Fair enough.
For the record, I think a parish priest is nothing like an NHS administrator and that interviewing them in the same way is nonsense.
However, I take your point that interviews should be fair to all concerned.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boopy:
quote:
You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School.
Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days
Seriously, Boopy, at least in the CofE the notion of 'spouse as unpaid curate' is not going gentle into that good night. [/QB]
We have three priests in our parish.
One has no spouse. But as she herself is an unpaid curate we aren't losing out there.
The incumbent does have a spouse - he is the incumbent of another nearby parish. He wasn't part of the fomral interview process but he did turn up for a "meet the parishioners" sort of tea party which was part of the selection.
The third one's spouse is literally an unpaid curate - they are on a job share and he has just been ordained Deacon.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
pete173 -
I've been involved for the last 18 months with the NHS "agenda for change" in which we look very carefully at job descriptions, person specifications, appraisal procedures, recruitment and retention, etc.... And I can certainly tell you that - as I've seen it, experienced it, and had it described to me - the CofE's appointments procedure is still decades out of date.
The prejudices I described are real - I've experienced them. And if they were displayed in an NHS interview then the interviewers would be subject to disciplinary action probably leading to dismissal. Would that happen in the CofE? No, I didn't think so.
And Cosmo is right - the person specifications for parish posts (where such things exist) are not based on skills and competencies. I've never seen a parish profile based on evidence and measurable outcomes.
And who actually suffers in this process? The clergy, of course - who are mis-sold parishes by bishops and parish profiles alike, who are subjected to unfair interviewing techniques, and who if they do get the post are left on their own to pick up the pieces of all this afterwards.
As an ex Bishop's Adviser in Hospital Chaplaincy, I've done NHS interviews as well. And H/T interviews as a school governor. And lay interviews for diocesan posts. I've also done EO-based interviewing since the 1980s when I was a local authority councillor. So this is not some foreign language to those of us who interview for posts in the Church. Nor is it unfamiliar territory to many parish reps, who do this stuff all the time in their secular employment.
Similarly, it is standard practice here that all questions are the same for all candidates, and that no interviewing of spouses or questions about ethnicity issues are permitted.
I agree with you that there is another level of notch-up that will be required when we move to the new Terms of Service, if for no other reason than the fact that appraisal and competency issues can only be addressed on the basis of an agreed person specification and JD.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the NHS-type approach: a certain woodenness in interview style; an incapacity to explore appropriately the more intangible aspects of the priest's spiritual care (in the end, this is a spiritual task, not easily measurable in Gradgrind style); a problem about how you elicit appropriate transferable skill patterns for those who have been in a diversity of previous jobs, in and outside the Church.
But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.
Must stop now - I have to ring a priest to debrief him on his interview!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
It would have been nice to have had a sense that pete173 acknowledged that the system was not faultless.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Amos, I thought this phrase suggested there was room for improvement in his part of the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest in Boots
Apprentice
# 10672
|
Posted
What pete173 omits to mention is that clergy applicants are required to supply information about age and marital status.What is the relevance of these if transferable skills and suitability for the post are what is sought? The fact that the CofE complies with the legislation concerning ethnicity doesn't excuse the inappropriateness of other questions.
--------------------
"As boring as a boarding school on bath night."
Posts: 14 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest in Boots:
What pete173 omits to mention is that clergy applicants are required to supply information about age and marital status.What is the relevance of these if transferable skills and suitability for the post are what is sought? The fact that the CofE complies with the legislation concerning ethnicity doesn't excuse the inappropriateness of other questions.
Well, with regard to marital status, we have to house the priest in question. So although it shouldn't figure in the interviews and the appointment, we need to know about spouse and number of children (and schooling requirements) for the purposes of pastoral care for the appointee.
And in future we shall have to ask whether an appointee has contracted a Civil Partnership [beware Dead Horse here..]
And there are various canonical questions to be asked in relation to divorcees and the "manner of life" required by Canon C26.
So it's a lot more convenient to have it on the form than not.
There's a good argument, I guess, for not circulating that information to the parish reps, given that single clergy do suffer an inordinate amount of discrimination.
With regard to age, there's no need to have it on the form (though we shall know it from Crockfords anyway).
[ 16. December 2005, 17:35: Message edited by: pete173 ]
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It doesn't really matter whether or not interviews are conducted fairly, or in line with secular practice, as long as most (or at least many) clergy posts in the C of E are filled by the nod, wink and bishop or patron's say-so, rather than a competitive interview. Lay reps might have a veto, but if they are put in the invidious position of turning down the only candidate they are not likely to make a considered decision.
And if parish jobs depend on an interview, why not bishops? (Except that applying for the job would be disqualification in itself)
Much as part of me thinks interviews are a good idea, another part of me shrinks from it. What about the sort of parish nobody wants? Are they going to attract scores of candidates? Or will priests be bribed by extra allowances on top of stipend to work in them?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
as long as most (or at least many) clergy posts in the C of E are filled by the nod, wink and bishop or patron's say-so
I don't know in detail about anywhere much outside our area but that really isn't how it happens here. The parish reps were fully involved at all parts of the process.
quote:
Lay reps might have a veto, but if they are put in the invidious position of turning down the only candidate they are not likely to make a considered decision.
Its happened.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Re clergy spouses...in my mainline American experience, the expectation that the pastor's spouse be an unpaid and unheralded assistant pastor is rapidly swirling the drain. For one thing, most of our clergy spouses work outside the church -- my clergyperson's spouse is a researcher/commuting university lecturer. And in our case she's of a different faith tradition than our pastor; I've been in other congregations with the same dynamic. (Our pastor's spouse, to her credit, helps us a lot as she can with hospitality and with events involving the little kiddos.)
And re:
quote:
guess my impression of clergy (perhaps this is a loony evangelical thing) was that having felt a strong call by God to his service, they would want something interesting and challenging to do. Hence, in my (obviously incorrect) picture successful parishes looking for a caretaker would be less popular than those that needed change and renewal, or had specific probelms to solve. Obviously, not every Priest wants to try and build up a congregation from a starting point of 3 old ladies in a dangerous inner-city area, but I would have thought that someone would feel called to this kind of thing. Or is God not very efficient at calling people?
Actually, this is what our pastor loves to do. He came to our moribund little congregation and turned it around 180 degrees -- we're now building an addition, for the first time in our church's 90+ year history. And we almost lost him a few years back to a call -- and I'm not making this up -- on an island off Alaska, ministering mostly to the First Peoples population living there. We are extremely fortunate to have him, and also that when he had the chance to go elsewhere he chose to keep hanging out with us.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
