|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bugger the Bishops!
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Some of the willingness to work with people comes down to basic respect. If a reader or NSM has gained the respect of the congregation by being as caring and dedicated as time and ability allows, then they can become regarded as perfectly acceptable ministers in their own right, on an equal footing with the priest in charge. Of course, if the P-in-C doesn't gain this respect and the readers, NSMs etc. do, then there are a whole raft of other difficulties.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If a reader or NSM has gained the respect of the congregation by being as caring and dedicated as time and ability allows, then they can become regarded as perfectly acceptable ministers in their own right, on an equal footing with the priest in charge.
Yes but that doesn't resolve the issue of people (such as myself) who the church would be very happy to regard as 'perfectly acceptable ministers in their own right, on an equal footing with the priest in charge', but who aren't going to offer their services until the risk of this happening is removed, as it sounds like too much work.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A priest is not a mere functionary who administers sacraments. Ordination confers an ongtological change. The person who presides at the communion table does so because of a relationship s/he has with the congregation and with the universal church via the bishop.
If you believe that there is no need for a sacramentally ordained priest then the logical next step is that there is no need for any other sacraments. So there is no need for Holy Communion.
Unless, of course, you see it as some sort of memorial service for a dead Jesus.
Belief in the sacraments (both of them!) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) doesn't logically necessitate belief in an ontological understanding of priesthood. I don't believe that a person ordained Priest in the Church of God undergoes any ontological change, but I do believe that they have been duly authorised and set apart to administer the sacraments (and that therefore lay presidency isn't appropriate at the eucharist, since lay people haven't received that authorisation).
My anglo-catholic background is hard for me to shift but I am increasingly questoning my assumptions.
If ordination is about authorisation (as seems to be Cranmer's intention as symbolised in the giving of a bible), then the door may be open to lay celebration. That is to say, if my vicar is on long-term sick leave and we didn't have retired clergy in the congregation), if my bishop phoned me up and asked me to preside, I'd accept that as temporary ordination/authorisation, no laying on of hands required.
I hope that never happens because it would challenge me to challenge my assumptions at a deeper level than I want - I change ever so timidly and gradually.
(It would also mean that I'd have to agree with Marvin - and we can never allow that.)
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some of the willingness to work with people comes down to basic respect. If a reader or NSM has gained the respect of the congregation by being as caring and dedicated as time and ability allows, then they can become regarded as perfectly acceptable ministers in their own right, on an equal footing with the priest in charge. Of course, if the P-in-C doesn't gain this respect and the readers, NSMs etc. do, then there are a whole raft of other difficulties.
'Equal' doesn't mean that they have the same role and functions.
I have no particularl respect for someone just because they are ordained. We are all equal, but different.
I defer to my incumbent, even when I think he has made a wrong decision, because someone has to make decisions.
I wouldn't have let my incumbent meddle in my classroom so I don't meddle in his sphere.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The person who presides at the communion table does so because of a relationship s/he has with the congregation and with the universal church via the bishop.
So a priest presiding at Communion in a parish she's never even visited before has a more appropriate (for communion purposes) relationship with that parish than a layperson who's worshipped there for fifty years?.
I almost agree. That's the flaw in the catholic argument, though the official answer is, probably, that this visiting priest has a relationship to the wider church, via their bishop.
I am not convinced by this argument, despite wishing to have things neat and tidy.
Your comments, as I am sure you know, often irritate me - which is why I hope you will continue to challenge. Stops being complacent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
While I am flattered that this thread has gone on so long (I think it's the first one I've ever started to get onto a second page, never mind a fifth) I'm getting worried that all this discussion of local ministries is becoming distinctly Purgatorial.
I've known plenty of priests, Readers, and all sorts of folk taking public roles in churches. They range across the good, the bad and the ugly but, by and large, they seem to be decent folk doing their best to do an honest job. By and large, most of the bishops I've met have been spineless wimps. That's what I'm ranting about here!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
In that case, their almost total lack of vigorous rebuttal seems to prove your point! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Of course, we don't have Bishops. We have (wait for it) Regional Ministers among whom the "top dogs" are Team Leaders.
Squirm, O ye Anglicans, squirm!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
though the official answer is, probably, that this visiting priest has a relationship to the wider church, via their bishop.
What, and the rest of us don't?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Robert, just suppose most bishops weren't spineless wimps. What difference would it make? How would the CofE deal with it's current problems if most of the bishops did have spines?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
it sounds like too much work.
REALLY?
Do you mean too much trouble, or you genuinely can't give it the time to do it properly?
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I've known plenty of priests, Readers, and all sorts of folk taking public roles in churches. They range across the good, the bad and the ugly but, by and large, they seem to be decent folk doing their best to do an honest job. By and large, most of the bishops I've met have been spineless wimps. That's what I'm ranting about here!
Well let's get it back into Hell.
WTF do you think the bishops you've met are representative of all the others?
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
. I will, however say that for every incompetent, lazy, or wicked priest, there are two incompetent, badly catechized, heretical, dozy, spiritually complacent, bossy, thick-skinned, mad or self-promoting brothers and sisters who think that they could preach and celebrate the sacraments with one hand tied behind their backs. And I haven't even started on the Blue Scarfed Menace.
Not here in Summerisle, of course.
Well dear, of course not in Summerisle.
Because I am quite sure that Summerisle lacks an "incompetent, lazy and wicked" priest. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I am sure that some dioceses would love to make up your shortfall!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
it sounds like too much work.
REALLY?
Do you mean too much trouble, or you genuinely can't give it the time to do it properly?
Well the official NSM expectation, quoted somewhere up this thread was 15 hours. As far as I can see, that's about as true as saying incumbents work 40 hours a week. For someone with a full-on full time job, that's a big commitment. I genuinely can't give the time to do what I believe would be expected of me properly.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My tradition simply doesn't have that understanding of the Eucharist (and nor, I realise, do Evangelical Anglicans). We believe that the grace of Communion is conferred through the worshipper's obedience to God and spiritual thoughtfulness in taking the elements, not in any property that is inherent in the priestly ritual.
If that is the case - and if the bread and wine are not changed in any way - then it follows that anyone can preside, although for the sake of integrity and good church order it should be someone who has been duly recognised.
I just wanted to pick up this earlier post to say that for some Anglicans whose theology of (ordained) ministry would be much closer to yours, they would also agree that "anyone can preside... who has been duly recognised".
In Anglican ecclesiology the power to authorise lies in the local church as expressed in the diocese (as distinct from an individual congregation) and exercised by the bishop whereas in Baptist ecclesiology the authority lies in the Church Meeting (although it may in practise be exercised my the minister and/or deacons).
Anglican theology of that kind of ministry is that a person who is regarded as fit and proper to preside at the Lord's Supper needs also to be a fit and proper minister of the word as well. In NT terms they need to be an 'elder'. This means a significant training process is involved intended to ensure that they are competent ministers of the word. Of course it is possible to separate these two ministries, and thereby to enable a wider range of people who are authorised to preside at communion. I'm not sure whether it is desirable to separate those two ministries.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
ist ecclesiology the authority lies in the Church Meeting (although it may in practise be exercised my the minister and/or deacons).
Anglican theology of that kind of ministry is that a person who is regarded as fit and proper to preside at the Lord's Supper needs also to be a fit and proper minister of the word as well. In NT terms they need to be an 'elder'. This means a significant training process is involved intended to ensure that they are competent ministers of the word. Of course it is possible to separate these two ministries, and thereby to enable a wider range of people who are authorised to preside at communion. I'm not sure whether it is desirable to separate those two ministries.
These two ministries are already separated in the CofE by having priests as ministers of both word and sacrament and Readers as ministers of the word only. If being a competent minister of the word is what it takes then Readers could preside.
[ 17. April 2012, 15:51: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Alternatively - and I hesitate to raise the spectre of "Mass Priests" - one could have a third category, which is a Minister of the Sacrament but not the Word. This seems logical, but whether (as BroJames says) it would be a good thing is another question.
BTW, someone earlier moaned about OLMs not automatically being recognised in other congos and dioceses. Forgive me if I have misunderstood this, but surely the word "local" in the title gives the way: they have not been recognised to officiate beyond their particular situation.
Interestingly an ordained URC (Lay) Elder moving to another church remains an Elder by designation but cannot serve until asked to be the Church (and voted in by Church Meeting).
[ 17. April 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Interestingly an ordained URC (Lay) Elder moving to another church remains an Elder by designation but cannot serve until asked to be the Church (and voted in by Church Meeting).
This is correct as I keep reminding my home congregation (they need to vote me onto the eldership and as I am not standing until next year I am NOT a serving elder, so I don't attend elders meetings). It is also how they get away with me being a communion* elder but not serving.
Also most congregations ask you to serve for a fixed term and then renew. Therefore there are normally at least as many non-serving elders in a congregation as serving.
Jengie
*Please this is technically correct term, but only for my home congregation (maybe for some CofS as well) it is not a familiar role within the URC.
[ 17. April 2012, 16:15: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
BTW, someone earlier moaned about OLMs not automatically being recognised in other congos and dioceses. Forgive me if I have misunderstood this, but surely the word "local" in the title gives the way: they have not been recognised to officiate beyond their particular situation.
That may have been me. There are 2 issues here.
Firstly, other congos. There should be some rational process for deciding whether it's appropriate to transfer the ministry to another congo. That exists for readers (who have a similar local role), but not for OLMs. This is silly, but is a consequence of the church being slow to invent obviously-needed procedures.
Secondly, other diocese. Some diocese have OLMs. Some don't. Obviously, if you move out of a diocese that has OLMs, you stop being one. Whether you become a NSM or a non-licensed priest is probably a matter of luck.
Both issues can be summarised as: OLMs are a good idea, but the CofE hasn't actually finished the process of inventing them.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
p.s. to my last post
This really is no different to being a minister, a minister can only serve in a congregation that has voted for him/her. My father is a retired minister and therefore non-serving with his home congregation. He also did not serve his home congregation during his last seventeen years in the ministry as he was in other employment and the congregations never thought to discuss with him whether he wanted a call.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
though the official answer is, probably, that this visiting priest has a relationship to the wider church, via their bishop.
What, and the rest of us don't?
Never mind all those poor benighte4d Baptists and Independents and the like who have no relationship to the wider church at all according to this brillian theory. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There is an issue of understanding of role differences. I know a couple of OLM's and there does seem to be a lot of confusion about the role. People (including some of the OLM's) don't understand the differences with Stipendiary, NSM and OLM.
I'm not sure that all of our previous bishops in Southwark did either. In fact I'm pretty sure that one of the recent diocesans didn't. Which seeing that the systems was more or less invented here, jsut goes to show that not all bishops are on the ball.
But then the level of support of the absurd idea that all Readers should "really" be ordained Deacons just shows that a significant proportion of the Bishops in Synod, and perhaps a larger one of the laity, don't really understand what Readers are.
On the other hand, as for Communion by Extension I am glad that our bishops don't permit it in normal circumstances. It seems, well, sort of pointless and if not exactly superstitious, getting that way.
Yes, for taking Communion to the sick, if the vicar really can't get round. Yes maybe for Christmas and Easter if the usual minister is sick or otherwise unavailable - though in that case there are enough retired priests and proests in secular employment and, dare I say it, bishops and archdeacons to go round all the parishes, and if there aren't or the parish is so small no-one can be persuaded to go there, then maybe its time for some shared celebration.
But the idea that every Sunday service has to be Communion and that if you can't spread the priest thin enough then they ought to make up a load of extra the night before so that lay people can take it round to priestless parishes and say almost exactly the same words and oh no not really pretend to be the priest at all is, well, not right.
If you really believed in lay presidency, then authorise it. If you don't, then don't. And while its not authorised in our church we ought to avoid doing things that look awfully like it but aren't really, not quite. It seems to be reinforcing a lot of silliness about magic words to me.
And for those who care deeply about the ontological howsyerfatherswhosiwhatnicity of the priesthood, Regular weekly Communion by Extension administered by a lay "Deacon" in traditional mass vestments blurs an awful lot more boundaries than lay people preaching or praying does.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by AberVicar:
The NHS as a model organisation?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The NHS as an organisation is extremely similar to the CofE. It's a very large organisation, working across the country, and it consists of a large number of independent local organisations, with very loose or non-existent control structures from the top. It employs highly-trained independent professionals who tend to be individualists when they are not control freaks and resent any form of organisational control. It is expected to be all things to all people and it is very short of money. Sound familiar? It should do.
quote:
Why do you think they've done so many 'Service Redesigns'?
Because they haven't got enough money, and because society has changed and health needs have changed. The health priorities of the 1950s were teeth, eyes, babies and undernourished children. The NHS has sorted those out. Now we've got to deal with childhood obesity, long-term conditions and care of an ageing population which didn't exist when the NHS was formed. The new needs require a different strategy, with different resources in different places.
Does that sound like the CofE to you? It ought to.
quote:
If and when there's a properly argued case for changing the organisation in a radical manner, then let's use a successful model shall we?
The NHS model of service redesign has been extremely successful. Roles have been redesigned, boundaries between roles have shifted where this made sense and new roles have been created.
The discussion on this thread is exactly the sort of discussion which was going on 10 years ago about nurse prescribing. Wasn't it going to undermine the professional role of doctors? Was it valid? Could the nurses be trusted to do it properly? And you know what - it's happened, it works and, surprise, surprise - in spite of all the misgivings - we still have professional doctors and nurses doing their different things and working very happily together as they've done for years.
The CofE could learn a lot about organisational development from studying what's been done in the NHS. Sure, mistakes have been made. So study them and avoid making them again. And learn from the good bits. Change is possible. Even radical change is possible.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Never mind all those poor benighte4d Baptists and Independents and the like who have no relationship to the wider church at all according to this brilliant theory.
I think I would rather like the idea of being benighte4d: "Arise, Si4r Archibald". (Don't you dare say, "What happened to the k?" It's silent, anyway).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Robert, just suppose most bishops weren't spineless wimps. What difference would it make? How would the CofE deal with it's current problems if most of the bishops did have spines?
The only problem I'm concerned with is who pastors the pastors. The rest of you have raised lots of intersting issues, which is fine, but they're not what I'm worried about. I would like to see Bishops who get to know their clergy, and who respond caringly when those clergy are suffering. Tough love, if neccesary, but the love needs to be obvious. I know one Bishop who went and visited all his clergy in his first year of office, and he had a large diocese. That sounds excellent to me; sadly I didn't work for him. Certainly it is miles better than the painful "let's have a big meal at Christmas and invite everyone round at once" routine I have endured too many times.
AberVicar: quote:
WTF do you think the bishops you've met are representative of all the others?
Counting up, I have worked for nine Bishops now. Only one showed any interest in me when times got tough; most washed their hands, one got vindictive. So, no, it's not a large enough sample to be scientifically valid, but it is enough to be significant, I feel. Out of interest, how many Bishops have you worked for? And how many have have been helpful when you needed it?
[ 17. April 2012, 17:21: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Brilliant post Chamois. Just want to add re NHS that radical changes in maternity care have created midwife-run units which provide all the pre-natal and ante-natal care as well as the delivery. Doctors can be called in if needed but most births don't need them.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Alternatively - and I hesitate to raise the spectre of "Mass Priests" - one could have a third category, which is a Minister of the Sacrament but not the Word. This seems logical, but whether (as BroJames says) it would be a good thing is another question.
I can't see why it wouldn't.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And while its not authorised in our church we ought to avoid doing things that look awfully like it but aren't really, not quite. It seems to be reinforcing a lot of silliness about magic words to me.
Well, the present structure seems to be all about magic people who have special powers that the rest of us don't. So making it about magic words that anyone can say would seem to be a step up in my book...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Brilliant post Chamois. Just want to add re NHS that radical changes in maternity care have created midwife-run units which provide all the pre-natal and ante-natal care as well as the delivery. Doctors can be called in if needed but most births don't need them.
The very situation that obtained in the 1950s.
I rest my case.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Brilliant post Chamois. Just want to add re NHS that radical changes in maternity care have created midwife-run units which provide all the pre-natal and ante-natal care as well as the delivery. Doctors can be called in if needed but most births don't need them.
The very situation that obtained in the 1950s.
I rest my case.
Or in our local hospital in the 1980s when my daughter was born. There were certainly doctors and anaethetists and so on somewhere around in a different part of the building but the people assisting at the birth and care before and afterwards were midwives.
(To be fair they were not the same midwives as the ones providing prenatal and postnatal care at the clinic up the road - and that is now easier to arrange in some places)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
The maternity unit where my granddaughter was born is run completely by midwives, like a GP practice, so they make the decisions, manage the budget etc. They can prescribe and have overall care.
Abervicar - your case is that the Church doesn't need radical change, just a bit of tweaking. Others are arguing that the present system is unsustainable e.g. from Chamois:
quote:
...The CofE could take a good, long, detailed look at how, what, where and when it provides for its people and design something much better. The techniques to do it are out there and there are plenty of people who know how to use them.
But 3. is the key. So, after all, it hinges on the Bishops. Do they care? Do they care enough to attempt to change the organisation?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Abervicar - your case is that the Church doesn't need radical change, just a bit of tweaking. Others are arguing that the present system is unsustainable
If I have arrived at a coherent case, it goes far beyond a bit of tweaking. I have argued that there is a variety of successful models for pastoral leadership and care. I have offered a few pointers to discernment, including the experience of the CinW locally, where we do have a variety of structural expressions of leadership, ordained and otherwise, some successful and others not. I have held out vigorously (this being Hell) against both panaceas and sweeping attacks on the status quo.
My view is veering toward a radical continuity, where instead of reinventing the three-fold order, parish structure &c., we rediscover and express anew what they are meant to be in the service of the Kingdom.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Just want to add re NHS that radical changes in maternity care have created midwife-run units which provide all the pre-natal and ante-natal care as well as the delivery. Doctors can be called in if needed but most births don't need them.
The very situation that obtained in the 1950s.
I rest my case.
Or in our local hospital in the 1980s when my daughter was born. There were certainly doctors and anaethetists and so on somewhere around in a different part of the building but the people assisting at the birth and care before and afterwards were midwives.
Listen, were you lot born thick, or have you just been practising hard?
As you were. Let's run through it again.
The NHS is like the CofE in lots of ways. In healthcare you don't need a doctor to do everything - sometimes you don't need a doctor at all. In the church you don't need a stipendiary vicar to do everything - sometimes you don't need one at all.
The NHS has successfully negotiated movement of the boundaries between its doctors, nurses and non-professionally qualified support staff so that it can deliver services which meet patients' needs better and cost less to deliver. My point is that the CofE could do the same (if the bishops have the will to lead the process) and that if they decide to go this route they could usefully learn from the successes and the mistakes of the NHS.
Blimey, what's so hard to understand about that?
Memo to self: perhaps we should plan to provide brain transplants on the NHS now. There certainly seems to be an identified need around here.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I find it difficult to get used to the idea in our diocese (and probably in others) that groups of parishes are getting larger and larger, while some stipendiaries don't have any parishes (they are put in charge of a particular emphasis eg. fresh expressions or pioneer ministry). I suppose studies must have been carried out to see if that sort of arrangement is likely to be more effective, but it must be difficult as any concrete evidence is not likely to appear for many years. Meanwhile, parish priests have to become managers of large groups of churches in order to make it all work. Which must frustrate them at times, as well.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Listen, were you lot born thick, or have you just been practising hard?
As you were. Let's run through it again.
No I wasn't born thick. I was born in a maternity home in the 1950s run by - MIDWIVES.
My point is that the NHS is not a parallel to the Church. Do you want me to go into target setting or cleanliness in wards or ambulance times or waiting times or postcode lotteries before you get it?
A number of similarities does not make a parallel.
My case seems to be firming up that the Church has the seeds of renewal in itself.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
My view is veering toward a radical continuity, where instead of reinventing the three-fold order, parish structure &c., we rediscover and express anew what they are meant to be in the service of the Kingdom.
"Radical continuity" What are you on about?
You're back with the prefabriated phrases I see.
I could say: My view is veering towards a radical change where instead of continuing the three-fold order, parish structure &c., we rediscover and express anew what they are meant to be in the service of the Kingdom by changing and adapting them to meet changing needs.
And, while I'm here - on the subject of NSM's, is it really so different in Wales:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
quote:
Well yes but that doesn't answer the question of why it's currently deemed necessary for non-stipendiary priests who'd be ordained for sacramental liturgical purposes to have both the gifts and training of a parish vicar.
quote:
In the Church in Wales it isn't.
This of course brings lots of issues in terms of conflicting expectations on all sides. Some NSMs expect to be able to function in exactly the same role as trained stipendiaries; some lay people expect them to do what they are not allowed, or indeed are not trained or gifted, to do. In some cases the gifts are evident and further training can take place 'on the job': this has meant that some transition to full-time stipendiary ministry, and others take on a pastoral care.
I can't find anything on NSM's in Wales to indicate that they're not allowed, trained or gifted to take on the same functions as a stipendiary. Others have given examples of NSMs operating as Priest-in-Charge and even as Incumbent. What is that they're not "allowed" to do in Wales?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
I can't find anything
Obviously not, because you can't see clearly beyond whatever issue you've got with the way things are. Leave it behind, listen to the way things might be, and you might get beyond being an offensive twat to finding a constructive answer to your issues.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
I can't find anything
Obviously not, because you can't see clearly beyond whatever issue you've got with the way things are. Leave it behind, listen to the way things might be, and you might get beyond being an offensive twat to finding a constructive answer to your issues.
Answer the question:
quote:
I can't find anything on NSM's in Wales to indicate that they're not allowed, trained or gifted to take on the same functions as a stipendiary. Others have given examples of NSMs operating as Priest-in-Charge and even as Incumbent. What is that they're not "allowed" to do in Wales?
What is that NSM's are not allowed to do in Wales that it seems they are allowed to do in England?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
One good place to start could be to recognise that the C in W is not like the Cof E, but with a different accent.....
[ 17. April 2012, 22:54: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
She's gone to bed obviously.
Last year the Archbishop of Wales commissioned a review "to ask fundamental questions about the life of the Church in Wales and make specific recommendations."
This from a BBC report of the Archbishop's announcement:
quote:
"In commissioning such a review, we will all have to be prepared to take seriously its findings and to be open to the possibility of significant change in our structures, ministry, use of buildings and other resources if it is seen to be in the best interests of the church and its mission to the people and communities of Wales as we look ahead to the next decade.
The question of leadership and ministry in the church in view of dwindling clergy numbers is a specific focus of the review along with buildings and income. I expect the deployment of NSMs and lay ministers will be included.
Anyway, it seems the Church in Wales is preparing for major change. The review is due to report back this year.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I find it difficult to get used to the idea in our diocese (and probably in others) that groups of parishes are getting larger and larger, while some stipendiaries don't have any parishes (they are put in charge of a particular emphasis eg. fresh expressions or pioneer ministry). I suppose studies must have been carried out to see if that sort of arrangement is likely to be more effective, but it must be difficult as any concrete evidence is not likely to appear for many years.
Indeed. Is there any evidence at all to show that all this fresh expressions/ pioneer ministry stuff is actually cutting any ice- that is, with anyone apart from people already within the church who are hungry for a bit of novelty? Or is it just a symptom of the chuirch casting round to so something, anything, different because it doesn't actually know what it's for any more? I do get struck, reading the appointments columns in the Church Times, by the number of clergy who seem to be being Diocesan Adviser for this and pioneer minister for that while the parochial ministry which is the backbone of the CofE/ CinW suffers from ever-larger parish groupings and the creation of a class of clerical precariat in the form of priests-in-charge rather than properly beneficed incumbents.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
One good place to start could be to recognise that the C in W is not like the Cof E, but with a different accent.....
Which is why I'm asking. The discussion was around NSMs being able to do what stipendiaries do and the retort was "Not in Wales". It seems there's an NSM who wants to do something stipendiaries do and lay people who expect this of the NSM but in Wales it's not allowed and the NSM is not considered sufficiently trained or gifted to do whatever it is.
Notes below an ordination photo give an impression of the NSM as differentiated by having two vocations and by being unpaid for their church ministry.
quote:
Notes
A Non Stipendiary Minister (Deacon or Priest) is someone with at least two vocations — one to ordained ministry and one to another form of work. The NSM will not receive payment for any church-based clerical ministry, but might be paid for his or her other employment. (‘Might’, because that other employment could be something like bringing up children or caring for a disabled family member.)
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
She's gone to bed obviously.
Yes I went to bed; and yes you are again picking over minor linguistic issues having completely misread posts and having failed to grasp those things and minor courtesies that really matter.
I worked for a period as an NSM priest while I held down a full time teaching job. This was in the time before the CinW accepted women as priests (geddit?) There were a number of things that, by consent with the other members of the team, I was not allowed/available to do. Why? Because I could not be expected to give the time/energy for pastoral preparation/follow-up &c. Some parishioners wanted me to do stuff because they had it in their heads that all priests do things on demand (especially funerals and wedding, but also dealing with pastoral situations. They were told I was not allowed to be involved in that way. This is the tension I am talking about.
It seems to me that you are fixated on principles while I am talking about what is done in practice.
And while you sneer at my using the words 'radical continuity', you might take some time to consider how the Church might live in continuity with its past while being radical enough to fulfil its vocation to preach the Gospel. This is achieved by the things we actually get on with, on the ground, with our teams or even our on-man bands, and is largely unaffected by the large-scale structural stuff which you seem obsessed with and which are matters for those involved in producing documents such as the forthcoming Review of the CinW structures.
Now I am going to be offline for a couple of days, working with team members and others to find a way of developing a radical lay initiative in the parish grouping which will ensure the continuity of our Gospel witness.
Work it out...
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
[
The NHS has successfully negotiated movement of the boundaries between its doctors, nurses and non-professionally qualified support staff so that it can deliver services which meet patients' needs better and cost less to deliver.
If it could get rid of that moronic management-clone jargon things might be even better. Though its hit education worse.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
though the official answer is, probably, that this visiting priest has a relationship to the wider church, via their bishop.
What, and the rest of us don't?
Something to do with apostolic succession.
So you are in contact with the wider church because the bloke who occasionally turns up to preside over Communion was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone... who had the Pope's Magic Juice?
But your poor Pentecostal neighbours are isolated and alone?
Come off it!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Presiding over communion seems to be the easiest part of it. It seems like the main skill needed to be handed down by apostolic succession these days is the ability to make ends meet and keep a roof over our heads. That part probably requires more faith than the incarnation, resurrection and the real presence put together!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
though the official answer is, probably, that this visiting priest has a relationship to the wider church, via their bishop.
What, and the rest of us don't?
Something to do with apostolic succession.
What to do with apostolic succession? That a priest has a relationship to the wider church because s/he was touched in the right way by another person who was touched the right way, and so on? And if the rest of us haven't been touched the right way by someone who happens to have been declared to be in that tactile succession we lack that relationship? All the people we know and have a relationship with in the wider church don't count, because we've never been touched in the right way by the right person?
And it's me that's supposed to be at risk of making it all sound too much like "magic"???
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And it's me that's supposed to be at risk of making it all sound too much like "magic"???
I think the wider church relationship is jargon that obscures the real answer, which is about authority. The simplified form of that is that Jesus told the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist at the Last Supper and gave them the authority both to choose their successors, and to delegate celebrants when they weren't around. If you don't have that, then you don't have the so-called holy orders, the chain of authority stretching back to Jesus at the Last Supper. No magic involved. Of course that doesn't really answer the question of why bishops today don't carry out drive-by ordinations of celebrants if there's a shortage. Nor for the record, does it say anything about Eucharists celebrated without a celebrant in holy orders. The Holy Spirit does what He likes.
Robert, I would say sorry for perpetuating this tangent in a thread that's supposed to be about bashing or buggering the bishops, but if I really was sorry, I suppose I wouldn't be doing it. Carry on...
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
.....picking over minor linguistic issues having completely misread posts and having failed to grasp those things and minor courtesies that really matter.
These are not minor linguistic issues. You are using the technique of political language that George Orwell wrote so scathingly about and which he demonstrated in his explanation of the language of Newspeak in '1984' - how language shapes thinking processes. Easy, glib ready-made phrases, the kind of thing many mission statements are composed of, work to prevent independent thinking. Why wrestle with challenging questions and difficult concepts when you can cobble a few pre-packed innocuous sentiments together? And if that doesn’t work just jeer and laugh, or act as if someone’s attacking you.
As for courtesies - this is a Hell thread. Also, read your own posts - where are you showing "the minor courtesies that really matter."?
quote:
It seems to me that you are fixated on principles while I am talking about what is done in practice.
I am concerned with how principles work in practice - how the two relate. This is what RA is talking about - what bishops are in principle and what they are in practice. That goes to the root of the issue for the whole church
What are bishops for? What do they do?
What is ordination for? How does it work in practice?
You don’t offer any example of how ‘radical continuity’ works in practice - what does it look like, sound like, what does it do? How would anyone know if one diocese was engaged in ‘radical continuity’ and another wasn’t? From what you’ve written it looks as if you just want things to carry on as they are with a bit of gentle tweaking here and there. Nothing radical at all. Nothing that requires any major change.
quote:
…….the large-scale structural stuff which you seem obsessed with and which are matters for those involved in producing documents.
The large scale structural stuff is a matter for everyone and structural change is not just about producing documents. The practical results of structural change affect everyone.
Chamois outlined the process:
quote:
1. Everyone affected by the change is informed, engaged, consulted and genuinely made to feel that they themselves and their opinions are valued
2. The people organising the re-design process are open to the views of others and willing and able to change their ideas in response.
3. There is inspired and committed leadership from the upper levels of the organisation.
This comes from someone with experience of such a process. Someone who is able to point to the structural similarities between the CofE and the NHS. All you can do is rubbish it According to you Chamois’ suggestions are not relevant because the NHS is not a “parallel” structure. It doesn’t have to be parallel to provide a helpful example. There are enough similarities to make it a useful comparison. This same goes for the Methodist Church and other non-Episcopal churches. There’s something to be learned from looking at different structures.
According to you no-one should be discussing the large-scale structural changes that are needed because these are “matters for those involved in producing documents.” You handbag
Robert Armin has raised issues about bishops. You challenged him about how many bishops he’d known; he answered and asked you the same question, which you’ve ignored. It may ruffle a few feathers to hear bishops described as “bureaucrats, spineless pen pushers, whose only care is to keep their noses clean so that may advance higher up the episcopal ladder” but clearly this is the reality of how at least some clergy and others have experienced most of the bishops they’ve had contact with.
RA asked, “Is it possible that ALL religious hierarchies are corrupt? That once you start exercising power, and ordering other people about, you lose the values that should be guiding you? “ This goes to the root of how we want the Church to operate. Being precious about hierarchical status, trying to silence anyone who challenges, just gets in the way and makes it impossible to face reality.
From sebby: quote:
The truth is that the money has run out. If if hadn't, there is no way the diocese would be administered in that way. They can dress it up in all sorts of absurd and pseudo-theological jargon: 'mission communities' ; empowering the laity ; exciting challenges and so on, but it comes down to one fact: there's no money.
That’s the reality.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Jesus told the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist at the Last Supper and gave them the authority both to choose their successors, and to delegate celebrants when they weren't around. If you don't have that, then you don't have the so-called holy orders, the chain of authority stretching back to Jesus at the Last Supper.
But that's not how many Christians (such as Baptists) see it. We see apostolic succession not in the sense that A commissioned B, who later commissioned C ...; but as a chain of apostolic teaching that has been passed down through the ages. The authority lies in the content (or the "Word"), not in any individuals.
[ 18. April 2012, 16:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
