|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: OLMs in the C of E
|
mooky
Apprentice
# 15729
|
Posted
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
[ 21. July 2012, 06:40: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 5 | From: Lincoln UK | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would suggest that you convert to a Church that you believe to be the Church founded by Christ regardless of your status as an OLM- whatever that is.
[ 20. July 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
The answer is surely going to depend on the Church to which you want to transfer.
If, for example, you are attracted to the Catholic Church, there are established routes (both within and outside the Ordinariate) and there are people on the Ship who could tell you a good deal about how it all happens.
If you're thinking of an independent Pentacostalist congregation in your locality, it's going to be different - and unless there's a member of that congregation on the Ship no-one can tell you much!
Different destinations will have different theologies of priesthood, and there can be no one answer!
So, what direction do you see yourself taking? And if you've not decided, what is it that's leading you to move, and do those reasons indicate any likely destination?
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
That would depend entirely on which church you join. If Catholic, then of course there's the Ordinariate.
(P.S., is this a little serious for Heaven?)
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Regardless of your status as an OLM- whatever that is.
According to Google, it's a blind, cave-dwelling amphibian.
While we are not specieist in Heaven, this may not be the most apposite board for this discussion. I will consult with my fellow Hosts.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Ah - found OLM!
Sorry to hear you feel so strongly that you need to leave the CofE, mooky.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Its an ordained local minister.
And the probably the reason that nobody can tell you is that nobody knows. You are raised up from a local congregation and ordained to your particular local church and have to stay there.
An OLM is a strange thing that the CofE doesn't seem to have quite worked out where it stands in the scheme of things.
Also from what I read diocese vary, some do not even have OLMs.
I have an OLM friend and in her diocese she can't transfer to another CofE church, never mind another denomination.
She even has to get permission to preach in a different church to her home church.
But seriously if you have issues with the CofE you need to sort out the whys and wherefores of that, before you can decide which church fits with your theology and ecclesiology. You can't choose a church on the basis of whether you can remain an OLM or you risk jumping from the frying pan to the fire
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
On the other hand I used to be a member of a chruch with an OLM. Her OLM network was complaining that more and more they were being asked to cover interregna, when being in charge of a parish was not part of their training or expectations.
An OLM who wanted to change and become a vicar, had to do some more training, as they were trained in different ways. Though it is possible that that is not the same for all dioceses.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
On the other hand I used to be a member of a chruch with an OLM. Her OLM network was complaining that more and more they were being asked to cover interregna, when being in charge of a parish was not part of their training or expectations.
An OLM who wanted to change and become a vicar, had to do some more training, as they were trained in different ways. Though it is possible that that is not the same for all dioceses.
You've highlighted the problems nicely. I've had experience of the same OLMs complaining on the one hand of not being deployable wherever they wanted to go AND also having been asked to go beyond the parish to assist other churches, once in a while, in need of a priest's services. - or being compelled to up their contribution during interregnums.
I think there is great potential in Ordained Local Ministry but the huge wrinkles in the scheme obviously haven't been ironed out. For an OLM to post that they want to leave the church that gave them their authority as an ordained minister but 'keep' their priesthood in terms of applying as a priest, to another Church/ecclesial institution seems to indicate an almost catastrophic ignorance. (I'm not saying it's the poster's fault, by the way. I know nothing about his/her situation so everything I post here is general and not specific to his case.)
And it's not altogether clear whether training is always to blame for this. In one diocese, to my knowledge, OLMs were given the same training as stipendiary/NSM clergy and readers (more or less), and were very well acquainted with the nature of both the priesthood and an OLM's particular restrictions - and blessings - in the exercise of their particular ministry.
They knew, explicitly, they could not seek either NSM or stipendiary ministry, would be under the authority of a P-in-C or Rector/Vicar and be mainly deployable, with Bishop's variations, within the context of their own parish set-up, because it was from that parish set-up they had received their mandate for ministry to the local people.
It has worried me when I've seen an OLM happy to be part of the process (indeed in some dioceses dependant on it), of a team or group of congregations discerning them as a potential OLM, receiving their acceptance and training and then ordination as a result of this parochial mandate; and then doing what appears to be everything they can to disassociate themselves from the same local consensus by which they derived their new authority! It's like saying to those parishioners: 'thanks, guys, for the collar and the title. I'm off now, bye!'
However, post-ordination seems to throw up a small crop of OLMs who do not seem to remember - or somehow overlooked - these factors in their training, and acquire persecution complexes based on things they will have had to agree to accept at least a few years before their training began eg, no stipend, no house, restricted deployability etc.
It does argue the case for 'what is priesthood' - but I think the issue is more about the authority of ordination, and the authorizing Body of that ordination (under God). I'm sure there must be CofE bishops who would be content to PTO or acquire an OLM moving into a new area, if that person seems capable in ministry. But I can't imagine a non-Anglican Church accepting Anglican orders for their own leadership, except to whatever degree they actually recognize Anglican orders as valid.
It's a shame Mooky's contribution to CofE ministry hasn't worked out, and I hope s/he finds a great, welcoming place where he can be useful and serve God with great satisfaction.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
A friend's church is in conflict at the moment, because the OLM cannot accept that the new Rector, is the one with the authority to lead the church.
In the OLM's mind they have been there longer and was very busy during the interregnum. However they can't let go and just can't see why the rector was needed, when they were there to run the church.
In fact the OLM's reputation as a difficult person went before them and actually put off some applicants from applying for the post.
Having said that I was at a church for a while which had the most fabulous OLM. Who because she didn't have to worry about the 'business side' of church had the most creative ministry.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Would it not be better for these to be made or trained as NSMs? Can they wear their clerical collars outside the parish? Surely the symbolism of being ordained (usally deacon) in the cathedral emphasises that the local church is actually the diocese (in episcopal churches) not the parish. So many questions. It seems as if the CofE has made a cock up of this good intention.
That is not meant as an insult at all to clergy who are OLMs, but questioning what appears to be an inconsistency both theologically and ecclesiologically.
There is the question also of 'a prophet is not without honour...' and a very strong argument that those called to leadership should NOT do it where they have been known before. It was (is?) the practice in the police that anyone promoted has to move, for that very reason. This is also the case in certain jobs in the Armed Forces.
Related, but not quite the same, is the convention in the CofE that clergy do not retire to where they have been incumbents.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Sebby the OLMs that I know were ordained in their own parish church and not the cathederal, in order to empahise that they are called from within their congregation.
And yes to everything you have said - it was what I was getting at when I said I don't think the church has really worked out the place of OLMs in the grand scheme of things.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
As this discussion is developing in the direction of the nature and role of OLM s in the Church of England, the call is that it would be better suited to Purgatory. I will edit the title to reflect that.
Mooky, the board for sympathy and support is All Saints. You may wish to take the personal aspects of your situation there.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I'm certainly no expert concerning OLMs, mooky, but I would have thought your predicament largely depends on where your priorities lie.
I left the C of E around a year ago, to become Orthodox, but my position in the church I saw as a secondary thing (although it wasn't much to begin with).
Would it be possible for you to join a church which you are more comfortable with, and in time fulfill at least some of the functions you used to partake in within the local community without being ordained? If certain people you are in contact with need communion (for example), you could work with a local priesr/pastor to arrange this. Re-ordination may come in its own time, but I don't think it should be your priority.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I have just checked the ordination information for a number of dioceses, and the diaconal ordinations are usually in the cathedral and in some places (but not all) the priestly ordinations in parish churches. There is no distinction between OLMs. NSMs, full time clergy with this arrangement. This emphasises both the universal and the particular.
Is an OLM restricted totally to one parish and somehow isn't a priest when they step outside? Does this mean an OLM is restricted when, say, a Reader isn't? Hasn't the invention of the car made a parochial view of ministry redundant anyway, to an extent?
It is clearly an unresolved nonsense.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I am a massive fan of the OLM concept because it restores a level of function in a parish corresponding to the presbyters of the church in the first few centuries before dioceses grew to the silly size that they are now. It is my understanding that historically - e.g. when Augustine was in Hippo - a bishop was over what we would regard as a small town, probably with a population about the size of our CofE parishes. In that context the presbyters are the 'local leaders' who are recognised as having a ministry to contribute to the 'diocese'.
As dioceses grew, these presbyters increasingly became the person in charge of parish churches, and increasingly came to be the 'bishops' of those parishes, leaving it impossible for the ministries active in those parishes to be recognised as presbyters (not all ministries are helped by the title, and of course, some are more diaconal - but that's another debate).
The problem is exacerbated by the propensity by the belief that being ordained creates an ontological change which will remain with you even if you move. This encourages bishops to be very sparing in their willingness to ordain - cause it can't be undone.
But of course being human, some OLMs find the constraints under which they operate too limiting, whilst others actually transition to be being 'proper' presbyters in charge of a church, with the concurrence of their bishop: I know one who is now 'house for duty' in charge of a parish; his gifting has developed. Of this is actually no different from a priest developing into a bishop...
The issue of the availability of an OLM to cover inter-regna in parishes is interesting; from first principles it doesn't make sense. But one can argue it's a good training opportunity - the excuse my former employer always offered when they required me to carry out tasks above my pay grade; it raises hard questions about the preparation, and is one of the issues that the diocese must work through with the individual at the time of ordination.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
Why are you leaving? Whats the problem? Please tell me (I wrote a really rude reply and then decided to just check that you had a real reason and were not flouncing).
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
It is wit great sadness that I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
You will always be a priest since ordination is to the whole Church even though licensed ministry for an OLM is to a local setting. You would be in the same position as a retired priest.
The Methodist Church recognises Anglican orders and some CofE clergy are also Methodist ministers. ISTM that OLM selection and training with its emphasis on collaborative ministry is well suited to the Methodist Church which relies on collaborative leadership.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Ordination is to 'the church of God' not 'the Church of England' and certainly not to 'the parish church of St. X's'.
While I applaud the element of a community calling out its own person, and while it may be impractical for a full-time worker with a family to be redeployed by the diocese, there must be times when it is necessary for them to move - for their career for example. In many cases, they are the sort of worker priests that NSMs were meant to be.
However, they seem to have less portabilty that me - as a Reader, I preach in other parishes quite often.
Maybe OLMs and Readers should be licensed to deaneries rather than to parishes. That is being encouraged in the diocese. We have an OLM from a nearby parish who often comes to preside for us but she is retired and therefore has more time to move around, plus the circumstances of her parish have changed - when she startred, her parish was in interregnum. Now, it has two full time clergy..
--------------------
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
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Some OLMs are licensed to deaneries - 'local' has a fairly wide interpretation. However the initial calling is from a parish and the parish has to be assessed and authorised before it can present a candidate for OLM. There are nationally agreed criteria which include a commitment to shared ministry and the structures to support an OLM.
It's not meant to be a transferable ministry, like NSM or Reader, and I suppose this can be one of the problems when an OLM moves. Their selection and training has been focused on the needs of one locality and their position in the church has more similarities with a churchwarden than with a Reader or NSM. But they are still ordained.
[ 21. July 2012, 10:38: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
... I have decided that I will possibly have to leave the Church of England. I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM. I have no idea what one does, and noone seems to want to tell me.
Have you, personally, with or without assistance, worked out why you want to leave? Clearly?
Perhaps you need "time out" to consider the implications.
Do you have any idea "where" you want to go?
This might also need reflection and consultation.
What do you see "priesthood" as being and does remaining a priest become the most important element when transferring? Will you remain C of E if you can't be a priest if you transfer?
You seem confused. Very confused. Perhaps something has led to you seriously doubting the process you went through or the purpose you were ordained for.
There is more to this than appears on the surface. Take care. Think. Pray. Consult. If you're temporarily depressed about anything please wait till you feel better and things clear. It sounds a difficult time.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
I was a member of a church where we had an OLM ordained while I was a member. It was a church that was used to having stipendiary curates and they were used to going off to the cathedral for their priestings.
When the OLM was ordained in the parish church, a lot of the congregation had great difficulty understanding exactly what was going on. The question was frequently asked as to what exactly was the OLM now? and how was it different to the other curates?
And yes actually the readers are more re-deployable than OLMs, though as always, every diocese interprets these sort of situations a bit differently. As do many dioceses train in different ways too, and I have heard that some dioceses no longer train OLM’s?
Certainly in some (I hesitate to say all, as practice seems to vary so much) dioceses OLMs have to be part of some sort of local ministry team and the question hasn't been answered, as to what happens to the OLM, if the Local ministry team ceases to exist.
So it would It seem to me that it is impossible to give any sort of definitive answer to the position of OLMs because as always the devil is in the detail.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm only just learning about OLMs, but what occurs to me is that if you're talking about being a pastor in a different denomination, surely most churches would expect you to have some knowledge of how they do things, of their doctrinal position, of the way their denomination works, of their preferred preaching style. In some denominations this knowledge or relationship is developed at the congregational level, and at others the information is processed at a central or regional level. In any case, your application would be probably be more impressive if you could show that you had some knowledge of and affinity with the denomination whom you want to employ you.
The Methodists are short of both local preachers and ordained clergy, and if they liked you, they would probably go out of their way to suggest a positive course of action. (If you went to a local Methodist church they would be able to give you contact details so that you could speak to the right people in the circuit.) Unlike local preachers, who are unpaid, there's no guarantee that Methodist clergy can get to live and work in their local area, although requests can be made. But the Methodists are quite ecumenically-minded, and they might feel that it would be rather awkward for you (and them) to remain ministering in an area where you'd regularly cross paths with members of your old church. This would certainly be an issue to bear in mind if you plan to work in the same area.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I, like others, wonder what has changed if the OLM ministry is in accordance with God's calling.
I think that our own ideas of what a role should be doesn't necessarily marry up with a) what God wants and b) what anyone in a leadership role above wants of us.
I'd plump for a) and rely on God on a day by day basis to guide you into your ministry, whether or not it ends up in the same place as it started.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Is an OLM restricted totally to one parish and somehow isn't a priest when they step outside? Does this mean an OLM is restricted when, say, a Reader isn't? Hasn't the invention of the car made a parochial view of ministry redundant anyway, to an extent?
It is clearly an unresolved nonsense.
There may be variations across dioceses, but an OLM is - like any CofE priest - bound by the terms of their licence. For any priest to minister in a church not within his own licence, technically he should be approved by the Bishop. Though generally incumbents are trusted(!) to handle guest ministers without bothering the Bish. The bit that I can't figure out is what happens to an OLM when s/he moves and obviously wishes to continue their ministry. Is there a general CofE policy for that?
So in the case of the OLMs I've known they were expected to mainly minister within the Team Ministry (usually a group of several parishes) they were licenced to. Just like the vicars and rector. A couple of these OLMs were quite firmly of the opinion that they wished to be attached only to 'their' parish, within that Team, because of this connection of a parish calling out and sponsoring its 'own' OLM cleric. I don't know how typical that is.
Others were ordained quite specifically with a 'profile' in mind eg, adult education, chaplaincy etc.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I am suspicious exactly BECAUSE it is too local (for the reasons outloned before 'a prophet is not without honour...' etc), and because it doesn't seem to recognise the ontological change that many believe to be effected by ordination to Holy Order. The way of doing things in the early church may have been fine then, but as that perceptive and modern Pope Paul VI once remarked 'there is no need for us to be obsessed by the early church'.
Ordination to, say, a chaplaincy, is fine, but a more universalist training and education is required in a more educated and scientific age where a growing professionalism is all walks of life is expected. Opticians were not always graduates, now it appears to be a requirement. There is desire of the General Teaching Council for an all graduate profession, to take random examples. It is odd if the church should wish to go in the other direction.
Chaplains to the Armed Forces of any denomination are expected to have been fully trained, ordained, and called by their Sending Church, and have served for three years in a parochial capacity before facing the gruelling Army Officer Selection Board. Then they would go to Sandhurst, Britannia RNC or RAF Cranwell for at least twelve weeks intensive training on the Professionally Qualified Officers' course. The assumption is that are are as much professionals as their colleagues on the course - lawyers, doctors, nurses and surgeons. They would not be offered a Queen's Commission were the Armed Forces boards to conceive of them as anything other than educated, experienced and trained professionals.
I suspect that, once again the yet to be solved OLM anomaly has little to do with theology and ecclesioloigy, but more to do with money. In an episcopal church where ordination is seen as requirement for the sacraments, it is a case of getting clergy on the cheap, without really thinking it through first.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Mooky, I was thinking of replying by private message, but have decided not to, since it's possible other Shipmates may have something different to say about what I'm about to air.
Also, although what inspires it are my thoughts on ordained local ministry, to me, that only sharpens something which strikes me as being very material to all forms of ordained ministry.
I'm assuming it isn't just whether it would be possible to transfer to a different parish. That would presumably be a matter for the Bishop to say yes or no, though there may be more of a no presumption than would be the case with another type of licence.
These days, a lay person can choose on which pew to place their bottom.
As I understand it, the nature of Ordained Local ministry is that a person is ordained to serve specifically the believers and residents of St X church Yton - in word and sacrament to represent God to those specific people and those specific people to God. So presumably that is their calling, the work Christ has given them to do. It is a noble calling, but in return, they no longer have the same freedom to move their bottom to a different pew under a different roof.
As such, when you say you may have to leave the Church of England, is that some straightforward reason, such as your wife or husband's job is moving them to Wales, France or somewhere? Or is it something more complicated like an incompatibility of conscience with the CofE generally or specifically with the people of the parish of St X.
If it's the first sort of reason, then that's a choice only you can make. By becoming an OLM, presumably, you feel you have entered into some sort of commitment to the people of St X. Even if a person does not so feel, it seems to me that they have entered into that sort of commitment. There are some other choices in life you have had to forsake as a result, and some that will prevail over that commitment. In the case of a spouse's job taking them somewhere else, I'd have thought your obligation to follow comes first. In the case of not liking the way the organist plays, or the incumbent is uncouth, impossible to work with or you don't like his or her preferences on vestments, I'd have thought those do not prevail.
In the case of the second and third though, if your unease is with the CofE generally, I'd have thought the circumstances would have to be very extreme to be able to say your own conscience takes priority over your commitment to the people of St X. By becoming an OLM, to serve them, it seems to me you give up virtually all of the right to abandon them because of your own conscience. Have the people of St X told you they no longer want your ministry? Unless so, shouldn't you assume they still need you, and they are still the people Christ has called you to serve and care for?
Even if you think the CofE is going in a wrong direction generally or on a particularly issue, I still think you have to ask, 'is there any situation where my commitment to the people of St X does not take priority?' And I also think the answer is that this is not such a situation unless it is clearly and unequivocally obvious that it is.
For that to be the case, I also think you have to believe, not just that the CofE is imperfect - all ecclesial communities are - but both
a. it is not the Church of Christ and not part of it at all, AND
b. that there is another ecclesial community which is, outside which there is no salvation, that it is imperative that you AND EVERYONE ELSE UNDER YOUR CARE go there NOW, and that you really believe that if they don't, they will imperil their immortal souls.
I realise I've gone on a bit, and some of what I've said may sound a bit harsh. But as I said at the start, for me, I feel the particular nature of an OLM brings into sharp focus something that I think should be taken as applying to all clergy. When, if ever, should your own conscience driven preferences take priority over the needs of the sheep in whose care you share?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve_R
Shipmate
# 61
|
Posted
Mooky, I am concerned as to why you feel that you must leave the CofE. If it is a location matter then discussion with your Priest/Bishop should allow you to transfer your "permission to officiate" to whereever you are relocating to. If it is a matter of doctrine then movement to whichever denomination satifies your beliefs is necessary and whether you will be allowed to retain your priesthood is a matter for the recieving denomination.
Either way please rely on the power of prayer to guide you in your future course.
--------------------
Love and Kisses, Steve_R
Posts: 990 | From: East Sussex | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What everyone else said.
But, to specifically answer this question in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by mooky:
I am an OLM, I want to keep my priesthood and maybe "transfer" to another church.
Is this possible as an OLM.
In the CofE there is a distinction between ordination to the priesthood, and licensing to work in a particular church, or church-related job. I expect that that is probably true about every denomination that thinks of ordained priests as some kind of distinct order, not just a job. So a priest who is not at the moment working as a minister of a church remains a priest, and someone who is a minister of a church but is not ordained is a lay person, not a priest.
A Church of England OLM has the same ordination as any other priest. The difference is that they are intended to serve in one particular role (usually as an NSM in their home parish) and licenced only for that role. There is no legal or doctrinal difference between their ordination and the ordination of any other priest, only in their licence. There is no legal or doctrinal reason a bishop could not appoint them to any post that other priests can fill. Its quite rare, but it can happen that an OLM or another NSM becomes the incumbent of a parish.
Anyway that ordination to the priesthood would be recognised by any churches that recognise CofE ordinations at all. So the short answer is that if you were an ordained priest in the CofE and you joined a church that accepts CofE ordinations then you would be a priest according to their rules as well. But, just as in the CofE that's not the same as being appointed to any particular role in that church. You might still be a priest, but be worshipping from the pews like everyone else. And, I suspect, any church of any denomination that finds an ordained priest of another denomination sitting in the pews would want to know why they left their previous church before licensing them to any ministry. (*)
As to which denominations recognises CofE ordinations, its the rest of the "Anglican Communion" and some spin-off groups, and most (but not quite all) Lutherans, most (but not quite all) Methodists, at least some Presbyterians, and lots of rather smaller Protestant denominations. We return the compliment to the episcopal Lutherans but sadly not to the Methodists and Reformed. And of course many other Protestant churches don't share the same understanding of priesthood as a lifelong state, so won't make that distinction between being ordained as a priest and working as a church minister.
(*) That also works within a denomination of course. I know of a few Anglican priests who left their church positions for personal reasons and either retired or got other jobs, and later started worshipping in other CofE parishes. After a few years some of them sought and obtained permission to officiate as NSMs or honourary curates in the parish they were now members of, but it wasn't at all automatic, and it depended on the incumbent of the parish asking for them to get permission and the bishop granting it - and that depended on circumstances. (The bloke who gave up his curacy to work for a charity for homeless refugees probably had an easier time getting past the bishop than the one who had had an affair with the choirmaster's wife).
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I am still trying to understand whether the regulations concerning OLMs make any sense at all or whether the dear old C of E is being more batshit crazy than usual.
The situation I am used to is one where there are two broad categories. Most of the clergy are NSMs trained on the diocesan course. Generally the NSMs are chosen by the local congregation and approved by the standing committee and bishop. The small number of stipendary clergy are chosen the same way, but face a much stiffer training programme. There is some movement between the two categories which tends to be a product of vestries deciding that an NSM would make an OK stipendary ministry. I guess not been an Estabished church gives us greater flexibility.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am still trying to understand whether the regulations concerning OLMs make any sense at all or whether the dear old C of E is being more batshit crazy than usual.
The situation I am used to is one where there are two broad categories. Most of the clergy are NSMs trained on the diocesan course. Generally the NSMs are chosen by the local congregation and approved by the standing committee and bishop. The small number of stipendary clergy are chosen the same way, but face a much stiffer training programme. There is some movement between the two categories which tends to be a product of vestries deciding that an NSM would make an OK stipendary ministry. I guess not been an Estabished church gives us greater flexibility.
PD
Having offered a perspective above based in church history, I guess the perspective from a parish is that the tradition was that if you were ordained you would automatically leave the parish from which you were ordained. For parishes this meant the loss of vital people - so those people became less inclined to offer for ordination. The OLM scheme, by allowing people to remain in their home parishes, thus widens the pool of those who are willing to be ordained. The danger is the OLMs get sucked into the 'let's keep the show on the road' mentality, which is what is going on if they end up doing the magic bits for other parishes during an interregnum.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Come on Mooky, the reason you left? It does affect every answer. If you are leaving because your vicar will not endorse your relationship with the organist then you will get a differnt reply from if your vicar is a small minded ego-centric idiot. If you make me wait much longer you will get the "flounce" response.
Pray tell.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Pyx_e
That's a bit nosey! The main thing to know is which denomination Mooky was thinking of joining; the reasons for leaving the CofE are of secondary importance. It surprises me that Mooky doesn't appear to have identified any alternative denomination. This gives the impression that Mooky is more interested in finding a paid job as a priest than in finding a spiritual home. To my mind, it should be the other way round.
As for your two examples, there are ego-centric clergy in every denomination that makes a distinction between the clergy and the laity. And if Mooky were having an adulterous or gay relationship with the organist, then the two of them wouldn't have very many options.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The bit that I can't figure out is what happens to an OLM when s/he moves and obviously wishes to continue their ministry. Is there a general CofE policy for that?
I used to be in a parish with an OLM who mnoved house, so his status was changed to MSE (Minister in Secular Employment). This gave him the freedom to move to another parish.
My diocese did away with OLMs a few years ago because this was happening a lot, along with OLMs wishing to apply for chaplaincy positions etc. The Bishop came to the conclusion that so many OLMs were asking to change their status to either MSE or NSM it was preferable to do away with OLM all together and insist that all those seeking ordination should got through the same process of selection and training.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
That's a bit nosey
If s/he is leaving for disciplinary reasons (running off with the organist) then I would suggest any other denomination would want to know that before s/he was admitted to orders.
The reason for leaving, be it in the vein of the one above or something completely different will directly impact on ones reception into a new denomination. One does not prove faithless to one bride to take up with another overnight. Whatever the reason there will be some impact. I was trying to ascertain how much of an impact by understanding the reasons for leaving.
All answers given without knowing the reason for leaving are hopelessly speculative.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As to which denominations recognises CofE ordinations, its the rest of the "Anglican Communion" and some spin-off groups, and most (but not quite all) Lutherans, most (but not quite all) Methodists, at least some Presbyterians, and lots of rather smaller Protestant denominations. We return the compliment to the episcopal Lutherans but sadly not to the Methodists and Reformed.
Sorry, ken, but I think you are wrong, at least insofar as the Methodist Church of Great Britain is concerned.
I know of no Methodist, certainly no Methodist minister or Connexional Officer, who does not recognise the ordination of Anglicans. None at all. Certainly there is nothing in our Standing Orders which allows for that denial.
An Anglican priest who decides to seek to be Received Into Full Connexion with the Conference is not, subsequent to that reception, ordained - as are all other (Methodist) candidates - into the Church of God.
Sadly, of course, we know that (Covenant notwithstanding) the same is not true the other way round.
Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Pyx_e
Surely it goes without saying that if you've left the CofE due to adultery then this will influence your reception in another denomination?
I can't see any denomination accepting into ministry someone who gave adultery as their main reason for switching churches, although perhaps the adultery could be discussed as part of a long process of spiritual trauma and growth.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324
|
Posted
And I wanted to say that, as a Methodist Minister, I find myself resenting the inference made by someone up the thread that we would take any old Anglican refugees going because we are so desperately short of ministers. We wouldn't. Any such refugees would go through the same or similar testing and examination as any Methodist first-time candidates for ministry.
The only difference would be as I have already said - we wouldn't have the bad manners to need to re-ordain them, as the Anglicans do when on occasion one of ours jumps the crozier.
Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
And I wanted to say that, as a Methodist Minister, I find myself resenting the inference made by someone up the thread that we would take any old Anglican refugees going because we are so desperately short of ministers. We wouldn't. Any such refugees would go through the same or similar testing and examination as any Methodist first-time candidates for ministry.
The only difference would be as I have already said - we wouldn't have the bad manners to need to re-ordain them, as the Anglicans do when on occasion one of ours jumps the crozier.
I'm the one who said that the Methodist Church was short of ministers (and as former Methodist church steward I should know). I certainly didn't say that the church would accept 'any old Anglican refugees'. I said that 'if they liked you, they would probably go out of their way to suggest a positive course of action.' This doesn't equate to saying that anyone is an automatic shoe-in for the ordained ministry!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
S'V2, so you have accepted the principle. Now work on the nuance. Once more, with feeling: The reason you leave WILL effect your future ministry.
Whatever the reason.
Not so nosey now?
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
S'V2, so you have accepted the principle. Now work on the nuance. Once more, with feeling: The reason you leave WILL effect your future ministry.
Whatever the reason.
Not so nosey now?
AtB, Pyx_e
Well, it depends on what Mooky is trying to gain from this thread. If his aim is to find out which denominations accept adulterers/gay people/Anabaptists/yoga practitioners/fire-breathing fundamentalists, etc. etc. into the ministry then he needs to say so. But as I implied above, his post doesn't give the impression that doctrine or lifestyle are his primary concerns; he simply wants to know what position other denominations take on OLMs. The question almost seems to be a bureaucratic one. The issue of one's personal beliefs or behaviour is an additional one, but not, it seems, the main thing.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
And there was I imagining it was probably women bishops.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And there was I imagining it was probably women bishops.
Given the gender of the name on the email address on Mooky's profile, I would be intrigued if this was the case.
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
S’V2, given one of the most uncontroversial reasons I can come up with for deserting ones calling and leaving ones denomination: “My vicar was a nasty git and when I spoke to the Wardens and the Archdeacon I did not get the support I (and my family and friends) thought I deserved and needed.”
As a spiritual leader in the receiving denomination I would need to check that the story I was be given was true (it never is) AND that a suitable period of reflection and recovery was being undertaken. All before suitable discernment and training were undertaken, of which there is no guarantee of being recommended.
So for the last time; The reason you leave will affect you entry into another denomination.
Please retract the nosey remark.
AtB, Pyx_e.
p.s. lots of those opposed to women bishops have womens names ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
As this discussion has widened since being removed to Purgatory, one feels free to comment on the OLM question in general:
(1) There is indeed a difference between ordination and licence. In the pre-Reformation church not all priests were allowed to preach. Certain lay people could; these clearly could not celebrate Mass. In the RC church priestly ordination carrys with it the subliminal charism to preach, similar to diaconal ordination, but permission to do so is not automatic. Neither, for example is the right to hear confessions. A priest may do this by virtue of BEING a priest, but may not be licensed to do so. I believe 'valid, but irregular' would be an accurate description. Therefore Ordination and Licence are different.
(2) Pragmatically I am not sure quite how workable the restricted licence is. Parish boundaries are not what they were. The Exeter diocese has, in some cases quite fluid, 'mission communities'. Where I live there are two separate Mission Communities two miles apart. One priest happened to live on the other side to the community to which he was licenced. On Christmas Eve a small river opened up to block the road. The clergy just agreed to swop churches rather than get their cars stuck half way. I'm sure that were one of them an OLM it wouldnt have made any difference to their decision. Similarly, in an interregnum a priest is seen as a priest, and deaneries will no doubt ask an OLM for help with (say) an 8.00 Communion. I suspect that the use of OLMs will get more liberal and that pragmatisim will drive a more sensible form of the licence.
(3) A shipmate has observed that is it comparatively unusual for OLMs and NSMs to transfer to another form of licence. For years NSMs have gone stipendary, and sometimes stipendaries have gone NSM. The Church Times last week mentioned at least one OLM who is to become an incumbent. This may have been after additional training, but I seem to recall that it was even in a different diocese.
(4) It is indeed a muddle, and I suspect that the best bits will survive (the wider calling of individuals for example) and the rest will in time pass away (licenses to parishes gradually giving way to 'mission communities' or a deanery then to a diocese and so on).
(5) This is no way criticises the vocation of those called to the diaconate or priesthood in this way, but merely questions the thought process of certain dioceses within the CofE who appear to have a slighly less than long term notion of the reality of restricted OLM licenses and, perhaps, training. This has led some to think cautiously about the slightly slip-shod ecclesiology at work.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
As a spiritual leader in the receiving denomination I would need to check that the story I was be given was true (it never is) AND that a suitable period of reflection and recovery was being undertaken. All before suitable discernment and training were undertaken, of which there is no guarantee of being recommended.
That's fine, and I don't disagree. But my point was that Mooky was apparently not asking any of us to judge the nature of his problems with the CofE, but apparently to suggest which denominations recognised OLMs.
quote:
Please retract the nosey remark.
I said that your statement was nosey, not that nosiness was an aspect of your character. But I'll certainly retract it, as it wasn't at all my intention to upset you.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Regardless of why Mooky wants to leave the CofE, it would be at least courteous, if not rational, for the Opening Poster to interact a little on their own thread? I'm sure that's not too much to ask - nosey or not.
Spike, I'm very interested to see that one Bishop did away with OLMs!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I still think that having separate rules and processes, which seems to be the inference I am picking up, for OLMs, MSEs, and NSMs is batshit crazy. It sounds to me as though someone needs to take a machete to the regulations.
We handle all three categories under the same Canon, which, because of its original function, dealing with delayed vocations due to WW2/Korea s known even today as the 'Old Guy's Canon.' Indeed, as time has passed more and more candidates for ordination have been handled on the Old Guy's Canon.
The present requirements are that a candidate be over 35; baptized, confirmed and a communicant; and have a sufficient level of education to be capable of passing a college entry examination. After that it comes down to the tricky stuff. For example, if a candidate is going to serve in his home parish he should have the unanimous support of the rector and the vestry, and he will also have to be interviewed by the Bishop, get past the Board of Examining Chaplains twice, and the Standing Committee of the diocese twice. When he is eventually ordained he licensed to his home parish, but this does not preclude his moving somewhere else if he needs to. In that case he will simply go from being licensed as an NSM in parish X. to being an NSM in parish Y.
I do not get why the C of E has to make things so freaking difficult, except to preserve the clergy caste system that divides full-time incumbants from the rest.
PD
[ 23. July 2012, 04:18: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Spike, I'm very interested to see that one Bishop did away with OLMs!
It's interesting that since OLM was done away with here, there has been a big reduction in people from working class and/or ethnic minority backgrounds being ordained. That said, there has been an equal increase in people from those backgrounds becoming Readers. Make of that what you will!
[ 23. July 2012, 08:03: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
PD: The rules here are batshit crazy, but not quite in the way you guess.
MSEs and NSMs are exactly the same thing, as are a few other names. Various people have strong views on what these people should be called, and insist on using their preferred name. I get the impression that factions occasionally 'gain power' and change the official name, but since everyone keeps using their preferred names, this makes no difference. This debate may be batshit crazy, but since it doesn't impact reality, I don't object to it.
The problems (which lead to OLMs) stem from arguably trying too hard not to treat NSMs as second class priests. So they have to go through (essentially) the same selection and training process as stipendaries and are considered to be deployed where there's a need after ordination (there's a lot of complications in practice but that's the theory).
The problem is that there are a lot of situations (especially small rural parishes) where lower standards of selection and training are wanted, so people have half invented OLMs to fill the gap. (While other places have nothing to do with them as they seem like a half-invented batshit crazy mess)
Someone needs to work out the rules for OLMs moving parishes, and no-one's done this. I fail to understand why this is difficult since there are perfectly good rules for people moving a local ministry between parishes, namely the rules for readers.
The other really silly thing about the current situation is the gap between OLMs being completely local and NSMs being completely deployable. Which means in practice that someone considering these 2 paths has to immediately chose between never leaving their current parish or never returning. As far as I can work out, that's usually the big decision, and people put up with the level of selection, training and respect that flows from that decision.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
