|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Interviewing applicants for clergy post
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
pete173 -
I've been involved for the last 18 months with the NHS "agenda for change" in which we look very carefully at job descriptions, person specifications, appraisal procedures, recruitment and retention, etc.... And I can certainly tell you that - as I've seen it, experienced it, and had it described to me - the CofE's appointments procedure is still decades out of date.
The prejudices I described are real - I've experienced them. And if they were displayed in an NHS interview then the interviewers would be subject to disciplinary action probably leading to dismissal. Would that happen in the CofE? No, I didn't think so.
And Cosmo is right - the person specifications for parish posts (where such things exist) are not based on skills and competencies. I've never seen a parish profile based on evidence and measurable outcomes.
And who actually suffers in this process? The clergy, of course - who are mis-sold parishes by bishops and parish profiles alike, who are subjected to unfair interviewing techniques, and who if they do get the post are left on their own to pick up the pieces of all this afterwards.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But Adeodatus, is a position in a parish the same as a job in the NHS?
Surely a difference in theology and practice can become very important when you are meant to be leading a church, but is of minimal importance when you're an NHS employee.
Of course that does not excuse racism or homophobia.
I'm not sure how/where you draw the line.
A church is inevitably going to be asking personal questions that would not be acceptible elsewhere. I dunno. I guess I'm struggling to see how Clergy are really the same as any other employee in that they are supposed to be an example for the rest of the community, however unrealistic that is.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
But Adeodatus, is a position in a parish the same as a job in the NHS?
Surely a difference in theology and practice can become very important when you are meant to be leading a church, but is of minimal importance when you're an NHS employee.
Of course that does not excuse racism or homophobia.
I'm not sure how/where you draw the line.
A church is inevitably going to be asking personal questions that would not be acceptible elsewhere. I dunno. I guess I'm struggling to see how Clergy are really the same as any other employee in that they are supposed to be an example for the rest of the community, however unrealistic that is.
C
Personally I don't see why applying for the post of parish priest should be any different from applying for the post of, say, HR co-ordinator in a hospital. Others will disagree because of their own perspective on the issue.
But what the CofE seems to be doing is to introduce some interview techniques (ones that might have been fashionable 40 years ago, I think) but not going all the way. So we have parish profiles, but not evidence-based parish profiles. We have person specifications but not complete person specifications. We have interviews but not fair, impartial, scored interviews. And the person who's disadvantaged by these half measures in the applicant.
There is nothing wrong with the interviewers asking personal questions - but to be fair, those issues must be stated as either "essential" or "desirable" on the person spec. beforehand. In modern interviews it is not permitted to ask questions that have no bearing on the job, as that job has been defined in the documentation. For instance, if the person spec didn't say anything about computer skills, you can't then bring up computer skills at the interview. It's not fair on the applicant.
But the most basic element of fair interviewing is that all applicants for a post must be asked exactly the same basic questions at interview - and I know for certain the CofE doesn't do that.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Fair enough.
For the record, I think a parish priest is nothing like an NHS administrator and that interviewing them in the same way is nonsense.
However, I take your point that interviews should be fair to all concerned.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boopy:
quote:
You invite the spouse to see if he or she is presentable, sane, willing to take up the slack with the Sunday School.
Irony meter set and all that, but more seriously this clergy spouse (Baptist) rather hoped that the 'unpaid curate' approach was dying out these days
Seriously, Boopy, at least in the CofE the notion of 'spouse as unpaid curate' is not going gentle into that good night. [/QB]
We have three priests in our parish.
One has no spouse. But as she herself is an unpaid curate we aren't losing out there.
The incumbent does have a spouse - he is the incumbent of another nearby parish. He wasn't part of the fomral interview process but he did turn up for a "meet the parishioners" sort of tea party which was part of the selection.
The third one's spouse is literally an unpaid curate - they are on a job share and he has just been ordained Deacon.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
pete173 -
I've been involved for the last 18 months with the NHS "agenda for change" in which we look very carefully at job descriptions, person specifications, appraisal procedures, recruitment and retention, etc.... And I can certainly tell you that - as I've seen it, experienced it, and had it described to me - the CofE's appointments procedure is still decades out of date.
The prejudices I described are real - I've experienced them. And if they were displayed in an NHS interview then the interviewers would be subject to disciplinary action probably leading to dismissal. Would that happen in the CofE? No, I didn't think so.
And Cosmo is right - the person specifications for parish posts (where such things exist) are not based on skills and competencies. I've never seen a parish profile based on evidence and measurable outcomes.
And who actually suffers in this process? The clergy, of course - who are mis-sold parishes by bishops and parish profiles alike, who are subjected to unfair interviewing techniques, and who if they do get the post are left on their own to pick up the pieces of all this afterwards.
As an ex Bishop's Adviser in Hospital Chaplaincy, I've done NHS interviews as well. And H/T interviews as a school governor. And lay interviews for diocesan posts. I've also done EO-based interviewing since the 1980s when I was a local authority councillor. So this is not some foreign language to those of us who interview for posts in the Church. Nor is it unfamiliar territory to many parish reps, who do this stuff all the time in their secular employment.
Similarly, it is standard practice here that all questions are the same for all candidates, and that no interviewing of spouses or questions about ethnicity issues are permitted.
I agree with you that there is another level of notch-up that will be required when we move to the new Terms of Service, if for no other reason than the fact that appraisal and competency issues can only be addressed on the basis of an agreed person specification and JD.
There are, however, some drawbacks to the NHS-type approach: a certain woodenness in interview style; an incapacity to explore appropriately the more intangible aspects of the priest's spiritual care (in the end, this is a spiritual task, not easily measurable in Gradgrind style); a problem about how you elicit appropriate transferable skill patterns for those who have been in a diversity of previous jobs, in and outside the Church.
But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.
Must stop now - I have to ring a priest to debrief him on his interview!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
It would have been nice to have had a sense that pete173 acknowledged that the system was not faultless.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Amos, I thought this phrase suggested there was room for improvement in his part of the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest in Boots
Apprentice
# 10672
|
Posted
What pete173 omits to mention is that clergy applicants are required to supply information about age and marital status.What is the relevance of these if transferable skills and suitability for the post are what is sought? The fact that the CofE complies with the legislation concerning ethnicity doesn't excuse the inappropriateness of other questions.
--------------------
"As boring as a boarding school on bath night."
Posts: 14 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest in Boots:
What pete173 omits to mention is that clergy applicants are required to supply information about age and marital status.What is the relevance of these if transferable skills and suitability for the post are what is sought? The fact that the CofE complies with the legislation concerning ethnicity doesn't excuse the inappropriateness of other questions.
Well, with regard to marital status, we have to house the priest in question. So although it shouldn't figure in the interviews and the appointment, we need to know about spouse and number of children (and schooling requirements) for the purposes of pastoral care for the appointee.
And in future we shall have to ask whether an appointee has contracted a Civil Partnership [beware Dead Horse here..]
And there are various canonical questions to be asked in relation to divorcees and the "manner of life" required by Canon C26.
So it's a lot more convenient to have it on the form than not.
There's a good argument, I guess, for not circulating that information to the parish reps, given that single clergy do suffer an inordinate amount of discrimination.
With regard to age, there's no need to have it on the form (though we shall know it from Crockfords anyway).
[ 16. December 2005, 17:35: Message edited by: pete173 ]
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It doesn't really matter whether or not interviews are conducted fairly, or in line with secular practice, as long as most (or at least many) clergy posts in the C of E are filled by the nod, wink and bishop or patron's say-so, rather than a competitive interview. Lay reps might have a veto, but if they are put in the invidious position of turning down the only candidate they are not likely to make a considered decision.
And if parish jobs depend on an interview, why not bishops? (Except that applying for the job would be disqualification in itself)
Much as part of me thinks interviews are a good idea, another part of me shrinks from it. What about the sort of parish nobody wants? Are they going to attract scores of candidates? Or will priests be bribed by extra allowances on top of stipend to work in them?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
as long as most (or at least many) clergy posts in the C of E are filled by the nod, wink and bishop or patron's say-so
I don't know in detail about anywhere much outside our area but that really isn't how it happens here. The parish reps were fully involved at all parts of the process.
quote:
Lay reps might have a veto, but if they are put in the invidious position of turning down the only candidate they are not likely to make a considered decision.
Its happened.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Re clergy spouses...in my mainline American experience, the expectation that the pastor's spouse be an unpaid and unheralded assistant pastor is rapidly swirling the drain. For one thing, most of our clergy spouses work outside the church -- my clergyperson's spouse is a researcher/commuting university lecturer. And in our case she's of a different faith tradition than our pastor; I've been in other congregations with the same dynamic. (Our pastor's spouse, to her credit, helps us a lot as she can with hospitality and with events involving the little kiddos.)
And re:
quote:
guess my impression of clergy (perhaps this is a loony evangelical thing) was that having felt a strong call by God to his service, they would want something interesting and challenging to do. Hence, in my (obviously incorrect) picture successful parishes looking for a caretaker would be less popular than those that needed change and renewal, or had specific probelms to solve. Obviously, not every Priest wants to try and build up a congregation from a starting point of 3 old ladies in a dangerous inner-city area, but I would have thought that someone would feel called to this kind of thing. Or is God not very efficient at calling people?
Actually, this is what our pastor loves to do. He came to our moribund little congregation and turned it around 180 degrees -- we're now building an addition, for the first time in our church's 90+ year history. And we almost lost him a few years back to a call -- and I'm not making this up -- on an island off Alaska, ministering mostly to the First Peoples population living there. We are extremely fortunate to have him, and also that when he had the chance to go elsewhere he chose to keep hanging out with us.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, with regard to marital status, we have to house the priest in question. So although it shouldn't figure in the interviews and the appointment, we need to know about spouse and number of children (and schooling requirements) for the purposes of pastoral care for the appointee.
What on earth do any of these things have to do with whether or not an applicant is the best person for a particular job? Or what does it have to do with whether or not a person should be interviewed as to whether they are married or single?
Do you mean that if a man has a wife with six children it would make any difference to whether or not he was appointed? After all, the Church is always buying bigger houses for clergy isn't it? Or does it mean that if the applicant is single it's OK to flog off the Incumbent's house and put him in a two-bedroomed flat (like St Paul's Covent Garden did).
If the applicant is married then there is time for all the domestic stuff to be sorted out after the appointment has been made.
It's actually a very revealing answer.
On the CofE application form not only does it want to know if I'm married (I can understand if it had a box saying 'tick here if divorced') but it also wants to know my wife's name. Why?
It also wants to know her occupation. Why?
It also wants to know if I have any children and, if I do, how many, how old they are and their names. Why?
If we are going to have lay people in interviewing situations and invest them with authority then they need to be properly trained in what they should be asking, how to ask the questions and in a professional manner (ie not asking different applicants different basic questions).
The Church should also realise that its present system is laughably out-of-date and should be regarded as unlawfully instrusive.
It says a lot that pete173 thinks it entirely reasonable for the Church authorites to know the all the applicants personal details (down the spouses job) but thinks it might be a good idea to withhold some of that information from the parish reps. Isn't that in itself a damning indictment of the calibre of parish reps that you should even be thinking such a thing?
Either treat the laity properly in this and give them the training and information they need or go back to the old days. In any case we all know that a large number of jobs are stitched up in advance anyway and that the laity involvement is pure window dressing.
Cosmo
[code]
[ 16. December 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
There's obviously a lot of concern on this thread that requiring this information on the form is unnecessarily intrusive. Though I don't think my answers have been interpreted quite fairly. I'm not arguing for the status quo. It isn't necessary for the interviewing panel to know these things, which was why I was talking about detaching this information from the application form.
But it is necessary for the appointing bishop to know about the family situation, precisely because we are responsible for more than just employment. If you're appointed and have five teenage kids, you're going to need a bigger house. If I'm about to offer you a job and those kids need a letter to get them into the CofE school, I need to write the letter. If you're getting divorced, I have to know. So whether you're putting it on the form, or on a separate piece of paper for the bishop, you're going to have to supply those details.
I'm not suggesting that any of these factors should influence the panel. The form must, I would suggest, be redesigned to cope with the new situation arising from the Clergy Conditions of Service anyway. It's going to have to relate much more to criteria against which the successful applicant can be held to account in the appraisal framework of the future. It's going to have to ask for a much fuller account of all previous posts, pre-ordination and post-ordination. It's also going to have to relate to the requirements of the Clergy Code of Conduct. So, more professionalism on the part of those interviewing and on the part of those applying.
But we're still not appointing people to just another job. We're looking for the right priest to serve in the right parish. And that's about something more than tickbox criteria, which is unfortunately what EO-type interviewing can sometimes come down to.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Actually, this is what our pastor loves to do. He came to our moribund little congregation and turned it around 180 degrees -- we're now building an addition, for the first time in our church's 90+ year history. And we almost lost him a few years back to a call -- and I'm not making this up -- on an island off Alaska, ministering mostly to the First Peoples population living there. We are extremely fortunate to have him, and also that when he had the chance to go elsewhere he chose to keep hanging out with us.
Great! I'm glad that there are people out there who feel that kind of call. This thread was giving me the impression that all Anglican clergy either wanted to be in evangelical mega-churches or huge tat-palaces and that noone was left for the small failing churches in difficult areas.
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Actually, this is what our pastor loves to do. He came to our moribund little congregation and turned it around 180 degrees -- we're now building an addition, for the first time in our church's 90+ year history. And we almost lost him a few years back to a call -- and I'm not making this up -- on an island off Alaska, ministering mostly to the First Peoples population living there. We are extremely fortunate to have him, and also that when he had the chance to go elsewhere he chose to keep hanging out with us.
Great! I'm glad that there are people out there who feel that kind of call. This thread was giving me the impression that all Anglican clergy either wanted to be in evangelical mega-churches or huge tat-palaces and that noone was left for the small failing churches in difficult areas.
All the best,
Rachel.
In that case, isn't there some argument for the Bishop suggesting that a particular priest might want to apply for a particular post, if he feels it's suited to the priest's talents and abilities? Of course, there would then be the usual procedure, but maybe in certain circumstances, the tap on the shoulder might be justifiable.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
There's obviously a lot of concern on this thread that requiring this information on the form is unnecessarily intrusive. Though I don't think my answers have been interpreted quite fairly. I'm not arguing for the status quo. It isn't necessary for the interviewing panel to know these things, which was why I was talking about detaching this information from the application form.
But it is necessary for the appointing bishop to know about the family situation, precisely because we are responsible for more than just employment. If you're appointed and have five teenage kids, you're going to need a bigger house. If I'm about to offer you a job and those kids need a letter to get them into the CofE school, I need to write the letter. If you're getting divorced, I have to know. So whether you're putting it on the form, or on a separate piece of paper for the bishop, you're going to have to supply those details.
I'm not suggesting that any of these factors should influence the panel. The form must, I would suggest, be redesigned to cope with the new situation arising from the Clergy Conditions of Service anyway. It's going to have to relate much more to criteria against which the successful applicant can be held to account in the appraisal framework of the future. It's going to have to ask for a much fuller account of all previous posts, pre-ordination and post-ordination. It's also going to have to relate to the requirements of the Clergy Code of Conduct. So, more professionalism on the part of those interviewing and on the part of those applying.
But we're still not appointing people to just another job. We're looking for the right priest to serve in the right parish. And that's about something more than tickbox criteria, which is unfortunately what EO-type interviewing can sometimes come down to.
I'm curious, pete, perhaps you can help me with your real life experience. If someone applies for a post (and let us assume that their vocation has been weighed and they have met the minimum academic qualifications, training, etc for the sake of argument), what do you do with the information if you find out they have a live-in girlfriend?
Or suppose they are in a civil partnership relationship?
Surely there are two conflicting pressures in that a) people want to be considered on their merits rather than judgements on their lifestyle and yet b) you're saying that you need to know for pastoral reasons.
Given that in the above examples there could clearly be some conflict with the theology of those in the parish, couldn't you put the argument that it is none of your business (and also by extension none of the laity's either) or on the other hand put the argument that everyone has the right to know about something like that?
Moreover is the kind of pastoral knowledge you are advocating something that would happen outside of the church? Is it not in fact another reason that you (as a bishop and a representative of the church) are using to exclude certain people from certain roles? I put it to you that many people on this thread suggest that this is exactly what is happening.
From my POV, I still don't see that a Christian vocation is like any other position that you apply for and therefore I don't see how you can make the same kind of application systems as for any comparable non-church job. It strikes me that the church is stuck in a is-it-isn't-it system which is dressed up as one thing whilst largely being something else.
Also strikes me that this is a horrendous can-of-worms.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I'm curious, pete, perhaps you can help me with your real life experience. If someone applies for a post (and let us assume that their vocation has been weighed and they have met the minimum academic qualifications, training, etc for the sake of argument), what do you do with the information if you find out they have a live-in girlfriend?
Or suppose they are in a civil partnership relationship?
Surely there are two conflicting pressures in that a) people want to be considered on their merits rather than judgements on their lifestyle and yet b) you're saying that you need to know for pastoral reasons.
Given that in the above examples there could clearly be some conflict with the theology of those in the parish, couldn't you put the argument that it is none of your business (and also by extension none of the laity's either) or on the other hand put the argument that everyone has the right to know about something like that?
Moreover is the kind of pastoral knowledge you are advocating something that would happen outside of the church? Is it not in fact another reason that you (as a bishop and a representative of the church) are using to exclude certain people from certain roles? I put it to you that many people on this thread suggest that this is exactly what is happening.
From my POV, I still don't see that a Christian vocation is like any other position that you apply for and therefore I don't see how you can make the same kind of application systems as for any comparable non-church job. It strikes me that the church is stuck in a is-it-isn't-it system which is dressed up as one thing whilst largely being something else.
Also strikes me that this is a horrendous can-of-worms.
C
If they have a live-in girlfriend, their manner of life would not be compatible with the teaching of scripture and the church, and they could not be appointed. It's unlikely anyway that such a person would get a positive reference from their previous bishop (it is the practice of the CofE to do a bishop-to-bishop reference before an appointment anyway).
If they are in a civil partnership, and they could not satisfy the criteria set out in the House of Bishops' Guidance, they would not, again, be capable of being appointed.
So, yes, of course interviews in the Church cannot be the be-all-and-end-all of the criteria for appointing a priest. As I indicated earlier, the provisions of the Canons will always override Equal Opps criteria. I don't make these things up; the Church of England requires them. A priest is a public figure, not just a person in an occupation.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If they have a live-in girlfriend, their manner of life would not be compatible with the teaching of scripture and the church, and they could not be appointed. It's unlikely anyway that such a person would get a positive reference from their previous bishop (it is the practice of the CofE to do a bishop-to-bishop reference before an appointment anyway).
If they are in a civil partnership, and they could not satisfy the criteria set out in the House of Bishops' Guidance, they would not, again, be capable of being appointed.
So, yes, of course interviews in the Church cannot be the be-all-and-end-all of the criteria for appointing a priest. As I indicated earlier, the provisions of the Canons will always override Equal Opps criteria. I don't make these things up; the Church of England requires them. A priest is a public figure, not just a person in an occupation.
Please be assured that I am not accusing you of making it up. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of how it works in practice.
I think you have shown that the church does not conform to the expectations people might for job applications in secular employment quite well, thank you. I'm sure you appreciate that the answers you have given would lead to legitimate claims of discrimination in any other profession.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Please be assured that I am not accusing you of making it up. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of how it works in practice.
I think you have shown that the church does not conform to the expectations people might for job applications in secular employment quite well, thank you. I'm sure you appreciate that the answers you have given would lead to legitimate claims of discrimination in any other profession.
C
But being a priest isn't just any other profession, is it? There are criteria laid down in scripture and in the teaching of the Church about what we require of our presbyters. The text of the ordinal
says what is expected of our clergy.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
That's true, pete173. I think bishops have a hard time of it, being sort of 'line managers' of clergy as well as their pastors. It makes life difficult for all concerned. And I think it's an intractable problem.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But being a priest isn't just any other profession, is it? There are criteria laid down in scripture and in the teaching of the Church about what we require of our presbyters.
QED.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
There's obviously a lot of concern on this thread that requiring this information on the form is unnecessarily intrusive. Though I don't think my answers have been interpreted quite fairly. I'm not arguing for the status quo. It isn't necessary for the interviewing panel to know these things, which was why I was talking about detaching this information from the application form.
But it is necessary for the appointing bishop to know about the family situation, precisely because we are responsible for more than just employment. If you're appointed and have five teenage kids, you're going to need a bigger house. If I'm about to offer you a job and those kids need a letter to get them into the CofE school, I need to write the letter. If you're getting divorced, I have to know. So whether you're putting it on the form, or on a separate piece of paper for the bishop, you're going to have to supply those details.
I'm sorry but none of that has any reference to an application form for a position. Yes, of course it makes a difference after the event but almost every eventuality can be dealt with either a pro forma letter/email or by the myriad of people emplyed in diocesan administration. That's what they are paid for after all. A letter to be sent to a potential new school can be sent by email and then copied by snail mail within 30 minutes. The Diocesan Parsonage people should be able to deal with those very rare occasions when a parsonage house is too small for a family.
Yes, those personal details will have to be supplied but they do not have to play any part of an interview process or application and they can be supplied immediatly after any appointment is made. It's not as though the new fellow will be moving in next week. There should be at least three months.
They don't require this in any other career or position. My wife certainly doesn't have to put down on any of her job applications whether or not she is married, pregnant, or childless (or indeed her age) and if she was asked to she would quite right to refuse to answer. My existence makes no difference to her ability to carry out her job and it should be so vice versa. After all, whilst a priest may be a 'public figure of integrity' who needs to present an irreproachable front as an example to the community (although personally I think that sounds like patronising 1940's Dad's Army cant) my wife doesn't have to be. It seems as though we are getting into the territory of judging whether or not the spouse and their occupation is permissable: Primary School Teacher - Perfect; Pornographic Magazine Executive - Don't Bother.
In any case you haven't dealt with the other aspects of the problems. It's not just the stultifying, unneccesary bureaucracy and the obsession by the Diocese to know everything (through which comes control and power) but the lack of ability amongst the lay members of the interviewers. You've admitted here that far too many single people are discriminated against that you see no problem with withholding such information from the parish representatives (whilst retaining that knowledge yourself as the Bishop). Why not try to do something positive about that in terms of training and understanding rather than simply trying to defend the indefensible and seeimng to glory in the role of the petty ecclesiastical bureaucrat. It's so New Labour. Power, central control and a pretence at local accountability.
It doesn't have to be like this.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
That's true, pete173. I think bishops have a hard time of it, being sort of 'line managers' of clergy as well as their pastors. It makes life difficult for all concerned. And I think it's an intractable problem.
See and there was me thinking that Bishops were pastors and the Archdeacons were the rotwi.... managers. Excepting of course that all the friking AD's I know are not so in the closet bishop wannabes.
And as for the intrusive questions thing, I know of at least one vicar who lied their way through the whole thing and got freehold and then hey WTF could anyone do about it? The whole system sucks.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
*snip*
There's a good argument, I guess, for not circulating that information to the parish reps *snip*
This time, I've counted to 10,000 before replying.
Who's going to pay this person? The local congregation.
Who are the saints to be built up for the work of ministry? The local congregation.
Who's going to clean the toilets so that the minister can visit them before the service? The local congregation.
Who's going to invite their friends along to a special service, their children and grandchildren to be baptised, or married, or waved off to Glory? The local congregation.
Who's going to have the PA ready, the music performed, the flowers arranged, the brasses shining, the correct seasonal colours on the lectern and communion table? The local congregation.
To save bandwidth and to avoid repetitive strain injury, let's cut to ask who are the sine qua non for a minister, but not he/she for them? Very good, you're showing comprehension, The local congregation.
And these people or their elected representatives are not to be entrusted with knowledge concerning a candidate minister?
Aaagh, FD staggers around banging his head against every available vertical surface ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
But we are an Episcopal Church not a congregational one.
I am not bothering to argue with the nonsense in the actual post most of which is just plain untrue.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
*snip*
There's a good argument, I guess, for not circulating that information to the parish reps *snip*
And these people or their elected representatives are not to be entrusted with knowledge concerning a candidate minister?
I don't think that you have understood the complexity of the argument. At the moment information that is irrelevant to how someone is going to do a job i.e. how many children they have is being handed to people who don't need to know it because it has no material effect on how they would behave or act in a given role. It may contravene human rights and data protection legislation as well and it is something that would never done in other job interviews.
Cheap rhetoric is not a good argument to retain the status quo indeed it shows the reasons to hand confidential information over to people who don’t need to know it are completely vacuous.
I also struggle to see any good reason why a Bishop should need to know the intimate details of a vicar’s life.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
But we are an Episcopal Church not a congregational one.
I am not bothering to argue with the nonsense in the actual post most of which is just plain untrue.
P
In the same way that we are both catholic and reformed, so are we episcopalian and congregational. Being anglican, the ratios will vary from Province to Province and parish to parish.
Why do Shipmates think that pretty well every Province has synodical government? Or at heart, do ecclesiocrats view synods, deanery and parish councils much as governing political parties view elected members of parliament, as a nuisance to be circumvented? A form of democracy but denying the power thereof?
And if it is Pyx_e's experience that he does all of the tasks which I listed and countless more besides, rather than parishioners performing them, then I will fall at my archbishop's feet (not a posture which I customarily adopt before him) and plead that Pyx_e be inducted into the parish without delay.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I am not quite sure how Archdeacons are appointed, but Bishop Pete's new Archdeacon has been announced.
CEN: Archdeacon of Northolt
She looks like an interesting appointment for the Area.
---
If the Bishops in London have too much patronage in parochial appointments they can always give some of it away !
---
Most well-connected parish reps could find out about the candidate from elsewhere if they are interviewing from the same churchmanship, not to say Crockford entries for degrees and age.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Who's going to pay this person? My answer to this is that the parish share does not equate to the priest stipend (plus training, pension etc) in any parish. Some GIVE more and some GIVE less. My stipend is paid by the church commissioners.
Who are the saints to be built up for the work of ministry? We all are, my gifts (as discerned by the Church) are such that I am given greater responsibility. However it ill behoves any part of the Body of Christ to exalt itself over any other.
Who's going to clean the toilets so that the minister can visit them before the service? The paid cleaner, though it often falls to me to do quick repairs and three months ago I tiled the urinal and repainted the floors (ladies and gents).
Who's going to invite their friends along to a special service, their children and grandchildren to be baptised, or married, or waved off to Glory? We all are but the leadership, direction and ethos of these services will come from those gifted in that area, which would be my worship teams and me.
Who's going to have the PA ready, the music performed, the flowers arranged, the brasses shining, the correct seasonal colours on the lectern and communion table? Well that would be all of us again, those gifted to each area, I spent three evenings in the last two weeks helping the cabling up of the church for a new PA system, all we have to do now to power it up is flick a switch. Sorry I don’t do flowers.
In short my argument is that it is part of the priest job to lift up all the gifts of the people and lead and encourage them in all they do, for God. That many have not even tried this model in the past I agree. However if I take this charge seriously then my own gifts are included in that demand. I am where I am because we are all gifted differently, I did not ask for it, at times I am not good at it but for heavens sake what you are suggesting is exactly what you have been arguing against. Either I am part of the giftedness of God to His church or I am not. If I am then stop prattling on like a school boy who can not get to play full back just because he wants to.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I think that marital status, family situation, etc is important when considering candidates.
For example, the church of which I am a member has a very large proportion of the membership in families with kids at home.
If we were interviewing a potential new minister (we're not), I think it would be sensible to ask a single person different questions about how they would work at pastoring such a congregation to one who was married and with children at home (as ours is). The current situation means that there are difficulties with the few young singles, but you'd want to be aware of that sort of thing at the interview stage.
Ditto with age. If your parish is majority over 65, then you'd want to ask different questions to a 30 year old and a 60 year old.
However, the forms which ask you about parents' and siblings' ages, health, etc (applying for ordination training) do seem unnecessarily intrusive.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
*snip*
If the Bishops in London have too much patronage in parochial appointments they can always give some of it away ! *snip*
Digressing, but I have to say from first-hand experience of the past three, that no evangelical could have a better friend than an anglo-catholic Bishop of London.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
If the Bishop of 173 and Nightlamp think that the relationship between a pastor and his or her flock is analogous to that between a filing clerk and the Gas Board, then I begin to see the difficulty of this thread.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
father maniple
Shipmate
# 4847
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
This thread was giving me the impression that all Anglican clergy either wanted to be in evangelical mega-churches or huge tat-palaces and that noone was left for the small failing churches in difficult areas.
Ministering to a small church, which might be considered "failing" by the mega-churches and tat-palaces of the deanery, is a huge and tremendous privilege. It might mean you don't get any expenses, and have to spend every day clearing the remains of kebabs out of the churchyard and so on-- but there is a real opportunity to make a difference and turn a place around. Much more of a challenge than "business as usual" at a big place, but potentially much more rewarding.
Posts: 64 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
I was glad to see Pete 173's comments. Our last priest was appointed after interviews with a panel of four lay people, two of whom were the ones with the official veto (of which I refused to be one, because as a Reader I don't think I should).
The whole six month process was rooted in prayer, the profile was very deliberately canvassed as widely as possible, it certainly did not ask for a clone of the previous incumbent (nor for the opposite of the previous vicar, which I would imagine is just as common), and it specificially said that we knew the Angel Gabriel was taken so we said that certain qualities were more important than others (in our case pastoral ones rather than theological ones etc). And it specifically said that, whilst we would be pleased to welcome any contribution that a spouse wanted to make to a church, we did not have any expectation of it. Yes, we had a social bit where candidates met people from the parish, but again we specifically excluded spouses from attending.
As has been said, the CofE, being both episcopal and reformed, has an uneasy combination of episcopal and lay responsibility for the appointment of clergy (and, as has also been said, has always done so, even though the method of lay participation has become more democratic as society in general has become so). Many laity have a great deal of experience in interviewing, and we used the experience we had in our congregation in preparing. I wouldn't have wanted us to have had a fully congregational process, but I thought the one that we did have worked well - it certainly had a good outcome!
Has Cosmo ever considered that his laity might be so unsuited, in his view, to take part in such decisions because he has disempowered them?
Spong
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
Our search process (ECUSA) took about a year and a half. Laity and clergy worked together at all levels.
People volunteered for the search committee. We were very intentional about having the search committee be a cross-section of the congregation, i.e. two elders, two newcomers, a couple of us who were in the middle, etc. Additionally, two members had professional human resources/interview experience.
Our diocese distributed guidelines and other info for creating our parish profile. The parish profile was written with the involvement of the entire congregation, who received several opportunities to express their views on what we wanted in our next priest. We knew what we wanted and what we didn't want, but not without a lot of discernment and prayer.
We did not want a clone of the former pastor, for numerous reasons. And we did not get one, thank God.
Eventually we narrowed the search down to three priests. The search committee divided into groups of three to interview the candidates. From that process we narrowed the list to two, and then the finalists were re-interviewed by the vestry. Additionally, search committee members who did not get a chance to meet the other candidate got to do so.
In the end, the search committee recommended both candidates to the vestry. The vestry made the final vote. Both groups worked very hard, were quite serious about finding the best candidate for the job, and the best person to lead us into the future.
Did we ask spouse/dependent questions? No. I think the only time we came close to a personal question was "how do you take care of yourself?" which I think is even more appropriate now, having witnessed potential clergy burnout up close.
Clergy guidance came in the form of prayer from our interim priest, and priests in the diocese who were helping us with the process.
It was very much a mutual ministry practice.
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Amos, I thought this phrase suggested there was room for improvement in his part of the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But we have to move more coherently and more rapidly in the direction you are suggesting, and I'm sorry that your experience of job interviews has not been of the best.
Nightlamp, I read the passage you quote as pete173's suggestion that, as the new clergy terms of service come in, the process of appointing clergy to a parish will come, ever more, to resemble that used in the NHS, the Civil Service, and industry. What I miss, and still miss, is a sense of the immanence and desirability of God's kingdom, the necessity that we seek its values in all our works and ways, and, even more, a sense of the Church hierarchy as justus sed peccator.
It seems to me that the categories of bishop as senior manager and bishop as pastor and father in God have been, and are being, confused to the detriment of both, and, especially to the detriment of the relationship between priests and bishops. This, in my opinion, is a greater problem for the appointments process than the presence of laity on clergy interview panels, or even the dubiously valuable weight of their veto.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Or even the imminence of God's kingdom. Take your pick. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
If the Bishop of 173 and Nightlamp think that the relationship between a pastor and his or her flock is analogous to that between a filing clerk and the Gas Board
Which part of
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But being a priest isn't just any other profession, is it? There are criteria laid down in scripture and in the teaching of the Church about what we require of our presbyters. The text of the ordinal
says what is expected of our clergy.
or
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp: To be honest I think that the lay people should be given more authority particularly in the appointments of Priests-in-charge.
or
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I also struggle to see any good reason why a Bishop should need to know the intimate details of a vicar?s life.
would give you the impression that either of them did think that?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
If the Bishop of 173 and Nightlamp think that the relationship between a pastor and his or her flock is analogous to that between a filing clerk and the Gas Board, then I begin to see the difficulty of this thread.
The principle difficulty in my opinion is that you are unable to read what other people post but read what you think they posted instead.
Anyway I found this web page that sheds some light on the CofE guidelines on how to appoint new clergy.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest in Boots
Apprentice
# 10672
|
Posted
From the website of the clergy appointments advisor
quote:
It should also be remembered that new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations come into force in October, 2006 which will apply to office holders (clergy) as well as employees. Clergy appointments which include a reference to age as a selection criteria will be unlawful unless they can be objectively justified. Also care needs to be taken that criteria, other than age, are set which could discriminate indirectly. For example, it would be difficult for a person of a certain age to fulfil them. Justification for expecting an applicant to work for a certain number of years in a post must take account of the fact that clergy can work a further five years beyond the normal retirement age of sixty-five. Also, requiring a certain length of experience will need to be justified if this is to be included in the job specification. Young people can feel just as discriminated against as those of older years! quote:
So, even the CofE will have to move with the times?
--------------------
"As boring as a boarding school on bath night."
Posts: 14 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Question: if civil partnership disqualify a priest from applying for a new post (assuming I am reading pete's comments correctly), how come it is acceptable for priests to be getting civil partnership-ised?
I don't understand how it is unacceptable if you are applying for a job, but acceptable if you are already in one.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
Being in a civil partnership does not disqualify you from being a priest, but you have to promise that it is not and will not be a sexually active one. One of the differences between civil partnerships and marriages in law is that they are not voidable if not consumated (and, indeed, there is no definition of consumation that would apply to them).
Spong
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DavidG
Shipmate
# 121
|
Posted
Contrary to some of the seemingly anti-laity posts on this thread, I think that lay people should have an increasing role in the church. As many denominations struggle to find ordained people to fill posts, congregations will have to work without clergy and use the gifts they have that often lie dormant. So, with the laity fully involved, I look forward to the day when the questions asked are similar to:
"We believe that God is calling us, as the Church in this place, to ....... How can you help realise this vision?"
It is the lay who do most in serving God in the community. Clergy minister to the ministers and assist and encourage them in fulfilling their calling.
Posts: 88 | From: Warwickshire , UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest in Boots
Apprentice
# 10672
|
Posted
Well DavidG that's just what I am being asked right now! So, your dream is being realised somewhere on this wonderful planet!!!
--------------------
"As boring as a boarding school on bath night."
Posts: 14 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DavidG
Shipmate
# 121
|
Posted
Wonderful news, Priest in Boots
Posts: 88 | From: Warwickshire , UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Bless your hearts. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kiwimac
Apprentice
# 10733
|
Posted
Talking as a worker priest with no congregation (at the moment), I find this all fascinating!
Kiwimac
--------------------
I stand at the altar of murdered men and while I live I fight their cause. Florence Nightingale
Posts: 22 | From: Deepest Darkest NZ | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Bless your hearts.
Do I detect a whiff of irony there? Or cynicism, even?
Surely not. I mean, you're a priest. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
