|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Clergy Numbers (and attrition)
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
This article from the Church Times is presently doing the rounds, and seems to have chilled quite a few people.
Whilst I can understand the delay in people not going forward for ordination at such a young age - student debts, economic uncertainty, no job security in your 20s etc - the number of clergy who apparently leave every year seems to be similar to the number that we ordain.
Any thoughts?
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
"traditional full-time stipendiary clergy are now the exception rather than the rule." (From the article.)
Maybe this is good?
I don't mean that aggressively. But times change and institutions need to change to meet current needs, not the needs of 500 years ago.
Time was, "everyone" (sort of) went to church. Well anyway in USA 150 years ago according to some cultural mythology "church" was the social center of the week.
Now, it's central for a few, marginal for more, unknown to many.
Meanwhile, a clergy person living on a small income used to be living on fairly normal wages. All he really needed was a substitute for spending his time growing crops for the family. Housing for almost everyone was minimal and cheap. No one needed big bucks to send the kids to college, straighten their teeth, pay for health insurance (USA), build a retirement fund able to support them for 30 years. If those major expenses existed 1000 years ago, would the church structure have developed in the form of "every town has a formal church and every church has full time paid clergy"?
Maybe some whole other model of what a church is, how it is organized, what it's functions are, which functions are carried out by whom, what the role of paid clergy (if any) is, needs to be redesigned around today's reality, whatever that reality is.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
I'm not sure if the total number quoted includes retired clergy with PTO and also Readers with PTO.
If it were any other kind of organisation there'd probably be a serious review of how best to develop and use what is available, including all the NSMs and Readers. Since it's the CofE hierarchy dominates. Full-time stipendiaries in charge of multiple churches is the way things are going. Unfortunately as the latest research on church growth has identified this is more likely to lead to decline than to growth.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
The same underlying reason was why the Church in Wales undertook its review, chaired by the retired Bishop of Oxford. The C in W is currently struggling to come to terms with the outcome of that review - that the current structure is unworkable. As one might expect, there are any number of ostriches out there, trying to believe that we can carry on as we have always done and that, somehow, miraculously, everything will be OK after all. Others of us (and I am talking about people like myself, a Reader, and non-stipendiary clergy) are rather more realistic and recognise that things have to change or accept the demise of the C in W.
For once, we are in the unusual position of trying to deal with an issue before the C of E, rather than 10 years after it. Whether we will deal realistically with the issue remains to be seen ...
I am not holding my breath.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Not
Ship's Quack
# 2166
|
Posted
This is an extraordinary sentence :
quote:
We do not know why so many clergy are leaving stipendiary ministry, or where they are going
If true, that's organisationally sloppy at best, leaning towards suicidal indifference. Might be worth finding out why they're going...
--------------------
Was CJ; now Not
Posts: 600 | From: the far, far West | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'm not sure it's so very unusual...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is one of those occasions where I suspect l have a far longer new than Linda Woodhead although my new is from URC perspective. First there is a myth. That is the majority of clergy come in in their twenties and stay until they are 65. This has not been the case since the 1960s at least. The people who came into the ministry in their twenties often left in their thirties or fourths for another career maybe returning in their fifties or even sixties once they had taken early retirement from their second career. A conservative estimate puts that rate at 50%. In other words even for young ministers a second career might be seen as normal.
The problem is that your hierarchy depends on single career clergy to provide Bishops / moderators and other senior clergy such as college principals. Therefore the pool from which these can be recruited gets smaller and smaller.
l agree that not knowing why people leave is bad. However o would also say that there are problems with assuming single career ministers are the norm which is what the article does. Far more worrying in my new is the drop in the number of readers. h Methodism you have to be a lay preacher before you can candidate,M URC experience lay preaching is a good way for people to test the water prior to Candidating and in both systems it produce a group of people in the local setting who have experienced theological reflection and as such have useful input into the congregations process of discernment.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
We do not know why so many clergy are leaving stipendiary ministry, or where they are going
Are they serious? I hear little from my clergy friends other than what a wretchedly bad employer the Church of England is.
I'm in a privileged position, relatively speaking. My employer is the NHS. My friends who are employed by the CofE tell me of having to live in houses they can't afford to heat or repair; of indifferent archdeacons and bishops who don't want to hear what life is like in the parishes; of having a dwindling pool of lay talent and skill available to help them with the increasing load of administration; of a prevailing atmosphere of cynicism in diocesan structures that makes it look like those structures are interested in nothing other than managing the decline of the Church; of all this and more, and having to put on the smiling face on a Sunday morning to tell the congregation how good God is to his people.
And they have the chutzpah to say they don't know why people are leaving? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm a bit surprised at how often I read of ex-clergy from the CofE. In my experience of Methodism, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue there. (Methodism mostly seems to suffer from a basic shortage of candidates.)
As Jengie Jon says, Methodists have more idea of what they're getting into, because they start off as lay preachers. And lay preachers themselves have often served the church in various capacities before becoming preachers, so they're probably more embedded in the culture of the church.
From what I've read on the Ship, this kind of ongoing commitment to church life isn't something the CofE always expects in its candidates for the priesthood. On one thread, it was suggested that the CofE likes to take on would-be vicars who aren't too 'churchy'. I found this a rather curious comment. If you're going to commit your life to the church how does it help if you don't have a deep feeling for and understanding of that environment? It might make sense if the aim was to choose candidates who are more focused on building bridges between the church and the outside world. But is this the case?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This kind of ongoing commitment to church life isn't something the CofE always expects in its candidates for the priesthood.
Forgive my ignorance here - but doesn't the CofE have an "ontological" view of priesthood - i.e. once you're ordained you're a priest even if you're not working as one. And, if so, doesn't that mean that leaving a clergy job is a serious issue?
This is in contrast to my own denomination's more functionalist view that you are "set apart" to ministry for as long as it is right to exercise it.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This kind of ongoing commitment to church life isn't something the CofE always expects in its candidates for the priesthood.
Forgive my ignorance here - but doesn't the CofE have an "ontological" view of priesthood - i.e. once you're ordained you're a priest even if you're not working as one. And, if so, doesn't that mean that leaving a clergy job is a serious issue?
I don't know, but that's not what I meant. I meant that (according to what I've read here) candidates don't have to show a history of lay comment to church life before they're accepted to train for the CofE ministry. (I hope to be corrected if I've misunderstood this.)
But you've asked an interesting question.
[ 09. February 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This kind of ongoing commitment to church life isn't something the CofE always expects in its candidates for the priesthood.
Forgive my ignorance here - but doesn't the CofE have an "ontological" view of priesthood - i.e. once you're ordained you're a priest even if you're not working as one. And, if so, doesn't that mean that leaving a clergy job is a serious issue?
This is in contrast to my own denomination's more functionalist view that you are "set apart" to ministry for as long as it is right to exercise it.
My denomination (Presbyterian: PCUSA) similarly holds that you're ordained for life, but I don't see why that makes leaving parish ministry a particularly "serious issue", unless you're leaving it to become a drug dealer or crack whore. As has been observed, one doesn't need to be in parish ministry or church employment to be ministering in the name of Christ.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
it was suggested that the CofE likes to take on would-be vicars who aren't too 'churchy'. I found this a rather curious comment. If you're going to commit your life to the church how does it help if you don't have a deep feeling for and understanding of that environment?
C of E priests are ordained to serve parishes, not churches.
Churchiness is a hindrance to priests who need a broad range of interests in order to relate to those who live in the parish.
[ 09. February 2014, 16:13: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Forgive my ignorance here - but doesn't the CofE have an "ontological" view of priesthood - i.e. once you're ordained you're a priest even if you're not working as one. And, if so, doesn't that mean that leaving a clergy job is a serious issue?
I think there's a division here between the legal and canonical situation and the reality as seen and expressed on the ground, let alone taking churchmanship into account.
As far as I know, the Canons of the Church of England state that a 'character' is conferred in ordination which cannot be removed, as in Canon C 1.2:
quote:
No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or
deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order, but a minister
may either by legal process voluntarily relinquish the exercise of his
orders and use himself as a layman, or may by legal and canonical
process be deprived of the exercise of his orders or deposed therefrom.
I think it all lies on whatever 'character' means - I have a feeling there was a very interesting thread on this about a year ago or so, but I can't find it.
All those who have not divested themselves of their orders are presumably bound by the obligations of Canon Law, to say the Offices and regularly receive Holy Communion etc (Canon C26).
However, in reality I don't know how many people see it in that fashion. (Some clergy appear to see retirement as essentially a return to lay life.)
As far as I know most of the clergy who departed for the Ordinariate did not feel that they needed to legally divest themselves of their Orders.
x
AV
[ 09. February 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Several factors at play, I think.
There is a natural decrease in the number of non-retired CofE clergy simply because more people are retiring than are being ordained. Any additional loss of non-retired clergy on top of this would, I hope, be of very serious concern to those in senior positions in the church. Clergy burnout is, sadly, all too commonplace, whatever the denomination.
The other issue the recently published figures show up is the average age of stipendiary clergy, and that there are almost no stipendiary clergy under the age of 30. Anyone familiar with the discernment support thread on All Saints will know the length of time it can take to be officially discerned for training in the CofE (usually several years), followed then by three years' of training and a four year curacy. Only then is someone likely to be able to take on a stipendiary incumbency. It's therefore little wonder that there are so few people in their thirties in this position.
As one right at the beginning of the discernment road (at least the official part of it), I would also add that it is an extraordinarily daunting prospect, and may well put people off from offering who might genuinely be called to that ministry in the CofE.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Churchiness is a hindrance to priests who need a broad range of interests in order to relate to those who live in the parish.
I suppose so. But a lack of churchiness might be a problem if they then find it hard to relate to their congregations.
Why do you think CofE clergy are leaving the job in considerable numbers? Considering the length of time the entry process takes this seems very wasteful.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Some of the reasons are:
feeling ineffective because they have too many churches to look after
spending more time on a computer filling in diocesan returns and not enough on the tasks for which they were ordained - someone recently told me he spend 3 out of 10 days on priestly tasks, the other 7 on administrative stuff
having to work as a chaplain to a congregation rather than being parish priest to a community outside the church
--------------------
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
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
While numbers leaving stipendiary ministry is one part of the picture, fewer new ordinands is another. As well as asking why clergy are leaving the C of E needs to look into why people are not putting themselves forward for full time ministry.
I spent 2013 exploring the issue of vocation with a Diocesan Vocations Adviser and talking to the DDO. My background is that I am 40, married with two children, currently a househusband running a small business and thinking about what the next 25 years of my working life will be. I have previously worked in Diocesan administration, I have a first class theology degree, and I have been a reader for the last 6 years, forming part of the range of voluntary church work I have been involved in. So thinking about stipendiary ministry was a natural step for me.
I have recently decided that I will remain as a reader and not push ahead with exploring ordained ministry in the C of E. Some of these reasons are personal, but some are due to the nature of the church and how it views ministry. As I mentioned before, I have two children and am a househusband. My wife works in a very demanding professional job and while she remains in that role (which is very much a calling for her) my capacity to be 100% full on in a parish role would be limited by my family responsibilities. I have been told that the church's need to move an ordinand/curate around in different posts to give them a range of experiences is not moderated by the individual's family commitments and their existing breadth of experience. Also, even though I have already studied 6 years part time for a theology degree, a further 4 years part time to become a reader, and have 6 years ministry experience as a reader, the length of training at theological college would not be reduced to reflect this.
I recognise why the C of E wants to have strong control over a stipendiary minister's circumstances - if you are putting yourself forward for that kind of role you need to be fully committed. But I wonder whether the church has genuinely realised that we are not in the 1950s, where a man would turn up with wife and children meekly in tow, willing to follow him around as he established his career as the main breadwinner. It strikes me that it must be very challenging settling into stipendiary ministry when you have a partner with an established professional career and children who are not at appropriate ages to be moved several times to different homes and churches just because one parent is following a particular career path.
A paradox that particularly struck me during the process was being told that the church could not offer much flexibility to those putting themselves forward for ordination because, with decreasing numbers of clergy, they needed maximum flexibility for deployment for those that they did have. I pointed out that this meant that given a choice between having a priest with limited capacity for deployment and no priest at all they would prefer the latter.
I should stress that my reasons for not applying for training are not solely due to the incompatibility (as I see it) between my family circumstances and the church's training and deployment policies. Having worked in Diocesan administration many years ago I can see the logic behind the church's policies. But as someone out in the "real" world I can also see how they could deter many good potential applicants. What worries me most is that those involved in vocations guidance don't seem too concerned that they aren't getting many candidates coming forward, and many who do are towards the end of their working life. I was told at one point that I had plenty of time on my side, as if they preferred candidates over 50.
My reader training (done in my mid 30s) also assumed that candidates were in their late 50s or 60s, winding down in their careers or actively retired, with a pattern of time to suit. Lots of ponderous weekend training events did not fit well with having two pre-school children!
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
Uriel, I am surprised that your time at theological college would not have been shortened. A friend of mine who is a Church Army evengelist is currently exploring a calling to ordained ministry. She has been told that she would not have to repeat modules that she has already covered in her CA training and so her training would be shorter.
Is it different from diocese to diocese?
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Uriel, I am surprised that your time at theological college would not have been shortened. A friend of mine who is a Church Army evengelist is currently exploring a calling to ordained ministry. She has been told that she would not have to repeat modules that she has already covered in her CA training and so her training would be shorter.
Is it different from diocese to diocese?
I think so -- a friend of mine who was a CA Officer for 20 + years had to go through the whole lot again. That individual also had a Master's Degree in Missional Work. He was so annoyed at it that he nearly joined us - ie sought ordination through the Baptist Church! As it was it took a bit of wand waving by a man in a pointy hat to smooth the way: I happened to be his referee/senior friend at the time so I can vouch for the truth.
If he had done that he would've gone to what we call RSC - Residential Selection Conference - his experience and training would've be taken into account and he would, almost certainly, have been commended for Ministry right away. He'd have then been supervised (like we all are) for 3 years but as a church leader. Accreditation to the full "list" follows at the end.
Then again BUGB is looking at a whole set of ministry patterns that have changed remarkably in the last 15 years since my own ordination. The aim in most Regions (read Diocese) is to have oversight in every church whether "lay" or "ordained", full or part time, house for duty etc. It probably helps that we have strong lay training teams and our theology doesn't require an "ordained" minister for certain functions.
Perhaps a broader theological reflection is required on just who is "ordained" and who is "lay." Many of us in the BUGB would take the line that there's no such distinction either in the scriptures or on the ground and that we are all ordained at conversion but not all of us are trained as congregation leaders. We try to identify and select those who are gifted to perform such roles.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I knew a guy who went in the opposite direction some years ago - a Baptist Minister who became an Anglican. He had to do just one year at Mirfield.
The combination of his Baptist background and High Church Anglican praxis led to a rich mixture!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Adeodatus and Uriel have nailed the major issues. The church is not keeping up with other organisations in terms of being a good employer, and increasingly often priests (or potential ordinands) have a spouse who earns more than a vicar who is having quite an influence on decisions.
My wife is considering being one of those disappearing clergy (for a few years). We find the stipend very useful, but with a bit of budgeting we could probably survive with just my income. The advantages of doing that are that we can go away at weekends, get more evenings to ourselves and get to live in a house that we chose. And right now, we're thinking those advantages outweigh the money. So while we've got young kids, she's considering going PTO for a few years.
I got the impression that theological colleges were good at making sure you didn't have to 'learn things again' but they tend to make you do a higher level of study so you spend the same amount of time. The 'reason' might be that the courses tend to comprise an academic strand and a practical strand, and they're very reluctant to argue that any existing experience is equivalent to the practical strand, so they 'need' to find something academic to occupy the rest of your time. Of course, they like to consider reader training/experience as completely inapplicable to ordained ministry. I wonder how long that'll last with readers increasingly training alongside ordinands.
Another explanation for the mess is that most of the bishops had a completely wonderful and inspiring experience as young men at theological college and want all other priests to have as much of that experience as possible. But they haven't really considered if this makes sense.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
My experience of theological college was that they wouldn't take notice of anything that didn't have a certificate from an accredited institution to prove you could do what your employment history said you could do/had done. So we had a former nun on our course doing an foundation level course on spirituality and someone who had run street missions doing foundation level mission. The option of doing a higher level course, BA or MA/Mth in something you had experience of, but no qualifications in, was not on the table. This may vary by theological college of course.
The practical stuff that you do is assessed on academic criteria. A number of us tried to convince the nice man from min div a few years ago that marking down a sermon or web page because it did not contain Harvard referencing within the piece was one of the more surreal moments of my theological training. I understand that they need to know that we are not plagarising, but a sermon is not an essay and that was the point of producing it.
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
A number of us tried to convince the nice man from min div a few years ago that marking down a sermon or web page because it did not contain Harvard referencing within the piece was one of the more surreal moments of my theological training. I understand that they need to know that we are not plagarising, but a sermon is not an essay and that was the point of producing it.
Quite divorced from the real world I find. One individual marked me down in an essay for splitting an infinitive. That just about took the biscuit.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Uriel, I am surprised that your time at theological college would not have been shortened. A friend of mine who is a Church Army evengelist is currently exploring a calling to ordained ministry. She has been told that she would not have to repeat modules that she has already covered in her CA training and so her training would be shorter.
Is it different from diocese to diocese?
In my diocese it would require 2 years full time training, or 3 years part time, which is the same length of time whether I had my theology degree or not. The only difference in my case is I would be studying an MA, so not repeating earlier studies, but the DDO stated that they want ordinands to all spend the same length of time because the spiritual formation that takes place, and the parish placements, all take time. Six years as a reader and many years working with C of E churches of many different traditions as a Diocesan officer would not be taken into account.
As I have looked at other possible careers I have begun to see that the church has fallen behind in how it trains up and deploys people. Many professions allow you to gain direct experience being employed in the workplace while studying by distance learning. Patterns of employment have also become more flexible to reflect the diversity of personal situations. The C of E does feel like it is in the 1950s, with one partner free to go off and train for a few years, be moved to a curacy for a few more, and then move again for the main job, while their partner gives up home and their own career to support the budding ordinand/priest. Any children are expected to move churches and home several times, irrespective of whether it is appropriate for their own spiritual and personal development. The result is that many coming forward for ministry are in their 50s, when their children have grown up and their partners have had a good run at their careers and are happy to have a change. With stipendiary ministers retiring at four times the rate of new stipendiaries coming in the C of E needs to have a serious look at how it does things.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Not:
This is an extraordinary sentence :
quote:
We do not know why so many clergy are leaving stipendiary ministry, or where they are going
If true, that's organisationally sloppy at best, leaning towards suicidal indifference. Might be worth finding out why they're going...
I've posted on this before, I know, but the lack of interest that bishops show in ex-priests (not ontologically correct, but you know what I mean) continues to stagger me. While I stagger back towards ministry, I know so many others who have abandoned it altogether - and no one seems to care.
[ 10. February 2014, 19:30: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Not:
This is an extraordinary sentence :
quote:
We do not know why so many clergy are leaving stipendiary ministry, or where they are going
If true, that's organisationally sloppy at best, leaning towards suicidal indifference. Might be worth finding out why they're going...
I've posted on this before, I know, but the lack of interest that bishops show in ex-priests (not ontologically correct, but you know what I mean) continues to stagger me. While I stagger back towards ministry, I know so many others who have abandoned it altogether - and no one seems to care.
I suspect this is because no-one actually does care. The CofE, as is so often the case, speaks with forked tongue. Here we have a piece of worthy hand-wringing over the decline of the stipendiary ministry, while at the same time - you guessed it - many dioceses are aiming to reduce the number of stipendiary clergy.
So, over and over again deanery pastoral committees up and down the country are saying "Oh dear, we have to get rid of 2.07 full time clergy by 2020, how can we?" - and then a report comes out that says, "Oh dear, we're going to lose lots of full time clergy by 2020, what's to become of us?"
Meanwhile, presumably, the bishop and the archdeacon are opening that special bottle of port and saying, "Jolly good work, getting rid of those awfully expensive full time clergy."
Sorry to wax scatological in Purgatory, but What.The.Fuck?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
My experience of theological college was that they wouldn't take notice of anything that didn't have a certificate from an accredited institution to prove you could do what your employment history said you could do/had done. So we had a former nun on our course doing an foundation level course on spirituality and someone who had run street missions doing foundation level mission. The option of doing a higher level course, BA or MA/Mth in something you had experience of, but no qualifications in, was not on the table. This may vary by theological college of course..
These sorts of rules are set by the accrediting team, at least in the US. A college with sufficient resources might be able to get around it a bit with some sort of "independent study" that gives you credit for work you're doing on the job, but would still require some sort of paper or other assessment piece graded by a professor of record.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Here we have a piece of worthy hand-wringing over the decline of the stipendiary ministry, while at the same time - you guessed it - many dioceses are aiming to reduce the number of stipendiary clergy.
Surely not just the CofE, but every denomination (e.g. Methodists or URC) which resources ministry centrally. Congregationalist churches will always have a minister provided they can raise the money (and that's a big proviso!) although even these denominations will be less and less able to offer grant support to struggling churches and so end up leaving them in the lurch.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Not:
This is an extraordinary sentence :
quote:
We do not know why so many clergy are leaving stipendiary ministry, or where they are going
If true, that's organisationally sloppy at best, leaning towards suicidal indifference. Might be worth finding out why they're going...
I've posted on this before, I know, but the lack of interest that bishops show in ex-priests (not ontologically correct, but you know what I mean) continues to stagger me. While I stagger back towards ministry, I know so many others who have abandoned it altogether - and no one seems to care.
I suspect this is because no-one actually does care. The CofE, as is so often the case, speaks with forked tongue. Here we have a piece of worthy hand-wringing over the decline of the stipendiary ministry, while at the same time - you guessed it - many dioceses are aiming to reduce the number of stipendiary clergy.
So, over and over again deanery pastoral committees up and down the country are saying "Oh dear, we have to get rid of 2.07 full time clergy by 2020, how can we?" - and then a report comes out that says, "Oh dear, we're going to lose lots of full time clergy by 2020, what's to become of us?"
Meanwhile, presumably, the bishop and the archdeacon are opening that special bottle of port and saying, "Jolly good work, getting rid of those awfully expensive full time clergy."
Sorry to wax scatological in Purgatory, but What.The.Fuck?
It might be added that no Diocese ever seems to say "what with declining numbers, and difficulty providing each parish with a priest we really ought to lose an Archdeacon and a Suffragan Bishop". When the heat death of the universe comes we will be left with the cockroaches, a parish priest somewhere trying to save the cockroaches and an Archdeacon explaining that the Diocese can no longer afford the services of the parish priest.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I suspect this is because no-one actually does care. The CofE, as is so often the case, speaks with forked tongue. Here we have a piece of worthy hand-wringing over the decline of the stipendiary ministry, while at the same time - you guessed it - many dioceses are aiming to reduce the number of stipendiary clergy.
So, over and over again deanery pastoral committees up and down the country are saying "Oh dear, we have to get rid of 2.07 full time clergy by 2020, how can we?" - and then a report comes out that says, "Oh dear, we're going to lose lots of full time clergy by 2020, what's to become of us?"
We seem to have a constant stream of reports every couple of years proving there's a crisis in clergy numbers, and there'll be fewer clergy coming forward in future. And a constant stream of reports proving there's a crisis of funding and we won't be able to fund current clergy numbers in future. What I've never seen (and I suspect doesn't exist) is a report that attempts to correlate these 2 'problems' to see if they cancel out or if one is more serious than the other.
And once we've read that report, we can consider how best to organize the resulting smaller church, rather than blundering forward cutting what's most politically expedient.
[ 11. February 2014, 08:39: Message edited by: *Leon* ]
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
