Thread: Further misinformation from SvitlanaV2 Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005693

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
SvitlanaV2, you regularly talk about being a Methodist, so who or what gives you the authority to pontificate on what may or may not happen in the Church of England? On an All Saints support thread for people exploring their vocations?

What you are really doing is smearing your slimy innuendo about the failings of the CofE all over the vocations thread in the least helpful way possible.

As I can't respond in the way I would like there, I am responding here.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
As far as I can see SvitlanaV2 isn't pretending to know anything. Her post begins with 'I don't know'.

SvitlanaV2 Is simply asking questions to help the poster talk and think things through imo. Which is what the poster seems to want to do.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I agree with Boogie. Also, I haven't gone through the vocations thread but I have looked in the Directory. Out of the 50 posts she has made in the last 3 weeks, this is her only post on this thread. So she has not been "smearing ... all ver" this thread, at least not recently.

In any case, although there are clearly questions of procedure and rules which are specific to denominations, there are more general issues of vocation and call which transcend such boundaries. Indeed, it could be useful to have an "outsider's" perspective.

[ 17. June 2017, 08:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I'm entirely with CK. I will put together a detailed charge sheet if and when I have the patience, but I have entirely lost patience with Svitlana's trite, irrelevant, poorly thought through screed that she sees fit to pour all over every discussion. It is always reduced to the marketing of "catchy", essentially conservative soundbites as the only way forward into a vapid affinity which has nothing to do with faith. To then put people who are going through deep crises through trial by the ordeal of this vapidity is insulting.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I agree with Boogie and BT. Svitlana's language makes it clear, several times, that she's aware she knows very little. She was supportive, and did her best to offer ideas. I think she just was trying to be helpful. And she posted about 8 hours after Notapassingphase. No one else had addressed Notapassingphase's post. It can feel rather lonely when you've asked for help and are waiting for someone to respond.

And I don't see any "slimey innuendo". CK, whatever it was that offended you, we who've posted here can't see it. Maybe it wasn't anything Svitlana intended?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I can see what got CK's goat, although I do think Svitlana was trying to be helpful.

I think any SSM (self-supporting minister) would be offended by the suggestion that a part-time unpaid ministry would be 'less demanding' than a paid position, as if SSMs were somehow lesser beings. They do all the things that stipendiary minsters do AND somehow hold down jobs at the same time. Being an SSM is probably more demanding than being a priest full-time; you have two jobs competing for your time and a family/private life to juggle as well.

SSMs are amazing and the C of E is lucky to have them.

And Svitlana is out of date: it is quite common nowadays for vicars/priests/ministers to have partners of a different faith or none. Probably the only way the partner can avoid going on the coffee and flower-arranging rotas until the end of time.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I can't evidence anything with links because I only have a phone with me, but SvitlanaV2's posting history contains numerous examples of derogatory hints and innuendoes about the CofE. Her posts are usually inaccurate sweeping generalisations or casting the worst possible light on a situation. When I have the time and energy I do call her on it and very rarely get the evidence to back up whatever statement I have challenged.

Bringing that same inaccuracy and lack of understanding to the vocations thread when to my knowledge the situation in the CofE is far more nuanced and complex than suggested, I felt was unhelpful. Robust challenges on support threads are usually discouraged so I brought it to Hell.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Should have said 'they do all the things stipendiary ministers do and somehow hold down other jobs at the same time'.

Did not intend to imply that being a priest isn't a real job.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
But IMHO it's a natural mistake to think that a part-time priest would have less work. And I don't think I've ever heard of any other denomination with a program for ministers with a day job *and* a part-time ministry. I know it was new to me, when I first heard of it on Ship.

[ 17. June 2017, 09:13: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
/Slight tangent/ Well, quite a number of the Afro-Caribbean churches I knew in London had ministers who were effectively SSMs, sometimes with very demanding "day jobs" (I honestly don't know how they did it). There are also Baptist "lay pastors" - while often these are early-retired people, they don't have to be. And there are certainly part-time URC ministers - I knew one who spent the rest of his time as a carpet fitter.

I accept of course that Nonconformist ideas of vocations and ordination are rather different to Anglican ones. /Tangent (possibly) ends/

[ 17. June 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
And that's fine on a discussion thread in Purgatory. But this misinformation was not posted in Purgatory.

Svitlana is entitled to express her opinion of the C of E all over Purgatory and Hell. Heck, sometimes I agree with her (not often). But giving someone the wrong information, as an outsider with no personal experience of the situation, ON A SUPPORT THREAD IN ALL SAINTS, is a whole different kettle of fish.

[x-post, replying to Golden Key]

[ 17. June 2017, 09:23: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
BT--

But are the lay ministers you mention a *program*?

For a while, I went to a little church with a lay (not ordained) pastor, and he was great. I'm not sure how the group came together originally, and it was still in the stage of meeting in borrowed space.

In a regular church, I'm used to extra duties simply being taken care of by members of the congregation. A couple of men from my childhood church would occasionally preach there, or at other churches, if needed. No ordination.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BT--

But are the lay ministers you mention a *program*?

Good question. Lay ministers - no. Bivocational/part-time ministers - may be.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I just reread the relevant posts.

--NAPP, in the first paragraph of their first post, asked for "hand-holding".

--NAPP's primary obstacle, as they posted, is:

quote:
...the main problem is that I'm in a civil partnership with someone who is fanatically anti-religion. It's going to be horrendous. I presume they are going to ask if my family is supportive, and I will have to say 'not really no'. Will that be a bar to taking it further?
And, ***in response to the specific question of how to manage with an anti-religious partner***, Svitlana suggested:

quote:
....but yours seems to be a situation calculated to lead to a lot of stress for someone in the ordained ministry... But secondly, I think it'd be reasonable for church authorities to wonder how you'd manage in such an all-consuming role if your partner resents what you're doing. After all, it's not the sort of job that you can forget when you get home, is it? However, I understand that the CofE does have some part-time paid posts for the clergy, and perhaps these impinge less on one's home life. Alternatively, maybe entering unpaid lay ministry and keeping a paid day job would be less demanding.
Svitlana wasn't saying that part-time ministry isn't difficult--but that it might cause less stress in NAPP's relationship.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I hardly dare venture onto the thin ice of this thread. But one may ask if it is/is not usual for questions about one's partner/spouse/family situation to be asked when considering someone for ministry?

My view is that such questions are relevant if they are examining any restrictions or difficulties such circumstances would present fr the candidate's ministry, but must not descend to the level of being personally intrusive or judgemental.

FWIW Before any move I have always been asked how my wife feels about any prospective change and whether any family details (eg proximity of elderly relatives, need for children to stay in school) need to be taken into account.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I believe that the Roman Catholic church's equivalent is worker priests, and that is/was the model for the C of E approach.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The way the CofE deals with gay clergy varies hugely across the country. A sweeping statement as to how the CofE deals with gay clergy is always going to incorrect, because it depends.

It depends on role as to how much impact a partner would have, some chaplaincy roles, for example, a partner would have less impact, but licensing becomes more complicated.

Part time ministry exists, but has its own challenges, and again, depending on role a partner may or may not have relevance. A parish which is offering a house for effectively Paris duties for a self-funded ministry may have more interest in a partner.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Apologies for the typos, I so should not try posting from a train.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
SvitlanaV2, you regularly talk about being a Methodist, so who or what gives you the authority to pontificate on what may or may not happen in the Church of England?

FWIW, I attend worship primarily at CofE churches these days. I do still identity as a Methodist, though. I get the impression from the Ship that the CofE wouldn't want me!

As for who I'm critical about, I do sometimes post critical comments about the Methodist Church. Not many people are interested in Methodism, however, so those comments don't generate many responses.

If you still want me to post some links concerning the comments I made on the ITTWACW* thread I can do that.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Get out the wrong side of bed, CK?

If you're in a marriage where you don't like the approach one another take to career / vocation, it's really shit. Been (and am) there, got the luxury xxxl fleece-lined hoody. And for me it's over a set of stuff not nearly as important as religious commitment. I think S.V2's comments were thoughtful and carefully put.

As for this call - you think this has something to do with some specific denominational insight???
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I've been in Anglican churches for decades - and whilst I don't know every corner of every part of the thing, I still think it is very hard to believe that having a partner who is "fanatically anti-religion" is not going to affect how the church considers you for any position.

I'd also say that in my experience SSM in the Anglican churches often work very hard, so having a partner who is not only not-of-the-same-religion but actually "anti-religion" is going to make things particularly difficult.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
In my defence I'd also like to say that the person to whom I was responding didn't seem to take my post in a negative light, so it's a shame if one or two others took it that way.

While I agree that I wasn't 'supportive' in the sense of urging the poster to go forward in pursuing this sense of calling, neither was I trying to discourage him or her from serving the church. My attempt to be helpful, so to speak, was in proving food for thought regarding the challenges that seemed immediately apparent to me as a mere laywoman.

I should say that I did google the CofE, civil partnerships and celibacy before posting my comment, so there was no 'misinformation' there.

I admit that I've had closer contact with Methodist clergy than with CofE clergy, having spent several years as a church steward. However, I find it hard to believe that the demands of clerical life (and hence the need for support at home) would be less overwhelming in the CofE than in Methodism. I stand to be corrected on that.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, I'm sure you're right. The denomination doesn't matter, though perhaps it is still the case that people in extremis turn to the C of E for support on account of its visibility (despite SvitlanaV2's gloomy prognostications as to its imminent demise!).

Sadly (IMNSHO), Methodist churches tend to be a bit thin on the ground, at least in this neck of the woods, but that in no way diminishes the contribution made by the Methodists to the mission and ministry of the church at large.

Part of me (Anglican though I am) rather wishes there were more Methodist churches around, with whom we could collaborate (given our shared history).

IJ

IJ
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps it is still the case that people in extremis turn to the C of E for support on account of its visibility (despite SvitlanaV2's gloomy prognostications as to its imminent demise!).

I've never prognosticated the 'imminent demise' of the CofE.

I have talked about the serious decline of the CofE in many parts of the country, a decline which will lead to an increasing number of church closures. I think this is a topic worth addressing, because for those struggling congregations themselves and for the populations they'd like to serve the weakness of the Church is a tragedy. Not talking about the situation is tantamount to saying that those churches and their ministry are unimportant.

However, I'm aware that in some places there are some successful CofE congregations and parishes. I'm very happy about that, and more should be learnt from them.

Yes, I do sometimes wonder if the CofE will or should split, or be disestablished. These possibilities may be troubling, but they don't signal the end of the CofE. Maybe the end of a certain CofE identity....
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But IMHO it's a natural mistake to think that a part-time priest would have less work. And I don't think I've ever heard of any other denomination with a program for ministers with a day job *and* a part-time ministry. I know it was new to me, when I first heard of it on Ship.

It could be meant "less work" in the sense of "less work of a sort irritating to one's anti-religious partner."

I think a lot of churches have de facto ministers with day jobs and ministry as well. We call it going "worker priest." Although my denomination hasn't done diddly-squat to look after those who are in such a position, which may well be the bulk of us in 30 years.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But IMHO it's a natural mistake to think that a part-time priest would have less work. And I don't think I've ever heard of any other denomination with a program for ministers with a day job *and* a part-time ministry. I know it was new to me, when I first heard of it on Ship.

It could be meant "less work" in the sense of "less work of a sort irritating to one's anti-religious partner."

I think a lot of churches have de facto ministers with day jobs and ministry as well. We call it going "worker priest." Although my denomination hasn't done diddly-squat to look after those who are in such a position, which may well be the bulk of us in 30 years.

My current denomination has a "bivocational licensure" for just such a situation. I am one of those bivocational pastors. It is more and more the wave of the future.

It's a hard deal-- it's not like if you're half time you can preach 1/2 a sermon on Sunday. It's not like you take half of the middle-of-the-night calls from the ER. I suspect for that reason non-religious partners would find it more, not less, irritating. But if your non-religious partner is bankrolling the venture thru a well-paying job s/he might get a pass on some of the more onerous "pastor's spouse" expectations. Note I said maybe. No guarantees.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think a lot of churches have de facto ministers with day jobs and ministry as well. We call it going "worker priest."

My current denomination has a "bivocational licensure" for just such a situation. I am one of those bivocational pastors. It is more and more the wave of the future.
Not sure what the "proper" term is for us these days, but for years we used "tentmakers."
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think a lot of churches have de facto ministers with day jobs and ministry as well. We call it going "worker priest."

My current denomination has a "bivocational licensure" for just such a situation. I am one of those bivocational pastors. It is more and more the wave of the future.
Not sure what the "proper" term is for us these days, but for years we used "tentmakers."
Yep. "Bivocational" seems to be the standard term these days.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Unsurprisingly, there is a thread in All Saints' for exactly this sort of advice... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unsurprisingly, there is a thread in All Saints' for exactly this sort of advice... [Roll Eyes]

Yeah, the thread started hellish but quickly devolved into chit-chat and lost all that distinctively sulfurous bile.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, here's some ...

'Sulferous'? What kind of spelling is that?

You'll be telling us it's 'color' next ...

[Razz]

Mild, I know ... but I can't bring myself to do any worse ...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
sulfurous

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Sulferous'? What kind of spelling is that?

One you pulled out of your ... um ....
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, here's some ...

'Sulferous'? What kind of spelling is that?

What the h*** am I doing wrong? I do my best-- post all sorts of semi-heretical Open Theist blather, lefty snark, you name it, but what do I get called into hell for (and not even my own hell call-- just a side note in someone else's)? Spelling?!?! I'm gonna lose all my snarky street cred.

Yeah, there's dust bunnies behind the fridge too...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Of course "sulferous" is wrong. Cliffdweller had it right the first time: "sulfurous."

[Devil] [Devil] [Devil]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Of course "sulferous" is wrong. Cliffdweller had it right the first time: "sulfurous."

[Devil] [Devil] [Devil]

Pity nobody else pointed that out.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Yes, well, they're spelling-challenged, poor darlings.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
In chemistry, the spelling has been standardised internationally to sulfur - in 1990 by IUPAC and 1992 in the Royal Society of Chemistry in Britain - source. Sulfur was originally an English spelling, it was only standardised as sulphur in the 19th century. See the etymology in Wikipedia
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
They'll pry my aluminium out of my cold, dead hand.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes. Sod Webster.

Sod 'aluminum' or whoever the hell they spell it over there.

'Aluminum' my arse.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sod The Royal Society of Chemistry too. Turncoats. They ought to be stripped of their 'royal' appointment for that ...

Come on folks, loosen up. I'm simply trying to inject some sulphur / sulfur into this thread.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah, there's dust bunnies behind the fridge too...

There ARE dust bunnies; not there IS.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah, there's dust bunnies behind the fridge too...

There ARE dust bunnies; not there IS.
finally, a hell-flog worthy of the name.
[Mad]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They'll pry my aluminium out of my cold, dead hand.

That makes sense. Aluminum has rather high thermal conductivity, so if you have some in your hand when you die, it will leach the heat out of your cooling corpse more quickly.

Wait, is it IN your hand? Usually they use stainless steel or titanium for that sort of internal prosthetic due to superior resistance to corrosion and bio-stability. If you have a chunk of Aluminum in your body, you run a worrisome risk with respect to Alzheimers-like symptoms... which explains a lot, really.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The aluminum/Alzheimer's link is unproven, and earlier studies suggesting it were shown to be flawed.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Ack! A corporate flack from Big Aluminum to anodize the truth!

Think we didn't notice how our foil is now aluminum instead of tin? Wrong! And I know where to get the good stuff for lining my helmet, bucko.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Aluminium ... aluminium ...

What is it about that final 'i' you don't understand?

[Biased] [Big Grin]

You'll be telling me 'through' doesn't have an 'ough' in it next ...

Listen, if Webster was so clever why the heck didn't he go the whole hog and spell 'rough' as 'ruff' or 'bough' as 'bow'?

Ha!

You can't blame us for your spelling inconsistencies when you went and created your own ...

'Thru' my arse.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ass, my arse.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I love the smell of conspiracy theories in the morning. It smells like ... desperation.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Aluminium ... aluminium ...

What is it about that final 'i' you don't understand?

There is no 'i' in 'team'.

quote:
Listen, if Webster was so clever why the heck didn't he go the whole hog and spell 'rough' as 'ruff' or 'bough' as 'bow'?
Curb your enthusiasm. You're plowing through two hundred years of language change.

quote:
You can't blame us for your spelling inconsistencies when you went and created your own
I don't blame you for OUR spelling inconsistencies, I blame you for YOURS.

quote:
'Thru' my arse.
"Thru" is an abomination on both sides of the Atlantic, used only by texting teens and cutesy advertisers. (Ditto for 'nite' of course.)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
'Plowing'?

Ploughing. Ploughing.

If the Good Lord had intended for us to spell plough as 'plow' he'd have written it out for us in black and white when he wrote the King James Bible ...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Plowing'?

Ploughing. Ploughing.

If the Good Lord had intended for us to spell plough as 'plow' he'd have written it out for us in black and white when he wrote the King James Bible ...

"The King James Bible was one of my greatest blunders." --God
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
George Bernard Shaw is spinning his superannuated vegetarian bones in his grave. He'd advise us to take the "gh" from "rough," the "o" from "women," and the "ti" from "nation" to spell "fish."
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, and let's have James Joyce and George Orwell on punctuation while we're at it ...

But this is getting us away from poking pitchforks at SvitlanaV2 ...

What was she called her for again?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Thru' my arse.

Well that annotation explains a lot as well.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Aluminium ... aluminium ...

What is it about that final 'i' you don't understand?

[Biased] [Big Grin]

You'll be telling me 'through' doesn't have an 'ough' in it next ...

Listen, if Webster was so clever why the heck didn't he go the whole hog and spell 'rough' as 'ruff' or 'bough' as 'bow'?

Ha!

You can't blame us for your spelling inconsistencies when you went and created your own ...

'Thru' my arse.

Take a bow for your bow's quiver.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Don't you mean "bough"? [Devil]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0