I have one of the most testing of all the roles thus far undertaken in my Christian life this evening as I present to a joint church council meeting the intricacies of the redundancies proposed for our Deanery.
The biggest challenge is to present what we have before us in a missional light, for what many appear to see is little more than the church being driven by financial statements and cashflows; a situation not helped by those who utter the mantra, "If you can't pay - you can't have!"
What we have before us is an opportunity to bring about a missional church with an all-member ministry model that not only encourages, but trains, equips and releases members to fulfil their baptismal calling alongside the minister. A return to the Acts model of Church and something to be excited about!
What troubles many is the fact that those who don't have, especially in Estate and Urban Priority Area (UPA) churches, feel that they are going to be condemned to a 'cat's lick and a promise' style of church. That they will be demoted even further down the divisions such that they are unloved, uncared for and un-facilitated such that all they can see is decline. Meanwhile, where there are pretty parishes with roses around the door, they will continue at the top of the pecking order in their confortable existence (at the perceived expense of the poorer relations).
We speak of generosity and live in hard financial reality.
In a week where the Tamworth Credit Union has announced that it will be folding (because of unpaid loans) it seems that, as one of the people said over church lunch today, "Those who live in the crap places get given the crap breaks!"
Thankfully Christ (and His Church) don't see it like this and so, as I attempt to promote a missional approach to the redundancies here (two of them in all), I would ask that you would pray for our meeting tonight and the Deanery Synod in November and the decisions made by the area and diocesan bishops and their staff.
Pax
Showing posts with label . church of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label . church of England. Show all posts
Monday, 17 September 2012
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
CofE, Boko Haram and priorities
Some of the most interesting engagements that came out of the CofE's response to same-sex marriage (ssm) included such glorious comments as: "Why doesn't it (the CofE) get its priorities right and get concerned with Boko Haram?" Another person asked, "Why does the church have to have any view as everyone was saying that no one would be forced to conduct such a service in church?" A TV broadcast showed a couple of blokes, one of whom saying that he'd like a marriage because this is what the society he grew up in did and this prompted some interesting comments (and some explicit language) surrounding the fact that when he grew up the world treated this whole issue very differently (thank goodness we've changed a bit since then).
It seems to me that those I know of in West Africa have their struggles with members of other faiths because those faiths see the ssm and the whole Western sexuality issues (in terms of Church) as being something that add an apostate dimension to the word 'Christian'. Add to this the Islam vs the West attitudes and the caveat that the Church might use for their being a faith body and it is easy to see how church and politics coalesce and they become (in the eyes of some) a legitimate target. The fundamentalist Muslim takes as his (or her) support for action against the Christians the teachings of the prophet and look to Surah 7:81 for support in acting against an apostate religious body with regard to homosexuality. It looks at the money-grabbing and corrupt within the Church (5:105) and the lax teachings on fidelity within marriage (17:32) and so many other aspects (you cannot blame the situation on just one aspect but all conspire to make an apostate whole) of error and weakness and derive from it what is, in their eyes and teaching, a legitimate target.
For the Church to be seen making a stand against those issues which make the Church appear 'in touch' with society and out of touch with Biblical entreaties and commands is to weaken the stand against the Church (a bit, but don't hold your breath, not much) and to stand for the orthodoxy that weakens and opens us to attack from others. So perhaps the statement yesterday is actually something that does look at the Boko Haram situation. But of course it won't be popular with others ;-) (but those I converse with in West Africa tell me it is a welcome statement for them)
Regarding the second point about 'being forced'. I think it is obvious that whilst this is the line to be taken now it wouldn't be long before someone takes this (in their eyes) infringement against their human rights off somewhere and the situation is changed by a bunch of 'nutters in wigs' (the view of one of those living outside our walls regarding the court of human rights). If the line is drawn and the position is clearly stated then at least you know where the CofE stands. And as one person put it this morning, <1>"Some of us are in favour of same same-sex marriage!"
Yes this is true, but not all and this is the reality that needs to be lived with. Well this and the reality that I know more than a few with whom I am friends and yet whom I know would cease fellowship (publicly with the body - I'm sure we'd continue as friends) should the CofE ever support ssm.
The final point (and I did see the broadcast late last night) is that indeed the older generation grew up with marriage as the norm and you know what, it still is! In fact the man and woman I married on Saturday were exactly as the couples were when the homosexual chap in the news item was thinking of marriage in the dim and distant past - one man, one woman. What the chap spoke so wistfully of was a new construction and different beast and yet so many seem to forget this.
I'm grappling with the report and find, like the Curate's egg, not all of it is bad (or good perhaps?) but I can understand the intent. I just need to resolve the theology (and this looks as busy as, if not busier than, last month.
Still, isn't it great when the Church makes the headlines? The number of people who want to engage with us is absolutely fantastic and the opportunity for dialogue is priceless.
Pax
ps. Sorry about the length and structure - literally a seven minute splurge whilst having a cuppa before rushing out again. Hope it makes some sense.
It seems to me that those I know of in West Africa have their struggles with members of other faiths because those faiths see the ssm and the whole Western sexuality issues (in terms of Church) as being something that add an apostate dimension to the word 'Christian'. Add to this the Islam vs the West attitudes and the caveat that the Church might use for their being a faith body and it is easy to see how church and politics coalesce and they become (in the eyes of some) a legitimate target. The fundamentalist Muslim takes as his (or her) support for action against the Christians the teachings of the prophet and look to Surah 7:81 for support in acting against an apostate religious body with regard to homosexuality. It looks at the money-grabbing and corrupt within the Church (5:105) and the lax teachings on fidelity within marriage (17:32) and so many other aspects (you cannot blame the situation on just one aspect but all conspire to make an apostate whole) of error and weakness and derive from it what is, in their eyes and teaching, a legitimate target.
For the Church to be seen making a stand against those issues which make the Church appear 'in touch' with society and out of touch with Biblical entreaties and commands is to weaken the stand against the Church (a bit, but don't hold your breath, not much) and to stand for the orthodoxy that weakens and opens us to attack from others. So perhaps the statement yesterday is actually something that does look at the Boko Haram situation. But of course it won't be popular with others ;-) (but those I converse with in West Africa tell me it is a welcome statement for them)
Regarding the second point about 'being forced'. I think it is obvious that whilst this is the line to be taken now it wouldn't be long before someone takes this (in their eyes) infringement against their human rights off somewhere and the situation is changed by a bunch of 'nutters in wigs' (the view of one of those living outside our walls regarding the court of human rights). If the line is drawn and the position is clearly stated then at least you know where the CofE stands. And as one person put it this morning, <1>"Some of us are in favour of same same-sex marriage!"
Yes this is true, but not all and this is the reality that needs to be lived with. Well this and the reality that I know more than a few with whom I am friends and yet whom I know would cease fellowship (publicly with the body - I'm sure we'd continue as friends) should the CofE ever support ssm.
The final point (and I did see the broadcast late last night) is that indeed the older generation grew up with marriage as the norm and you know what, it still is! In fact the man and woman I married on Saturday were exactly as the couples were when the homosexual chap in the news item was thinking of marriage in the dim and distant past - one man, one woman. What the chap spoke so wistfully of was a new construction and different beast and yet so many seem to forget this.
I'm grappling with the report and find, like the Curate's egg, not all of it is bad (or good perhaps?) but I can understand the intent. I just need to resolve the theology (and this looks as busy as, if not busier than, last month.
Still, isn't it great when the Church makes the headlines? The number of people who want to engage with us is absolutely fantastic and the opportunity for dialogue is priceless.
Pax
ps. Sorry about the length and structure - literally a seven minute splurge whilst having a cuppa before rushing out again. Hope it makes some sense.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Friday, 30 December 2011
Church - WTF?
This picture, which was gleaned (ie. pinched) from the Church Sofa is one of those made me laugh out loud (LOL) moments:
It sort of says it all and yet leaves something to be gleaned from those who might otherwise view the Church a little negatively too!
Oh happy day
Pax
It sort of says it all and yet leaves something to be gleaned from those who might otherwise view the Church a little negatively too!
Oh happy day
Pax
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Blinking Publisher
Why is it that so many of those who are engaged in sending out publicity, especially within diocesan and church settings, seem to always resort to the dinosaur-like relic that is Publisher?
Picture the scene, the busy dogcollar receives an email from the diocesan department of leg-waxing and nose-hair plucking (apologies if there is one) asking them to publicise their Saint Elizabeth (of Hungary) beauty event. Wanting to be a helpful sort the dogcollar send the poster to their printer only to be met with the dumb insolence version of 2001's Hal (i.e it can't even be bothered to tell you that it is sorry but it can't 'do that').
It only Windows wasn't in league with the devil a simple click would but bring up this dialogue box:
Why do diocesan staff (and a few others besides) persist so with this extremely naff programme? The only viewer/converter I have found cost money and I don't see why I have to pay for the privilege of using my ink, time and money to overcome something that the originator should have blinking well known (and I know they do because I have (very patiently) on a number of occasions told some of the persistent offenders about this problem). The bottom line is that there are NO plug-ins, viewers or any other means for dealing with a .pub file other than to have a copy.
This means that anyone in the 21st century probably not only hasn't got Publisher but doesn't even know what it was!
A polite request to all who would spend countless hours designing awful posters on an awful programme for me to not be able to even enjoy the laugh that seeing it might give me - STOP IT!
Some advice would be to distribute posters and the like in pdf or doc files but of course you can generate neither from Publisher so everyone would be better off if you used Word and exported the finished article as a pdf (doesn't need Word to open it) or as a Word document (.doc, which does require Word or open office0.
And a plea to stop wasting my precious time on sidetracks, detours and frustrations like this. We are supposed to be good at communicating, so why not give it a try?
Pax
Picture the scene, the busy dogcollar receives an email from the diocesan department of leg-waxing and nose-hair plucking (apologies if there is one) asking them to publicise their Saint Elizabeth (of Hungary) beauty event. Wanting to be a helpful sort the dogcollar send the poster to their printer only to be met with the dumb insolence version of 2001's Hal (i.e it can't even be bothered to tell you that it is sorry but it can't 'do that').
It only Windows wasn't in league with the devil a simple click would but bring up this dialogue box:
Why do diocesan staff (and a few others besides) persist so with this extremely naff programme? The only viewer/converter I have found cost money and I don't see why I have to pay for the privilege of using my ink, time and money to overcome something that the originator should have blinking well known (and I know they do because I have (very patiently) on a number of occasions told some of the persistent offenders about this problem). The bottom line is that there are NO plug-ins, viewers or any other means for dealing with a .pub file other than to have a copy.
This means that anyone in the 21st century probably not only hasn't got Publisher but doesn't even know what it was!
A polite request to all who would spend countless hours designing awful posters on an awful programme for me to not be able to even enjoy the laugh that seeing it might give me - STOP IT!
Some advice would be to distribute posters and the like in pdf or doc files but of course you can generate neither from Publisher so everyone would be better off if you used Word and exported the finished article as a pdf (doesn't need Word to open it) or as a Word document (.doc, which does require Word or open office0.
And a plea to stop wasting my precious time on sidetracks, detours and frustrations like this. We are supposed to be good at communicating, so why not give it a try?
Pax
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Privileged Clergy, pressurised Parishoners
Returning to the issue of 'finance and the Church', time to respond to the comments made in the first-placed observation, namely:
"The clergy live in their privileged and comfortable lives whilst demanding that their poor and disadvantaged congregations pay for the privilege in the money the are pressured to give!"
Assuming that the 'privilege' is meant in some way to be monetary, for it fits with the general tone of the comment my first observation has to be that if they are then they're either doing it from private means as where I find myself the six of us work hard to keep our heads above water, especially with the current recession, rises in energy, fuel and just about every other cost! I realise that having six of us in a household is perhaps not the norm but it is for us.
As for, "demanding that their poor give!" Working in an Urban Priority Area I have to say that generally all of the those within the area we serve might well be considered poor with respect to many parts of the country (for 'poor' is surely a comparative) and even with in our own town we most definitely serve the 'have nots'. As for pressurising the congregations, I would have to say that generally, as a breed, clergy still tend not to lean on people to pay a tithe (which is actually the minimum of course) and yet there is this misconception amongst those outs, and I have to assume that the author of this comment was not a church member, that we are always out there with our begging bowls!
Where I am, and I cannot speak for others, our church building is used by the community without charge. Groups and individuals come and make use of our facilities and services and the answer is always the same, for Church (the people of God) should be paying for their buildings and the heating, lighting and whatever where it can and where it can't, if there is good reason for this (and I would have to say being a truly missionary church is pretty much the only caveat here) it should be supported by the other churches around it (i.e. at diocesan level or nationally). Now we get loads of flak from some because we don't charge, especially those who do charge for EVERYTHING and see us undercutting them (rather than ministering to the needs of those around us) and those who moan because of the difficulty we have in paying Parish Share (claiming we should charge for everything and pass the plate around at every opportunity), but that's life I guess.
Oddly though, the same people who complain that we charge for nothing are the very same people who get envious about the fact that we've decorated, installed central heating (where we had storage heaters), got new chairs, fitted a new kitchen (with dishwasher and double-ove, eight burner oven) and more besides - at no cost to the church (yep, all donated - even the plumber came and offered his services free!). God calls us to scatter our bread on the water - well we do and God has proved himself time and time again to be no man's debtor!
But clergy are indeed 'privileged' for the the calling that we have responded to is something that is a reward in itself but it's not financial. We might not be 'comfortable' but, generally speaking, we have dinner (and often lunch too) at home and are not subject to the pressures of working for someone else, for we set our own workloads and tasks for much of our working week. Now that is a privilege, but perhaps one that should see us offer to exchange places with people in the 'real' world of work or do a day with church members every now and then to keep the experience real. That said, we have but a very small number who are working and so, for me, this would be a bit difficult!
Those who are Church are also privileged and we all, for we are all 'Laos' (i.e. Church, God's people) should be paying sacrificially but from the outpouring of our hearts with gratitude and never because we are pressured by another.
Church should work at people seeing what they get for free and yet to do this without claims of exhibiting pride or generating envy on the part of others is something I just don't know how to do. So we do the stuff, live the life, house the homeless, feed the hungry and minister to the broken. The rest is up to God!
Pax
"The clergy live in their privileged and comfortable lives whilst demanding that their poor and disadvantaged congregations pay for the privilege in the money the are pressured to give!"
Assuming that the 'privilege' is meant in some way to be monetary, for it fits with the general tone of the comment my first observation has to be that if they are then they're either doing it from private means as where I find myself the six of us work hard to keep our heads above water, especially with the current recession, rises in energy, fuel and just about every other cost! I realise that having six of us in a household is perhaps not the norm but it is for us.
As for, "demanding that their poor give!" Working in an Urban Priority Area I have to say that generally all of the those within the area we serve might well be considered poor with respect to many parts of the country (for 'poor' is surely a comparative) and even with in our own town we most definitely serve the 'have nots'. As for pressurising the congregations, I would have to say that generally, as a breed, clergy still tend not to lean on people to pay a tithe (which is actually the minimum of course) and yet there is this misconception amongst those outs, and I have to assume that the author of this comment was not a church member, that we are always out there with our begging bowls!
Where I am, and I cannot speak for others, our church building is used by the community without charge. Groups and individuals come and make use of our facilities and services and the answer is always the same, for Church (the people of God) should be paying for their buildings and the heating, lighting and whatever where it can and where it can't, if there is good reason for this (and I would have to say being a truly missionary church is pretty much the only caveat here) it should be supported by the other churches around it (i.e. at diocesan level or nationally). Now we get loads of flak from some because we don't charge, especially those who do charge for EVERYTHING and see us undercutting them (rather than ministering to the needs of those around us) and those who moan because of the difficulty we have in paying Parish Share (claiming we should charge for everything and pass the plate around at every opportunity), but that's life I guess.
Oddly though, the same people who complain that we charge for nothing are the very same people who get envious about the fact that we've decorated, installed central heating (where we had storage heaters), got new chairs, fitted a new kitchen (with dishwasher and double-ove, eight burner oven) and more besides - at no cost to the church (yep, all donated - even the plumber came and offered his services free!). God calls us to scatter our bread on the water - well we do and God has proved himself time and time again to be no man's debtor!
But clergy are indeed 'privileged' for the the calling that we have responded to is something that is a reward in itself but it's not financial. We might not be 'comfortable' but, generally speaking, we have dinner (and often lunch too) at home and are not subject to the pressures of working for someone else, for we set our own workloads and tasks for much of our working week. Now that is a privilege, but perhaps one that should see us offer to exchange places with people in the 'real' world of work or do a day with church members every now and then to keep the experience real. That said, we have but a very small number who are working and so, for me, this would be a bit difficult!
Those who are Church are also privileged and we all, for we are all 'Laos' (i.e. Church, God's people) should be paying sacrificially but from the outpouring of our hearts with gratitude and never because we are pressured by another.
Church should work at people seeing what they get for free and yet to do this without claims of exhibiting pride or generating envy on the part of others is something I just don't know how to do. So we do the stuff, live the life, house the homeless, feed the hungry and minister to the broken. The rest is up to God!
Pax
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Hallowe'en - We don't do it, do we?
Many years back when our youngest was really tiny the family were engaged in a discussion over 'light parties' as an alternative to hallowe'en. We were explaining that we didn't think that putting on an alternative worked as all that happened was the kids were dropped off by their parents to a party on what everyone was calling Hallowe'en. They were dressed in outfits that (despite requests) looked like Hallowe'en costumes and the next day the parents told everyone what a great Hallowe'en party the church had put on!
The final shot in the conversation was, "I'm sorry, but we just don't do Hallowe'en!"
Up piped a wise little four-year old with, "But we do do Jesus, don't we?"
We do indeed - but this is an issue that will soon be upon us again and so I wonder how you will deal with this event, trick or treating and the other stuff(local supermarkets already crammed with merchandise)?
And a cautionary note. Alcohol and Hallowe'en don't mix either!
Pax
The final shot in the conversation was, "I'm sorry, but we just don't do Hallowe'en!"
Up piped a wise little four-year old with, "But we do do Jesus, don't we?"
We do indeed - but this is an issue that will soon be upon us again and so I wonder how you will deal with this event, trick or treating and the other stuff(local supermarkets already crammed with merchandise)?
And a cautionary note. Alcohol and Hallowe'en don't mix either!
Pax
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
Age, Sex and Ordination
I have been quite surprised by the number of emails I have received on the 'grey hair, golden boy' post. Seems that there are a few common themes cropping up regarding selection, these are:
1. An obvious feeling that younger is better,
2. An obvious bias towards those who have graduated from Oxbridge returning (quite quickly) to college (often in the same place) as ordinands,
3. Claims of bias towards one group of people (the male/female debate), and
4. Being clergy is a family business!
Regarding the first point, I am aware that there is a desire to see more 'young' ordinands and that there are many who wish to see something like 50% of a diocese's ordinands being under thirty-five. Some of the older people putting themselves forward seem to think that they are being funnelled into other forms of ministry (such as OLM where it exists and if not NSM or Reader or something else.) rather than given encouragement to pursue the calling they feel is upon them.
I was surprised that a few people had mentioned the selection of bright young things from the Oxbridge factories and asking some of those at college, it does seem that there is a fair proportion of those who went to good schools and then on to Oxbridge where they remain and return as ordinands. An argument for this is that the CofE sees these people as a good investment (because they are supposedly bright) and perhaps that good schools and Oxbridge fosters some form of faith within their young people. Then again, a former bishop once told our potty-training group that the CofE was still the greatest gentleman's club in the world - could be that little has changed and the Oxbridge cleric is the gold standard still?
It is strange that I have had comments from women telling me that it is getting harder for women to be selected! To be honest I had expected the opposite because for so long I have had to endure people wittering on about women being 'under-represented' and have heard amazingly frightening stories of people being selected to 'make up the numbers'. Perhaps the tide has turned, but if it has this is equally sad because selection should be about calling not sex (which is different from gender by the way) or colour of which college you went to (bearing in mind that you do need to be able to endure the rigours of theological education).
The 'family business' aspect really shocked me, mind you there were a few at college when I was there who were going to serve their title in the diocese of a Father, God-Father, Uncle or friend of the family and were children of bishops or other clergy! The fact that there were more than one made me laugh but I hear from a few people that in their place of study there are a few who are following in the family business of Anglican ministry. How interesting! (but we will probably never know whether this is real or realised!).
It was interesting to hear from one person that there experience was a number of people whose children had left home and so had, in order to find something to do, had gone off for ordination. I would expect there to be some calling and yet my correspondent says that being 'collared' is merely an extension of the stuff they've done - I hope this is a skewed perspective (or perhaps sour grapes) but am open to information or remedy for this one - seems odd if true and sad (for the person who feels it) if it isn't.
Pax
1. An obvious feeling that younger is better,
2. An obvious bias towards those who have graduated from Oxbridge returning (quite quickly) to college (often in the same place) as ordinands,
3. Claims of bias towards one group of people (the male/female debate), and
4. Being clergy is a family business!
Regarding the first point, I am aware that there is a desire to see more 'young' ordinands and that there are many who wish to see something like 50% of a diocese's ordinands being under thirty-five. Some of the older people putting themselves forward seem to think that they are being funnelled into other forms of ministry (such as OLM where it exists and if not NSM or Reader or something else.) rather than given encouragement to pursue the calling they feel is upon them.
I was surprised that a few people had mentioned the selection of bright young things from the Oxbridge factories and asking some of those at college, it does seem that there is a fair proportion of those who went to good schools and then on to Oxbridge where they remain and return as ordinands. An argument for this is that the CofE sees these people as a good investment (because they are supposedly bright) and perhaps that good schools and Oxbridge fosters some form of faith within their young people. Then again, a former bishop once told our potty-training group that the CofE was still the greatest gentleman's club in the world - could be that little has changed and the Oxbridge cleric is the gold standard still?
It is strange that I have had comments from women telling me that it is getting harder for women to be selected! To be honest I had expected the opposite because for so long I have had to endure people wittering on about women being 'under-represented' and have heard amazingly frightening stories of people being selected to 'make up the numbers'. Perhaps the tide has turned, but if it has this is equally sad because selection should be about calling not sex (which is different from gender by the way) or colour of which college you went to (bearing in mind that you do need to be able to endure the rigours of theological education).
The 'family business' aspect really shocked me, mind you there were a few at college when I was there who were going to serve their title in the diocese of a Father, God-Father, Uncle or friend of the family and were children of bishops or other clergy! The fact that there were more than one made me laugh but I hear from a few people that in their place of study there are a few who are following in the family business of Anglican ministry. How interesting! (but we will probably never know whether this is real or realised!).
It was interesting to hear from one person that there experience was a number of people whose children had left home and so had, in order to find something to do, had gone off for ordination. I would expect there to be some calling and yet my correspondent says that being 'collared' is merely an extension of the stuff they've done - I hope this is a skewed perspective (or perhaps sour grapes) but am open to information or remedy for this one - seems odd if true and sad (for the person who feels it) if it isn't.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)