Making the ALL in all-member ministry real - Part the second

Are you sitting comfortably? Good - then we'll begin:

Once upon a time in a church not that far from where I sit there was a minister who was very sad for they were ALWAYS working - the problem being that there was no one to do the jobs and so EVERYTHING fell to them. Well, that was What the minister told me anyway!

Then, one day, I happened to bump into one of the members of the congregation of that selfsame church who told me a very different story! They told me of the situation in their church and from where they were standing it seemed that the Minister was doing everything letting nobody have a go at anything. The church member spoke of how even the most simple of jobs were kept close to the minister's chest rather than be distributed or shared among the willing of the parish (and there were apparently some willing people). 'People have just got fed up and stopped offering now,'  they said, 'After all what's the point of fighting?'

I was really glad to have met the parishioner because the ministers position as stated seemed to honest and true and left me feeling quite sorry for them. There was I thinking what a hard done by person they were and how horrible the church members were and if only they would get behind them and then the words of proverbs 18.17 struck home:

'one person's story sounds believable until you hear the story from the other side!

(remember this - it makes all of life function better)

As I began to dig deeper I found the ministers experiences were full of people who had been trained and released and failed. There were people who had offered but never turned up when the need was present. Others still had come talking of how they wanted to be doing and yet when the time came to be doing always had a reason for their absence.  The tale of woe continued with accounts of those who did do stuff doing it their own way and 'for themselves' (a rather subjective and mind-reading assessment in my book) and delivering whatever they did poorly - all  of which meant that the minister had to redo, make do, or perform badly in the services and functions of the church.

So the bottom line was that in the end the Minister stopped offering and stopped asking and just 'got on with it'  and, as if supporting the Minister, the congregation stopped offering and stopped asking and merely, like the Minister, complained to whoever would listen to their sad and sorry tale.

All member ministry is like being in a marriage - it's all about communication, understanding and lot of' give and take'.  Sometimes the lines of communication are confused, perhaps because it's a developing relationship,  and sometimes the confusion comes by assuming you know the need or the person and acting, with the best intentions, wrongly.

All member ministry works best when the person with the need states it clearly to those who might be able to meet that need. The hearer, in turn, hearing that need should go off have have a think, pray, and consider whether they are the person to do what is needed. Having decided that the answer is either 'yes' or' no' (for there is no place for' maybe') then the volunteer and the person with the need, assuming they know how to resolve it themselves*, get together and the relationship and the resolution to the problem is formed and enacted.

Simple innit?

Well that's what they said they wanted on the cake!

* One of the great problems in Church is the fact that whilst being aware of the need the leader might not possess the skills or abilities to resolve it and yet they still try to teach what they cannot do to someone who will never do it well and thus begins a vicious cycle that leads to doom, gloom and destruction. This is what hell on earth is made from :-)

Be careful how you answer critical questions!

Vicars or Bishops - some initial thinking

When I joined my current diocese there was a motion before the Diocesan Synod to abandon all sector ministry posts so that the money could be used 'where the need was'! This was one of those issues that drew a raggedy line between the two camps and left a few in the no man's land that appeared between them.

I, fortunately, didn't have anything to do with the discussion and watched with varying degrees of horror as slips (and prejudices) were displayed, often in the most unappealing and attractive of ways, leaving me dismayed and rather disappointed with the whole sorry episode. Since then I have seen the same awfulness inflicted on a number of occasions and on a number of issues (women in ministry, homosexuality, women with pointy hats - to name just three) and none of the three sides (for, against and 'who cares) have emerged unscathed or mentality secure!

But I digress, let us get back to the letter and the situation before us for in it I see a few interesting considerations:

i. There is a fair amount of duplication in that every diocese does the same thing. Is there potential for some of the core services to be amalgamated such that areas like personnel (which I'm told we must have because of Common Tenure) and many of the administrative and ministry areas to be removed to regional centres?

ii. Could we bring about the situation whereby those who are engaged in sector ministry might also be given a church to run too? Now this might be a bit of a challenge for those who find themselves out and about every week but some roles - Hmmm?

iii. What about reverse engineering it and making those who have jobs and are up to the task (and I mean 'up to' rather than desirous, for the church has many inept wannabees who seek positions  of power) sector minsters?

iv. It does seem odd that in an apparently constricting organisation the senior management is left in the ivory palaces whilst those on the high street are reduced. Surely the answer is fewer, smarter (that means able and called), pointyhats and more people out there growing the business and bringing in the money and the members (I apologise for the commercial tone of this - I do think we're a spiritual entity really!!!).

v. If a pointyhat really equates to four 'on the ground clergy' do we need to ask ourselves how many we need to function effectively (and where we need them). Now this is an emotive issue because like the military who have realised that despite 'the Few' and the Dambusters, there might be less case for an Air Force than some might think, feelings run high. But the questions need to be asked - don't they?

Now forty-four diocesan bishops makes sense on the grounds that we have (I assume) forty-four areas know as a diocese. The sixty-nine suffragan (or area) bishops make sense if they are all doing valid and effective ministry.

BUT

Has the time come to rethink the diocesan boundaries and structures and the way that they are services and supported?

Clergy are judged by many things I'm sure (so why does everyone, including 'Rev' assume it's merely about the ability to pay?) and as the apparent attitudes amongst some of 'train up, train out' policies as found in ministerial development reviews seem to make me feel I'm back in the City of London I wonder who assesses and rationalises/shapes those top layer of the Church.

Goodness me, what a challenging piece of writing that letter is - I've only splurged for ten minutes but my head is buzzing with questions, thoughts and confusions.

How you doing with it?

Vicars or Bishops?

I've been passed a photocopy of a photocopy that someone has photocopied and it makes quite interesting reading as it contemplates the question of the most effective disbursement  of the churches' money. But I guess I'd best let you read it for yourself:

'The dispute over the residence for the new Bishop of Bath and Wells typifies much that is wrong with the senior management (if it can be described as such) of the Church of England. Crucially, no one seems to have asked if a new Bishop is even necessary.

According to the most recent Church Commissioners annual report, there are 44 diocesan and 69 suffragan bishops, costing £25 million a year. There doesn't seem to have been any significant reduction in their numbers since the mid-Eighties, despite the substantial fall in churchgoers. Conversely, the number of parochial clergy seems to be undergoing almost constant reduction.

The Commissioners support for bishops and cathedrals in 2012 was £34.9 million, while support for parishes was £42.5 million: arguably, far too much concentration on the 'chiefs' at the expense of the 'indians'. All these bishops incur office costs on top of diocese and support staff: why aren't these back office functions combined? What are all these bishops doing? Much of their duty seems to be administrative and can be done better at lower cost by people trained to such roles.

I'm a regular churchgoer and treasurer of my local church, which is served by a priest who has five other parishes. All Six have grade 1 listed church buildings with their attendant maintenance issues. The local communities over which the priest has responsibility for the cure souls are spread over 80 square miles, served by poorly maintained, unlit, narrow, rural roads.

Many churchgoers would gladly swap a couple of bishops for seven parochial clergy, which seems to be the exchange rate. A local priest, available and accessible to the community, is much more use than an occasional visit from a bishop who knows very little about local people and their lives.'

Michael Price, Burstwick, East Yorks

The ship isn't sinking!

So the measure to consecrate women was lost and instead of the high church and reform types throwing toys out of the pram it seems we have a different bunch doing so!

And the comments about leaving or not exploring ordination and making puerile comments about how they can tell infant daughters that they can be 'fully enabled' members of the Church are all rather hollow and sad I fear.

I have to be honest and say that I thought that the measure would be carried and am more than a little surprised but all it does is give us five to seven years (apparently) to concentrate on other things and undoubtedly by then the measure will pass and those who seek pointy hats will just be that little more experienced.

In the meanwhile what the Church of England needs to do is concentrate on evangelism and Bible stuff rather than navel-gaze and witter on about 'equality' and how the laity are out of touch with the church. In case people have forgotten, the laity ARE the Church and perhaps the issue is that the houses of those collared types are the ones who should have made better cases and communicated (and provided for those who were against women in the episcopacy) better.

This merely a bit of a shock (and I know I'm not a woman but that doesn't diminish my view) and a cause to reflect, pray and care for those who have been wounded - not call others to arms and attack the perceived enemy. Especially as many of those who voted against the measure appear to have been women too.

Nothing, not height nor depth nor power nor principality, nothing in heaven or below the eart; nothing future, present or past can separate us from the love of God.

So how's about we share it?