Met a chap a while back and he was one of the CofE's new breed of 'wonder clergy'. Left University with a good degree in something wonderful, spent six months working as a 'parish assistant' in the church around the corner from his college and then entered theological college as an ordinand. Then, after the required period (three years) he had been sent out, ordained and served his title, finished his curacy and become an assistant Priest for a few years, finished that and done another job for a few years (as Assistant again) and then moved on to a 'church of his own'.
Met another chap who had been out and done something or other, somewhere or other, and then got himself selected for ministry. Trained on a scheme (one night a week, six weekends and a Summer school for three years) and then got himself ordained and served his title as Curate before moving into a church as minister (stipendiary), which is where he still was a few years later in his early fifties.
Two men, twenty years apart. One calling and doing the same stuff. One a bright young thing, tipped for preferment, the other a solid clergyman destined to be a foot soldier. The training was different, the qualifications possessed by each were miles apart, the lifestyles and attitudes were light years apart and yet both are priests, both are 'colleagues', but are they the same?
Of course not, for one brings with him experience of life and loss whilst the other had never actually had a job (no, I'm sorry but a Christmas job delivering letters doesn't quite qualify) and had never buried anyone they'd loved (other than a pet hamster I believe!!). One couldn't quite get their head around the pastoral role and the demands of the ministerial life to the extent that they were considering 'throwing in the towel' and going off to do 'something else' (which I think is totally tragic) whilst the other couldn't get enough of parish ministry.
Apparently being ordained young is a curse because of the implicit pressures (and expectations) that preferment and the upper echelons of church will be theirs. Now I'm not saying that either of the two represent a consistent or common model, for they are individuals and so are unique eben if they also represent something consistent. One spoke of calling and the other spoke of pressures, stress and frustration.
Just makes me wonder what we look for and how we select (because I have total confidence in the selection process as a sound and right system) those who go for selection and whether the (voiced) desire to see more 'young' people being ordained might not colour the process and perhaps cause problems. I hear of more younger ministers suffering from stress whilst the older clergy seem to have the ability to let this stress pass them by. I'm not ageist (young or old) but I have to say that the young man (who has now gone off into another form of ministry) was broken, stressed and aware that he'd lost the plot and that raises the questions of selection, preparation before BAP (selection conference), formation during college and Potty training/title.
Are younger people going to be cost-effective (as one senior chap put it) or are we merely sowing the seeds for early retirement, disaffection and healthy doses of unbelief (self and God) in the Clergy - The Next Generation?
Now, back to evangelicals (unless something else comes up),
Pax
4 comments:
I had wondered at one time if their was some hidden prejudice against older people coming forward for Ordination. Things considered such as cost of training, length of training and relative short time with a valid ministry being on the Agenda!
I have been reassured by the process, although I know that I am fast running out of time, but someone said to me not to worry, because as soon as you are ordained, you have a valid ministry, during curacy, and first appointment, even into retirement.
Then I met someone ordained quite late, who had even gone into stipendiary ministry and even now, post-retirement, has honorary appointments within his dioceses which keep him in ministry.
God calls who he wills, even the older, broken down ones, who might just have a perspective or gifts that can be deployed in the service of our communities.
God is quite discerning sometimes, hopefully the church will continue to be and not turn away those suitable who happen to be a little grey haired or grizzled. (I meet that criteria fully).
I applied for the ordained ministry (in 1993); I was 42 (and turned down). I did get the impression that the selectors were "ageist" (on the selection conference, most were "mature" people (and 20 or so were rejected, one accepted)). Selecting older people does help prevent "careerism", which is distasteful, in the Church. Now, I think how much - I hope good - I could have done in ordinary parish ministry - but with seeing the way the C of E has gone, and the state it's in (the pressure on ordinary good clerical folk to crumble and conform to the "liberal", ie. post-Christian, agenda) makes me so, so, so glad I was rejected.
Interesting. I've found going forward for selection in my mid-twenties was a hideous struggle, particularly as it's time when you're trying to establish a career and finances (in a grim economic environment) which the church didn't really understand.
Then, when I got to college, I found people only a year or less out of Oxbridge (and specifically Oxbridge) who just sailed through :(
Thank you for your comments.
Seems there are some consistencies in the posts here and those made elsewhere. I too found the Oxbridge types who sailed through and the older who struggled to get selected on the basis of age. With the age bit, the caveat used was educational standards!
I have posted more about this issue on today's blog.
Thanks again,
V
Post a Comment