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?
Showing posts with label church management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church management. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 March 2014
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.'
'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
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Just what is being a Cleric about?
There are so many interesting conversations to be had regarding what a 'Vicar' really is and does at the moment.
We have some who consider themselves in places merely to 'keep the lights on' and this raises some good stuff regarding 'mission vs maintenance' and whether 'lights on' is enough (or valid).
There is the issue of Self Supporting Ministers (the ministers previously known as 'Non Stipendiary'*) and what they offer and how they are regarded by others and, perhaps more importantly, by self!
We have those who are 'locally ordained' and how they, their churches and the establishment see them.
As the numbers of stipendiary clergy diminish as the old adage of 'cutting one's coat according to our cloth' is applies; and looking increasingly towards living out the 'can't pay - can't have' mantra, the reality is that the locally-ordained are viewed (by many) as those who will replace the departing stipendiaries at ground level. Something that leads us to also consider the return of some form of Minister model
In broaching these discussions, people have pointed to the demise of the old 'one parson - one parish' and the fact that unless some (especially 'rural' church?) 'grow their own' then they are doomed to closure. But then again if we put clergy into a building without a strategy for growth are we being effective for the Kingdom or merely putting off the dreadful day of reckoning and leaving it to be 'someone else's' problem?
Another part of the problem is the fact that many of the locally-ordained are perhaps a little older than the twenty-four yr old priest who made the press today and they move with retirement and get ill and, as one person put it, simply 'die' (don't we all?) and where full-time posts are replaced with others the church's find themselves bereft and without a shepherd.
And as for 'no cost' options - there is the supervision of the locally ordained (three years) and then the Training Incumbent roles and then being a 'line manager' after that (for ministry and management are indeed two different elements!). Sounds like quite a bit of emotional, spiritual, physical, practical and temporal cost to me!
The Local Ordination process is much akin to eating spaghetti, for once embarked upon, the churches need to keep sucking to ensure that there is more in the chain and to prevent the day when the can (spaghetti only comes in cans doesn't it?) yields its last!
All of the above appear to regard the minister as the person who 'staffs' the church building rather than shepherds the sheep and facilitates, trains, releases and supports. As a friend put it (accurate as ever) the clergyperson is the 'religious service provider'.
So here we are - much to discuss and reflect upon (I hope) for everyone, for Church is about all-member, collegial, Kingdom ministry - not the few.
Pax
We have some who consider themselves in places merely to 'keep the lights on' and this raises some good stuff regarding 'mission vs maintenance' and whether 'lights on' is enough (or valid).
There is the issue of Self Supporting Ministers (the ministers previously known as 'Non Stipendiary'*) and what they offer and how they are regarded by others and, perhaps more importantly, by self!
We have those who are 'locally ordained' and how they, their churches and the establishment see them.
As the numbers of stipendiary clergy diminish as the old adage of 'cutting one's coat according to our cloth' is applies; and looking increasingly towards living out the 'can't pay - can't have' mantra, the reality is that the locally-ordained are viewed (by many) as those who will replace the departing stipendiaries at ground level. Something that leads us to also consider the return of some form of Minister model
In broaching these discussions, people have pointed to the demise of the old 'one parson - one parish' and the fact that unless some (especially 'rural' church?) 'grow their own' then they are doomed to closure. But then again if we put clergy into a building without a strategy for growth are we being effective for the Kingdom or merely putting off the dreadful day of reckoning and leaving it to be 'someone else's' problem?
Another part of the problem is the fact that many of the locally-ordained are perhaps a little older than the twenty-four yr old priest who made the press today and they move with retirement and get ill and, as one person put it, simply 'die' (don't we all?) and where full-time posts are replaced with others the church's find themselves bereft and without a shepherd.
And as for 'no cost' options - there is the supervision of the locally ordained (three years) and then the Training Incumbent roles and then being a 'line manager' after that (for ministry and management are indeed two different elements!). Sounds like quite a bit of emotional, spiritual, physical, practical and temporal cost to me!
The Local Ordination process is much akin to eating spaghetti, for once embarked upon, the churches need to keep sucking to ensure that there is more in the chain and to prevent the day when the can (spaghetti only comes in cans doesn't it?) yields its last!
All of the above appear to regard the minister as the person who 'staffs' the church building rather than shepherds the sheep and facilitates, trains, releases and supports. As a friend put it (accurate as ever) the clergyperson is the 'religious service provider'.
So here we are - much to discuss and reflect upon (I hope) for everyone, for Church is about all-member, collegial, Kingdom ministry - not the few.
Pax
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
All Member Ministry - 'free range'
One of the most interesting all member ministry models I come across is the 'free range' congregation model!
The members of the church, fellowship or gathering are encouraged to take up, and act upon, any project or activity that God lays on their hearts. All the members need to do is identify the need and full support is given.
At first hearing this sounds like the ultimate in laid back, facilitative leadership. Not a hint of top-down, Father knows best, leadership here. In fact there is in a 'worst case' model, sadly, little or no leadership present and what we really have is a form of anarchy. But it is popular anarchy in that it attracts people who have been subject to strong, firm or directive leadership in the past.
Where I encountered the worst example of this, the attitude was that if it was of God, it would fly, and if not then it would fall. The problem was that some fell because aside from good intentions there was little in the way of training, equipping or management from the dog-collar.
The church had a buzz to it and the people were all active and engaged and there were many success stories, but just as many failures (mainly untold) too! A great model if you have people who can withstand the pain of failing (although failing wasn't a problem here) and you can pay the parish share and afford the many projects.
A good model if there is lots of prayer, support for those engaging and a leadership with the mindset of venture capitalists. A dangerous model if you don't have a church full of professional or mildly able 'go getters' - can quickly turn into anarchy and it looks a lot like 'dangerous play' - but here we have always encouraged that as parents (with us safely waiting in the background).
With a good support structure and a balanced approach, this is a great model. Of course without management there is the danger of being subject to whims and knee-jerk responses and seeing the membership so stretched that in the end they achieve nothing and Implode (or melt away). Not permission for a dog-collar to do less but a challenge to be more engaged and active in a diverse manner.
Pax
The members of the church, fellowship or gathering are encouraged to take up, and act upon, any project or activity that God lays on their hearts. All the members need to do is identify the need and full support is given.
At first hearing this sounds like the ultimate in laid back, facilitative leadership. Not a hint of top-down, Father knows best, leadership here. In fact there is in a 'worst case' model, sadly, little or no leadership present and what we really have is a form of anarchy. But it is popular anarchy in that it attracts people who have been subject to strong, firm or directive leadership in the past.
Where I encountered the worst example of this, the attitude was that if it was of God, it would fly, and if not then it would fall. The problem was that some fell because aside from good intentions there was little in the way of training, equipping or management from the dog-collar.
The church had a buzz to it and the people were all active and engaged and there were many success stories, but just as many failures (mainly untold) too! A great model if you have people who can withstand the pain of failing (although failing wasn't a problem here) and you can pay the parish share and afford the many projects.
A good model if there is lots of prayer, support for those engaging and a leadership with the mindset of venture capitalists. A dangerous model if you don't have a church full of professional or mildly able 'go getters' - can quickly turn into anarchy and it looks a lot like 'dangerous play' - but here we have always encouraged that as parents (with us safely waiting in the background).
With a good support structure and a balanced approach, this is a great model. Of course without management there is the danger of being subject to whims and knee-jerk responses and seeing the membership so stretched that in the end they achieve nothing and Implode (or melt away). Not permission for a dog-collar to do less but a challenge to be more engaged and active in a diverse manner.
Pax
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
All Member Ministry - Part the first
Following on from the 'Father knows best' model we are now residing in a period of glasnost whereby we enjoy the privilege and benefits of 'All Member Ministry' (AMM). This is the means by which the members of a fellowship, congregation or church are equipped, enabled and released to do the work of the Church.
Well, that's the theory anyway, but as is often the case, the reality is not always the same as what it says on the packet! Recently I have come across a few variations on the theme and thought I'd ponder them in this safe (ie. away from public gaze) place:
The Stage Manager
This appears to be the most common performance model in that the dog-collar has an idea about something that 'the church' could be engaged in and having investigated the needs, found a way to meet them and established a time and place to do the meeting of the needs takes it to the church council.
The church council, applaud loudly and approve the idea as sound and it is taken to the church with a communal sense of 'here we are, send them!'- a quote from Isaiah 6:8, Not Committed Version (NCV).
The church listens, rapt with concern and inspired to respond, as the needs of 'the lost' are paraded before them. They gasp with amazement at the ways the newly exposed needs might be met and praise God that the church will be making a difference where they are. Oddly, though, few come forward to volunteer their time and energies and those who do turn out to be the same people who are doing everything else. Still, the task is passed over to those who have volunteered and a few people are 'invited' to join in (this is a special dog-collar trick whereby people are given the job but the victim somehow feels they've invited!).
A first meeting is held and ideas (usually from the dog-collar or one of the over-committed) are batted around for a bit and the project is underway. A second meeting is held and ideas are batted around, people apologise for not having done the preparatory work, others apologise for the fact that they will be visiting family on the date set for the first iteration of the project and they agree to meet again. At a third meeting the dog-collar suggests a few things and tells the gathered group that the venue is set, the programme is set and all is in place for the first attempt at meeting whatever the need was when they first started planning.
On the day, the dog-collar and a few of the over-committed turn up and the first event takes place. It is a success (in the same way that there is no such thing as a bad parish weekend away) and the following Sunday the dog-collar parades 'the leader' (or even the team) and the assembled gathering applaud at what 'All Member Ministry' has achieved.
Content that the members now believe they have discovered, planned and executed a wonderful piece of work, the dog-collar applauds with the congregation, content that yet another piece of stage management has proved successful.
Those who get the applaud feel pleased and yet slightly confused that they are being recognised.
Those who were already over-committed realise that the applause signals even less time for themselves or their family (is it any wonder some kids rebel against the very same church that committed their parents energies away from them as kids?).
Those who are applauding really think that the church is 'active' and that the members are running the show.
Only the dog-collar, the gardener and the little house know the truth*
Pax
* If this sentence confuses you, it's a reference to Bill and Ben (the flowerpot Men!)
Well, that's the theory anyway, but as is often the case, the reality is not always the same as what it says on the packet! Recently I have come across a few variations on the theme and thought I'd ponder them in this safe (ie. away from public gaze) place:
The Stage Manager
This appears to be the most common performance model in that the dog-collar has an idea about something that 'the church' could be engaged in and having investigated the needs, found a way to meet them and established a time and place to do the meeting of the needs takes it to the church council.
The church council, applaud loudly and approve the idea as sound and it is taken to the church with a communal sense of 'here we are, send them!'- a quote from Isaiah 6:8, Not Committed Version (NCV).
The church listens, rapt with concern and inspired to respond, as the needs of 'the lost' are paraded before them. They gasp with amazement at the ways the newly exposed needs might be met and praise God that the church will be making a difference where they are. Oddly, though, few come forward to volunteer their time and energies and those who do turn out to be the same people who are doing everything else. Still, the task is passed over to those who have volunteered and a few people are 'invited' to join in (this is a special dog-collar trick whereby people are given the job but the victim somehow feels they've invited!).
A first meeting is held and ideas (usually from the dog-collar or one of the over-committed) are batted around for a bit and the project is underway. A second meeting is held and ideas are batted around, people apologise for not having done the preparatory work, others apologise for the fact that they will be visiting family on the date set for the first iteration of the project and they agree to meet again. At a third meeting the dog-collar suggests a few things and tells the gathered group that the venue is set, the programme is set and all is in place for the first attempt at meeting whatever the need was when they first started planning.
On the day, the dog-collar and a few of the over-committed turn up and the first event takes place. It is a success (in the same way that there is no such thing as a bad parish weekend away) and the following Sunday the dog-collar parades 'the leader' (or even the team) and the assembled gathering applaud at what 'All Member Ministry' has achieved.
Content that the members now believe they have discovered, planned and executed a wonderful piece of work, the dog-collar applauds with the congregation, content that yet another piece of stage management has proved successful.
Those who get the applaud feel pleased and yet slightly confused that they are being recognised.
Those who were already over-committed realise that the applause signals even less time for themselves or their family (is it any wonder some kids rebel against the very same church that committed their parents energies away from them as kids?).
Those who are applauding really think that the church is 'active' and that the members are running the show.
Only the dog-collar, the gardener and the little house know the truth*
Pax
* If this sentence confuses you, it's a reference to Bill and Ben (the flowerpot Men!)
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Risk Assessment means never having to say 'No!'
I have come across a wonderful tool for people who don't wish to use the dreaded 'N' word!
Using this you will never need to say 'no' again, but that which you wish not to happen will be stopped dead in its tracks. Those who wish to do stuff you don't want will be rendered impotent and life will be one long holiday where you get your way all the time in just about every area.
The key to this is the use of what I think I will call 'A Recursive Management Tool' (RMT) and it works like this:
Some bright spark has an idea that they'd like to do something, outdoors, with the youth group as Spring is on the way. You don't like the idea and you don't want it to be done so call the bright individual (AKA 'the enthusiast') who had the idea. "What a super idea, I love it, before you do it could you do a risk assessment on what you want to do so we can make sure it's safe, and more important still, be sure that we're covered in case things do go wrong."
Having had their idea endorsed, the bright star rushes off and sets about putting together a risk assessment. Three to four weeks later, after a bit of clarification and 'fine-tuning' (may take longer if you're brighter than the bright thing!), the risk assessment is done and the bright individual returns looking for a date to do stuff.
"Wonderful idea. Where do you plan to do this outdoor thing?" you ask (innocently). Listen intently and applaud the inventiveness of using the piece of land that they have identified as the ideal place for their endeavours. Then, having been positive and supportive of all they have outlined you ask whether they could do a risk assessment of the place they want to use making special note of ownership, access (especially for emergency vehicles), who else might be using it, potential for disturbing others and the like.
Our 'Enthusiast' will leave feeling encouraged and supportive and rush off to find out what is what and who might be there. When the come back help them to refine the location's risk assessment and then, when they think it's done, ask them to go a draw up a map of the place with reference points for emergency services and map references (for instance, the garden of Lambeth Palace is TQ 30623 79077 and it can be found at 51.495556 (Lat) -0.1197222 (long). If you are feeling kind TQ 30 79 will do).
By the time they return with the assessment complete you can extend the exercise by asking them to check on what time sunset is for the days the happenings will happen and perhaps get them to check on lighting in the car par and on paths as things finish. After all, we can't be too safe, can we?
Having done this the (slightly less) 'Enthusiast' returns with everything done ready to start things rolling (at last). Having started in March it is now mid-June and all you need to do now is write to the land-owner and check that they are happy with this use and enquire whether there would be any cost incurred for using the land (which although it is a public space, might be subject to some hereto untold levy) and whether there would be a need for liability insurance for the events which are to take place.
After a space of but a few weeks it transpires that you need a liability insurance policy for the things to happen. This then means:
a. You write to the church insurers and ask them how much it will cost to have the additional cover,
b. You ask the Treasurer to look at the cost implication of providing the extra insurance cover and wait for them to come back with the information. Having received this information you then get the question of approval for the insurance tabled for the next PCC meeting (which now being July/August means September at the earliest) for them to approve the proposed expenditure. Once the meeting has met and approved it you can now move on (either way).
The insurance is in place, the risk assessments are complete and everything appears fine for the use of the location.
But sadly it is now October and the nights are drawing in and the weather is getting colder and wetter and there's a chance of rain (perhaps even sleet) and so it's best that we wait until next march before we start with this excellent scheme.
And of course, we still need detailed lesson plans and other information - but that can wait until next April!
So there we have it. How to ensure that you can keep being positive, never say 'No' and never see whatever it is that you don't want happening and remain the good guy all the way through.
Enjoy!
Using this you will never need to say 'no' again, but that which you wish not to happen will be stopped dead in its tracks. Those who wish to do stuff you don't want will be rendered impotent and life will be one long holiday where you get your way all the time in just about every area.
The key to this is the use of what I think I will call 'A Recursive Management Tool' (RMT) and it works like this:
Some bright spark has an idea that they'd like to do something, outdoors, with the youth group as Spring is on the way. You don't like the idea and you don't want it to be done so call the bright individual (AKA 'the enthusiast') who had the idea. "What a super idea, I love it, before you do it could you do a risk assessment on what you want to do so we can make sure it's safe, and more important still, be sure that we're covered in case things do go wrong."
Having had their idea endorsed, the bright star rushes off and sets about putting together a risk assessment. Three to four weeks later, after a bit of clarification and 'fine-tuning' (may take longer if you're brighter than the bright thing!), the risk assessment is done and the bright individual returns looking for a date to do stuff.
"Wonderful idea. Where do you plan to do this outdoor thing?" you ask (innocently). Listen intently and applaud the inventiveness of using the piece of land that they have identified as the ideal place for their endeavours. Then, having been positive and supportive of all they have outlined you ask whether they could do a risk assessment of the place they want to use making special note of ownership, access (especially for emergency vehicles), who else might be using it, potential for disturbing others and the like.
Our 'Enthusiast' will leave feeling encouraged and supportive and rush off to find out what is what and who might be there. When the come back help them to refine the location's risk assessment and then, when they think it's done, ask them to go a draw up a map of the place with reference points for emergency services and map references (for instance, the garden of Lambeth Palace is TQ 30623 79077 and it can be found at 51.495556 (Lat) -0.1197222 (long). If you are feeling kind TQ 30 79 will do).
By the time they return with the assessment complete you can extend the exercise by asking them to check on what time sunset is for the days the happenings will happen and perhaps get them to check on lighting in the car par and on paths as things finish. After all, we can't be too safe, can we?
Having done this the (slightly less) 'Enthusiast' returns with everything done ready to start things rolling (at last). Having started in March it is now mid-June and all you need to do now is write to the land-owner and check that they are happy with this use and enquire whether there would be any cost incurred for using the land (which although it is a public space, might be subject to some hereto untold levy) and whether there would be a need for liability insurance for the events which are to take place.
After a space of but a few weeks it transpires that you need a liability insurance policy for the things to happen. This then means:
a. You write to the church insurers and ask them how much it will cost to have the additional cover,
b. You ask the Treasurer to look at the cost implication of providing the extra insurance cover and wait for them to come back with the information. Having received this information you then get the question of approval for the insurance tabled for the next PCC meeting (which now being July/August means September at the earliest) for them to approve the proposed expenditure. Once the meeting has met and approved it you can now move on (either way).
The insurance is in place, the risk assessments are complete and everything appears fine for the use of the location.
But sadly it is now October and the nights are drawing in and the weather is getting colder and wetter and there's a chance of rain (perhaps even sleet) and so it's best that we wait until next march before we start with this excellent scheme.
And of course, we still need detailed lesson plans and other information - but that can wait until next April!
So there we have it. How to ensure that you can keep being positive, never say 'No' and never see whatever it is that you don't want happening and remain the good guy all the way through.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)