I read these words about a church job that's currently vacant:
There have been two recent reviews of the post, (one states)...“The demands upon and the expectations of the role are at the very limit of what is realistic. The job is approaching the point at which it will become impossible.” Despite these reviews, too little has changed. The abilities of the last incumbent have disguised, to a degree, some of these impossibilities. The cost is incalculable, being paid in decisions made too hastily, consultations unsought, mission opportunities declined, and, of course, personal wear and tear. It is not enough to invoke the aid of the Holy Spirit in the choice of a successor, nor even to sustain whoever is chosen. The Spirit of grace and freedom has something to say, too, about the demands made upon individuals. Several recommendations from those earlier reports remain on the table. This might be time to look at them afresh, so that he who is eventually appointed may approach the office with not so heavy a heart.
It's a Church Times leading article on the post of the Archbishop of Canterbury (of course). But editing it to take out specific references to that post (as I've just done), makes me wonder how many other posts in the CofE it actually applies to. We're not far off this situation for the average vicar.
Ht Thinking Anglicans
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Post-Paralympics, what's changed?
I was quite challenged by this discussion starter on the new Church Growth Research Programme website
My team did quite a bit of research for a major Diocese, looking at the growth rates for churches that said they were more accessible for disabilities (hearing, sight, autism, wheelchair access etc). The more accessible, the faster the growth - even for small rural Listed churches.
Why? Who knows. But it's true in outside industry that a more accessible building and warm welcome for difference is a good thing for everyone, not just the disabled person. But fascinating that at present so few churches even buy a £10 large print bible or hymn book, let alone spend £10 on tape to edge doors and steps so that those with visual impairment can see where they are.
Clergy get no training on disability, therefore may have no clue how to maximise growth and serve their 14 million disabled parishioners well (even leaving aside the Equality Act 2010 which makes it illegal to fail to do so).
What could we do to investigate this further, I wonder?
Hands up, I loved the paralympics, joined in the chorus of approval, but it hasn't led to me doing anything tangible as a church leader to make our church more inclusive to people with disabilities. We print off large print versions of the songs each week, but there's probably a lot more we could do.
My team did quite a bit of research for a major Diocese, looking at the growth rates for churches that said they were more accessible for disabilities (hearing, sight, autism, wheelchair access etc). The more accessible, the faster the growth - even for small rural Listed churches.
Why? Who knows. But it's true in outside industry that a more accessible building and warm welcome for difference is a good thing for everyone, not just the disabled person. But fascinating that at present so few churches even buy a £10 large print bible or hymn book, let alone spend £10 on tape to edge doors and steps so that those with visual impairment can see where they are.
Clergy get no training on disability, therefore may have no clue how to maximise growth and serve their 14 million disabled parishioners well (even leaving aside the Equality Act 2010 which makes it illegal to fail to do so).
What could we do to investigate this further, I wonder?
Hands up, I loved the paralympics, joined in the chorus of approval, but it hasn't led to me doing anything tangible as a church leader to make our church more inclusive to people with disabilities. We print off large print versions of the songs each week, but there's probably a lot more we could do.
'Keep alive a distaste for nonsense'
God and Politics has a good summary of a recent Rowan Williams lecture, with the brilliant title 'a wise man who makes my brain ache'. I was given another of his lectures to read recently, on a favourite Anglican term 'priesthood'. Don't be put off by the subject matter, and in the snippets below, for 'priest' read 'disciple':
The priest has to have the opportunity of not being so swamped with 'duties' that he or she can't maintain a sense of the whole landscape.
Those who have preached most effectively in this and other eras are, it
seems to me, those who have known how to read the surface and the depths, but
have had no great interest in the shallows.
There has to be in every priest just a bit of the poet and artist – enough to keep alive a distaste for nonsense, cheapness of words and ideas, stale and predictable reactions.
Along with whatever training to lead and manage that may be given in preparation for priestly ministry, along with instruction in theology and ethics, there must be active encouragement to nourish this seeing and listening, the novel and the newspaper and the soap opera and the casual conversation– even (especially?) when it looks like wasting time from some points of view. Otherwise, what threatens is what Christianity's greatest critics (Nietzsche above all) have homed in upon – a Christian discourse that is essentially about unreal persons with unreal desires and fears
That last bit is very perceptive - within any subculture it's easy to fall into caricatures of who you are, and who other people are, rather than the messy and time-consuming business of dealing with reality. Maybe that's why so few people 'get' Rowan, his messy-looking and time consuming thought processes, and his famous nuances, are too difficult to engage with if you're used to thinking in stereotypes and categories. (e.g. see this piece by Mark Meynell on sexual stereotypes and labelling)
And if you see me wasting time, I'm just doing what my Archbishop encouraged me to do. Thanks Rowan!
The priest has to have the opportunity of not being so swamped with 'duties' that he or she can't maintain a sense of the whole landscape.
There has to be in every priest just a bit of the poet and artist – enough to keep alive a distaste for nonsense, cheapness of words and ideas, stale and predictable reactions.
Along with whatever training to lead and manage that may be given in preparation for priestly ministry, along with instruction in theology and ethics, there must be active encouragement to nourish this seeing and listening, the novel and the newspaper and the soap opera and the casual conversation– even (especially?) when it looks like wasting time from some points of view. Otherwise, what threatens is what Christianity's greatest critics (Nietzsche above all) have homed in upon – a Christian discourse that is essentially about unreal persons with unreal desires and fears
That last bit is very perceptive - within any subculture it's easy to fall into caricatures of who you are, and who other people are, rather than the messy and time-consuming business of dealing with reality. Maybe that's why so few people 'get' Rowan, his messy-looking and time consuming thought processes, and his famous nuances, are too difficult to engage with if you're used to thinking in stereotypes and categories. (e.g. see this piece by Mark Meynell on sexual stereotypes and labelling)
And if you see me wasting time, I'm just doing what my Archbishop encouraged me to do. Thanks Rowan!
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Disagreeing with God
I'm preparing a sermon on conflict and opposition, and someone sent me this, which I think nails it:
whenever we criticise someone, hate someone, demean someone etc, we disagree with God about that person. God says that they are beautiful, amazing, worth dying for and remind Him of Himself. When we pull down, attack, dehumanise, criticise, and fail to love them, we put ourselves in a position where we disagree with God. That is not a good place to be.
whenever we criticise someone, hate someone, demean someone etc, we disagree with God about that person. God says that they are beautiful, amazing, worth dying for and remind Him of Himself. When we pull down, attack, dehumanise, criticise, and fail to love them, we put ourselves in a position where we disagree with God. That is not a good place to be.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Ed Miliband 'I am...a person of faith'
Update: more on this from Fraser Nelson in Fridays Telegraph.
Here's part of Ed Milibands speech from Tuesdays conference
...It is this upbringing that has made me who I am. A person of faith, not a religious faith but a faith nonetheless. A faith, I believe, many religious people would recognise. So here is my faith. I believe we have a duty to leave the world a better place than we found it. I believe we cannot shrug our shoulders at injustice, and just say that’s the way the world is. And I believe that we can overcome any odds if we come together as people.
That’s how my Mum survived the war. The kindness of strangers. Nuns in a convent who took her in and sheltered her from the Nazis, took in a Jewish girl at risk to themselves. It’s what my dad found when he came to these shores and joined the Royal Navy and was part of Britain winning the war.
Now of course my parents didn’t tell me what career to go into. My late father, as some of you know, wouldn’t agree with many of the things I stand for. He would’ve loved the idea of “Red Ed.” But he would have been a little bit disappointed that it isn’t true. My mum probably doesn’t agree with me either, but like most mums is too kind to say so. And look when I was younger I wasn’t certain I wanted to be a politician. But I do believe the best way me for to give back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through politics. Now that is not a fashionable view today. Because millions of people have given up on politics, they think we’re all the same. Well I guess you could say I am out to prove them wrong.
That is who I am. That is what I believe. That is my faith.
and it's obviously a key passage for him, because he returns to it to close the speech:
Who can come up to the task of rebuilding Britain? Friends, it falls to us, it falls to us, the Labour Party. As it has fallen to previous generations of Labour Party pioneers to leave our country a better place than we found it. Never to shrug our shoulders at injustice and say that is the way the world is. To come together, to join together, to work together as a country.
It’s not some impossible dream. We’ve heard it, we’ve seen it, we’ve felt it. That is my faith.
One nation: a country for all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.
So, translated, what is Ed Milibands faith? It's not in God, or anything supernatural, but here's my attempt state his creed:
- Vocation: we are here to make the world a better place (though he talks of this as a 'duty' rather than a 'purpose')
- Justice: the key principle of social order, aka Fairness
- Hope: people have the power to do anything if they work together.
I'm not sure how coherent this is - e.g how the two stories about his family relate to these three statements. I'm not sure whether this an attempt to connect with the faith vote (though I doubt all atheists will be pleased at the way this maps the 'faith' territory), or just an interesting way of expressing himself.
For me the content falls short of the headline - is this it? They're all good principles, though unfortunately a couple of them sound a bit karaoke - make the world a better place, overcome the odds, did I hear the sound of Louis Walsh? Which leaves the justice one, which is curiously weak in its phrasing. Miliband comes from socialist stock, which had a strong and explicit faith and creed: he seems to have inherited the framework, but filleted the content.
I was listening to this on the radio with my son in the back seat, and after trying to explain to him about parties, leaders and elections, he asked 'which one's ours?' I said at the moment I had no idea, there's nobody I really want to vote for. And after that speech, to be honest I'm no clearer. A lot of us would love to be convinced by our politicians, and are finding it increasingly frustrating that they don't manage it. But I think we also know that the Hero Leader is a myth, they don't exist. Maybe, therefore, Miliband is right when he focuses on working together, but to work together you need a shared vision and goals, One Nation needs to be more than a slogan, it needs to win hearts and minds.
Here's part of Ed Milibands speech from Tuesdays conference
...It is this upbringing that has made me who I am. A person of faith, not a religious faith but a faith nonetheless. A faith, I believe, many religious people would recognise. So here is my faith. I believe we have a duty to leave the world a better place than we found it. I believe we cannot shrug our shoulders at injustice, and just say that’s the way the world is. And I believe that we can overcome any odds if we come together as people.
That’s how my Mum survived the war. The kindness of strangers. Nuns in a convent who took her in and sheltered her from the Nazis, took in a Jewish girl at risk to themselves. It’s what my dad found when he came to these shores and joined the Royal Navy and was part of Britain winning the war.
Now of course my parents didn’t tell me what career to go into. My late father, as some of you know, wouldn’t agree with many of the things I stand for. He would’ve loved the idea of “Red Ed.” But he would have been a little bit disappointed that it isn’t true. My mum probably doesn’t agree with me either, but like most mums is too kind to say so. And look when I was younger I wasn’t certain I wanted to be a politician. But I do believe the best way me for to give back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through politics. Now that is not a fashionable view today. Because millions of people have given up on politics, they think we’re all the same. Well I guess you could say I am out to prove them wrong.
That is who I am. That is what I believe. That is my faith.
and it's obviously a key passage for him, because he returns to it to close the speech:
Who can come up to the task of rebuilding Britain? Friends, it falls to us, it falls to us, the Labour Party. As it has fallen to previous generations of Labour Party pioneers to leave our country a better place than we found it. Never to shrug our shoulders at injustice and say that is the way the world is. To come together, to join together, to work together as a country.
It’s not some impossible dream. We’ve heard it, we’ve seen it, we’ve felt it. That is my faith.
One nation: a country for all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.
So, translated, what is Ed Milibands faith? It's not in God, or anything supernatural, but here's my attempt state his creed:
- Vocation: we are here to make the world a better place (though he talks of this as a 'duty' rather than a 'purpose')
- Justice: the key principle of social order, aka Fairness
- Hope: people have the power to do anything if they work together.
I'm not sure how coherent this is - e.g how the two stories about his family relate to these three statements. I'm not sure whether this an attempt to connect with the faith vote (though I doubt all atheists will be pleased at the way this maps the 'faith' territory), or just an interesting way of expressing himself.
For me the content falls short of the headline - is this it? They're all good principles, though unfortunately a couple of them sound a bit karaoke - make the world a better place, overcome the odds, did I hear the sound of Louis Walsh? Which leaves the justice one, which is curiously weak in its phrasing. Miliband comes from socialist stock, which had a strong and explicit faith and creed: he seems to have inherited the framework, but filleted the content.
I was listening to this on the radio with my son in the back seat, and after trying to explain to him about parties, leaders and elections, he asked 'which one's ours?' I said at the moment I had no idea, there's nobody I really want to vote for. And after that speech, to be honest I'm no clearer. A lot of us would love to be convinced by our politicians, and are finding it increasingly frustrating that they don't manage it. But I think we also know that the Hero Leader is a myth, they don't exist. Maybe, therefore, Miliband is right when he focuses on working together, but to work together you need a shared vision and goals, One Nation needs to be more than a slogan, it needs to win hearts and minds.
Chancel Repair - It's a Liability
So, how about this for a mission strategy. Everyone who moves into your parish (sorry, it's just for Anglicans), as part of buying a house, is encouraged to insure themselves against the church. Why? Because of an ancient legal provision that the church can bill people on church lands for repairs to its building.
Welcome to the batty world of Chancel Repair Liability, in which possibly thousands of local Anglican churches find their mission to the community compromised, whilst insurers line their pockets with a tidy little premium that they know is rarely, if ever, called upon.
Why not just ignore it? Again, because of the law:
A PCC (church council in a CofE church) is a charity (even if it is not registered with the Charity Commission) so its members are subject to the same general duties as charity trustees, including the duty to exercise their powers in the charity’s best interests. Where a chancel repair liability exists, the right to enforce that liability is an asset of the PCC which must be appropriately managed.
This is from some new guidance by the Charities Commission for church councils. This is coming to a head because of a deadline (October 2013) for all PCCs to establish whether local properties are liable, and to decide whether to 'register' those liabilities, or let them lapse. If we let them lapse, then there is the chance that we fall foul of the law for charities to use their assets for the best. There are also stories of churches being refused grants and other assistance for building repairs (e.g. by English Heritage) because they've not invoked chancel repair liablity.
All of this is missionally disastrous. How did we get to a place where people have to insure themselves against the church? How did we get to a place where churches have to tax local people - believer and atheist alike - to preserve an ancient church building, and where any church that doesn't do this is acting against the law, or is penalised in grant bids? Here's just one example of what that looks like on the ground.
There's a helpful summary of the new guidance on the Law and Religion blog, which notes:
Personally, I'd like to leaflet the whole parish explaining that we have no intention of invoking the liability, and then write to all the local solicitors encouraging them to donate the money they've made out of this to charity. Or the building fund.....
For more background, here's a really helpful page maintained by one local church, with lots of links, stories and resources for churches wanting to know more.
Update: Greg Yerbury, who's put together this help page, is hoping to publish a list of 590 parishes known to have Chancel Repair Liability later this week, so keep an eye on his site if you think it might be you!
Update 2: the lists are up, 4b and 4c in the top rhs of the Chancel Repair page, sorted by county, which is helpful.
Welcome to the batty world of Chancel Repair Liability, in which possibly thousands of local Anglican churches find their mission to the community compromised, whilst insurers line their pockets with a tidy little premium that they know is rarely, if ever, called upon.
Why not just ignore it? Again, because of the law:
A PCC (church council in a CofE church) is a charity (even if it is not registered with the Charity Commission) so its members are subject to the same general duties as charity trustees, including the duty to exercise their powers in the charity’s best interests. Where a chancel repair liability exists, the right to enforce that liability is an asset of the PCC which must be appropriately managed.
This is from some new guidance by the Charities Commission for church councils. This is coming to a head because of a deadline (October 2013) for all PCCs to establish whether local properties are liable, and to decide whether to 'register' those liabilities, or let them lapse. If we let them lapse, then there is the chance that we fall foul of the law for charities to use their assets for the best. There are also stories of churches being refused grants and other assistance for building repairs (e.g. by English Heritage) because they've not invoked chancel repair liablity.
All of this is missionally disastrous. How did we get to a place where people have to insure themselves against the church? How did we get to a place where churches have to tax local people - believer and atheist alike - to preserve an ancient church building, and where any church that doesn't do this is acting against the law, or is penalised in grant bids? Here's just one example of what that looks like on the ground.
There's a helpful summary of the new guidance on the Law and Religion blog, which notes:
The Commission does, however, set out a useful framework for trustee decision-making which, in the Commission’s opinion, should help PCC members to act in accordance with their legal duties. Under the Commission’s framework PCC members must:
- act within their powers, which means:
- only making decisions which advance, or support activities that advance, their charity’s purpose for the public benefit;
Personally, I'd like to leaflet the whole parish explaining that we have no intention of invoking the liability, and then write to all the local solicitors encouraging them to donate the money they've made out of this to charity. Or the building fund.....
For more background, here's a really helpful page maintained by one local church, with lots of links, stories and resources for churches wanting to know more.
Update: Greg Yerbury, who's put together this help page, is hoping to publish a list of 590 parishes known to have Chancel Repair Liability later this week, so keep an eye on his site if you think it might be you!
Update 2: the lists are up, 4b and 4c in the top rhs of the Chancel Repair page, sorted by county, which is helpful.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Alpha Publicity Stunt Goes Horribly Wrong?
A man in Aberdeen was freed by firefighters after getting his head stuck in a bin
speculating is mounting that this is part of an intensified Alpha publicity campaign, substituting live models for the scenarios depicted in their posters
Update: it turns out the man at the top was looking for his hat. I'm still trying to work out why he thought it would be in a dustbin, or if it was in a dustbin, why he was looking for it. Is that Dom Joly dressed as a fireman on the left?
speculating is mounting that this is part of an intensified Alpha publicity campaign, substituting live models for the scenarios depicted in their posters
Update: it turns out the man at the top was looking for his hat. I'm still trying to work out why he thought it would be in a dustbin, or if it was in a dustbin, why he was looking for it. Is that Dom Joly dressed as a fireman on the left?
Crown Nominations and the Goblet of Fire
It looks like the Crown Nominations Commission need a bit more time to think and pray about who's to be the new AB of C, which is fair enough. Better to take your time and get it right, though CofE notions of 'take your time' tend to go on longer than most.
But it may be that a more radical decision-making process is required. There are several other ways to go about this, or perhaps JK Rowling can help. For example:
The shortlist of candidates are pitted against each other in a series of near-impossible tasks: getting a positive story about the CofE into the national press, coming up with an agreed text for women bishops, devising an all-age service which pleases everyone. On the way they have to vanquish a ancient foes like the Victorian Society, succesfully negotiate with an organist, and chair a church council meeting which ends on time.
The two leading candidates seize the winners cup/chalice together, and are immediately transported into a different world. Victory leads to one being finished off entirely, and the other being misunderstood for long periods, while he wrestles to master an entity whose soul is split into several pieces, most of them tied up with ancient artefacts. But, with a combination of wise mentors, loyal friends, and personal courage, he does it.
Anyway back to prayer. Or, if that's too difficult, baseless speculation on Twitter along with everyone else.
But it may be that a more radical decision-making process is required. There are several other ways to go about this, or perhaps JK Rowling can help. For example:
The shortlist of candidates are pitted against each other in a series of near-impossible tasks: getting a positive story about the CofE into the national press, coming up with an agreed text for women bishops, devising an all-age service which pleases everyone. On the way they have to vanquish a ancient foes like the Victorian Society, succesfully negotiate with an organist, and chair a church council meeting which ends on time.
The two leading candidates seize the winners cup/chalice together, and are immediately transported into a different world. Victory leads to one being finished off entirely, and the other being misunderstood for long periods, while he wrestles to master an entity whose soul is split into several pieces, most of them tied up with ancient artefacts. But, with a combination of wise mentors, loyal friends, and personal courage, he does it.
Anyway back to prayer. Or, if that's too difficult, baseless speculation on Twitter along with everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)