What about Extra Curricular activities?

Is this person unfit to be a teacher because of this photo (with a caption saying "drunken pirate")?

I have blogged before about the perils of the net when it comes to employment.  But decided to have another go after seeing this article in the Guardian about someone arrested for a tweet, and someone else refused a teaching degree, they claim on the basis of a My Space entry.  I haven't fully read the judgement in this case, although comments on one of the sites covering it suggests that the issues were other than the photo.

What interests me about this are the range of views that exist in this area, for example the comments on this version of the story, from what you do off the job is no one elses business through to everything you do is part of the job (perhaps only for certain jobs).  It also touches on Red's question on differences of opinion.  Are there jobs where your behaviour off the job disqualifies you from carrying out the job?  I think the answer has to be yes - although with qualifications.  Nobody is perfect (I know this will come as a shock to some of you out there ;)) so the question becomes what imperfections do we focus on?  Red asked whether we would make a priest having an affair a Bishop - slightly tongue in cheek I would ask whether we would make a priest lending money a Bishop - after all the Bible says more about usury.  The same goes for other public roles, doctors, politicians and of course teachers.

I guess where I fall on this is that there are behaviours which would disqualify people from certain jobs, but having your photo taken as above isn't one of them.

Am I responsible for your faith?

In a counselling situation a counsellor would deny responsibility for the clients feelings.  I recently started wondering whether as a person with a public role I have a different responsibility?  This perhaps also touches on the expectations of clergy.  The Naked Pastor has recently resigned from ministry and has faced many assumptions about why he has done this.  He has suggested that he left because the church where he ministered was being adversely affected by his association with it.

Perhaps the equivalent situation is for a counsellor to stop seeing someone because although they are not responsible for the others feelings they recognise that they are having an adverse impact on them.  Perhaps if one has a prophetic ministry then one needs to exercise it where it does not harm others.

However, I can't accept that I always have to fit in with what is "acceptable" in my church.  In the CofE it isn't possible to agree with everyone, but perhaps a priest who is a long way away from their congregation is not in a position to minister to them, particularly in a place where there are several other churches within easy commuting distance.  And yet I want it not to be so - and think that I have ministered to those far away from me!  Is the corollary of this then that it is possible to minister better without pinning your own colours to the mast?  I don't like that answer either.  I suspect that this is one that I am going to return to.

Am I adequate?

One of the problems with being a priest is that I (and I suspect many others) keep thinking that others are being a priest so much better than I am.  There are said to be many workaholic priests (why can I never find the references when I want them?) - and in any gathering the chances are that they are there - after all, if they weren't workaholic they would be taking time off wouldn't they?

The Vernacular Curate wrote about this in another way and soon after I read his blog the following quote appeared in my in box:

We tend to manage life more than just live it. We are all over-stimulated and drowning in options. We are trained to be managers, to organize life, to make things happen. This is what is built into our culture, and probably into human nature. It is not all bad, but if you transfer that to the spiritual life, it is always heresy. It doesn’t work. It is not gospel. We might be productive and popular, but we will not be spiritually fertile or free.  Richard Rohr

My spiritual director quoted Monica Furlong to me:

I am clear about what I want from the clergy. I want them to be people who dare because they are secure enough in the value of what they are doing, to have time to read, to sit and think, and who face the emptiness and possible depression which often attack people when they do not keep the surface of their mind occupied ... I want them to be people who can sit still without feeling guilty, and from whom I can learn some kind of tranquility in a society which has almost lost the art.  Quoted by Gloucester Diocese

 This resonates with me - but it is so hard to achieve - even more so when colleagues are rushing around "achieving" so much.

And yet one of the things that I have valued about my curacy has been precisely the time to read and to sit and think and to face up to who and what I really am.

Women and Women Bishops

I have recently had cause to reflect on discrimination in the Church of England and thus changed my mind about my response to Women Bishops.  It is not that I was agin them either before or after my rethink, rather that I used to think that some form of accommodation with those opposed to them was a price worth paying and now I don't.  Of course the Welsh got there a while ago and refused to vote for them, having first voted not to make any allowance for those opposed.

What changed my mind was seeing discrimination happening, and being shocked at my reaction to it.  It was roughly "well, what can you expect".  In later discussion and reflection I realised that my thinking came from the fact that we allow discrimination in certain circumstances, and whilst as a church we institutionalise discrimination we cannot be surprised when we discriminate outside the "allowed" circumstances.  Having recognised that within myself I now see the damage that institutionalised discrimination brings about and want none of it in an organisation to which I belong.

Letter to the Hebrews

I have always been wary of Hebrews.  A vicar I know (doesn't narrow it down very far!) told me that it barely made it into the New Testament and they refused to read from it because it was so confusing!

At the time that I first heard this I interpreted that as meaning that it was of dubious value.  Having been reading it again through morning prayer recently I have come to see what that vicar meant in a different light.  If you understand ancient Jewish practice then you can understand Hebrews as a masterful piece of inculturation, taking those ancient practices and explaining the importance and meaning of Jesus in terms of them.  Or to "proclaim afresh in each generation" His truth.

However I have two concerns about how we might use it today.  I recently saw a poster which said something like "We are saved by Jesus blood" - the train was travelling too fast to read it - the problem is that to anyone outside the church this is a meaningless statement unless they know about Jewish sacrifice and the comparison being made - it doesn't scratch where people are itching.  My second concern is that as a piece of inculturated writing the only way it is helpful is if we have the context explained to us first - but for me the beauty of metaphor is that it doesn't have to be explained.  And if we have to have the context explained there is less opportunity for people to own it for themselves rather than to adopt someone else's interpretation.

As a result I won't be terribly keen on public readings of it - without a sermon explaining the context - but my reasoning is very different from my previous understanding.  I have even been tempted to study it a bit more - any recommendations for a good guide?

Work - Again!

From http://www.wolfescape.com/Humour/WorkStress.htm, with some other workplace jokes.  It was a real trip down memory lane!

Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else.  James M. Barrie

It is a while since I blogged on this here, in fact much longer than I thought!  And then the above quote came into my inbox on the day that I saw my spiritual director and he challenged my definition - where is time for me - what hobbies do I have?

Life used to be busy.  I had a full time job and was studying part time and doing things in the local church.  Work was the job and study and ministry was my "hobby".  Then I was made redundant and was able to become full time in the church.  Suddenly my "hobby" had become my job.  That was 2 years ago, and I haven't found a hobby yet.  Perhaps blogging counts, although it falls into the same category of a lot of other things that I do - it could be considered part of the job.  Similarly with reading - I enjoy reading without a purpose!  We were told that when we started studying that it would ruin reading for us and for a while it did, but I seem to have made it back again.  Perhaps because I struggled to study.  We were told that study was answering a question and to use the index - I prefer to read and be surprised by what I find and by the connections that appear between the strangest things.  But most of my reading is theology of some kind.  I also like chatting with friends - but most of the chat could in some way or other could be called work.  Hence the reason that I came up with the definition that I did.

The best that I could come up with was that I am hoping to play some cricket this summer - if selected.  Except that it is for a team of vicars!

What about the sermon?

homilies should be brief to cater for people with short attention spans

So says the Roman Catholic Church in the Guardian.  It would appear that not all denominations agree however (see this blog).  This set me thinking about sermons and what I am trying to achieve.  As set out here:

There are people there of different ages, different experiences, different cultures, some who have been on the Christian journey for much longer than me and others who have only just become interested. How can anything be meaningful to everyone?

and when it comes to attention span there are varying thoughts about lectures here.  However I am not trying to lecture.  My aim is to encourage people to work out for themselves what the Bible (usually Gospel) reading means to them.  I have been thanked too often for saying helpful things that to my knowledge I never said to believe that what I say matters - it is what people hear (if I said nothing I wonder what they would hear?).

By using this approach it does mean that I am not trying to teach facts in the traditional sense - 10 minutes plus or minus hardly gives any space for that.  Certainly I will give some historical background if appropriate - but I won't explain what that means the passage means - that is up to the congregation.  I much prefer story as a way of explaining (or not), after all there is a precedent for the use of unexplained story - and it is also more entertaining - something that the survey said that Anglicans wanted!

There is also the question of where I stand.  I went on a course a long time ago where the leader said that congregations who insist that the preacher use the pulpit are insisting on a parent child relationship (a la Transactional Analysis and here) - the infamous 6 feet above contradiction - wanting the answers handed down to them.  You will have seen from above that that is not my style of preaching and I try to stand level with the congregation to encourage a more adult-adult interaction.  However, there are issues with visibility and audibility - though as I use a microphone I can only assume it is some form of lip reading that can't be seen - and for this reason I will occasionally use a pulpit if I am in a strange church.

Less is More

Recently I read an article quoting a priest saying that the less he did the better things were (of course I paraphrase) and frustratingly I can't find it to pass on.  I remembered it when I was talking about how if we take on something new we have to drop something to make space for it and was then reminded of my experience at work.

Obviously if your job is to make things or physically do something then less is not more!  Although perhaps the better athletes can achieve more with less - they always said that Teddy Sheringham beat people in his head.  However, I was latterly a manager and my job was to achieve things through other people.  When I discovered my vocation and starting training for the priesthood (whilst working full time) I found that I cut back the hours that I did (still exceeding my contracted hours), and yet I also felt that I was more effective than when I had been busier myself.  Similarly whilst I was working my notice, having been made redundant, I found that by doing less myself, as I handed over my responsibilities to others, and empowering those who worked for me, I got complimented for the work that I was doing.

As a priest it can be tempting to do too much - after all I am the one who doesn't have another job to do.  But, as at work, where I realised that doing the right thing was so much easier than forcing through the wrong thing, so in the church - if it is worth doing then others will chip in, and if they don't then perhaps it is the wrong thing to be doing!

How long does it take to get to know you?

Vicar "plans to visit all 9000 homes in his new parish during Lent to get to know his new flock."  Church Times

 This is a tricky post to write as I am fully supportive of the concept of getting to know parishioners (note - not congregation - though I don't mind getting to know them too).  But, and I am afraid it is a but, I don't think this is the way to do it.  After all, with 9,000 homes it averages 6 minutes per home, and that assumes working 24 hour days for the 40 days of lent (I figure he needs to take services on Sunday).  If we get a bit more realistic and assume he can spend 8 hours a day for the 40 days then simple maths says that it becomes 2 minutes each - and that is ignoring time between houses - lets hope he doesn't have any of those large houses where it would take 2 minutes to walk down the drive!


If we get a little more realistic then not everyone will want to talk to him!  (I was talking to a priest one day about wearing a clerical collar - I assumed that wearing one on the train might lead to more space around me.  Not at all - she described it as a "nutter magnet").  And in the hours available, assuming that he gets away in 30 seconds from those who are out or not interested, it gives 250 hour long conversations.

When I started writing this post my assumption was that it was an impossible thing to do, and having read "If you meet...", which among other things suggested to me that the days of mass clergy visiting were over because of other priorities, I wasn't sure it was realistic.  Having crunched the numbers it now seems a better idea, but one which would realistically take a little longer than lent to carry out properly.  One for my kit bag when I move on methinks.  It feels like the kind of thing that you can do when you are new, before the congregation realise the interregnum is over!

Just found that it might be 10,000 parishioners, not 9,000 homes! http://www.cofeguildford.org.uk/  Makes it more conceivable still.

Lent starts here!

http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/lent/

No, I'm not going to give up blogging for lent (shame I hear you cry!).  Instead I am going to continue, but with added Christian Aid!  As for the past few years Christian Aid are running "Count Your Blessings" which is a scheme to help you reflect on other parts of the world and raise money at the same time.  Today's challenge:

883 million people worldwide often don’t know where their next meal is coming from.  Give 10p for each hour between your last meal and your next.

Well, lets say that is 5 hours, as I am writing in the afternoon and had a late lunch, so that's 50p.

I read a good blog on lenten discipline, so using the Vernacular Curate's pattern ...

There goes the chocolate until after Easter - which might also have beneficial effect on the waistline.  Lets just hope I don't forget like I did one year and have a choccy biscuit without even realising L.  Still I remember reading someone somewhere saying that it is good to fail at your lenten discipline because it reminds you that you can achieve nothing alone!

I too will be blogging and I have bought the Archbishops Lent book by Lucy Winkett - so that can join my pile of unread books (hope not).

As I am in the same Archdeaconry as my Vernacular mate I too have been offered an extra day off a week during lent.  There has been much talk among the clergy about how this isn't helpful, life is even busier in lent - so please can we have the time off at another  time.  With little experience of a clerical lent I think that our Area Bishop had it spot on - if it is not possible to find an extra day off in lent then we are doing too much and need to stop doing some things - if you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always got.  I have put these days in my diary, but to do so meant having to take some other things out - perhaps easier as a curate than an incumbent, but the principle holds.  As for taking on something new... not sure about that one for me, though I am planning to attend the Churches Together for Chesham Lent lectures which has an excellent set of speakers.

And finally... time - that old chestnut - well, not looking good on this front - but with the extra time off I think I will be less stressed and am planning to make time to read a new book!

And with people out there watching in there might just be the odd extra incentive to keep things going.

Anglicans are better organised!

Despite the reputation of clergy being unable to organise a 5 star party in a beer factory the above quote was heard when one cleric was asked why they were Anglican, and it isn't the only time that I have heard similar sentiments expressed.  (To be fair there are those with whom I might not agree who have very good reasons for being Anglican - for example Vic).

I sometimes wonder why organisations who think that the CofE needs a Covenant, when we have managed very well for a few hundred years without one, are so keen to be Anglicans.  Sometimes it almost feels as though as a church we are going through similar troubles to those the Labour Party had with Militant Tendency in the 70s and 80s.  And the effect seems to be the same.  How many people are put off the church by the hard line approach of some members of the CofE?  I don't mind them having those hard line views, but I do mind them describing them as Anglican.

So why don't they set themselves up independently?  I suppose it might be the money; once appointed to the freehold of a parish the central church will pay you until you resign or retire - regardless of whether your parish pay any money into the centre.  Then of course there is the access that the CofE has as the Established Church.  Of course the requirement to marry, baptize or bury all who present themselves tends not to be so popular with the reformers, but there seem to be ways around it.

The CofE was created as both 'catholic and reformed', if people want a fully reformed church (there are lots - I lost the will to live when counting them) then they should set one up or join one of the many that already exist rather than trying to change the CofE into something that it was never intended to be.

Leave us alone with our "woolly" theology and tolerance of difference and lack of clarity about who is in and out.

Sack the Choir

Before I really get into trouble because people think I am advising my vicar to do this, fear not - it comes from this article which caught my eye.  And it was the comments as much as the main article.  A number of them suggested that the vicar was wrong to sack the choir because the impact was a reduction in numbers and, they assumed, giving.  Interestingly a churchwarden then posted that numbers are up as is giving!  Does that mean that those people who thought this was a bad thing now think that it is a good one?

And do we think that numbers are the only measure of success in a church?  Of course numbers count (groan J), but surely whether people are on a journey counts for something too?

Who has the "right" to choose clergy and bishops?

It has been reported that some churches are considering paying to train their own clergy outside of the Church of England.  This leads me to question who has the right to choose who should be clergy in a particular place, or bishops.  I am thinking particularly of the Church of England which is not a congregational church.  There is also of course the question of who has the"right" to choose who should be clergy.

Of course God chooses, but in the CofE this is mediated by varying mechanisms, but the overwhelming gist is that people are chosen by the whole church, not just the local congregation.  Those churches which want to train "their" clergy elsewhere appear to be departing from that tradition (unless they are referring only to locally deployable clergy - those returning to their sending parish - I know this is a simplification).

The problem that I want to look at, and to which the video has one solution, is that of preventing us getting in God's way.  We all "know" exactly what kind of priest or bishop we want - what if God wants us to have a someone different?

The value of outside "interference" is that it brings the value of a Non Executive Director, someone who can bring an independent view to the matter - something which for example an atheist Prime Minister is more likely to be able to do than people with axes to grind!

However, if we want to do away with "outside interference" then which method would we prefer?  Secular employment now recognises that recruiting "people like us" is not best practice, perhaps the best approach would be to draw lots - after all there is Biblical precedent (Acts 1:21-26).  The problem with all other methods is that we are all so certain that we know God's will that we forget to let him get involved in the process.

More thoughts on Work!

I once read that an artist is an artist because they decide they are, and I decide that this could apply to being Christian - I am a Christian because I choose to be.

This was said in Sundays sermon, and apart from being a great quote it also set me thinking that work is what I decide it is!  I have been so used to work being what someone else decides is it that I forgot that I am now the arbiter!  It is certainly far harder now to determine what is work than it used to be when I travelled to an office and worked when I was there and didn't when I wasn't (I was quite strict with myself, taking work home about twice in 30 years, though I might have stayed late in the office).

  In a previous post I was challenged on why I had blogged on this topic, and after some thought decided that my answer was worth another blog!!!  So I had better at least answer the original question.  The question posed was:

I guess my first question is why are you asking?

I don't really believe there are 'one size fits all' answers.. hence if someone is asking the question it suggests that they are not happy with the level of work because they are stressed or because they feel guilty because they are not stressed?

I think I was posing the question about how much I work, and what counts as work at least in part because a friend had challenged me on that.  That came about because I had just had a post Christmas break and had recognised (again) that I had been overdoing it beforehand - something that I have recognised just about every holiday for the past 30 years.  When I said that this time it would be different I was then challenged with the Einstein quote:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

So am I going to do anything different?  I don't know!  Part of the problem is that things crop up that I want to do, and I can see how I can fit them in - but what suffers is "vegging" time - perhaps not very yuppy (link for the younger readers), but something that I believe is necessary.

I have wondered about following some advice given to me, in story form, by a wise old priest:

When a monk is hoeing the cauliflowers, and the bell for chapel goes with one cauliflower left, does he put down the hoe and go to chapel, or does he hoe the final cauliflower and run to chapel?

Of course the right answer is to put down the hoe.  And yet for years I have worked by doing things when I was in the mood for that task - I felt and still feel that it is better to do a particular task when I have the energy for it.  In my previous career I went home as a sort of putting down the hoe - but it was usually when the last cauliflower was hoed.  Now of course my work is always there, and there is a greater overlap between work and leisure - after all, I was doing this work voluntarily on top of my other job before becoming full time.

I think where I have reached is that I am paid not to work - so what I do is largely my own choice.  Given that, then I need some way of monitoring myself.  This post gave me some ideas, as although I don't find the issues raised there a particular issue I realised that there are times when I become brain dead, and there are times when I am tempted to cut back on family and friends - so the answer is to take time out when brain dead and to cut back when family and friends aren't getting enough time.

What is work? And how much should a Vicar do?

Talk to many clergy and you will hear comments like "what private life", or in the worst cases boasting of how many hours a week they work (the best example I heard of this was counting time in the gym, even though they didn't talk to anyone, because they might have done).  Our Diocesan Bishop, John Pritchard, wrote, in "The Life and Work of a Priest", that he thought that priests should work 50 hours a week - equating it to a "normal" job plus the time that a layperson would give voluntarily.

Having given a significant amount of time voluntarily as I trained whilst working full time, my reaction was that the time that I gave was different from work - the old saying "a change is as good as a rest" comes to mind.  To be fair he also suggests that we should look for a "6th day ministry" - doing something that energises us outside the parish, so perhaps the balance is restored.  However, another book ("If you meet George Herbert on the Road...") refers to the Bishop's book as "The Life and nervous break down of a priest".

During training we were offered two models for working - one was to divide the day into 3 and work 2 of them - the other to divide it into 5 and work 4 - we weren't told how long these should be, but I have figured that 2x4hours or 4x2hours are both 6x8 hour days = 48 hours - conveniently the European Working Time Directive restricts working to a 48 hour week which was also pointed out to us - although of course as Office Holders we are not subject to it.

So - having worked out how many hours - what is work!  That might seem a simple question, but many clergy I have spoken with have difficulty working this one out.  One curate of my acquaintance has even been heard to say "that's not work, I enjoy it".  And of course there is the whole question of being versus doing - we are priests all the time - whether in a full time or part time role, whether paid or unpaid.  So what do you think?  Are any or all of the following work?

• Private prayer
• Time vegging after a funeral
• Reading news, books, blogs
• Talking to friends about things which would be work if they were parishioners
• Networking with fellow clergy
• Watching films - I once got a sermon illustration from Home Alone 2, and Avatar had spiritual themes
• Writing books - not that I have pretensions, but plenty of clergy (particularly Bishops) are also authors

Perhaps the key is to remember Bishop Stephen reminding us that we are paid not to work!