Church of England Vicar Shortage

14567810»

Comments

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    What is this Society of which people speak?

    https://www.sswsh.com/

    Basically, the set of FiF parishes and priests.

    Yes, but by no means does it include all the members of the congregations of those parishes...

    IOW, people attend Society/FiF churches for many different reasons, and for a fair few (I know whereof I speak) the Dead Horse issue is not an issue IYSWIM.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    I sit in the group of people whose parishes, or former parishes, sit in there (to a greater or lesser extent) and it is an acknowledgement of a lot of things.
  • angloid wrote: »
    One of the aspects of orthodoxy that the C of E has traditionally highlighted is the doctrine of the Incarnation. Comments like that from ++Justin, 'we have to take Jesus out to the world' seem to me to deny the incarnation and the biblical truth that Jesus is already present in the world. And it's that thin theology that lies behind this naive enterprise.

    With apologies for going back a few pages, I wanted to fish out this quote, and say thank you for articulating something which I’ve had a vague hunch about but haven’t been able to quite find the words for.
    In addition, it’s recently struck me as rather arrogant to think we have Good News for people - if it’s the Good News the people wanting to spread it say it is. I have often felt in my own church that any suggestion of finding Jesus outside the church was frowned upon, and seen as pagan in some way.
    I think that possibly what outreach there is from FiF land might be more effective though than this thread's view of the CharEvo and other crowd. Thinking in particular of the combination of 'here we are if you want us' and ludicrous eccentricity while living amongst the people where they are - thinking bicycling priests in birettas on some of the tougher estates - which means *some* FiF churches and fellow travelling shacks look a bit less middle class, youthful, etc than *some* of the evangelical examples on this thread.

    The notion of “here we are if you want us” and ludicrous eccentricity (and yes, living amongst the people where they are) is such a wonderful idea, and a brilliant phrase, it has just made my day. This is absolutely what I aspire to. It also reminds me of Greenbelt, a little bit - though I know GB much less well than others here. It gives people outside the church some credit.
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited July 14
    Having said that, I can think of a 7 (!) parish benefice of my acquaintance where just such a situation exists. 6 don't care either way as long as it's the right person. One parish really does (though didn't ever pass the resolutions) and the rest bend to it to keep the peace (and because it has probably the biggest congregation in the benefice, though surprisingly perhaps, almost all locals rather than drive-ins).

    Oh the perils of not passing the resolutions. A friend of mine attends a church which would be FiF-sympathetic, but never passed the resolutions. They’ve just appointed a woman priest, the announcement of which led to audible gasps from the congregation, and a fair few people have now left the church.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It really screws with my brain that people think God is sexist and wants a sexist church. I really can't process it.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    It really screws with my brain that people think God is sexist and wants a sexist church. I really can't process it.

    Neither can I.
    I sit in the group of people whose parishes, or former parishes, sit in there (to a greater or lesser extent) and it is an acknowledgement of a lot of things.

    I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean @ThunderBunk - could you unpack a little?
    :wink:
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It really screws with my brain that people think God is sexist and wants a sexist church. I really can't process it.

    Well that's the issue, isn't it? Nobody thinks that they're sexist. What seems obviously sexist to you is just.....not to those holding those views. People don't think God is sexist and wants a sexist church, because they don't think of their theology in that way.
  • Bishop Rics involvement doesn't surprise me. Not a person who deals well with those who hold different views IMEto the point of arrogant self belief in the face of the facts. A very poor presentation of the CofE to Christians from other denominations who began as fellow travellers only to discover in Rics eyes we were very much the baggage train

    I am now very wary of any dealings with the CofE beyond one on one friendships. What the resource church movements demonstrates is the CofEs attitude towards other churches- money talks and they care zero about the rest of us.Hardly Kingdom or gospel
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    I think the church’s (of any denomination) recruitment issues are not helped by the unchurched’s major cultural reference points for religion being child abuse and the religious iconography of horror movies. And the church not really pushing back against this.

    In that, for all the church’s failings, most religious people are not child abusers.

    But for every series of Rev, there are about a thousand movies, books and tv serials where the key plot point is someone getting abused in childhood by an ostensibly religious person. Likewise a gajillion horror and fantasy products with demons and angels.

    The exact form of the church you’re not going to will not matter, if you have a default association to it of human or supernatural monsters.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 15
    Pomona wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It really screws with my brain that people think God is sexist and wants a sexist church. I really can't process it.

    Well that's the issue, isn't it? Nobody thinks that they're sexist. What seems obviously sexist to you is just.....not to those holding those views. People don't think God is sexist and wants a sexist church, because they don't think of their theology in that way.

    I know they don't, but that's part of what I can't get my head around. Sexism - treating women as lesser than men, sometimes glossed as having "different talents". FiF - women can't do priest things. But they can have complementary ministries.

    Would we believe for a moment a sect which claimed not to be racist but believed God only called white people to be priests, while non-whites could have "complementary ministries"?

    If it looks like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and is now on the serving dish with orange slices, green peas and roast potatoes...
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It really screws with my brain that people think God is sexist and wants a sexist church. I really can't process it.

    Well that's the issue, isn't it? Nobody thinks that they're sexist. What seems obviously sexist to you is just.....not to those holding those views. People don't think God is sexist and wants a sexist church, because they don't think of their theology in that way.

    I know they don't, but that's part of what I can't get my head around. Sexism - treating women as lesser than men, sometimes glossed as having "different talents". FiF - women can't do priest things. But they can have complementary ministries.

    Would we believe for a moment a sect which claimed not to be racist but believed God only called white people to be priests, while non-whites could have "complementary ministries"?

    If it looks like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and is now on the serving dish with orange slices, green peas and roast potatoes...

    This isn't even hypothetical - it's the Mormon view up until the 70s.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It really screws with my brain that people think God is sexist and wants a sexist church. I really can't process it.

    Well that's the issue, isn't it? Nobody thinks that they're sexist. What seems obviously sexist to you is just.....not to those holding those views. People don't think God is sexist and wants a sexist church, because they don't think of their theology in that way.

    I know they don't, but that's part of what I can't get my head around. Sexism - treating women as lesser than men, sometimes glossed as having "different talents". FiF - women can't do priest things. But they can have complementary ministries.

    Would we believe for a moment a sect which claimed not to be racist but believed God only called white people to be priests, while non-whites could have "complementary ministries"?

    If it looks like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and is now on the serving dish with orange slices, green peas and roast potatoes...

    I mean, I don't disagree with you, and I think this and other Dead Horse issues are by far the biggest barriers to church alongside the conduct of the church regarding abuse.

    I don't agree with Doublethink here, or at least think the cause and effect are mixed up - horror media (whether novels, movies, video games etc etc) simply reflects the anxieties of the current age, it isn't inventing new forms of horror that somehow cause the anxiety. Horror shows religious themes because it represents fears people already have. It's not really a surprise that you get horror films like The Nun and not horror films about Quaker meetings. It's something churches must acknowledge and take responsibility for. Similarly, while of course not every religious person is an abuser, religion has provided a lot of institutional cover for abuse. That causes trauma and often multi-generational trauma. 'Not all religious people' is not a helpful or compassionate line to take.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    My point about horror media is that nowadays the unchurched experience religious iconography in that context a lot. Not that it is new.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited July 15
    My point about horror media is that nowadays the unchurched experience religious iconography in that context a lot. Not that it is new.

    My impression (I don't watch horror much, but I have friends who are really into it and write on the subject) is that a lot of modern horror has moved away from religious iconography because it no longer constitutes a common language that the audience would understand.

    And FWIW I suspect that what most people think of when they think of the church is specifically the sexuality dead horse [*] and the various sex abuse scandals.

    [*] Because they've seen female vicars on TV and so on and assume that only really fundamentalist sects have male only leadership.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    My point about horror media is that nowadays the unchurched experience religious iconography in that context a lot. Not that it is new.

    My impression (I don't watch horror much, but I have friends who are really into it and write on the subject) is that a lot of modern horror has moved away from religious iconography because it no longer constitutes a common language that the audience would understand.

    And FWIW I suspect that what most people think of when they think of the church is specifically the sexuality dead horse [*] and the various sex abuse scandals.

    [*] Because they've seen female vicars on TV and so on and assume that only really fundamentalist sects have male only leadership.

    I agree, especially with the last bit - most people in the UK at least would be surprised to discover CofE churches with male only leadership, and even with Evangelicals that's a declining thing since charismatics tend to support female leadership, at least in husband and wife pastor teams. Pentecostalism has a long history of women leading and preaching so that's not generally a big issue outside of Newfrontiers and other 'reformed charismatics' (unsurprisingly, con-evo Anglicans do a lot with Newfrontiers).

    I don't know about horror moving away from religious iconography - The Nun was fairly recent? Also pagan religious iconography is fairly common, eg in Midsommar.
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »

    Would we believe for a moment a sect which claimed not to be racist but believed God only called white people to be priests, while non-whites could have "complementary ministries"?

    If it looks like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and is now on the serving dish with orange slices, green peas and roast potatoes...

    White people only? No I'd assume they were racist.

    If Greek Orthodox said you had to be a Greek citizen or descended from a Greek? I could buy that they weren't racist even though it'd mainly be white people.

    I definitely wouldn't think it racist if a Syrian or Ethiopian Orthodox church group made a similar rule for priests.

    A Jewish group that said you had to be descended from a family claiming to be from Levi to be a priest? Wouldn't think that was racist either.

    Nor if a an Islamic sect said that only descendants of the Prophet could be Imams.

    It's easy not to view something as sexist if thats what you've been raised with and there is a whole theology and culture to explain it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Aye, but "not to view" is the point here. It still has feathers and a bill.

    You know, if I had a map, and I tried to follow it to the top of a mountain, and found myself in the middle of a valley bog instead, I wouldn't stand around insisting it is the top of the mountain because the map said it was. Similarly, if the conclusion of my theology is institutional God-mandated sexism, I'd be asking whether I'd followed the theology to the right place.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 16
    Back to the "why are the Evangelicals the ones doing better than everyone else?" question, at the moment the thread on here adjacent to this one is arguing about the minutiae of plainchant and Anglican chant, and chanting in Latin, the vernacular, or A. N. Other language.

    You know one thing that people aren't leaving the church over? How well English words fit to Gregorian Chant.

    I've avoided posting in Eccles quite often because I find myself annoying everyone by making references to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but, dammit, that's what the church does. Over and over again. Put them over here, everyone will start coming! Oh, right, put them over there instead! Still losing people? What now? I know! Build a raised deck there and put them on top of it. No. There where there's shade. No, people like to sit in the sun... no, that's not the problem at all! They're the wrong colour! Get the blue striped ones out of the store! No-one wants a red striped deckchair these days!

    It couldn't be less relevant to the 95% of us who go to churches where no-one would know an Anglican Chant from a particularly dull hymn from the bit of A&M that no-one ever uses, much less care.
  • I think 95% is a huge over-estimation, although I accept that very few Evangelical churches (I'm being generous here) use Gregorian chant! Not so sure about traditional hymns: I think they still exist in many places, albeit often mixed with worship songs and Gospel music (and, quite possibly, played by a band rather than an organ).
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Oh, traditional hymns exist in most places; my point was that most people wouldn't have or want a clue about different types of chant. I've only ever been to one parish church that chants Psalms, for example. Everywhere else either looks for a hymn version of the psalm or more usually just says it. Or doesn't do the psalm at all.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited July 16
    [quote="Bishops Finger;c-436538"
    I sit in the group of people whose parishes, or former parishes, sit in there (to a greater or lesser extent) and it is an acknowledgement of a lot of things.

    I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean @ThunderBunk - could you unpack a little?
    :wink: [/quote]

    It's an allusion to the pomposity of plucking two saints out of the English kalendar to dignify a society that is there to justify rampant misogyny and to try and paint itself as the only valid expression of the catholic tradition in the Church of England. FiF stopped working in terms of its constitution/mechanisms when women started to be consecrated to the episcopacy so a more elaborate structure was required. The Ordinariate should have killed the Society, but it didn't, for various reasons which could be debated if you like.

    As for why liberal Catholics are not bouncing around supporting initiatives and outcompeting Evangelicals, for my part at least, I feel moved to quote a psalm. "How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" Since the Church of England set off on its evangelical path in the mid-90s, we haave found the church,with its tendency to self-obsession and the pursuit of certainty above truth, a fundamentally hostile place to be. It is an utterly demoralising place to be, outside individual congregations, and those individuaal congregations feel isolated and beleagured. It's a chicken-and-egg situation, I know, but the success of Evangelicals is built in large part on the Church hierarchy's decision to turn against the kind of eucharistic experiments which were going on in the early 90s because of a single horrific experience, and turn instead to the nice rule-following, rule-obsessive Evangelical path. The fact that the latter has little to do with Christianity being apparently irrelevant.

    The existence of FiF and the general tendency to head to the extreme version of one's position in the face of perceived threat is the other element in this, as is the exodus of priests to Rome following the ordination of women. The total crisis of faith in itself of liberal catholicism is thing with many causes.

    ETA could a kind host fix the code? I can't immediately see the problem, but the quotes ain't working.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Missing closing bracket here: [quote="Bishops Finger;c-436538"
  • I understood the post clearly enough @ThunderBunk, so thanks for the explanation!

    FWIW, I agree...
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    It's a chicken-and-egg situation, I know, but the success of Evangelicals is built in large part on the Church hierarchy's decision to turn against the kind of eucharistic experiments which were going on in the early 90s because of a single horrific experience

    I presume this is a NOS reference, but in any case could you expand a bit?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited July 16
    It's a chicken-and-egg situation, I know, but the success of Evangelicals is built in large part on the Church hierarchy's decision to turn against the kind of eucharistic experiments which were going on in the early 90s because of a single horrific experience.

    I presume this is a NOS reference, but in any case could you expand a bit?
    I've been CofE all my life and have no idea what either of you are talking about. What eucharistic experiments? What 'horrific experience'? What does NOS stand for please?

    The only 'horrific experience' I can think of off hand that the rest of us might have heard of from that sort of era was in Sheffield, but that was more about abuse at the extreme end of all the things you don't like about evangelicals and charismatics, and I don't think had much to do with eucharistic experiments.


    I'd have thought 10,000 lay led, unsupervised and unaccountable freelance congregations would give all too much scope for those minded to go down that road.

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    It's a chicken-and-egg situation, I know, but the success of Evangelicals is built in large part on the Church hierarchy's decision to turn against the kind of eucharistic experiments which were going on in the early 90s because of a single horrific experience.

    I presume this is a NOS reference, but in any case could you expand a bit?
    I've been CofE all my life and have no idea what either of you are talking about. What eucharistic experiments? What 'horrific experience'? What does NOS stand for please?

    NOS = Nine O'Clock Service. Like you I wasn't sure what @Thunderbunk was referring to and could only think of one 'horrific experiment' from that era (and afaict it wasn't particularly about experimenting with the Eucharist).
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited July 16
    To back up what @Doublethink is saying about reactions to going into church buildings, various things have been offered in the local church, for example, the local Food Bank and a Credit Union, both of which are still going and both been moved to other buildings as so many people were reluctant to enter the church to use the services.

    One regular fundraising effort for the church is a book stall on Monday mornings, alongside the market and the pre-Covid19 coffee offered in the church, and the gentleman who runs that stall chooses to set up outside in the building if he can as he gets double or triple the takings. If it's raining he runs the stall inside.

    There's a huge reluctance for many people to step inside a church building.
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    It's a chicken-and-egg situation, I know, but the success of Evangelicals is built in large part on the Church hierarchy's decision to turn against the kind of eucharistic experiments which were going on in the early 90s because of a single horrific experience.

    I presume this is a NOS reference, but in any case could you expand a bit?
    I've been CofE all my life and have no idea what either of you are talking about. What eucharistic experiments? What 'horrific experience'? What does NOS stand for please?

    NOS = Nine O'Clock Service. Like you I wasn't sure what @Thunderbunk was referring to and could only think of one 'horrific experiment' from that era (and afaict it wasn't particularly about experimenting with the Eucharist).

    Speaking of which the Times appears to have had the story that former members are considering legal action against the church. It's behind a paywall, so here's the mail (sorry!) link.

    They seem to be the only other one covering it and appear just to nick all the Times copy and put it in a different order: https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9790459/Church-braces-claims-victims-Nine-OClock-Service-collapsed-sex-scandal.html
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Oh, traditional hymns exist in most places; my point was that most people wouldn't have or want a clue about different types of chant. I've only ever been to one parish church that chants Psalms, for example. Everywhere else either looks for a hymn version of the psalm or more usually just says it. Or doesn't do the psalm at all.

    We chant psalms - or at least, we did, when we were allowed to sing. I don't think I've ever chanted psalms in the UK, but I've been to a couple of places where they've been chanted by a cantor, and the congregation has sung a response.

    It's chanting psalms and singing the Gloria that I miss most at the moment - far more than I miss singing hymns. As I mentioned in another thread, we're likely to be in the market for a new priest in the next year or so - I'm hoping we're lucky enough to get one who likes to sing.
  • I can't speak for anywhere else but chanting the Psalms is rare round here. I only know a few Anglican parishes that still did it pre-pandemic.

    A well respected retired RC priest who lived near me and who died a few years ago, used to bob into one of the Anglican parishes to hear the Psalms chanted.

    On the adjacent thread where folk are discussing the niceties of plainchant and polyphony, I take KarlLB's point but I've always seen Ecclesiantics as the haunt of the liturgy geeks and tat-sters rather than the Billy Graham's of this world.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    At my church we will be chanting Psalms and canticles when Evensong resumes a week on Sunday.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    It's chanting psalms and singing the Gloria that I miss most at the moment - far more than I miss singing hymns. As I mentioned in another thread, we're likely to be in the market for a new priest in the next year or so - I'm hoping we're lucky enough to get one who likes to sing.

    Totally agree with that.
  • We (C of E) are allowed to sing again, after 19th July, so I guess the first Parish Mass involved will be that on 25th July. The hymns are:

    Introit *All my hope on God is founded*
    Offertory *Just as I am, without one plea*
    Communion *Let all mortal flesh keep silence*
    Post-communion *Forth in thy name O Lord I go* (C Wesley/Orlando Gibbons)

    :grin:

    Our only BCP service with Psalms/Canticles is said Mattins on Sundays, though I think Father and Madam Sacristan sing the Office Hymn.
  • Why on earth sing about "Keeping silence" at the very moment when it's no longer necessary to do so??? Or is FatherInCharge having a bit of a joke?

    We're having "Forth in thy name O Lord I go" tomorrow - sung but masked.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited 10:23AM
    Why on earth sing about "Keeping silence" at the very moment when it's no longer necessary to do so??? Or is FatherInCharge having a bit of a joke?

    We're having "Forth in thy name O Lord I go" tomorrow - sung but masked.

    I suspect that hymn may indeed have been chosen with tongue in cheek...FinC does have a rather impish sense of humour...
  • Good for him! Presumably there will be special emphasis on the Preces:

    O Lord, open thou our lips:
    And our mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
  • Good for him! Presumably there will be special emphasis on the Preces:

    O Lord, open thou our lips:
    And our mouth shall shew forth thy praise.

    Not at the Mass, but certainly at Mattins beforehand...
    :wink:
  • Oops - we seem to have strayed from the subject of Vicar Shortage.

    Speaking of which, I shall be interested to see what our two neighbouring MOTR churches are doing post-Freedom Day. They share a priest-in-charge, but she is unfortunately on extended sick leave. A young curate from elsewhere in the Diocese, who is currently searching for a parish of his own, is looking after the 930am Sunday Eucharist at Church A, and I assume that Church B is finding retired clergy to preside at their 11am Eucharist.

    Fortunately, both churches have active (if rather elderly) laity to keep things going...all three Readers at Church A are well over 70, although they do have a slightly younger Licensed Lay Minister (he did enhanced training). Church B has no licensed lay ministers of any breed, but relies wholly on a very feisty congregation whose members' average age must be 80-ish.

    One wonders how long they can continue - Church B is a huge Victorian barn, which would be ideal for conversion into flats to accommodate staff at the nearby hospital... :naughty:
  • Oops - we seem to have strayed from the subject of Vicar Shortage.

    Speaking of which, I shall be interested to see what our two neighbouring MOTR churches are doing post-Freedom Day. They share a priest-in-charge, but she is unfortunately on extended sick leave. A young curate from elsewhere in the Diocese, who is currently searching for a parish of his own, is looking after the 930am Sunday Eucharist at Church A, and I assume that Church B is finding retired clergy to preside at their 11am Eucharist.

    Fortunately, both churches have active (if rather elderly) laity to keep things going...all three Readers at Church A are well over 70, although they do have a slightly younger Licensed Lay Minister (he did enhanced training). Church B has no licensed lay ministers of any breed, but relies wholly on a very feisty congregation whose members' average age must be 80-ish.

    One wonders how long they can continue - Church B is a huge Victorian barn, which would be ideal for conversion into flats to accommodate staff at the nearby hospital... :naughty:

    From the sound of it, only after the last of the congregation are carried out of said august institution.
  • Oops - we seem to have strayed from the subject of Vicar Shortage.

    Speaking of which, I shall be interested to see what our two neighbouring MOTR churches are doing post-Freedom Day. They share a priest-in-charge, but she is unfortunately on extended sick leave. A young curate from elsewhere in the Diocese, who is currently searching for a parish of his own, is looking after the 930am Sunday Eucharist at Church A, and I assume that Church B is finding retired clergy to preside at their 11am Eucharist.

    Fortunately, both churches have active (if rather elderly) laity to keep things going...all three Readers at Church A are well over 70, although they do have a slightly younger Licensed Lay Minister (he did enhanced training). Church B has no licensed lay ministers of any breed, but relies wholly on a very feisty congregation whose members' average age must be 80-ish.

    One wonders how long they can continue - Church B is a huge Victorian barn, which would be ideal for conversion into flats to accommodate staff at the nearby hospital... :naughty:

    From the sound of it, only after the last of the congregation are carried out of said august institution.

    One would think so - but the odd thing is that Church B (pre-Plague) was actually increasing in numbers - albeit all elderly people!

    They had a weekly *Tea and Coffee* hour, on a Wednesday afternoon, which somehow hit the spot, and brought in people who otherwise were (latterly, at least) unconnected with church. Without any overt proselytising, some of the Wednesday folk became regular attenders on Sundays, with 6 or 7 of them being confirmed a few years ago...
Sign In or Register to comment.