About Me

My photo
Partner at Tulchan Group. Priest in Church of England. Bad dancer

Sunday 3 April 2011

I Want You To Want Me.......

Ordinangst is in a bit of a stew about this latest survey of NSMs published in this week’s Church Times.  Here's an article on it if you haven't seen it.  Ordinangst is training to be an NSM and he is very sad to hear that they are treated like second class citizens by some ordained clergy who are paid. Ordinangst is aware that it takes the Church ages to get its mind round any sort of change, so it isn’t surprising to him that there are residual pockets of resistance to the whole idea of non-stipendary ministers but he is sad that the Church might not welcome him with open arms once he has slogged his way through training.

Ordinangst has done some thinking about why he is so hot under the collar about this. Here are his reasons:
  • He quite clearly and powerfully was called to become a vicar. This was quite a shock to him (he is still trying to get his mind round it and Mrs Ordinangst is still bouncing off the walls.) The Ordinangsts are just relying on the fact that if God called us so clearly, then there must be a plan at the end of it. It appears from the survey that lots of NSMs end up doing no more ministry than they did prior to training and ordination. Ordinangst reckons he will be quite cross and frustrated if this turns out to be the case for him.
  • He passed his BAP. In fact the Panel decided to pass him for NSM or full time ministry. This means that the Church agrees that he has been called and recognises that he has the necessary attributes to be either a full time or NSM minister.
  • He is now in training, alongside a number of other Ordinands who are going down the full-time route. He has to do the same number of essays as them, and they are blind marked so he gets no preferential treatment. He will (God willing) graduate with the same degree as his fellow full-timers. Without wishing to sound big-headed unlike many of his fellow students, he is lucky enough to have a Masters degree already so his academic qualifications aren’t too shabby.
  • Ordinangst is a little bit older than some of his fellow students, but he does have the advantage of having had a career in the outside world which he believes gives him lots of skills that might be useful to his ministry. He has also done lots and lots of things within Church contexts over the years that means he is quite experienced pastorally. Ordinangst has seen a bit of life in other words.
  • And he still has a day job. He and Mrs Ordinangst are working very hard to juggle the demands of this with studying and parenting four children. Mrs Ordinangst actually thinks that he should have gone into full-time training because it would have given him more chance to see the Ordinangst-ettes.
  • Sacramentally speaking – if Ordinangst is going to be ordained a priest, surely that is what he is going to become – not an NSM priest but a priest. With all the bells and whistles.
The Ordinangsts do so hope that this is all going to be worth it in the end and that the Church isn’t going to see his ordination as a “lite” version of the real thing. That would be incredibly depressing.

7 comments:

  1. A priest is a priest is a priest, full stop. But ontology is not the whole story.

    I think when funds are tight and people who trained for full-time ministry are having trouble finding appropriate posts, it's very easy to get upset about posts being changed from full-time to 0.7 to 0.5 of full time, and self-supporting ministers being expected to make up the shortfall in labour. I think it can also be problematic when people observe self-supporting ministers do a full-time job alongside ministry and then wonder why any stipendiary clergy should be paid at all! In situations where there is already a deeply unrealistic view of how clergy spend their time, it's hard to answer these questions quickly and simply.

    All the stipendiary clergy I know work incredibly hard and there is no way any of the full-time ones would have the time or energy to keep up another job, even part time, on top of their existing duties. I do know some who are in supposedly 0.5 positions who gave up other (part-time) work because they could not do that and also meet the needs of the parish.

    It seems to me that a healthy mixture of stipendiary and self-supporting clergy is the way forward, but it will take time to work out what that mixture is and which roles are better served by one or another. I'm sorry, but it's unfair to expect people who work 40+ hours a week at a "day job" to be viewed in exactly the same way as those free to shape much more of their schedule around the demands of ministry. That isn't about ontology, it's about availability. In a large parish with lots of funerals, there will need to be at least one minister who doesn't have such restrictions on their time. That means either stipendiary clergy, or someone who has the privilege (and it is a privilege) of not needing to work a day job. As an organist working for what can only be termed an honorarium I'm acutely aware of the goodwill of my partner in supporting me, and of how much more I could do if I did not need to also take other work. I'm also grateful to be in a small parish where mid-week demands on my time are extremely flexible, so that I can continue with other work. Thankfully ontology doesn't come into it!

    Many of the more recently ordained stipendiary clergy I know trained part-time while working demanding full-time jobs. I see the "part-time" training options as being more akin to "full time but with fewer contact hours" and in most areas would consider them equivalent (I suspect that those training full-time have got a better chance with things like ancient languages).

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be honest, I find the distinction that is drawn between the ordained and the laity very difficult to understand, especially since (as far as I am aware) the only thing that an ordained person can do which the laity cannot is at certain parts of the Lords Supper. Am I right in that, or are baptisms and CofE weddings only permitted to be done by ordained ministers?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't think for one minute that a priest in the workplace is any less important a role ... or less valuable.

    To be in that role is to fulfil all the calling of the diaconate ... to which every priest is also called - and in which role they all their life will remain ...

    Working as an NSM I also work in a large secondary school that is extremely secular - but the role I fulfil there is also intensely that of a priest and deacon.... as well as the role I have in parish. It is the interface between church and community ... and is a growing place for both me and my colleagues. And in fact - in the school there are probably about 800 people for whom this is their only contact with the church at all...

    Very few of my full time colleagues would have the energy or the knowledge to engage with this community in this way - or indeed be allowed to do so because of the social and hierarchical structure of the daily routine.

    I share some of your concerns .... but would add that my total working week is often about 70 hours or so ... during term time, with around 25 hours of that spent in parish,...

    Hang in there ... I don't remember Christ winning any status prizes or major labels.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think this is a real issue in the Church of England today, and one which I think hasn't been tackled sufficiently.

    A stipend is simply there to stop a full time clergyperson from having to work. The house is provided for the betterment of his/her duties.  Originally an NSM was simply a priest with prIvate means, who did not need a stipend, and could be more flexible with working patterns and type of ministry.  There are still a number of NSMs out there who fulfil this role due to early retirement etc. They are often full time, I know one NSM who was a house for duty priest in charge for two parishes for a number of years.  

    In this context, part time/full time rarely comes into it. That is as far as I can tell a separate issue-I know stipendiary clergy who are part time, or half time, or NSMs who become stipendiary and then become NSM again depending on what they feel called to do.  One day I may stop taking a stipend for whatever reason, and become an NSM. (currently stipendiary).

    The real issue that I come across amongst stipendiary clergy is the training-here it is once again not about Nsm vs stipendiary, but part time course vs full time college training, which just so happens to be largely drawn along SSM/stipendiary battle lines. Why is this? Partly because those who need to stay in employment need to stay where they are and work full time. Partly because OLMs are meant to stay within their parish. And partly because the dioceses are more willing to pay more for the training of those who are going to fill the incumbency vacancies that they are less likely to fill with NSMs.  This is the main problem as far as I can see. Cash strapped dioceses which say that a priest is a priest is a priest, but who then prioritise funding to the priests who are actually going to be vicars. This is short sighted and deeply uncatholic in my view. 

    Whether or not full time college training is better than part time courses is not for me to say (my college course was incredibly "lite" compared to other options), but the perception is that it is far far better, both for formation and education. So college educated NSMs are seen as golddust by stipendiary clergy, and stipendiary clergy who trained on a course tend to feel inferior.  The solution-make the part time courses more rigourous, ensure that labels such as NSM, OLM or SSM are connected to particular posts and not priests, and never bring them into discussions about training.

    And have no fear Ordinangst, you are and will be gold dust, whether you take a stipend or not. Most of us need to battle against stereotyping and unhelpful attitudes in all walks of church life-some of us are too young, too female, not clever enough, not loud enough, have too many children, not liberal enough.  This is just the one you have to deal with

    ReplyDelete
  5. wow this has really made me think! I have just been through BAP and recommended for training which is an immense privilege and affirmation of what i believe God is calling me to do. Like Ordinangst I will be training part time in order to accommodate my full time job and family commitments. Full time residential training is not an option with 3 teenagers and a husband who works away for part of the week. At the end of 3 years I hope circumstances may have changed but I know SSM may still be my only option -I shall be watching this space very carefully to see the debate progresses!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks so much for all your comments! 343a3930-609a-11e0-8b7b-000bcdcb8a73 (snappy name -might need to work on that!) it is so exciting that you have been called too and well done for getting through the BAP. I am deliberately not trying to anticipate what God's plan is - just happy to relax and know that there is a plan out there somewhere. Where are you training?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am currently in the discernment process for SSM, the only choice available given my maturity (retired) and location.

    I am also concerned about the NSM Study, as it seems to reflect an incomplete idea that the Church holds of what NSM is and should be doing. All I hear is you need to be deployable, and I have not even been to Diocesan Panel, yet alone BAP. This is the great cry, when in reality, your location will dictate both your Curacy and subsequent post.

    My intention is to move closer to my home Parish if I am selected when my spouse retires in a year or so, but any ministry deployment might well impact that decision.

    Uncertainty is the rule and being kept on the hook is the other one. But despite everything, I am still there, not second guessing anything, just hoping that the Church gets it right.

    ReplyDelete