Mike's musings

A problematic ontology of ministry: employment - and gender

I recently asked couple of questions on Twitter and Facebook:

• What is it to be clergy in non-church employ?
• Is our ministry ontologically different?

These are questions I've been interested in for a while, for obvious reasons: I'm what the Church of England calls a "Self-Supporting Minister" (and used to call a "Non-Stipendiary Minister"). In other words, I'm not employed by the church, but make my living elsewhere, giving time and ministry to the church. There are probably as many models for this as there are SSMs: some have a ministry firmly rooted within their secular employ; some work part-time and give lots of time to the church; some give what time they can, exercising some ministry within their secular job, some ministry within a typical church context, and some ministry in other contexts (this blog and various other online activities being examples from my life). But we all have in common that we neither receive a stipend from the church nor does it employ us full-time.

Before we go into any detail, I'd note that I've done little or no reading in this area, and that this brief essay is the result only of some thinking and discussions I've had. If you have some thoughts about further reading, I'd be interested to hear them.

How "part-timers" are seen

Yesterday we had a CME (Continuing Ministerial Education) seminar, just with some of the SSM curates in the diocese, and we had some interesting stories. We considered three constituencies: congregations, clergy and diocese. Some members of our congregation "get" it - some, indeed, welcome it, but the main questions (of a negative nature, at least) that arose within the congregational context seemed to relate to the amount of time that a non-full-time member of clergy can give to the church. From the stories we shared, there seemed to be little questioning of the legitimacy of the idea of self-supporting clergy. Indeed, some congregations seem to welcome the shared perspective which they may feel that "working" member of clergy can deliver in preaching and pastoral situations.

Although most of the interactions that we had experienced from clergy colleagues were positive, there were reports that some clergy colleagues see us as not committing ourselves to ministry to the extent that they do. Resentments that self-supporting clergy "cherry-pick" the best services and jobs within a team were backed up with one report of a member of clergy saying that "you lot haven't had to give up on a career like we have". Still, however, there seemed to be little suggestion over the legitimacy of self-supporting ministry, though suggestions of lack of commitment suggest lingering questions around a life which is defined by ministry.

In many ways, we, as group, didn't feel convinced that the diocese really knows how to deal with us in all contexts. The stories around how deanery and diocesan synods, chapter meetings, training events and the rest are routinely scheduled with little or no thought for those who work full or even part-time were greeted with resignation and recognition by all. Despite the growing reliance by all Church of England dioceses, self-supporting ministers don't seem to feature highly in the thoughts of many of them. This is, surely, partly because the needs and offerings of SSMs are - in some ways, at least - more diverse than those of the "typical" parish priest or curate.

None of this is new: my father has been an NSM for around 40 years, and I've heard similar stories from him over the years.What is it to be clergy in non-church employ? Is our ministry ontologically different? A word about that word: "ontologically". I'm using sense 2 of dictionary.com's definition of ontologically: Of or relating to essence or the nature of being. In other words, what I mean by the question "is our ministry ontologically different?" is "is there something about the nature of our ministry (that of clergy not employed by the church) that is different to that of those who are in the full-time employ of the church that exists because of that difference?"

A couple of clarifications here:

1. there's a big (and fascinating) question that's not unrelated about the nature of the ministry of those who are not ordained. I'm going to duck this question because I don't want to be diverted from this question, and not because I don't think it's important. Maybe another time.
2. although I've not been entirely clear above, what I'm really talking about is those who not "full-time" clergy: they have other responsibilities and activities which take up much of their time.

The Church of England has been part-addressing this question for over 40 years now, with NSMs and, more recently, the renamed SSMs. The view is that our ministry is equally valid as those who work full-time for the church. This doesn't mean that it's always easy to get this right, nor for everyone (lay or ordained) to appreciate it all the time, but that's the official story.

I think there's a problem with it, however - not with the answer, which I believe to be right - but in the theology that supports it. First let me note that I very much like the theory of ministry presented by Steven Croft in Ministry in Three Dimensions: A Theological Foundation for Local Church Leadership. The fundamental basis for his argument is that all ordained ministry is based on three qualities: diakonos (loosely: service), presbyteros (loosely: leadership) and episkope (loosely: oversight). That these three qualities provide the basis for the three generally accepted ordained orders (deacon, priest (or presbyters) and bishops (episcopals)) is no surprise, and acts as the starting point for his argument. But he is keen to point out that members of each order must possess each of the three qualities, though the amount to which they will be required will vary from person to person, from role to role, and from situation to situation - and through time. I don't think that this is particularly contentious theology, and I've certainly found it very helpful in my journey through discernment, to ordination, through my deacon's year, and in preparing for my ordination to the priesthood in June, God willing.

Being a bishop

But it raises a question: a big one, I think. "Is there something ontologically incompatible about being a bishop, and not full-time clergy?" Admittedly, as the role of bishop is currently figured, there is a great deal of time required for administration, visiting, etc. - and that's part of the oversight. But is that what oversight _needs_ to be about? And surely we should be figuring the bishop's role from first principles, rather than making the role fit what the job has become over the centuries? Why does this matter? Well, it doesn't matter to me - certainly at the moment! - in terms of preferment: I'm not even a priest yet, and thoughts of bishoprics are rather far off, and would be even if I were full-time. There are questions about how easy it is to become a bishop if one has not been a full-time priest, though: how can one "serve one's time" and move up the greasy pole? Well, _why_ should that be required? There are enough examples of brilliant bishops - and archbishops - who moved very quickly into their posts, without all the kerfuffle of parish incumbencies, becoming an archdeacon, a canon, a dean, etc.. And why do the diakonos, presbyteros and episkope exercised by those not in the church full-time not "count" towards the criteria required to become a bishop? Well, they're beginning to, I hope.

But there's something deeper going on here: something more ontological. If the church is not ready to accept that someone who is not full-time can enter the order whose defining characteristic is episkope - oversight - and become a bishop, then that casts grave doubts over the legitimacy of the episkope that is exercised by all those in the _other_ orders who are, likewise, not full-time. How can we figure a legitimate, and fully accepted diaconate and priesthood? To be clear, what I'm saying is that it is difficult to base an ontological understanding of the theology of the orders of the diaconate and the priesthood if there is no corresponding ontological understanding for the episcopal order.

Gender

So far, this entry - or essay - has been about the issue of employment, but the more I thought about the issues being discussed, the more I realised that we can't ignore the issue of gender. In the Church of England, we have not only no self-supporting ministers who are bishops - that is, no self-supporting bishops - but we also have no women ministers who are bishops: we have no woman bishops. Now, many self-supporting ministers - including me - maintain the option to move to full-time ministry. Although the nature of our role as ministers seems somewhat compromised by what comes down to our employment status - if you accept the argument presented above - we have the option to change that.

The same does not follow for women: the nature of the ontological problematic for them is more fundamental. For there is a corresponding problem about the legitimacy of woman deacons and woman priests if there are no woman bishops: the correspondence seems very close. Some members of the Church of England will accept that women can be priests and deacons, but cannot exercise "headship" (for which we can probably fairly safely substitute our word "episkope"), and therefore cannot become bishops. Others will not accept women and priests, but will accept them as deacons, whereas some will not accept them in any of the ordained orders. Given the argument above, I would argue that only the last set holds a consistent position, but a good deal of the work being done with regard to finding a settlement around the issue of woman bishops in the Church of England seems to centre around the group that will accept deacons and priests, but not bishops.

My view - and it's a strong one - is that the ministry of women is entirely legitimate, and I have no problems whatsoever with the ontological basis for it. More important, I don't believe that the lack of any woman bishops impacts on that legitimacy. However, the lack of the capability for there to be a woman bishop _does_ impact on the continued legitimacy of the ministry of women in the Church of England. Until we, as a church, can overcome this problem, ontological problems will remain, and will continue to allow doubts to remain about legitimacy.

A brief conclusion

I have no conclusion to offer, really, beyond to ask for more theological discussion around the ontology of ministry. We've avoided the question of non-ordained ministry, but even with a restricted scope, have identified what I believe to be two major - and growing - issues for ministry within the Church of England and the Anglican church as a whole. Part of the question, of course, revolves whether we accept in detail Croft's view of ministry in 3 dimensions, but whether we do or not, in the Anglican church we consider that there is a coherence between the 3 orders of ministry. This, then, casts concerns over how legitimate the church considers the ministry of self-supporting and woman ministers to be. I would stress that it does not matter whether this consideration is explicit or not: what matters is if the theology around which the ontology of ministry is based is coherent, and whether it introduces concerns over legitimacy.

Labels: church, ministry, theology, women

Psalm 55:12-14

I hope that this quote wasn't aimed at me personally, though maybe it was:

 12 If an enemy were insulting me,
       I could endure it;
       if a foe were raising himself against me,
       I could hide from him.

 13 But it is you, a man like myself,
       my companion, my close friend,

 14 with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship
       as we walked with the throng at the house of God.

It came at the end of a comment by Simon on my entry for Tuesday. I'm also not sure whether the phrase "A very clever - if utterly dishonest - piece of spin" was aimed at me personally, though maybe that was, too.

I wasn't intending to spin. I've not caught much of the coverage. The quote I used was the first relevant one from Rowan that I could find. And maybe my post came over as too triumphalist.

But what I'm really feeling, deepest down, is joy. I truly believe that woman's ministry - women's full ministry, as lay people, deacons, priests, bishops and, yes, archbishops - is equal to that of men's in the eyes of the Holy Spirit. And I mourn for those who feel betrayed, and shut out, and for friends, in particular, who feel that way. But those who feel that they have been institutionally excluded, and their ministry belittled, and ignored, and spat upon, have a right to feel joy. And I hope that none of that joy is the perverted joy of seeing ones opponents downtrodden, because that's not what Christ taught us. I certainly don't feel that way.

I say again - I've not caught much of this. I wasn't there. I can't talk about people baying for blood. But I do know a number of people - more men than women - who have worked for this for years, because they believe so strongly, and theologically, that it is the right thing.

Simon - and all those who feel that we, and I personally, have played the part of Judas (as that section from Psalm 55 is often read) - I pray that we can find a way to walk together. Please remember what we have shared together. And I ask your forgiveness.

Amen.

Labels: forgiveness, friends, sin, women

Showing the Methodists how it's done

I have some extremely good friends who are Methodists (particularly Sally and Sarah), and it occurred to me last night that we've really shown them how it's done, now that the Church of England has approved women bishops. Think about it: the Methodists don't even have _male_ bishops, let alone female ones, so they're well behind in the equality stakes.

Go Anglicanism...

Labels: church, ecumenism, women

Women bishops: yay! Maybe another 13 years of marriage, too

Rowan Williams said: "I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate." The General Synod voted "for". This means that we're going to have women bishops in the Church of England. And no "super-bishops", as the BBC puts it. A Code of Practice for people who won't accept this.

Given Moo's views on this, this means that there's a decent chance that we'll manage another 13 years of marriage: we were married in King's College Chapel on the 8th July 1995. She's pleased, as am I. Oh - I meant about women bishops, though I think we're both pleased about 13 years of marriage.

This particular entry isn't going very well, but that's mainly because we're watching Series 1 of Peep Show, which I got Moo as a present. And I've been laughing too much.

Labels: church, humour, marriage, Moo, women

Frustration

A frustrating day. My old laptop just won't cut the mustard for the testing I need to do, I discovered around noon. So I went to PC World in Colchester to price up a new machine. Got that done by around 1330. Sent off emails asking for approval to buy it. Did some phoning, come 1420. People out of the office, on holiday, etc.. In the end, got the machine approved, bought it, installed it, etc.. Nice piece of kit. Pity that the license key I have for the software I need to install doesn't seem to work on 64bit systems. Aaaaaaaaaaargh. Trying to sort this now.

The other frustration's of a very different kind, and revolves round really not knowing how the very important vote on women bishops is going in the General Synod. There are various blogs, but I'm having problems working out exactly what amendments are good or bad, and where they're going. The main question seems to be about whether there will be legal provision to help those who aren't in agreement: in other words, enshrining discriminatory practice in law. It seems that the bishops and clergy (who make up two sets of constituents) are more progressive, on the whole, than the laity (who make up the 3rd set). We'll see. And pray, of course.

Labels: computers, women, work

Gays, women and evolution

Drove into Cambridge today to buy a book about Windows 2003. Very big, very heavy book. Looks useful, though. Lots of work in the afternoon on Windows stuff and Xen, which I've decided to try out.

During the day, had a discussion on a mailing list I'm part of (hi, guys) about the Church. Why does everyone believe that the Church is backward-looking, reactionary and bigoted? That seems to be the set of messages that everyone picks up. So, questions ranged from whether women should be priests, to my views on homosexuality (I'm for it ;-)), to the virgin birth, to whether I believe in evolution (well, of course I do - d'oh!). It's good to have the opportunity to talk about this stuff with people, and I firmly believe that it's an important part of my calling. When I first felt the vocation, part of it was the question "if you were you, but not part of this Church, would you want to be part of it?" The obvious answer is, "no". And the obvious second part of that is, "well, go and do something about it then." That's what I'm trying to do.

Labels: church, friends, geekery, homosexuality, women

Something from Moo

For Moo, much of the woman debate is about preservation of male power and hierarchy (don't forget that "hierarchy" is government by priests...). And I don't disagree. She read this after a long discussion over supper, and so I thought I'd post it: Face to faith from last Saturday, by Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah. It's worth a read:

"Is Anglicanism a form of progressive Christianity - and if so, what are its progressive credentials?"

Labels: christianity, Moo, women

Daddy's squidgy ordination cake

Moo insisted that I take this picture and show it on my blog, simply because it looks like a cowpat. Things went wrong (separately) with not only the sponge, but also the icing. It tastes lovely, and meant that I had some fun Daddy-Jojo time, but it really looks pretty darn awful.

Things are taking off with SecondLife: more information to come, because nothing's official, but please keep an eye out.

Moo and I both took the day off today, which was lovely. We spent most of the morning together while Jo was at school and Mel looked after Miri, and after lunch at a pub we sent Mel home (with a bottle of wine which she probably _shouldn't_ have finished on her own this afternoon) to spend time together with the girls. It was a real holiday, and what we all needed, I think.

Although I get pretty upset at some of the Gafcon and anti-women bishops stuff, this is nothing compared to how riled Moo gets about it, so I've taken the step of inviting her to write piece for this blog. I'm not sure if she will, but I'm going to keep prodding. I've said she can write whatever she wants...

Lots of contact over the past 24 hours from friends around the ordination, which is great. Some good pictures up on Chris Newlands' pages on Facebook, if you can see them.

Oh, yes: this morning, Jo had asked if I'd take her to pre-school in my "priest's clothes", to which I'd agreed. It turned out that she meant my cassock, but I did consent to clerical shirt and collar. With it I wore what I'd have worn anyway: sandals, cut-off jeans, and mirror shades. "TV Comedy vicar" is how Moo labelled the look, somewhat hurtfully, I thought. I had to dash to the kennels to pick Buster up immediately after, and got accosted by someone there: "Ah, a vicar!" he said. I explained that I'm but a deacon, and it turns out that he's the vicar of Balsham, across the border in the Ely diocese. I'm going to have to get used to being stopped in odd places when I'm collared-up.

Last, but not least, my good friend Sally published a lovely post for me yesterday, to which I promised to link. Thank you, my friend.

Labels: church, food, ordination, secondlife, women

Ordained. And out

I've made some great friends on the retreat: Chris, Sally, Neil, Paul, Geoff and Chris all spring to mind. I've rediscovered some friendships: Sue, Iain, Mandy and Terry particularly. And made more that I hope to explore in the next few years. After a last service in the morning and breakfast, we all got ready and the Colchester and Bradwell area ordinands headed off to Chelmsford Cathedral. I met Dad and Mum, and Moo turned up in good time for the sponsors' rehearsal/training thing. And after getting all vested up in cassock and surplice, stole ready to go, it was time to start.

The service was joyful. Just full of joy. Great singing, lots of grinning from me, and a few tears after the actual ordination (from me, that is: Kate, my mother-in-law, cried pretty much throughout). The actual laying on of hands was very powerful for me. Heavy, really heavy hands. But more than that. I closed my eyes and there was a great depth. Not an emptiness, but a great depth. I need to reflect on this, but it was very powerful for me.

And then I was wearing a stole, across my body, over my left shoulder, which is how a deacon wears it. And I received the host from the Bishop of Chelmsford, and the wine from the Bishop of Colchester, my area bishop, which was a particular privilege.

Now I'm a deacon.

We had a meal at home, and it was fantastic to see the girls: they were both so pleased to see me, as well.

And out

About three years ago, I was told very firmly that until I was ordained, I should keep quiet abut a couple of issues. These are:

• the ordination of women to the episcopate (women bishops);
• the position of homosexuals in the church.

I was ordained today, and the gloves come off. For regular readers of this blog and my friends , this is may be pretty clear already, but here's a statement or two.

I am disgusted that women cannot occupy every position in the Church of England that men can.

I believe that sexuality should have no impact on the treatment of any man or woman, whether lay, deacon, priest, bishop or archbishop.

I intend to campaign on these issues. I intend to engage with those who hold different views. And I hope to do so in love and respect. But this is where I stand. God help me.

(Oh, and this post is for Moo. My love).

Labels: ordination, sexuality, women

Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there's a choice?

those who read my blog frequently probably know my views on both homosexuality and women's ministry. Those who know me will probably be expecting me to blog on those particular issues today, given the title of this synchroblog. Well, it's not to be. It's bigger than that. Matthew 7:1:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV)

Who am I to exclude anyone? Who am I to separate sheep from goats? I'm as much a goat as anyone else, and I don't get to decide.

This doesn't mean that I'm ready to say that all behaviour is acceptable, which is to advocate antinomianism. This doesn't mean that I won't decry particular behaviour by particular people. but I must do that in the knowledge that they have every right to do the same to me, and that I don't get to exclude them. I cannot see into their "utmost hearts and minds", any more than they can mine: thank God.

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." (Luke 11:46, NIV)

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:52, NIV)

I'm really not one for proof-texting - trying to prove my point by pointing to Bible verses, but I think this is fairly clear. It's not for us to judge: we condemn ourselves when we do.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Christianity: Inclusive or exclusive?". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Steve Hayes is blogging his thoughts "Christianity inclusive or exclusive?"
• It's a family affair comes from Jenelle D'Alessandro
• John Smulo will be adding his thoughts.
• Erin Word share some thoughts on The Politics of love.
• Sam Norton adds his thinking to the synchro team.
• As does Julie Clawson
• David Fisher asks "Why are we exclusive?"
• Mike Bursell muses on Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there's a choice?
• And Sally shares her thoughts here
• Cobus van Wyngaard is contemplating Inclusivity within claims of heresy
• Tim Abbott joins the conversation with Christianity inclusive or exclusive?

• Sonja posts on Pack behaviour.

Labels: homosexuality, synchroblog, women

Take me back moment

Just had one of those "ooh, that takes me back" moments. I'm listening to Chrissie Hynde singing "Hymn to Her" with the Pretenders, which I bought when I was much younger as a 7" single. I suppose it was part of my introduction to feminism and strong women. Weird how these things find you, isn't it?

LET ME INSIDE YOU
INTO YOUR ROOM
I'VE HEARD IT'S LINED
WITH THE THINGS YOU DON'T SHOW
LAY ME BESIDE YOU
DOWN ON THE FLOOR
I'VE BEEN YOUR LOVER
FROM THE WOMB TO THE TOMB
I DRESS AS YOUR DAUGHTER
WHEN THE MOON BECOMES ROUND
YOU BE MY MOTHER
WHEN EVERYTHING'S GONE

AND SHE WILL ALWAYS CARRY ON
SOMETHING IS LOST
BUT SOMETHING IS FOUND
THEY WILL KEEP ON SPEAKING HER NAME
SOMETHINGS CHANGE
SOME STAY THE SAME

KEEP BECKONING TO ME
FROM BEHIND THAT CLOSED DOOR
THE MAID AND THE MOTHER
AND THE CRONE THAT'S GROWN OLD

I HEAR YOUR VOICE
COMING OUT OF THAT HOLE
I LISTEN TO YOU
AND I WANT SOME MORE
I LISTEN TO YOU
AND I WANT SOME MORE

AND SHE WILL ALWAYS CARRY ON
SOMETHING IS LOST
BUT SOMETHING IS FOUND
THEY WILL KEEP ON SPEAKING HER NAME
SOME THINGS CHANGE
SOME STAY THE SAME 

Thanks to this site for the lyrics.

Labels: music, women