Equality in the church (5).
Not sure whether this post really sits in the series I did during the Christmas Holiday but I thought it might be worth giving some consideration to worship leaders, and I suppose the question as with the other things I have looked at is ‘How equal are worship leaders’.
As with the other topics I can only speak from my own experience based in the case on what happens in our circuit because they were none existent way back in 1982/3.
We have a number of worship leaders in the circuit with five out of the ten churches having them according to the plan. As might be expected the spread of then is uneven with one church having one worship leader while another has 6 or 7. Their names and addresses are included in the circuit directory under the listing for each church but do not appear on the plan.
I am not sure how well used the worship leaders are other than as readers and I suspect that some local preachers are not comfortable using them as there may be a perception that there is a degree of risk involved, especially if you do not know the worship leaders very well.
On the other side of the coin one of our local preachers recently took a service at my own church and left the choosing of the hymns to the worship leaders. This proved to be a particularly good experience with the hymns fitting very well with the readings and the sermon and the preacher reported back to the preachers meeting how successful this had been.
I realise that sometimes people see worship leading as a way for people to dip their toe in the water on the road to being a local preacher but I am not sure that is fair. I think that some people are very talented in leading worship and very comfortable doing so but may not be so good at preaching or even feel that they have been called to do so. I think there is a danger that we can see the reverse of the desired effect happening with people being turned off preaching rather than turned on. It is I think equally possible that some people are excellent at preaching but not so good at leading worship. Perhaps there is room for developing worship leaders alongside preachers in perhaps a Sankey and Moody partnership where on handles the music and one handles the preaching. I am conscious that this is not allowed within standing orders (680-683) as worship leaders are supposed to be an individual church appointment rather than a circuit appointment, but perhaps there is some mileage in this and it could be considered. I think there has been some discussion previously in respect of making worship leaders a circuit appointment and it may be that further discussion could and should take place. Perhaps this is one for the new cluster at Church house that deals with these matters to take a look at.
I did ask if there would be a worship leader present at one of our churches in an evening to be told that they only went in the morning so an opportunity was missed to use them because they were not available.
From time to time I go to churches in other denominations to preach and often all I have to do is preach as the worship side of the service is led by someone at the church I go to. I never cease to be amazed at how well this works and often I will not have communicated the theme of my message prior to going and yet hymns, reading prayers will fit as well as if I had planned the whole thing myself.
I really do think that worship leaders can be a great asset both to our churches and to our local preachers and would certainly encourage preachers to use them. Of course it may be that the picture for my readers is very different and I would love to hear of experiences that may be different to mine and would certainly like to hear some positive experiences.
Showing posts with label equality in church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality in church. Show all posts
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Equality in the Church (4)
Local Preachers.
Continuing my observations I move now to the topic of Local Preachers and consider as in previous posts the topic based on my own knowledge and experience.
I suppose that we could expect equality among local preachers but if you were to ask me if there was equality I think I would have to say that I do not believe there is but then this is equally true in the other areas I have spoken about.
In my previous experience of Methodism (20+years ago) there seemed to be very much a pecking order with the longest serving preacher being spoken of as the senior local preacher. While I realise that this was referring to the length of service there was a perception that in the same way we have senior stewards who act as the lead person among our stewarding team this applied to the local preachers. The perception was not helped by the fact that this particular preacher who incidentally had not preached for a number of years was almost always the person who assisted the minister with communion and always played a lead role in the church anniversary celebrations. I note from most of the plans I have seen that preachers are listed according to their year of accreditation and remember a couple of years ago when there were proposals put forward to change this and list preachers alphabetically by name which was sadly defeated by local preacher feedback. From a purely personal point of view this change at the current time would mean that I would stay more or less in the same position on the list so there would be no benefit to me and it could be argued I have no particular axe to grind.
While I recognise that many of our preachers have been ‘on plan’ for extremely long periods of time I do wonder about the presentation of long service awards to preachers who are no longer active or have had a long period of inactivity. I am aware of one preacher who took almost a twenty year break but is still being considered for a long service award for forty years of local preaching, I am aware of another case where a 50 year certificate was presented and I am not aware of the person taking a service for at least ten years.
In respect of long service of preachers why do we not count the time they are on trial as part of their service, in my own case I would often take five or six appointments a quarter during my period on trial and prior to that I had been a visiting preacher for a number of years so have effectively served the Methodist Church as a preacher (local because it was in the area where I live and work) for many more years than the four since I have been fully accredited, and yes I know it could be argued I could have done the course much earlier, but it was only when we moved to our current church ten years ago that somebody immediately challenged whether I should be allowed to continue on plan as a visiting preacher. I really didn’t think this was an issue because we were not members at that time but merely attendees. As soon as we became members the wheels were set in motion for me to take the Faith and Worship course and yes I did take four years to complete but like many of our folk I have a family and a full time job as well as other church commitments. It seems to me that there is an inequality here when periods of inactivity can count towards long service but not periods of activity that were not within the ‘fully accredited’ status. I should say I suppose in case anyone thinks there are any sour grapes here that I would be 90 years of age before i qualified for a forty year certificate.
In respect of training of Local Preachers there is it seems a reluctance on the part of many preachers to embark on any sort of training once they have reached that ‘fully accredited’ status and I am aware of the requirements for those who complete Faith and Worship to embark on a program of Continuing Local Preacher Development I wonder how well this is applied or who polices it. I suspect there is an onus on the Circuit Superintendent and the Preachers Meeting to be involved but wonder how often or how much this happens. I am aware from conversation with other preachers and circuit secretaries that CLPD is not often taken up by the circuits and in fact we struggle with it greatly in our circuit. The Leeds (North East) Circuit have a very good website that is dedicated to CLPD http://www.preacherdevelopment.uk7.net/index.htm and it is well worth having a look at. I suppose there is a question of how do we encourage folk who have been preaching for almost as long as I have been alive to take part in any ongoing, on the job training. (I know local preaching is a calling not a job but I was trying to illustrate the point effectively).
I really do believe there should be a method of appraisal for local preachers, perhaps once a year and possibly something as simple as the same type of assessment that our local preachers in training are subject to. I always say I am quite fortunate because my wife is my fiercest critic and believe me she will certainly take me to task if she thought I had not done particularly well. I really do think though as good as my wife may be it would be helpful to have an independent assessment on what we are doing. Again in our circuit there is one church that I lead worship at where I know one member will always have some good in depth comments to make at the end of the service – I may not always agree with what is said but it certainly makes me think both in planning the service and writing the sermon and about what is said to me.
I am tempted to say that there is an inequality in the planning of local preachers but realise that this is partly because of the necessity to cover appointments quite often and the lack of evening services in some of our churches. It has to be said however that one of our preachers came to our church last year and said that it had been something like four years since he had preached at our church and yet during the same period he had been planned at his own church almost 50 times. He wasn’t really complaining but making an observation. I have to say in defence of the plan makers though that having planned a three circuit pulpit swap last year I have a little understanding of the difficulties involved and the things that have to be taken into account. On the subject of our planning and possible inequality there was a comment made at our last District Local Preachers meeting about the number of dates offered by preachers and how some folk seem to be out every week while others might only do a couple in a quarter. There were of course a number of responses to the point many of which were to do with the increasing age and often infirmity of our preachers but there were also some which indicated that some preachers had only ever offered two or three appointments at the most. Perhaps I am mad because I offer any dates when I am not playing the organ at my own church or already committed to preach outside the circuit and it should be said that wherever possible I commit to my own circuit first before taking other appointments.
I think finally on the topic of local preachers I am concerned at the lack of younger people taking up local preaching, and yes I know that there is a correlation between this and church membership but when I look at our preachers meeting there are possibly four people who are younger than I am, and at 54 I still consider myself to be reasonably young. I remember a couple of years ago there was a survey carried out and at that time the vast majority of preachers in training were in there late 40’s and I think 49 was the age with the most people in it. Obviously the age issue has a number of ramifications – some people find the course difficult because the method of learning is very different possibly from anything they experienced when they were younger – the potential for long serving ministers is curtailed as this is the route that ministers take and if the average age is 49 and then the person goes on to ministry training we are fortunate if we get ten years of ministry from such people – it does of course mean too that some of these preachers are less likely to give forty or fifty years service as many of their colleagues have done and are doing.
Well again a fairly long piece and I am not really sure how well it addresses the question of equality and I am sure there will be a whole range of experiences and situations in other places but these are some of the things I have seen and experienced and feel quite strongly about.
In closing I would recommend anyone who is having difficulties with CLPD to check out the Leeds website and if you have any ideas or suggestions of how you deal with CLPD I would be pleased to hear them.
This may be my last post of this year so can I thank all my readers especially those who have commented on posts during this year and wish you all a very happy and Christ filled 2009.
Continuing my observations I move now to the topic of Local Preachers and consider as in previous posts the topic based on my own knowledge and experience.
I suppose that we could expect equality among local preachers but if you were to ask me if there was equality I think I would have to say that I do not believe there is but then this is equally true in the other areas I have spoken about.
In my previous experience of Methodism (20+years ago) there seemed to be very much a pecking order with the longest serving preacher being spoken of as the senior local preacher. While I realise that this was referring to the length of service there was a perception that in the same way we have senior stewards who act as the lead person among our stewarding team this applied to the local preachers. The perception was not helped by the fact that this particular preacher who incidentally had not preached for a number of years was almost always the person who assisted the minister with communion and always played a lead role in the church anniversary celebrations. I note from most of the plans I have seen that preachers are listed according to their year of accreditation and remember a couple of years ago when there were proposals put forward to change this and list preachers alphabetically by name which was sadly defeated by local preacher feedback. From a purely personal point of view this change at the current time would mean that I would stay more or less in the same position on the list so there would be no benefit to me and it could be argued I have no particular axe to grind.
While I recognise that many of our preachers have been ‘on plan’ for extremely long periods of time I do wonder about the presentation of long service awards to preachers who are no longer active or have had a long period of inactivity. I am aware of one preacher who took almost a twenty year break but is still being considered for a long service award for forty years of local preaching, I am aware of another case where a 50 year certificate was presented and I am not aware of the person taking a service for at least ten years.
In respect of long service of preachers why do we not count the time they are on trial as part of their service, in my own case I would often take five or six appointments a quarter during my period on trial and prior to that I had been a visiting preacher for a number of years so have effectively served the Methodist Church as a preacher (local because it was in the area where I live and work) for many more years than the four since I have been fully accredited, and yes I know it could be argued I could have done the course much earlier, but it was only when we moved to our current church ten years ago that somebody immediately challenged whether I should be allowed to continue on plan as a visiting preacher. I really didn’t think this was an issue because we were not members at that time but merely attendees. As soon as we became members the wheels were set in motion for me to take the Faith and Worship course and yes I did take four years to complete but like many of our folk I have a family and a full time job as well as other church commitments. It seems to me that there is an inequality here when periods of inactivity can count towards long service but not periods of activity that were not within the ‘fully accredited’ status. I should say I suppose in case anyone thinks there are any sour grapes here that I would be 90 years of age before i qualified for a forty year certificate.
In respect of training of Local Preachers there is it seems a reluctance on the part of many preachers to embark on any sort of training once they have reached that ‘fully accredited’ status and I am aware of the requirements for those who complete Faith and Worship to embark on a program of Continuing Local Preacher Development I wonder how well this is applied or who polices it. I suspect there is an onus on the Circuit Superintendent and the Preachers Meeting to be involved but wonder how often or how much this happens. I am aware from conversation with other preachers and circuit secretaries that CLPD is not often taken up by the circuits and in fact we struggle with it greatly in our circuit. The Leeds (North East) Circuit have a very good website that is dedicated to CLPD http://www.preacherdevelopment.uk7.net/index.htm and it is well worth having a look at. I suppose there is a question of how do we encourage folk who have been preaching for almost as long as I have been alive to take part in any ongoing, on the job training. (I know local preaching is a calling not a job but I was trying to illustrate the point effectively).
I really do believe there should be a method of appraisal for local preachers, perhaps once a year and possibly something as simple as the same type of assessment that our local preachers in training are subject to. I always say I am quite fortunate because my wife is my fiercest critic and believe me she will certainly take me to task if she thought I had not done particularly well. I really do think though as good as my wife may be it would be helpful to have an independent assessment on what we are doing. Again in our circuit there is one church that I lead worship at where I know one member will always have some good in depth comments to make at the end of the service – I may not always agree with what is said but it certainly makes me think both in planning the service and writing the sermon and about what is said to me.
I am tempted to say that there is an inequality in the planning of local preachers but realise that this is partly because of the necessity to cover appointments quite often and the lack of evening services in some of our churches. It has to be said however that one of our preachers came to our church last year and said that it had been something like four years since he had preached at our church and yet during the same period he had been planned at his own church almost 50 times. He wasn’t really complaining but making an observation. I have to say in defence of the plan makers though that having planned a three circuit pulpit swap last year I have a little understanding of the difficulties involved and the things that have to be taken into account. On the subject of our planning and possible inequality there was a comment made at our last District Local Preachers meeting about the number of dates offered by preachers and how some folk seem to be out every week while others might only do a couple in a quarter. There were of course a number of responses to the point many of which were to do with the increasing age and often infirmity of our preachers but there were also some which indicated that some preachers had only ever offered two or three appointments at the most. Perhaps I am mad because I offer any dates when I am not playing the organ at my own church or already committed to preach outside the circuit and it should be said that wherever possible I commit to my own circuit first before taking other appointments.
I think finally on the topic of local preachers I am concerned at the lack of younger people taking up local preaching, and yes I know that there is a correlation between this and church membership but when I look at our preachers meeting there are possibly four people who are younger than I am, and at 54 I still consider myself to be reasonably young. I remember a couple of years ago there was a survey carried out and at that time the vast majority of preachers in training were in there late 40’s and I think 49 was the age with the most people in it. Obviously the age issue has a number of ramifications – some people find the course difficult because the method of learning is very different possibly from anything they experienced when they were younger – the potential for long serving ministers is curtailed as this is the route that ministers take and if the average age is 49 and then the person goes on to ministry training we are fortunate if we get ten years of ministry from such people – it does of course mean too that some of these preachers are less likely to give forty or fifty years service as many of their colleagues have done and are doing.
Well again a fairly long piece and I am not really sure how well it addresses the question of equality and I am sure there will be a whole range of experiences and situations in other places but these are some of the things I have seen and experienced and feel quite strongly about.
In closing I would recommend anyone who is having difficulties with CLPD to check out the Leeds website and if you have any ideas or suggestions of how you deal with CLPD I would be pleased to hear them.
This may be my last post of this year so can I thank all my readers especially those who have commented on posts during this year and wish you all a very happy and Christ filled 2009.
Monday, 29 December 2008
Equality in the church (3)
Introduction.
In my previous two posts I have already set out my reasons for these particular posts and as I have said these are thoughts drawn from my personal observations. I do realise that as with most things in Methodism there will be a range of viewpoints on any given topic but present these as mine, and who knows they may even start some discussion.
Synod and Conference.
In today’s post I thought I would give some consideration to both synod and conference and again I have attended both so feel reasonably qualified to have a view on both.
Synod
Starting with synod I have recently started attending synod after a 20+ year break and you can imagine that I was quite surprised to find that there were people at synod who were there when I last attended. I should perhaps just say that did not include the person from our circuit who has been going for almost 30 years apparently.
I looked around the room and I suppose in fairness I would have to say it seemed that synod was fairly representative of the majority of congregations that I visit and was probably more representative than when I attended over 20 years ago. Certainly 20 years ago I was the youngest person in attendance and in some senses felt very out of place a feeling that in some ways has not lessened. As I look around the room(s) there are two things that strike me, one is that people tend to sit in their circuit groups (safety in numbers?) and that it is little bit like a member’s only club with many people seeming to gravitate towards one another in the breaks but not necessarily engaging in conversation with newcomers like myself. I do feel that I am slightly invisible to the majority of synod members and those who know me will understand that it is not easy for me to be invisible given that I am a fairly big lad (hence fat prophet) and I am certainly not a shy retiring type. It does seem however that apart from the people I know at synod there is little interaction from other members and if I were twenty years younger I might be tempted to say I would not go again. The actual format of our synods is far better than I remember it and there seems have been a serious streamlining of the business allowing time for other activities such as workshops and presentations which on the three synods I have attended have been very good.
I do understand that lay representatives to synod are elected by local circuit meetings but I do wonder how much equality is exercised in this respect if one person is elected each year for many years or even volunteers for many years and gets the nod of the circuit meeting because other people really don’t want to be chosen. I always think these are the parts of our meetings where almost everyone looks at the floor and hopes the Superintendent doesn’t catch their eye. Apart from a reference to members of district committees I can find no mention of the six year rule in relation to membership of synod and it seems if this rule does not apply to synod membership then the same people could attend ad infinitum and it could be very difficult for ‘new blood’ to become involved and for the synod to be truly representative.
Conference
In respect of conference it could be said I had a meteoric rise to fame in this respect because at the first synod I attended in 1981 I was chosen to attend the conference in Plymouth in 1982. I hadn’t at that time developed the knack of looking at the floor and I was unemployed at the time so I think someone thought it would be quite easy for me to attend if I was still out of work by the time conference came around. In some ways I was very fortunate because I travelled and stayed in a house with Reverend Robin Napier who for many years reported on the conference for the Recorder, so was always able to ask those nagging questions that came up. The other good thing was that I sat next to Reverend Tony Kinch who seemed to know what conference was all about and certainly guided me on the best times to go for a coffee break (usually during finance and property business as I recall). I think it would be true to say I had a range of feelings and emotions in respect of conference some of which were good and some not so good. I have to stress yet again that these were my observations at the time and any references to the conference now will be based on what I read in the Methodist Recorder.
I think the first feeling I had in 1982 was absolute amazement when this voice seemed to come from nowhere and lead the conference in the singing of Wesley’s hymn ‘And are we yet alive’. I did eventually work out where it came from and I also found out that the person who did it was the ‘precentor’. I remember looking round the room and feeling a little bit like the poor relation – many of the representatives were dressed in their Sunday best which was far superior to my Sunday best, lots of them spoke very nicely, certainly not with a broad Black Country accent like me and again there seemed to be a lot of people who knew each other quite well.
There were a range of debates and some excellent speakers but I remembering saying to Tony Kinch that in one debate to do with unemployment the people who had spoken all appeared well to do and probably had never had a day’s unemployment in their lives. He said if I felt strongly I should go up to the podium and say something – sadly I was not brave enough at that time, now I would have no hesitation but of course with experience would probably be far more articulate.
There was also a rule at conference that you could not applaud and another highlight for me was when the President Rev Norwyn Denny during the singing of the hymn ‘I am so glad that our Father in heaven’ started clapping and was quickly joined by many of the conference representatives.
I am conscious that there was no great emphasis on equality all those years ago and I suppose the conference then was as representative as the systems and viewpoints of the time allowed, but what of today how much equality is there and how representative is the conference of the wider church membership? The simple answer is I don’t know but as the path to conference starts with the circuit meeting it could be argued that conference can only be as good as the basics allow. If we don’t get it right in the circuit this has a knock on effect on synod and ultimately on conference.
Because of the connection with Robin Napier who was my minister when I first started attending a Methodist Church I have always followed the reports on conference in the recorder with great interest and I am always intrigued by the fact that a number of names consistently appear across the range of debates at conference and wonder how equal the contribution from conference members is – I suspect the President has a similar role at times to the Speaker in The House of Commons in trying to ensure equity in contributions to debates on any particular topic. I am also aware that often the names that appear year on year are those representatives who are elected by conference. As far as I can see there is no restriction on length of service as a conference elected member of conference so effectively once elected someone could remain there until death removes them. I am not sure this gives any opportunity for equality given that unless you are well versed in the working of conference you may be tempted to vote on issues with the guidance of another member of the conference – I certainly did when I attended because in respect of voting for conference elected members I would not necessarily have know who they were. Perhaps if it doesn’t already exist the six year rule should be applied to these type of positions to enable a broader brush approach and perhaps a more equality based approach.
Well I seem to have written rather a lot here and on reading it back may not really have got down to looking at equality as was my own brief, but then perhaps I have because it has to start at the bottom and work up, we have to do the choosing of representatives to synod at circuit level so the onus is very much on us to ensure that the synod is being provided with people using equality rather than some of the other methods that might be used.
Watch out for the next post which will be about local preachers.
In my previous two posts I have already set out my reasons for these particular posts and as I have said these are thoughts drawn from my personal observations. I do realise that as with most things in Methodism there will be a range of viewpoints on any given topic but present these as mine, and who knows they may even start some discussion.
Synod and Conference.
In today’s post I thought I would give some consideration to both synod and conference and again I have attended both so feel reasonably qualified to have a view on both.
Synod
Starting with synod I have recently started attending synod after a 20+ year break and you can imagine that I was quite surprised to find that there were people at synod who were there when I last attended. I should perhaps just say that did not include the person from our circuit who has been going for almost 30 years apparently.
I looked around the room and I suppose in fairness I would have to say it seemed that synod was fairly representative of the majority of congregations that I visit and was probably more representative than when I attended over 20 years ago. Certainly 20 years ago I was the youngest person in attendance and in some senses felt very out of place a feeling that in some ways has not lessened. As I look around the room(s) there are two things that strike me, one is that people tend to sit in their circuit groups (safety in numbers?) and that it is little bit like a member’s only club with many people seeming to gravitate towards one another in the breaks but not necessarily engaging in conversation with newcomers like myself. I do feel that I am slightly invisible to the majority of synod members and those who know me will understand that it is not easy for me to be invisible given that I am a fairly big lad (hence fat prophet) and I am certainly not a shy retiring type. It does seem however that apart from the people I know at synod there is little interaction from other members and if I were twenty years younger I might be tempted to say I would not go again. The actual format of our synods is far better than I remember it and there seems have been a serious streamlining of the business allowing time for other activities such as workshops and presentations which on the three synods I have attended have been very good.
I do understand that lay representatives to synod are elected by local circuit meetings but I do wonder how much equality is exercised in this respect if one person is elected each year for many years or even volunteers for many years and gets the nod of the circuit meeting because other people really don’t want to be chosen. I always think these are the parts of our meetings where almost everyone looks at the floor and hopes the Superintendent doesn’t catch their eye. Apart from a reference to members of district committees I can find no mention of the six year rule in relation to membership of synod and it seems if this rule does not apply to synod membership then the same people could attend ad infinitum and it could be very difficult for ‘new blood’ to become involved and for the synod to be truly representative.
Conference
In respect of conference it could be said I had a meteoric rise to fame in this respect because at the first synod I attended in 1981 I was chosen to attend the conference in Plymouth in 1982. I hadn’t at that time developed the knack of looking at the floor and I was unemployed at the time so I think someone thought it would be quite easy for me to attend if I was still out of work by the time conference came around. In some ways I was very fortunate because I travelled and stayed in a house with Reverend Robin Napier who for many years reported on the conference for the Recorder, so was always able to ask those nagging questions that came up. The other good thing was that I sat next to Reverend Tony Kinch who seemed to know what conference was all about and certainly guided me on the best times to go for a coffee break (usually during finance and property business as I recall). I think it would be true to say I had a range of feelings and emotions in respect of conference some of which were good and some not so good. I have to stress yet again that these were my observations at the time and any references to the conference now will be based on what I read in the Methodist Recorder.
I think the first feeling I had in 1982 was absolute amazement when this voice seemed to come from nowhere and lead the conference in the singing of Wesley’s hymn ‘And are we yet alive’. I did eventually work out where it came from and I also found out that the person who did it was the ‘precentor’. I remember looking round the room and feeling a little bit like the poor relation – many of the representatives were dressed in their Sunday best which was far superior to my Sunday best, lots of them spoke very nicely, certainly not with a broad Black Country accent like me and again there seemed to be a lot of people who knew each other quite well.
There were a range of debates and some excellent speakers but I remembering saying to Tony Kinch that in one debate to do with unemployment the people who had spoken all appeared well to do and probably had never had a day’s unemployment in their lives. He said if I felt strongly I should go up to the podium and say something – sadly I was not brave enough at that time, now I would have no hesitation but of course with experience would probably be far more articulate.
There was also a rule at conference that you could not applaud and another highlight for me was when the President Rev Norwyn Denny during the singing of the hymn ‘I am so glad that our Father in heaven’ started clapping and was quickly joined by many of the conference representatives.
I am conscious that there was no great emphasis on equality all those years ago and I suppose the conference then was as representative as the systems and viewpoints of the time allowed, but what of today how much equality is there and how representative is the conference of the wider church membership? The simple answer is I don’t know but as the path to conference starts with the circuit meeting it could be argued that conference can only be as good as the basics allow. If we don’t get it right in the circuit this has a knock on effect on synod and ultimately on conference.
Because of the connection with Robin Napier who was my minister when I first started attending a Methodist Church I have always followed the reports on conference in the recorder with great interest and I am always intrigued by the fact that a number of names consistently appear across the range of debates at conference and wonder how equal the contribution from conference members is – I suspect the President has a similar role at times to the Speaker in The House of Commons in trying to ensure equity in contributions to debates on any particular topic. I am also aware that often the names that appear year on year are those representatives who are elected by conference. As far as I can see there is no restriction on length of service as a conference elected member of conference so effectively once elected someone could remain there until death removes them. I am not sure this gives any opportunity for equality given that unless you are well versed in the working of conference you may be tempted to vote on issues with the guidance of another member of the conference – I certainly did when I attended because in respect of voting for conference elected members I would not necessarily have know who they were. Perhaps if it doesn’t already exist the six year rule should be applied to these type of positions to enable a broader brush approach and perhaps a more equality based approach.
Well I seem to have written rather a lot here and on reading it back may not really have got down to looking at equality as was my own brief, but then perhaps I have because it has to start at the bottom and work up, we have to do the choosing of representatives to synod at circuit level so the onus is very much on us to ensure that the synod is being provided with people using equality rather than some of the other methods that might be used.
Watch out for the next post which will be about local preachers.
Friday, 26 December 2008
Equality in the Church (2)
Introduction
In a previous post I gave a little bit of background to myself and my journey to where I am today from a church perspective as a lead in to some thoughts on equality following a post by Dave Warnock over at 42. In this post I make some observations of where I think we are in terms of equality.
Members
This seemed like a good place to start as in a sense members are our most important factor – much is said in many places about declining membership and while that is not a topic I particularly wish to discuss it is fairly true that we are not as healthy in this respect as we were even ten years ago.
How equal are our members? In my experience not very much so! I get the impression that in many churches there are a few who decide on all the important issues, in some churches there is often a strong group of people related to each other who hold many of the key roles. In other churches people stay in roles almost indefinitely despite the ‘six year rule’. In our circuit we have just had a senior church steward step down after 30 years, and we have another one where a person who was senior steward for many years was made to step down by the application of the six year rule but would still appear to be in charge of things.
While membership of church council is open to all members do we again find the same group of people on there, do we do enough to encourage ‘new blood’ and when we get new blood are they able to understand the way the whole thing works, and if they don’t are they frightened to ask in case they look a fool. Personally I claim to be naive in respect of the ins and outs of Constitution, Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church and will always raise a question based on this naivety. It works for me but then I tend to be able to hold my own in most situations while I am aware others are the more shy retiring type.
Again when we have new or younger people join our committees and councils do we treat them differently to everyone else? Do we think because they are young they know nothing? Do we almost treat them as total idiots? These questions are as true in life away from church I believe but I am certain they go on in church. I once saw a situation where a youth group of almost 70 young people shrank very quickly following a knock back at a church council meeting on a point they raised which was an exceptional good point to do with a process that made many of them feel uncomfortable. When the question was asked there were two responses one of which was the good old chestnut that makes everything OK ‘We’ve always done it this way’ and the other was ‘What do they know they’re only young’.
We had a situation in our church council recently where an item was under discussion and one of our younger members felt that someone else was intimating the younger person had no idea what they were talking about when in reality they were probably the most knowledgeable person in the room in respect of the topic under discussion. The young person now feels it is pointless attending the church council if they are treated almost as an idiot by some members.
There is much that goes on within our church lives that affects all of our members and yet there seems to be very little consultation with them and when there is I am not entirely sure it is fed back or acted on in the proper way by those doing the feeding back. In our circuit we have recently gone through the re-invitation process for our Superintendent and because it is a Superintendent each church was asked for their thoughts with the emphasis being on the churches he is in pastoral charge of and I believe that is rightly so. What does bother me though is that the timescale and the instruction only allowed for consultation with a few ‘key’ people with the decision on who key people were in the church being made by the representative from each church who was on the invitation committee. I see all sorts of dangers in this methodology and I am sure those who have commented on the situation in the Scilly Isles would probably agree. For me we have a situation where if the representative doesn’t like someone in the local church they do not seek that person’s opinion or conversely if it does not agree with their own opinion they can ignore it. There is then a danger that at circuit meeting the recommendation of the committee and the views of a particular church can be skewed because the person representing the church decides to vote how they think personally rather than how the church as a whole might think.
Now just in case people think this is very negative I have to say that it is very much based on things I have seen and have personal knowledge of – I am hopeful that there are other places where the opposite is true and equality rules OK in these things. I just think that there are many places where it could probably be argued we have a very long way to go before we could say there is anything like equality among our members. It is an area we need to work very hard at and we really do need to encourage and nurture the younger and newer members and perhaps listen to what they have to say without assuming because they are young or new they don’t know anything.
Anyway enough for now but more will follow – I may look at Synod and Conference next or even Local Preachers where I have a few thoughts as you can imagine.
In a previous post I gave a little bit of background to myself and my journey to where I am today from a church perspective as a lead in to some thoughts on equality following a post by Dave Warnock over at 42. In this post I make some observations of where I think we are in terms of equality.
Members
This seemed like a good place to start as in a sense members are our most important factor – much is said in many places about declining membership and while that is not a topic I particularly wish to discuss it is fairly true that we are not as healthy in this respect as we were even ten years ago.
How equal are our members? In my experience not very much so! I get the impression that in many churches there are a few who decide on all the important issues, in some churches there is often a strong group of people related to each other who hold many of the key roles. In other churches people stay in roles almost indefinitely despite the ‘six year rule’. In our circuit we have just had a senior church steward step down after 30 years, and we have another one where a person who was senior steward for many years was made to step down by the application of the six year rule but would still appear to be in charge of things.
While membership of church council is open to all members do we again find the same group of people on there, do we do enough to encourage ‘new blood’ and when we get new blood are they able to understand the way the whole thing works, and if they don’t are they frightened to ask in case they look a fool. Personally I claim to be naive in respect of the ins and outs of Constitution, Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church and will always raise a question based on this naivety. It works for me but then I tend to be able to hold my own in most situations while I am aware others are the more shy retiring type.
Again when we have new or younger people join our committees and councils do we treat them differently to everyone else? Do we think because they are young they know nothing? Do we almost treat them as total idiots? These questions are as true in life away from church I believe but I am certain they go on in church. I once saw a situation where a youth group of almost 70 young people shrank very quickly following a knock back at a church council meeting on a point they raised which was an exceptional good point to do with a process that made many of them feel uncomfortable. When the question was asked there were two responses one of which was the good old chestnut that makes everything OK ‘We’ve always done it this way’ and the other was ‘What do they know they’re only young’.
We had a situation in our church council recently where an item was under discussion and one of our younger members felt that someone else was intimating the younger person had no idea what they were talking about when in reality they were probably the most knowledgeable person in the room in respect of the topic under discussion. The young person now feels it is pointless attending the church council if they are treated almost as an idiot by some members.
There is much that goes on within our church lives that affects all of our members and yet there seems to be very little consultation with them and when there is I am not entirely sure it is fed back or acted on in the proper way by those doing the feeding back. In our circuit we have recently gone through the re-invitation process for our Superintendent and because it is a Superintendent each church was asked for their thoughts with the emphasis being on the churches he is in pastoral charge of and I believe that is rightly so. What does bother me though is that the timescale and the instruction only allowed for consultation with a few ‘key’ people with the decision on who key people were in the church being made by the representative from each church who was on the invitation committee. I see all sorts of dangers in this methodology and I am sure those who have commented on the situation in the Scilly Isles would probably agree. For me we have a situation where if the representative doesn’t like someone in the local church they do not seek that person’s opinion or conversely if it does not agree with their own opinion they can ignore it. There is then a danger that at circuit meeting the recommendation of the committee and the views of a particular church can be skewed because the person representing the church decides to vote how they think personally rather than how the church as a whole might think.
Now just in case people think this is very negative I have to say that it is very much based on things I have seen and have personal knowledge of – I am hopeful that there are other places where the opposite is true and equality rules OK in these things. I just think that there are many places where it could probably be argued we have a very long way to go before we could say there is anything like equality among our members. It is an area we need to work very hard at and we really do need to encourage and nurture the younger and newer members and perhaps listen to what they have to say without assuming because they are young or new they don’t know anything.
Anyway enough for now but more will follow – I may look at Synod and Conference next or even Local Preachers where I have a few thoughts as you can imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)