I wonder if you've ever stopped to think about the process by which clergy move on?
It's an interesting process, one which quite accurately (I assume) is, as the title of the entry has it, 'A bit like adultery!' The reason for this is that being in a clerical post is a bit like being married and so , whilst still in that relationship, one starts to look around for a new partner - and as much as people mock those who find themselves seeking mail order brides - this is the reality for clergy. Except that instead of a glossy magazine the Church Times is the medium of choice.
The problem is that regardless of the situation, it is just not done to put out the general notice that you fancy a change - it doesn't go down well with the other half! You might tell your friends and perhaps use one of them to get an introduction to someone you fancy but generally it's all done by stealth. After all, the majority of those who have seen their partner vanish with a new love are usually totally surprised by it all - the never saw it coming, or thought of the other half leaving.
The stress of knowing that a colleague has decided to leave and is in the process of courting a new partner coupled with the pressure of continuing to talk to those in their current church as if they will be in the relationship for ever is something awful. The need to portray that which will never be as if it will be to enable the 'leavee' to seek, interview and set up their move is absolute and yet, much like supporting those who are engaged in something adulterous, uncomfortable.
When I worked in the world of supporting the long-term unemployed I would encourage those seeking a new post to network and to put their intent 'out there'. You use your contacts, acquaintances and friends to open the doors for you and whilst this sometimes works as a cleric but generally it's down to church organisations, the clerical press, the various vacancy lists and a cloak of secrecy.
Of course, in the bad old days, you'd get a call from your bishop who would 'suggest' a move and would effectively manage, or at least assist, your ministerial journey. Now, if the various experiences of clergy I have chatted too are anything to go by, the bishops are generally useless line managers with regard to moves and often less helpful that a chocolate fire blanket! a colleague in a diocese down South upon mentioning that they felt the time was right for a move was told of a couple of good jobs (which would have been 'just right') which had been filled in the past months!
Now that leaves me despairing and more than a little confused!
ps. My colleague was so depressed by the experience and the woeful quality of care and support from their pointyhat that they binned them, the diocese and Cofe ministry. another reason the Green report has some merit Methinks.
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Friday, 9 January 2015
The 'point something' Vacancy
I am really struggling with the raft of 'point something' (PS) vacancies that are appearing at the moment.
A recent 'point something' (PS) job advert highlighted the benefits of the post in a most positive manner as it took a multiple role post and then extolled the fact that the 'extra' time off could be used to spend more time with the family!
The PS trend appears to be an increasingly bitter topic for consideration when clergy are gathered. The old adage of 'too much work for one - too little income for two' is now joined by 'too few hours for what is expected' as adverts for PS posts increase.
Recent scans of the vacancies bring varying ideas of what a PS role actually demands:
.25 post (Sunday plus two days)
.2 post (Sunday plus two days)
I have found adverts for 0.2 posts (which oddly asked for Sunday services and one day) and the pinnacle of the PS art has to be the advert for seven churches where the job was broken down into five 0.2 packets. I rang and asked why this was and was told that two of the churches were earmarked for redundancy and so eventually the post would be five 0.2 posts!
I have also recently come across a situation where the advertised position was split into three discrete elements: 0.4, 0.4 and 0.2. I telephoned and asked why this was and was told that one of the elements was subject to a time-limited funding source and so, when this time was reached, the position would revert to a 0.6 post.
It is interesting to note that the 0.2 and the 'revert to 0.6' posts were not filled.
Recalling Bob Jackson's rule:
A cleric with one church will see growth.
A cleric with two churches will see something static.
A cleric with three or more churches will see decline!
The problem is that we are engaged in mathematical exercises when we look to fill vacancies. One senior cleric I knew used to mutter the mantra, 'Can't pay - Can't have!' and herein lies the rub for some of the most needy and effective ministry areas have little ability to pay and so are at a disadvantage.
Now I am old enough to know that if you haven't got the money then you have a bit of a problem and understand that bills need to be paid but it seems to me that we are in danger of contracting sessional clergy and engaging in PS posts which satisfy the accounting but leave the cleric and the congregations at a disadvantage - a disadvantage that will see an increase in decline in terms of congregations and clergy.
Time to be a little more creative - and this doesn't mean looking to Ordained lay ministry as a means of making end meet - we should be releasing the laity because we should be releasing the laity, not because the finances demand!
The problem is that those who have the purse strings and those who shape the ministry in our denominations are woefully poor. An area where the Green report's intentions would benefit the Church - pity implementation might come just a little too late!
Is it any wonder when I'm as confused as the people who are interegnum?
* Of course it's actually 0.166 (0.17) but this is all approximate stuff and so 'rounding up' is legitimate for the purpose of examples.
A recent 'point something' (PS) job advert highlighted the benefits of the post in a most positive manner as it took a multiple role post and then extolled the fact that the 'extra' time off could be used to spend more time with the family!
The PS trend appears to be an increasingly bitter topic for consideration when clergy are gathered. The old adage of 'too much work for one - too little income for two' is now joined by 'too few hours for what is expected' as adverts for PS posts increase.
Recent scans of the vacancies bring varying ideas of what a PS role actually demands:
.25 post (Sunday plus two days)
.2 post (Sunday plus two days)
.5 post (Sunday plus three days)
.8 post (Sunday plus three days)
It all gets a bit confusing so I decided to ring someone in London and ask what 0.2 represented and was told that it was one working day (if there wasn't a Sunday involved) but the situation was a little confused because generally a 'whole time' post is regarded as Sunday plus five days (which makes a day something around .17 of a week*) so what a 0.2 ended up being was Sunday Services and a day (which is different from my 0.34)!
Working on 0.17 = a day a general guide to the PS world is:
.17 Sunday Only
.34 Sunday + 1 days
.51 Sunday + 2 days
.68 Sunday + 3 days
.85 Sunday + 4 days
1.0 Sunday + 5 days
It all gets a bit confusing so I decided to ring someone in London and ask what 0.2 represented and was told that it was one working day (if there wasn't a Sunday involved) but the situation was a little confused because generally a 'whole time' post is regarded as Sunday plus five days (which makes a day something around .17 of a week*) so what a 0.2 ended up being was Sunday Services and a day (which is different from my 0.34)!
Working on 0.17 = a day a general guide to the PS world is:
.17 Sunday Only
.34 Sunday + 1 days
.51 Sunday + 2 days
.68 Sunday + 3 days
.85 Sunday + 4 days
1.0 Sunday + 5 days
I have found adverts for 0.2 posts (which oddly asked for Sunday services and one day) and the pinnacle of the PS art has to be the advert for seven churches where the job was broken down into five 0.2 packets. I rang and asked why this was and was told that two of the churches were earmarked for redundancy and so eventually the post would be five 0.2 posts!
I have also recently come across a situation where the advertised position was split into three discrete elements: 0.4, 0.4 and 0.2. I telephoned and asked why this was and was told that one of the elements was subject to a time-limited funding source and so, when this time was reached, the position would revert to a 0.6 post.
It is interesting to note that the 0.2 and the 'revert to 0.6' posts were not filled.
Recalling Bob Jackson's rule:
A cleric with one church will see growth.
A cleric with two churches will see something static.
A cleric with three or more churches will see decline!
The problem is that we are engaged in mathematical exercises when we look to fill vacancies. One senior cleric I knew used to mutter the mantra, 'Can't pay - Can't have!' and herein lies the rub for some of the most needy and effective ministry areas have little ability to pay and so are at a disadvantage.
Now I am old enough to know that if you haven't got the money then you have a bit of a problem and understand that bills need to be paid but it seems to me that we are in danger of contracting sessional clergy and engaging in PS posts which satisfy the accounting but leave the cleric and the congregations at a disadvantage - a disadvantage that will see an increase in decline in terms of congregations and clergy.
Time to be a little more creative - and this doesn't mean looking to Ordained lay ministry as a means of making end meet - we should be releasing the laity because we should be releasing the laity, not because the finances demand!
The problem is that those who have the purse strings and those who shape the ministry in our denominations are woefully poor. An area where the Green report's intentions would benefit the Church - pity implementation might come just a little too late!
Is it any wonder when I'm as confused as the people who are interegnum?
* Of course it's actually 0.166 (0.17) but this is all approximate stuff and so 'rounding up' is legitimate for the purpose of examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)