• Church AGM season

    At this time of year, most of the churches I know best in this part of the world are having their Annual General Meeting. In some denominations it is called something different, but whether it is the AGM or the Annual Congregational Meeting or the Annual Stated Meeting or whatever, the dynamics are generally pretty similar.

    Here’s a secret – most clergy absolutely hate the AGM. It is something that people in my job often dread.

    It is perhaps worth thinking about what an AGM is for and even better, what it is not for.

    The annual general meeting is a legal device to make sure that the church is being run properly. It is particularly there to make sure that no-one is running off with the money. It is also there to give the congregation the opportunity to elect people to the body (here’s it is a Vestry) which has control of the affairs of the church. This is the group which makes sure that the gas bills are paid, the stipended clergy have somewhere to live and an income stop them having to seek work, the building is secure and insured and things like that. In my own denomination, the Vestry also has a responsibility for sharing with the clergy the spiritual oversight of the congregation. This works differently in different places.

    One of the reasons that many clergy feel miserable about AGMs is that they can be used by the grumpy to have a go at other people. It is very easy for someone to get on their soapbox and have an audience for clergy bashing. And clergy often feel the expectations that they will be nice and calm and loving when dealing with people.

    Here’s a quick guide to how to upset your clergy at an AGM:

    • Criticise the worship – “Why don’t we keep the Feast of St Eucalyptus that you know is so dear to us?”
    • Criticise the preaching – “I once heard a really good preacher, someone who managed to keep me awake during the sermon…”
    • Criticise the spouse of the clergy person – “Why are we putting in a new kitchen in the rectory for her when she never teaches in the Sunday School?”
    • Criticise just about anything – “It is obvious why no-one comes to this church, it is because….”
    • Criticise what the clergy cost – “Now, if we could move onto the next page and talk about these travel expenses…”

    The truth is, there are better ways of dealing with most of the issues that might be bugging you than raising them at an AGM. If you’ve got comments about the liturgy then don’t wait a year to make your point before an audience. Most clergy will be happy to talk about how and why things are done in church. Mostly they have the job of balancing the needs and expectations of a diverse group of people. The thing to remember is that clergy are put in charge of trying to put on worship that will attract, inspire, encourage and move a group of people with needs that differ. Worship in particular isn’t there to meet any one person’s needs and isn’t just about what the clergy want either.

    If a church is running well then there’s usually better ways of getting answers to questions than waiting to ask the question at the AGM. “Why didn’t you wear that beautiful ephod that my family gave in memory of my grandmother?” is likely to get a better answer if you ask the priest directly.

    The best guideline for AGM questions is to ask whether you need an audience to ask the question. If you don’t need an audience then approach the church treasurer to ask for clarification about something in the accounts before the meeting. If you don’t need an audience then don’t wait for the AGM to ask why the priest never preached on the book of Obediah. You’ll probably get a better answer from her if you have a coffee to talk about it rather than raising it on AGM day.

    Some churches manage to reach above all this and have refocused their church AGM as a vision building exercise. I’m impressed by that and want to learn more about it.

    And I’ve been saving up a couple of announcements for this Sunday’s AGM which I hope will give joy to the heart. (But my lips are sealed for now).

    St Mary’s AGM will take place on Sunday. I’m looking forward to it because it gives me the chance to reflect on the immense thing that we are doing in being the congregation of St Mary’s, Glasgow in our day. The reports and the agenda are all in the Annual Report which is available online. At the AGM I get to look at the people responsible for all that is represented in that report and to be thankful for all that people do. The invitation to those coming to the AGM is for the members of the congregation to read that report and to do the same.

     

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin,
    I should, of course, have written ‘on this site’ rather than ‘appear in this blog’ because such derogatory terms have been used in the main by some of the correspondents.

    However, as to your use of the term ‘misogynist’, while certainly not applying it to any individual you seemed to be suggesting that all who held such views on headship were misogynist – a word which my dictionary defines as a hater of women. I happen to know a number of clergy who take this view and while agreeing that they are seriously mistaken , in no way can they be described as women haters – a serious and unfair accusation.

    Your also referred in your comments on the Bishops’ New Statement to ‘homophobic bullying’ which I also find objectionable. Today, of course if one dares, even with good reason, to remonstrate with anyone it is very likely that an accusation of bullying will be made and if they happen be gay then it is just as likely to be accused of being homophobic.

    Finally the term ‘arch conservative’ was used by someone who contributed a comment. I apologise for giving the impression that it was a term used by you.

    The point I was trying to make is that the use of such intemperate language cannot be conducive to reasoned discussion or argument. It reduces the whole thing to name calling.

    1. Cynthia Avatar
      Cynthia

      “It reduces the whole thing to name calling.”

      What is church leadership calling ME when they treat me as lesser in the eyes of God and the church? What is the result of hateful and hurtful language? Depression, LGBT teen suicide, homeless LGBT teens who are cast out by their religious families, sexual abuse of these homeless LGBT teens, hate crimes, human rights abuses…

      The truth of the suffering caused at the hands of the church needs to be told. It isn’t a pretty story, nor is it a polite one.

  2. Kelvin Avatar

    Ross, I’ve done an electronic search and I can’t find many instances of the term arch conservative on this blog. I happen not to think it too terrible, not least because I can imagine people using the term arch liberal to describe me. Although that would be inaccurate, I’m not sure that I’d be that offended to be honest.

    But that’s not the point. I can find only one instance of someone commenting on this blog using that phrase. That’s one comment in 10500 comments. It doesn’t seem to me to be a phrase particularly commonly used on this blog.

    The terms homophobe and misogynist have sometimes been used, but I’m struggling to find any instances of them being used to describe any individual. Again, I’m not of the view that they’ve been particularly commonly used in those 10500 comments. There simply aren’t that many instances of the words being used on this blog at all.

    Generally speaking, I think it is OK to debate ideas – it seems to me to be reasonable to be able to describe homophobic ideas or actions. Generally it is not helpful to call people homophobes. There is a difference that I know and tend to be quite careful around.

    I stand by my description of last week’s guidelines as homophobic bullying. Indeed, I can’t think of a better example of such behaviour. However, I’m not in the business of calling people homophobes and the accusation that I am and even that I do so habitually, seems to me to be far from secure.

  3. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin

    I accept your comment about my comment about the use of the word ‘archconservative!! Apologies for overstating the case.

    Having re-read the Bishops’ statement I cannot for the life of me understand how you can suggest that any part of the document can be suggestive of homophobic bullying. Its obvious intent is to clearly state what the current situation is which is important given that there could be legal implications for any clergy who decides to act outwith the confines of the stated law of the land (i.e the Act permitting same sex marriage.)
    I’m not really sure what you expected the Bishops to do.

    I appreciate how emotive and divisive this whole issue is. Inevitably the peace and unity of our church is going to be (and is) seriously disturbed to the detriment of its mission.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No-one can be surprised at the bishops letting people know they should not do anything illegal.

      However the surprise has come from clergy being told that they themselves should not marry. If the bishops knew they were going to say this previously then they should have said so before the General Synod and particularly before the Cascade Process began. Both the debate at General Synod and the Cascade would have been different if this had been known.

      It particularly targets anyone who is in training to become a priest or lay reader who may have been accepted for that training whilst being open and honest about being in a civil partnership. To publish this with just one week to go before the law changed was, to say the least, unhelpful.

      People make plans. Most things to do with marriage are planned more than a week in advance.

  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    My final comment -you’ll be pleased to know!

    But surely any ordinand who is in the situation you describe will be fully aware of the doctrine of the SEC regarding Christian marriage as expressed by Canon 31. At their ordination/licensing they can hardly promise to render due obedience to the Code of Canons if they plan not to abide by them.

    When I was ordained in the Church of England candidates for ordination were barred if they were divorced and had remarried. Through time the situation was changed. I would not be surprised if, in a few years time, the SEC changes its stance on same-sex marriage – I wouldn’t be surprised but I would not be happy. As I have commented before, as an Anglican my faith is based on Scripture, Reason and Tradition, all three of which bear witness to the truth that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      If someone in a same-sex marriage cannot subscribe to the Code of Canons because their manner of life puts them outside of the definition of marriage in Canon 31, then I can’t see any way that someone who is divorced can subscribe to the canons for the same reason.

      I personally think that someone’s subscription to the canons represents them accepting that this is the doctrine of the church. It is on that basis that I can subscribe to the Canons. Clearly I don’t believe the definition in Canon 31 to be adequate and have said so many times and very publicly.

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      Ross, Parts of various articles in Ian Bunting’s collection, Celebrating the Anglican Way, can be paraphrased thus:

      “Anglicans understand the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary for salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. ‘Reason’ and ‘Tradition’ are seen as valuable means to interpret Scripture (a position first formulated in detail by Richard Hooker), but there is no full mutual agreement among Anglicans exactly how Scripture, Reason and Tradition interact (or ought to interact) with each other.”

      To the best of my understanding, it is Tradition alone (and not a terribly old one, when compared with the Hebrew Bible as “Scripture”), that declares “that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” given that for a great deal of the past millennium there may, indeed have been one man and one woman, but the rest of what was called “marriage” bore no resemblance to what we in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries recognize. I refer to women as chattel, marriage for political purposes, etc.

      I’m sorry that you are not happy, but I’m sorrier that you are subtly suggesting that, since I affirm that my Reason and reading of Scripture trump “Tradition,” that I am somehow less of an Anglican than you.

  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Surely the Canons are not articles of faith. They are laws to be abided by, not a creed to be believed. There is a huge difference between the two.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      My understanding is that it is something of an anomaly to have a doctrinal statement in a canon. The canons should indeed be regarded as the law of the church and not a doctrinal statement.

  6. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Apologies for making another comment after I stated that I had made my final one on this issue.

    I agree that canons are not doctrinal statements or articles of faith but they must and do reflect the belief of the church. As the Bishops’ Statement puts it ‘The doctrine of marriage of the SEC, as currently expressed in Canon 31 of the Code of Canons, is that marriage is “a physical, spiritual ad mystical union of one man and one woman.”

    I would, therefore, have to disagree with Rosemary’s claim that there is a ‘huge difference between the two.’ They are obviously very closely linked to each other and with the practice and life of the church

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The important point to remember is that the statement regarding marriage in Canon 31 is “The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

      If it isn’t possible for those who advocate same-sex couples being able to enter marriage to edit that definition to suit their own ends then it can’t be possible for anyone else to do so either.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons because they happen to be in a marriage with someone of the same gender then it can’t be possible for someone to subscribe to the canons who is in a second or third marriage either.

      The way our church has dealt with divorce (which is also controversial for some people) has been to allow people to minister who are in relationships which fall outside the definition of marriage in Canon 31.1

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      “Huge” or not “huge”? Rather than debating the size of a subjective term, perhaps we can try to find a more objective method for determining the relationship between the two.

      It seems to me – and I welcome debate on this point – that the Canons ought to flow from our faith (“reflect the belief of the church”). Assuming that is the case, then after we deal with the question of “what IS the belief of a church that encourages reason over dogma?”, we get to wrestle with the potentially circular nature of putting statements of belief into a governance document.

  7. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Not so. Canon 31.4 allows for a Diocesan Bishop to permit the marriage of person/s whose previous marriage has been dissolved and where one of the previous partners of that marriage is still living.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Yes, Ross. The Canon allows for a bishop to permit a marriage after divorce.

      However, that says nothing at all about subscription to the canons or anything about whether such a person should be fit for ordination.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons if they happen to be marrying a person of the same gender due to Canon 31.1 then I can’t see how a person can subscribe to the canons if they are in a second marriage which also falls outside the boundaries of Canon 31.1 regardless of whether such a thing was permitted in church.

      I think that a second marriage should not be an impediment to ordination. However, the Bishops’ recent guidelines have implications beyond those who happen to be gay and lesbian.

      These are all inconsistencies that come from a time when the Canon was revised to suit some circumstances (divorce) but before other circumstances (marriage of same-sex couples) were even thought about. We shouldn’t expect such Canons to answer questions they were never designed to ask.

      Notwithstanding that, one of the reasons that it was presumed by many that being in a same-sex marriage (which does indeed fall outside the doctrinal definition of marriage in the canon) would not be a bar to ordination is precisely because being in a second marriage (contrary to the doctrinal definition of marriage) isn’t. One can’t have it both ways.

  8. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    It seems to me that a bishop can either be a ‘focus for unity’ (a seriously dubious phrase in my opinion) or show real leadership—I don’t see how it is possible for one person to do both.

    I can’t see much evidence of either from the SEC bishops at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Prayer for the Day – Script 3

    Good morning. I once won a scholarship to go exploring – finding out about what faith was like in a far off land. I chose to go to Egypt to spend time with the Desert Fathers – monks who live in monasteries far off the beaten track in the Egyptian desert. There I found vibrant…

  • Prayer for the Day – Script 2

    This is what I said on Radio 4 at 0543 this morning: Good morning. Today is the anniversary of the birth of AA Milne. That makes it the birthday of Winnie the Pooh as well. Later on today, I’ll be marking this as Winnie the Pooh Day. I’ll pour myself a cup of tea and…

  • Election of the New Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway

    Today has been quite a busy day at St Mary’s. The Cathedral hosted the election of the new bishop. The vote was over quickly and decisively when The Very Rev Gregor Duncan was chosen to be the next bishop of the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway in the first ballot. (Canon 4 allows up to…

  • Prayer for the Day – Script 1

    This is what I said this morning on Prayer for the Day on Radio 4: Good morning. There is an anniversary which falls today which isn’t well known or well celebrated but perhaps future generations will look back on it and mark it well. Today is the ninth anniversary of the first surviving edit made…