First, and Second, Thoughts?

It's been a long time since I blogged here, but this is the only place I can really make this entry. It might even simply be an exercise in catharsis...

I'm currently wrestling with the possibilities of a job move. I've made no secret of my desire for a Full Time HE Chaplaincy post, and was interviewed for one last year that, obviously, did not come to pass. Now I have another one coming up later this week. And, of course, I'm torn. It looks like a good post, with lots of potential in the best sense (i.e. a solid base to build upon and move on, rather than simply somewhere with lots of problems). It would cause my "career path" to move in a very distinct direction, away from the needs of running a church, or being too hidebound to a denomination, even into a notional 5 day week. Even if that last should be treated with caution, being absolved from having to steer a church, and with all the expectations of parish ministry, is a big plus. It would not only mean a move, with all the dislocation for the whole family that it entails, but renting or buying our own property.

None of these things are, in themselves major problems. They are not deal-breakers. At the same time I know that my Good Lady Wife is very happy here, all the more so since leaving my church to go somewhere else - and it has had major benefits for me, and our relationship. Likewise the children are settled. I still love my Uni post, and feel that things are really beginning to go places now, that I've got the connections and experience of the place that really count. And the parish? Well, it remains the weak point, the area I'm least motivated in, feel the least comfortable, least happy and in many ways the least effective (although I love the contact work with those on the fringes and in the schools). All in all I suppose that means I could be a lot unhappier. (Maybe I'm just resigned to my fate, in the parish at least).

I still can't hide the desire for the FT Chaplaincy, and this is a very good opportunity. All I can do is go and see, do my best at interview and presentation, and try to discern the best way ahead. When I start thinking about it I do find the prospect exciting, but I can't say I'm jumping up and down saying "this is mine! I really want this!"

We said 5-7 years here, and we haven't quite reached the lower limit. At the same time, these opportunities don't come up every day and I really don't want to have to move children from Secondary Schools, which gives us a deadline, if not an imminent one. My worst fear is to be stuck in this post and not be able to escape. Ideally, of course, I'd like to be able to lose one half of my role and for the other to be full-time, but although I believe in miracles, I think that's a miracle too far! Even then I can't hide the fact it would make a lot of sense to move further north, on many counts.

So, all in all, it's a little confusing a present. If you're the praying type, then prayers would be appreciated, and if not, I suspect you'll understand how I feel about this anyway.

All I can ask is that I will have a clear answer after Friday. Whether it's a polite refusal, a definite offer and a real feeling of rightness, or a definite feeling of "no, this isn't for me!"

Catharsis? A definite maybe!

Ethically Challenged

Rev Dr Alcine wonders whether it is ethical to consider that attending a PCC meeting with a heavy cold, and the subsequent effects it might have in streamlining the leadership of St Geoffrey's, might actually constitute a "good thing"?

Cyclical, cynical or something else

One of the features of the wider catholic tradition is the use of a Lectionary, a fixed cycle of readings in an attempt to ensure a balanced diet of scripture over a fixed period. It's three years in the case of the Revised Common Lectionary. This has been widely adopted, having spread far beyond its Roman Catholic roots, into Anglicanism and beyond. It allows the harassed preacher to escape from his or her hobby-horse subjects, but also allows the creation of a personal library of sermons, which every three years you can bring out, dust off, adopt, adapt, improve, or ignore.

It's invaluable, there's no doubt about it. But if I repeat a sermon from three years ago, virtually verbatim, to the same congregation, what does that say about me as the preacher, and us as the church?

It could say that I am lazy, uninspired, overworked, or all three.

But it could be because what I said then still applies now. I firmly believe that there are timeless truths to our faith, just as much there is the need for change and adaptation to fit the needs of the current time.

So if I preach the same sermon to pretty much the same congregation (making allowances for those who have moved in, or on, and including that endless churn of families who appear for a few weeks or months, get what they want and move on, hiding our numerical decline), what am I saying?

Am I being too harsh if I interpret that as saying that nothing has actually changed in the last three years? Could it be that the people who benefit most might actually be the transient ones, the sparrows coming in from the darkness for a few brief moments and then flying out?

Am I being too harsh a critic of myself? Of my congregation? Or am I, by posting this here, on my anonymous blog (and, maybe, to the safely-screened readership of my Facebook friends) actually colluding with such lack of change and failure of faith? My own, and that of others?

A Ghost of a Post

Anyone who has been bereaved knows something of the feelings of loss and the hope that something has gone wrong and their loved one will re-appear. Likewise losing, or missing out, on a dearly-loved or wanted job, can be somewhat like a bereavement. This might explain something of the feelings I have had today upon hearing that a job I seriously wanted, was interviewed for, and failed to get, then did not appoint at the end of the process.

I have to admit to being considerably cheered up by some of the conversation with a trusted Third Party (who should know), along the lines of "if they didn't appoint you, how could they have not appointed anyone?" Said Third Party was trying to work out a little more of the institution's reasoning.

In a way I've "seen a ghost", the ghost of a post, and with it, all the feelings of the possibilities, the what-ifs...

The point is, they are going to re-advertise. And, if the advert does not bear the phrase, "previous applicants need not apply".... well, I really don't know.

Self-examination is a dangerous thing. Discuss.

The seed for my ruminations this morning, as much as an exercise in waking my brain as any cod philosophical thoughts, stems from a long chat and a short phone call. The short phone call was from one of my worshipping parishioners to inform me of the death of one of my non-worshipping ones. However, even that statement is open to discussion as the non-worshipper was known as part of the wider social family of the church, and I can't be sure I'd never seen her within the walls, but if so, only an incredibly irregular basis. Incidentally I than found out where she lived, which is an enormous property that has intrigued me since my arrival.

It occurred to me that I didn't know her faith status, that I didn't know what she believed, although if you asked her she would have probably said something like "of course I'm a Christian."

I find it a little worrying. Surely as the parish priest I should be concerned about the faith, or lack of it, of all my parishioners? And of course I am, but all at a rather remote and impersonal level. I cannot claim to display, as some would put it, a "passion for the lost". Which begs the question of how seriously I take my charge and my calling, and the whole raft of issues about what "lost" is anyway. I'll leave that open, simply because if I do go that way I'll be here for at least another hour and come out with no clear answer either, other that I am human and fallible and need to rely upon the power, providence and grace of Almighty God. All I'll note in passing is the reference of that previous sentence, an appeal to Almighty God, and make explicit that I believe in the standards revealed by inspired scripture, incarnation and present inspiration as mediated by the Holy Spirit.

From an individual I barely knew, to another about whom I know much, and from their own lips, one of "my" students. There is no denying that K is in a mess. Mentally, physically and emotionally, with a self-image that is completely out of kilter, seeing threat in every unfamiliar situation and ready to take offence, or worry that offence has been caused in virtually every situation. And that's without the accompanying self-harm by inaction, and depression. Speaking to K yesterday I got the impression that most, if not all the problems, go back to self-image. If the baseline for the image of self and reactions of others is wrong, then all else that follows is wrong too. I hesitate to use the word paranoia, as I am not a psychiatrist, but it certainly fits in at least the popular usage of the word.

To draw the two together, if my parishioner has harboured the impression and personal assessment that all is well in their relationship with God, they must face the consequence of the judgement, and, I hope, the mercy of God. As must I, and every living human. Likewise K assesses their position in the world by reference to all fellow students and asks "why do I bother?" and "why do they hate me?" (but not, notice, "do they actually hate me?") To me this continues to reinforce the need for a set of absolutes by which we may judge ourselves, and so obtain some indication about that which is right and wrong with our lives.

For myself, I appeal to the standards of the Christian faith (all the while acknowledging that varying interpretations exist, yet remain within a coherent package) - revealed by inspired scripture, incarnation and present inspiration as mediated by the Holy Spirit.

Advent, like Lent, is meant to be a season for self-examination in the light of God and the expectations of both the first, and second, coming of Jesus Christ. So this is part of my contribution.

And with my brain working, after a fashion, I need to get to work!

Bishop's Day for Clergy

Rev Dr Andreas Alcine, writes:

I was most pleasantly surprised by the Bishop's Day for Clergy yesterday. What could have been a rather stodgy day turned out to be very good indeed. I seem to have worried the powers-that-be, but in a good way. Over the lunch break I had two conversations, both apparently genuinely independent of one another. Firstly I had the Area Dean, who I only see infrequently, ask how I was, and gave the honest response rather than the "church" one. I was genuinely surprised to be asked "What would help? What can we do to help?" It feels like a long time since I felt there might be help. So much so that I had to admit I couldn't give an immediate answer, although the wicked thought about removing some of the more troublesome members of the PCC crossed my mind. I don't think the Diocesan Arsonist doubles as Diocesan Assassin..."

And as if that wasn't enough I then had NewBish sidle up. It appears that the Interesting Opportunity Up North, that didn't come up trumps, had asked for references before the interview, rather than after, and as FriendBish was in unavailable, that he had picked up the notes and provided. I was further stunned by his indications that it might be possible to uncouple the two 0.5 posts, being able to keep the 0.5 Chaplaincy at Poppleton New, and leaving St Geoffrey's to their death wish and me to do something else. This definitely bears further investigation, thought and prayer. The possibility had never crossed my mind. Obviously I want to go FT Chaplaincy, but retaining the current post while while working in a Team/Assistant position, would be an improvement over the present. There are still lots of questions to be asked, and plenty of hurdles, and the whole thing might be a flash in the pan, but nevertheless I am much cheered by this.

The actual "official" day was good too, although I'm not too sure how useful the discussion groups were of themselves. More often than not they reveal more about ourselves, weaknesses and prejudices than provide helpful material for others, and I speak as the worst offender! However NewBish's ruminations on Jesus' teaching on Alms-giving, Prayer and Fasting can best be described as 'considered, gently-provocative and thought-provoking' (such as the observation not only that Jesus considers alms-giving and fasting as core values when we might not so readily do so, and noting that alms-giving, however, we interpret that, has nothing to do with maintaining either the cost of ministry covered by the Parish Share, nor the fabric, and therefore falls into an entirely separate category from the giving we do on a Sunday, except with the relation to the outward giving of the church as moderated through the PCC).

I could write more, but sadly the other business of the day and weekend needs attention, and won't do itself!

Rhetorical Question

If I really dislike this part of the job so much, why do I keep doing it?

Possible answer factors include, faithfulness (however unwilling), family, and lack of clear alternative (including the truth of possible homelessness!).

Needed saying. :(