No jobs for the boys - and girls?

There has been some discussion on my twitter feed about clergy who are finishing their curacies, and finding it very difficult to get another job. In many cases, this might involve them having to find another job - not to mention somewhere to live - until a suitable place becomes available.

The church's response to this appears to be "well, you knew this might happen", and leaving them to it. I think this shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the church, and I want to explore a little bit why I think this is an issue for the church as a whole. What is more, I think this is not limited to the CofE, as some similar form of the problem will be present in any church structure.

I have posted before about the nature of calling to priesthood, and how I struggle with it as a concept. This is continued because I see the CofE - in this sense - as an employer of clergy to fulfill certain roles within the organisation. Whether you like the organisation or not, its principles or aims, is irrelevant if you see it as an employer of people to fulfill its core purposes.

The problem with this perspective is that the organisation is shrinking - maybe collapsing. Looking at it as objectively as possible, they are not an employer that I would look at and consider a good prospect. I have worked for and looked at shrinking organisations, and they are not happy places to be.

Unfortunately, the selection process is, by and large, based on finding people who will fit in to the system as it is. In the current situation and environment, that is the wrong thing to do - if the church continues to do the same sort of things that it always has, the results will be the same as they are always have been - in this case, continued collapse. And I will post on this separately, because it is a longer thought train.

A few years ago, there was a number of comments and concerns that ordinands coming out of the colleges were struggling to find curacy positions. I presume that this is still an issue and a concern, and it is a problem, because most ordinands have given up their other work to do this, and they have often given up a house as well, because they are residential at college, and are normally expecting to have a house with the job when they are qualified. So to find themselves having spent this time studying and then not be able to find any work, they are stuck.

The problem, however, seems to have moved further along the line, where they are at the end of a curacy and then unable to find a new role. They are now at the far end of 5-7 years of specialised, vocational training - which means that they are probably completely out of touch with their former profession - and they are now finding there is nothing for them. They have undertaking this training period, and find that they are not needed.

So where does the responsibility lie here? Well employees of any organisation need to have a realistic perception of their possible future role an progress within the organisation. However, the CofE has helped and supported these people into a re-skilling exercise, training them for a job that only they have, and to then abandon them is not acceptable. If he training is going to be company-specific, then the company needs to have some guarantee of work at the end of it.

There are two changes that would help this. Either the "clerical" training needs to be generic, so that clergy can move to another church if there is shortage in the chosen place, or the church needs to guarantee to its ordinands a job. I cannot see either happening, because there are too many conservative influences.

However, this is an indicator of a more significant problem. When clergy move on, there are sometimes/often suggestions for merging parishes or other such reorganisation plans to reduce the number of clergy - because of financial pressures, and the shrinking congregational numbers. This means that the number of clergy positions is reducing - and this, in turn, means that clergy are less likely to move on to new places. There is a significant danger that clergy placings will tend to stagnate, meaning that there will be even more pressure on the first incumbency roles.

So what is the solution to this? Most organisations would tend to put higher value on their existing employees over new employees. Maybe the time is coming to stop taking on new ordinands, and concentrate on finding good and suitable roles for their existing clergy. Maybe it is time to accept that the church is shrinking substantially, and stop taking on new staff, but focus on making the best use of their existing people. But that would be an admission of failure, and is unlikely to happen.

So what is the answer to the curates who are unable to find incumbency roles to move on to? The answer will be found in not looking at this as a single problem, but as part of a much larger issue. The larger issue is that the church is shrinking substantially. The approach to staffing has not, seemingly, taken this into account. Finances have tended to drive the reduction in clergy places, but this is often done locally. The bigger picture, asking why they are continuing to recruit new people to a failing system, is not being asked.

At its heart, if the church is not prepared to look after its own, is not prepared to act as a responsible employer, then it is simply losing credibility. Any other organisation that was failing to look after its existing staff, but continuing to employee new ones, would come under serious scrutiny. Of course the church is not the same as other organisations, but as an employer, the problems currently being seen are an indication of a failing system. My call would be "look after your existing staff", and stop recruiting. I doubt whether that will be heeded. In fact, I doubt that anything will change until the situation gets very much worse.

Called to ministry?

I am in the process of putting together a difficult post about ministry in the CofE, but there is one area that warrants a separate post, I think, and that is the issue of calling to ministry.

I should point out two pertinent facts here. Firstly, I have been through the selection process in the CofE. This has two critical implications: Firstly, I do know something about the process, from the inside, and; I have some baggage from this, I am damaged and scarred by this process.

There is a problem that the only people who have any insight into the processing of the system, from the inside, are those for whom it has worked, and those for whom it hasn't and who may therefore feel aggrieved by it. What is more, in my experience, the ones whose opinions are taken are those for whom it has been successful, which is not a good way of assessing a process.

The second issue is that I have no problems with the sense of calling. I do believe that God calls people today, and, in fact, I believe that he calls many people in many different ways. What is more, I believe that this can lead people into the CofE priesthood.

The problem I have - and this is core to an understanding of calling - is that I am not sure that God calls a person into something as specific as the CofE priesthood. I believe that he calls people to minister to certain groups of people, to certain types of people, to particular people groups. It is also the case that the CofE has restricted certain types of ministry to the priesthood, and if God is calling you to a ministry that is covered by this, the priesthood may be a natural route to choose.

I know that some people will disagree with this. What is more, I know that there is a long history of a calling to the priesthood. None of which means that it is right, or that it is wrong. The problem that I have with this is that I do not see this "calling to the priesthood" in the Bible - and so I struggle to understand how come this new sense of calling is developed.

The Old Testament does not have any sense of "calling to the priesthood" - the truth is that if you were a Levite, you were part of the priestly tribe, and if you were a descendent of Aaron, you were in line for the high priest. There was no sense of being called to this - it was about being born to it.

The New Testament is not a lot more help. There are those who are chosen to be "leaders" of congregations and groups, often chosen by the group themselves, or picked by Paul on his travels, where he is starting new groups. But these are people chosen to lead a specific group at a particular time. It is only beyond the New Testament that a concept of a priest ordained by something other than a local community. But I am not certain that this is given the sense of a "calling" - it is important, it is serious, but is it a calling?

I do believe that I am called. I am called to minister to all the people that I meet. I am, I believe, specifically called to those on the edges of the church, to those for whom the church cannot reach. But I do not do this most of the time. Most of the time, I write computer software, something that I believe is an important aspect of what I do. I do not think that I am "called" to this - rather that I am "gifted" or "talented" in doing this, and I use my talents in this. I do believe that this is something given me by God, but also something I need to continually work at and improve.

"Ah well, that is you, but others do have a calling to the priesthood" you may say. Well one thing that I have got out of Andrew Brims latest book The Narky Nazarene is that this needs to be more clearly defined. If it is to teach people, then there are places to teach the Christian message. If it is to pastor people, then there are plenty of places to pastor people, to minister to them. If it is to lead people, then there are plenty of groups and people to lead and move on to the next place.

You could conclude that I don't have a lot of time for the priesthood, for clergy. You might be right, at least in that I do think the CofE dominant focus on priesthood is very dangerous and damaging. But I don't dismiss it completely - there is a place for people to be licensed for leadership positions. But, judging from what so many clergy seem to comment on, the skills and calling for this should be the ability to manage administration, and deal with stroppy and miserable people.

In the end, I think the core problems that I have with the sense of a "calling" to priesthood are twofold. Firstly, I think it is in danger of missing other perfectly valid "callings", not the usual sinecure of a calling to a secular job. We are missing callings that have nothing to do with the church, but are all spiritual callings to ministry. By focusing firstly on the church, and then on one particular role in the church, we miss the real meaning of calling, and the importance of spiritual calling and ministry in the wider world.

Calling - I think the question may not be what you are called to, but who you are called to. Calling is about people, because God is about people. That, at heart, is why I struggle with a "calling to priesthood".