vicars: old women and young men?
The Ugley Vicar pointed out this week that the lists of stats about ordination show that the average age at which men and women are ordained is widely different. Why, asks Rev’d Ugley, would God be calling women later than he calls men? Or, looking at it another way, how come the Church is (apparently) not encouraging young women to be ordained?
Then today on twitter I learned that the communications office at the Church of England is looking for “young and successful female UK vicars” (i.e. under 40) with no previous national press coverage. I don’t know the whole backstory (and in any case the definition of “successful” in a ministry context is a whole other can of worms) but it sounds as if this is a vocations push. If the Church is going to present some role models, I daresay that’s a good thing – but the real issues are not going to be addressed by a mere press campaign. It’s going to need more than that alone.
Me, I can think of several reasons why women come late to ordination. None of them are good reasons, and all of them could and should be addressed. Here are a few:
1. The Church is still guilty of that old-fashioned attitude that disregards young women as real contenders because they will take time off to have a family. I was asked at my own selection conference whether I planned to have kids. None of the men were. I was told that it “wasn’t worth educating women to a high level” because by the time we’d taken time out to have families, and taken an extra 4 years to get a 1st and 2nd degree, the number of years service to the Church wasn’t worth the investment. Hooray for one very stroppy woman on the committee who stood up to the naysayers and said I was very clever, committed to the Church, and it was none of their damn business whether I was going to have a family or not. (For the record, I took exctly 4 weeks maternity leave before starting back at work 4 hours a day)
2. The image that women are expected to conform to is narrow and stifling. Male vicars range from the smart and savvy to the fashion disaster, and that is OK. Women, somehow, are expected to have to be a fashion disaster even to qualify as spiritual. I am delighted that the Church accepts women who dress for comfort. That’s just fine. But why not also women who like to dress up a bit? I can’t count the times it’s been commented on (with surprise and sometimes disapproval) that I wear nice, well fitting clothes, sometimes with skirts above the knee, or jeans and leather jacket. It’s not slut-walk stuff, just reasonably stylish. To be a female vicar you have to put up with a lot of stick just to be normal.
3. But the elephant in the room is the great big thick glass ceiling. If women are choosing between joining the clergy or another vocational pursuit – say a career in medicine or teaching – and they see no barriers to their acceptance in any of them except the Church, isn’t that going to dissuade them? Or at least make them put it off for a couple of decades? Of course it is.
I am adding this edit for clarity: it’s an important point. It isn’t that ministry is a career for the ambitious. On the contrary, it is a vocation, that’s why I chose teaching/medicine for comparison. And it isn’t that ministry is viewed by those in it as a ladder to climb up for “success” – and certainly (ha ha ha) not for money! So why does it matter that there is a “glass ceiling” if it’s not for money or ambition? – it’s this: half the church (men) have the possibility to move into posts where they may use and develop all their gifts, and women are limited in which gifts they may exercise, or the extent to which they may do so. And that is a slur on the Church, because it is a waste of its people. The point stands, in fact, not just for ordained people but for all the people of the Church. It’s just that the rules are made for those we ordain; and those rules tell us something about our views of people across the board.
There’s more, much more. But enough for one day. I’m off to put on my cardi. 
43 Responses to “vicars: old women and young men?”
Comments
Pingbacks and Trackbacks
Reply
-
author musician theologian
Maggi has kept a blog since September 2003, writing about theology and faith, the arts and literature, and a little about life and random nonsense...
In an increasingly secularised society few people have a good working knowledge of the Bible. Yet a great deal of our culture is built on stories or ideas that come from the Bible. Literature, art, music, language and even the fabric of our society - such as our justice system - are built on Christian concepts and biblical references. The Writing on the Wall provides a fascinating introduction to the Bible's best-known, and most influential, stories. Each chapter gives some background to the text of the Bible, and shows how the stories have become enmeshed in Western culture. Adam and Eve, the ten plagues of Egypt, The Prodigal Son and Mary Magdalene all feature - along with how the Bible has influenced everyone from Shakespeare to Monty Python, and Caravaggio to Banksy. 
Giving It Up explores the Lenten idea of 'giving up', taking it beyond the traditional idea of simply abstaining from something, and suggesting instead that what we need to give up is our existing ideas about God. With a daily readings for each day of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday, it follows the heroes of the Bible who had to give up their own too-small ideas about God.
This is Maggi’s bestselling book of daily readings for each day of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. Advent is the beginning of the Church year, and marks the anticipation of the coming Messiah. These readings explore how beginnings and endings in our own lives are illuminated by the different Gospel narratives of Christ's coming.
-
Search
-
-
Funny.
Yesterday morning I made a throwaway line about what would happen if I suddenly decided to pursue a vocation in the C of E and it opened a few similar thoughts. My other half is ordained but in secular work, having left so-called fulltime ministry for reasons of having his personal integrity coming into conflict with that of the diocesan policies at that time.
The above are all good reasons why sane, sensible, spiritual women should be reluctant to follow a formal vocation. Another is the rot at the core of the church that means such things have surfaced; those are merely the fruiting bodies of a deeper malaise.
Priesthood is in some ways beyond any of this, or the stereotypes and the paraphenalia.
Interesting thoughts. I’m a woman vicar feeling a little bit old today because I turn 36 tomorrow. I’ve been ordained for 8 years, so at the time I think I was a fairly young 27, and was appointed as an incumbent at 31. When I came to this church I was half the average age of the PCC. I also have two young children, so I’m well into the plate spinning game.
I also hate the word success, it’s so loaded, and in the context of ministry unhelpfully ties together self worth with things going well in the parish, many of which may be entirely or largely circumstantial. When things go well, and people give nice feedback, and say encouraging things, or express gratitude, I try and treasure the feeling, so that I’ve got some good stuff to draw on when it’s all feeling a bit rubbish. I strive for adequacy because for me that’s about offering to God the best of what I have but without being too driven; and I pray for grace because I’m not sure anyone’s adequate to the task of a lifetime of ministry!
Am I put off by the glass ceiling? No, not at all! I can’t imagine anything worse in career terms than having to be a Bishop, with the possible exception of having to be an Archdeacon or the Dean of a Cathedral… but that might just be me!
Sometimes it’s seriously easier to be an atheist (said in sorrow, not in Schadenfreude).
I agree with much of what you say, Ally – I have never had ambitions to be a Bishop either – all that paperwork! ugh. But I really don’t like working in an institution that insists that all theBishops are men. There are many of our colleagues (female) who would be great bishops. And it would make a positive difference to your life and mine if they were.
Absolutely, you’re quite right, and they would also be rather good for the church, too, both in terms of the difference they would make to how the church actually is and in the way that the church is perceived.
The fact that the CoE does not have women bishops is not just about the glass ceiling, it is far worse than that. It shows that at it’s core the CoE is still reluctant to accept that women are equal with men. No secular employer would be allowed, by law, to ask a woman about whether she intends to have children but the church thinks it is acceptable to use lower standards than those accepted by a secular society.
I would like to be able to say that things are different in the other denominations but, tragically, they are not. I’m not sorry if I sound angry because I am.
When I told my mother-in-law I was going to be made a member of the Methodist Church, she looked at me sorrowfully and said “Oh no, all the Methodist women I know have hand-knitted cardigans and thick ankles.” There does seem a general misconception that to be spiritual you need to be dowdy!
Is there also an extent to which we’re still catching up, nearly 20 years on from the first women priests? Are there still women who sensed God’s call a long time ago but were simply unable to pursue it at the time. Life got in the way (whatever that may have looked like) and they are now going through the system?
I actually trained with a good spread of ages within both sexes and most of the female clergy I know are young and dress well as it happens.
love the leather jacket btw
Being a flashy dresser can get comments for men as well in my experience! Some people like their clergy dowdy, scruffy and not too professional. I have to explain to folks that the suit I wear they assumed was ‘designer’ was actually from a charity shop, or an off the peg fit that cost less than the same from M&S. I don’t wash my car too often for some of the same reasons …
But I think there is a wider issue in society about how men and women’s careers and vocations interact for married candidates.
I have had conversations with younger people about vocation who cite the effect it would have on their spouses career as a reason for waiting. – the more established their spouse is in a career the easier it is to move around the country.
If clergy want a career break for children they are scrabbling for a reasonable House for Duty post or looking at losing housing when most younger clergy are not on the property ladder at all.
Why these issues concern women more than men is not a Church problem so much as a reflection of society. Men’s careers are typically dominant and more women than men take career breaks to be at home with children. Until this changes (and the cultural expectations of men and women which underlie it) I suspect we will have fewer young female vocations than men.
Speaking as one of these young women (I suppose!) I must say the CofE’s continuing lack of equality is a huge drawback in considering it as a church, let alone as the place for an ordained vocation. No denomination is perfect, of course, but the great big thick misogynistic anti-Christlike glass ceiling makes a lot of women pretty blooming cross.
From a Baptist background, the irony is that the BUGB has said for years that women are equally called to ministry, but because of the lack of top-down authority it can’t be imposed, leading to fewer churches ever calling women, because each church is able to select/call according to its own church procedures. The CofE seems to me to have the opposite problem when it comes to the battles over women (ordination when I was a child, bishops now) in that because it is aware that decisions have to be implemented evenly across the country, it takes forever to reach any decisive step forward in favour of women’s equality because “people might get hurt”. I don’t have an answer to offer, but I thought it was interesting to note the two very different approaches and outcomes, neither of which seems particularly just!
There are still older women working their way through the calling and ordination system having been prevented from responding (fully) earlier on. I was put off church for a few decades by the prevailing irresponsible pastoral attitudes to children and to a lesser extent the misogyny, both of which seem to be changing a bit, thanks be to God. To see where this is likely to get us in a few more years, it would be useful to look at statistics from the US or Canada or other Anglican denominations that have been ordaining women for longer.
The church should also be rejoicing at getting people (men too, obviously) who have previous experience of other professions and management as well as women who have been stay-at-home mothers – not that I am for a moment saying the church is not “the real world” but that diversity is useful.
I can’t help thinking it is a good thing, not a bad one, that women who are “choosing between joining the clergy or another vocational pursuit” on the basis of the career prospects are staying out of the church. I wish it were equally true of men. See what Cranmer’s Curate had to say recently about careerism in the church.
I’m glad to see some attempt to grapple with the issue that the statistics raise. However, I would like to make two comments. First, I don’t think anyone in my tranche of ordinands thought about the ‘ceiling’, glass or otherwise, because we did not think of the church in terms of a ‘career ladder’. I am sure none of us expected to become bishops, not least because the clergy to bishop ratio was much higher in those days. So I hope no one would be put off become a parish priest – still the ’standard’ ministerial model – because she or he couldn’t expect to be a bishop. (BTW does that make those of us whose ministry has passed largely unremarked by the hierarchy ‘unsuccessful’?)
Secondly, as a single man I was twice turned down for parish appointments because I wasn’t married – so ‘unsuitable’ domestic arrangements can affect even men.
This is not, of course, to say everyone should just ‘grin and bear it’. But life is never ‘fair’, and learning to cope with it is something I’ve always thought of as part of accepting God’s sovereignty.
Interesting. Back home, I knew many fashion-disaster male vicars, and we had a female curate who was pretty stylish (also had a fondness for leather jackets).
I was quite surprised when I moved to London and found all the male vicars to be dandies!
Thanks John – good point – and I’ve added an edit for clarity, because no-one (with one possible exception) in my tranche thought of it as a hierarchical career either – it is antithetical to ministry to think like that. The point isn’t about money or power or status. It’s that if the space and the welcome for one group of people (women, blacks, or whatever) is limited while it’s wide open for others, then the Church loses doubly. First because those people’s gifts are not freely available to the Church. And second because those people, finding themselves stifled, will not flourish, so whether they stay or leave, their ministry will not be as fully developed as it could and should be.
Just suppose the elephant in the room were actually ordination itself. After Christendom isn’t it possible find better forms of leadership and decision-making than marking out two classes of Christians and drawing a line between them?
And I’m with Phil here!
Fantastic post… A message that really needs to be talked about!
likewise with Phil. Are we not supposed to be all a priesthood of believers? Then why the distinction? Ontological change is another elephant in the room no one wants to talk about….
I did once give a talk at the MCU where a young woman priest made it clear that she had career ambitions in the church and was considering giving up ordained ministry if she had no hope of becoming a bishop; I felt the obscure shame I always feel when telling a Christian they have got Christianity wrong. But I have to say I have known a lot more men who were confident that their real calling was a couple of notches up the ladder, and the Church had better listen to God’s opinion on the matter …
I shall expect spectacular things of your skirt next time we have lunch, Maggi
Dear Andrew, I was wearing a delicious skirt last time we met for lunch, but being the gentleman you are you talk to my face! Hooray for you…
John, you are with Phil yet you are ordained… !!
I am with all of you – ordination should never be a marking of two classes of Christian. Its value is lost if it becomes that.
Ordination is of value if it is a marking of gift and responsibility. As soon as it is subverted into a power game it becomes a parody of itself. But right back to the New Testament and before, people were “tagged” with particular gifts in the service of God and of the Church. It’s not ordination per se that is the problem, but the corruption of it into a class system.
One of the prevailing thoughts I had when I got ordained was that I was ‘giving up my amateur status’ – a sporting analogy, by which I meant I was giving up doing something in a spirit of freedom, but also, sociologically, I would no longer be able to say ‘my Christianity is the same as yours could be’ to the ordinary ‘lay’ person.
I still think this was a real loss, though I hope the gains in mission terms offset those losses.
The Church of England has never really had a coherent theology of ordination since the Reformation. Thus some sections of it were, and still are, operating on a pre-Reformed model. Recently I commented to someone that regarding parish ministry we are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 15th century model of ministry.
Others (eg Thomas Cranmer) had a more radically ‘Protestant’ model, but (for complex reasons) it was wedded to a ‘legalistic’ framework. You could say, I suppose, that those who follow this line are trying to solve a 21st century problem with a 16th century model of society.
Perhaps what we need is a ‘radical’ (back to the radix) reassessment of the ministry.
John, I agree with you that the idea of ministry as a legal framework no longer applies, even though we have the same skeleton framework the culture and legalities are not the same as in the 16C. And i think we *always* need a ‘ ‘radical’ (back to the radix) reassessment of the ministry’. Good point.
I think the really telling question when it comes to who may or may not be ordained to whatever “ranks” of the ordained ministry arises when you substitute other labels for “people who happen to be female” in the sentence”People who happen to be female may not be ordained to the presbyteral/episcopal ministry.”
If the Church of England were saying “People who happen to be black may not be ordained to the presbyteral/episcopal ministry” or “People who happen to be asian may not be ordained to the presbyteral/episcopal ministry” they would be laughed out of town, and probably find themselves on the end of a raft of expensive law suits. I’m not quite sure what the Anglican brothers in Nigeria and the rest of Africa would make of it either…
Why is that it is still institutionally acceptable in the Church of England to discriminate on the basis of sex (or sexuality), and yet discriminating on other grounds is no longer acceptable, and would probably be considered fairly prehistoric? [Bull in china shop moment - having said that, I'm yet to meet a black or asian Forward in Faith vicar in the CofE...]
It’s a bit of a mess really and I think ++Rowan should just bite the bullet and say that the Anglican Communion recognises episcopal ministry for all, regardless of race, sex or sexuality, and there are other churches for those who won’t accept that. (Clearly the business of synodal decision making is not this simple and people don’t want to see the “break up” of the Anglican Communion, but hey…)
And it isn’t that ministry is viewed by those in it as a ladder to climb up for “success”
Maggi, you don’t view it that way. But I can assure you that there are some people who get through selection that do.
And the fact that the Church discriminates further against talented people of both sexes who won’t wear dog collars is, of course, another story.
Maggi, I understand where you are coming from but I don’t believe there is a baby in the clerical bathwater. Whatever it is that clergy are supposed to be marked out for, at one time belonged to the whole people of God. This is an issue I’ve wrestled with in some depth (and even more length) over the past few years. I’ve said some more about this here: http://radref.blogspot.com/2008/12/give-up-your-vicar-for-lent.html.
The “glass ceiling” is a very real issue for any youg woman (and possibly not so young woman) who thinks hard about ordination – not because of future “careers” but because it is such a clear sign that the C of E is still an institution that does not value women in the same way as men. A woman has to be much stronger spiritually and emotionally to survive the attacks on her very identity that the church still seems to think are normal and acceptable.
For example, what does it feel like when it is acceptable for the church institutions and leaders to speak of your ministry as something that needs ” protecting against”? What about those dioceses with no or hardly any women in senior roles – what sort of institution is this? Why are women always “the problem” rather than the feelings of those who can’t accept their ministry?
I would never encourage a young woman straight out of college to train for ordination before she had had experiences in the rest of the world which affirmed her as a person with valuable gifts and skills so that when the church dumps all the angst of those who still see women as somehow tainting to their faith, onto her and her female colleagues, she can know in herself that she is a wonderful and gifted person, created in the image of God.
Rosalind – exactly! You put that so much better than I did. It’s not about careers in a self-promoting sense, it’s about the potential for flourishing.
On another tack, if we’re talking about the possibility of senior office being an affirmation of other office holders, since 1997 there has not been a single conservative evangelical episcopal appointment, and the last one was only a suffragan – who is soon to retire.
When I was training for ordination, it seemed that the age of the married women training depended very much on the willingness or otherwise of their husbands and families to relocate and adjust to the fairly strict and immoveable timetabling of college life – morning prayer during school run time, compulsory college things on three nights of the week etc. – and take on childcare as needed.
My husband was good enough to move 250 miles twice in three years, each time leaving a job with no idea where the next one would be. There were a couple of other married women of my age (late 20s/early 30s) at college who were in similar situations. There was also a much larger group of women about 15-20 years older than us who were commuting daily or weekly to college. Most of their children had either left home or were on the verge of leaving, so they were able to live double lives, as it were.
The male ordinands were far more likely to have kids of primary school or secondary school age, and a wife prepared to move and take over childcare.
I am a priest in Melbourne Australia. I’d like to add 2 things:
First, I can’t believe that no-one has yet mentioned the demands of mothering in the years in between ‘young’ and ‘old’! Maybe there are too few women priests in that age-group because it’s just too bloody hard! Statistically in Australia, women still carry out the majority of the household work, the majority of the social networking for the family, and the majority of caring for elderly parents! Personally, the idea of carrying the life of a community in my heart and prayers which is, in my mind at least, an essential part of being an effective priest, is well, just beyond me!
Second, I heartily endorse all the comments about professionalization of the clergy and so and would like to suggest that the solution is to recover the language of vocation for the laity – for the people of God with an ‘alter in the world.’
Thanks so much for the discussion.
And another elephant in the room is that there are many evangelical churches who encourage young male vocations to ordination but not female ones – often such churches are not ‘officially’ opposed to the ordination of women, but women as ordinands never crosses the rador of the leadership.
Women in such churches become ordinands 10 years later when they have moved house and joined a new local church. I see many such training on our regional course. Often they have stopped labelling themselves as evangelical, even though they are, due to their experiences in these large conservative churches.
Charles – that was my experience EXACTLY! Which meant that by the time I was ordained I was also pregnant with my first child. So I did all my study part time combined with working and then all my ordained ministry part time whilst juggling babies.
I think women’s pathways to brilliance are much more diverse than for men and, especially for mothers, it is frequently later in life that ‘career’ takes off. Interestingly, Carl Jung thought that midlife transition is often more significant for women than for men.
I’m 2 years into a theology degree and just been accepted as an ordinand, within our course there are people of all ages and of course men and women (though the women outnumber the men 5 to 1 which is no bad thing). I would say from my experience age and having a “life” prior to finding a calling can be the biggest barrier for men and women alike.
There is every pressure for those looking and Stipendary Ministry to be sent to seminary for 3 years to train, this can be a very difficult thing to do and more so if you have a family, of course having to move will happen at somepoint, but having looked at the communities around seminary I wasnt convicend that it would be the best environment for my Family or my Formation. A close female friend who is my age has simiar views. This limits to training to local schemes, which is fine the academic side of things is good as is the formational. The potential issue arises from the financial support, if training residential then there is funding and support available, sadly that isnt the same for those training locally.
I would expand Rosalinds statement out to be inclusive, I wouldnt reccomend anyone straight out of college goes straight into ministerial training. I feel I am in a much better position, at the ripe old age of 30, to begin my training in the knowledge that i bring a valuable set of skills gained in my working life and running my own company, having a family etc.
Women have played a vital role in my exploration of Ministry and me ultimate descision to persue ordination, Our current Curate, who was Priested today is a fantastically capable, spiritual and inspirational person.
Interestingly of the 11 ordained today 6 were women and all of them were under 35.
I have wondered about the influence of conservative evangelical churches not sending women for ordination. (Incidentally, not necessarily the same thing as ‘not sending women into ministry’.) However, given the minority position of CE churches in England, I wonder whether there they can account for the imbalance.
I suspect that the majority of young men in training do in fact come from these CE churches. I am actually running a new conference for young Anglican ministers in a week’s time and the majority who have signed up seem to be CE males (haven’t asked about their theology, but I’m guessing from a number of clues).
If this is correct, then taking out the CE males from the overall figures in ‘recruitment’ might itself reveal some interesting statistics. I wish I had the money to ask Christian Research to do some study of this – I doubt that the CofE would want to go into such a controversial area.
Would it be the case, if you removed the CE influence, that the entire age spectrum of the clergy would jump up a notch, as well as the differences between male and female flattening out?
One last thing: “women’s pathways to brilliance” – what’s that about?
Perhaps the even more significant point is why it is still the case that women are far more likely than men to be ordained as voluntary clergy, rather than paid. Research I did several years ago indicated that this remains the reality for many women – some women I have spoken to said they were told directly that they stood a better chance of being recommended for training if they opted for voluntary ministry than if they pursued the full-time paid route. The research also suggested that the proportions of women to men in ordained ministry had increased in recent years primarily because of male retirements, rather than because of any active promotion of women’s ministry.
As an ordained man I may not be in the best position to say this; but I can’t help thinking that women clergy I’ve met are often a bit too grateful to have been let into the male club. There’s too much of a sense of self-censorship, that they mustn’t rock the boat or challenge the status quo; and that they need to accept whatever crumbs are thrown to them by the bishops and archdeacons. There are, as always, notable exceptions to this; and I can see some people fear being labelled a strident feminist [as though that were a problem] if they stand up and insist on being treated better. Even so, a bit more insisting on equality of treatment mightn’t go amiss.
I remember being told once that every kind of work done mostly by women loses status. It was said, in evidence, that once a large proportion of the doctors in the former Soviet Union were female, medicine became a low-status job. I was told this, of course, by someone who wanted to demonstrate what would happen were the church to ordain women to the priesthood. As it is, I see the Church of England splitting its clergy between those who will be fast-tracked to the preferment list (mostly male, nearly all under 30 with 3 year residential training) and the clerical equivalent of China’s Barefoot Doctors (mostly female, nonstipendiary, and not trained with those on the preferment list). There’s a lot of pressure put on married women coming forward for ordination to be nonstipendiary.
Maggi, is the new person at Robinson male or female? My replacement at Trinity is a young man.
If Alice’s analysis is correct, there are still very large numbers of people who fall between the two categories; in other words a large number of men and a much smaller number of women who will never gain preferment beyond sometimes becoming an honorary canon [for long service] but who will continue in full-time paid ministry, often in the diocese they were ordained in.
There are far more people who spend all their time in voluntary ministry – totals outnumber full-time paid clergy by two to one – a majority of whom are women and many of whom are not ordained. This kind of imbalance suggests to me a fundamentally skewed view of what ministry is and how it is planned for and undertaken. It also indicates an imbalance of power within the church which looks to become more serious as time goes on; not least because while power lies with those who are full-time and paid, the responsibility for the ministry and mission of the church on the ground is increasingly going to be in the hands of volunteers. I can’t see that anyone in the church has grasped this yet.
I was sure of my call to ministry in my early 20’s, but not quite ready. A few years later, now with husband and two small children, I felt it as inevitable that I would have to put my call on the back burner till the children were independent – which would have left me in my early 50’s I guess. It was only when my husband was exploring his own very uncertain sense of vocation with the DDO – and I was invited along one time as spouse – that she suggested perhaps I ought to be the one to go forward rather than him since my sense of calling was certain. I’d not felt I was being “held back”, but as soon as she said this I just burst into tears. All I’d needed was for someone to give me permission to put my own needs on a level footing with those of my family. At 46 I now have 8 years full-time ministry behind me with 4 years training before that. I’m in Methodist ministry, but I’ll be eternally grateful to the female Anglican DDO.
Some of us young clergy women just disappear from stipendiary ministry for a time when we do decide to have families. I know a couple of women who tried to keep on with stipendiary ministry but found they didn’t get time with their children and so have left to become NSM or just left. Personally I deliberately chose to become an NSM for a few years (as a kind of extended maternity leave) so that I could enjoy my very young children. I’m now thinking about going back into stipendiary ministry, but whenever I think of the 60-80 hours a week I did as a curate, I’m wondering when I’ll actually get to see my family and whether it is actually worth going back? I certainly need to change the way I and the church does ministry if I do decide to go full time again because I’m not willing to sacrifice any part of my trifold calling as a priest, wife, mum. But how to get local churches to accept that? Let alone the church structures?