Ship of Fools: When ministry becomes a deflated balloon...

Thread: When ministry becomes a deflated balloon... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023093

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I've spoken to several people recently, both ordained priests and lay Readers, who've been far from satisfied with the way ministry has panned out. The common factor at its core is that the role doesn't fit with what they thought they were called to do and trained for.

From what they've told me, the selection and training process breathes air into a balloon of expectation which is released to expend all of its energy in this direction and that until it finally falls on the ground completely deflated. They've ended up stressed and wondering whether to change direction or stick at it.

What are your thoughts and experiences? Is this common? What if anything can be done to marry up calling and training with real life?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

1) Almost every job includes substantial elements that are unexpected; the idea that 'ministry' should be any difference seems to be unreasonable.

2) If they felt called to a particular vocation, the question is whether they were called to the manifestation that they had seen, or whether God was calling them forward to a particular opportunity of service in their particular denomination. Surely it must be the latter, so they should 'stick with the project'.

3) To the extent that their training was wrong, blame the trainers - and complain about the training. We all know that ministry training can tend to become detached from the reality on the ground, but that is an issue that should be addressed vocally and repeated.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I have on occasion spoken about "things they didn't teach me in theological college" which include such delights as pasting up posters, clearing blocked drains, and running budgies to the vet - not to mention soothing ruffled feathers at church meetings!

We have to remember that we live in the real world, which means that we can't always dwell in an exalted spiritual bubble, nor expect all (or even most) of our people to be ultra-committed super-saints.

Like most jobs, ministry has its high and its low points. I think we should be grateful that it is far more varied and interesting than most "jobs", and that ministers have far greater control over what they do (and when they do it) than lots of other folk.

Yes, I get fed up with ministry at times - but so did St. Paul! - just read 2 Cor. 4, for example.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I wonder what it was that they were expecting that they didn't get. Surely anyone who spent any time in the denomination of their ordination would have some idea of the reality..?

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I wonder what it was that they were expecting that they didn't get. Surely anyone who spent any time in the denomination of their ordination would have some idea of the reality..?

In the case of Readers, whose central calling is preaching, I think they would expect to preach.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Do ordinands get taught the psychology of group process ?

(I know teachers either don't get taught behavioural psychology or are not taught how to apply it.)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Engaging in Christian ministry in a post-Christian culture is inherently frustrating.

It's like trying to sell Cabbage Patch dolls after the craze has passed.

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Do ordinands get taught the psychology of group process ?

(I know teachers either don't get taught behavioural psychology or are not taught how to apply it.)

The psychology of groups was an option at my college. I didn't take that one as I've done some of that theory before, but the short courses on conflict management, financial leadership, working with the press, mental health and disablity were all really good. This is in addition to the usual college stuff on the bible, doctrine, liturgy etc.

I expect to be inducted into the ways of the parish photocopier and heating system during my curacy.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think it is inherently likely that for many or even most people part of their call to ordained or licensed ministry (C of E terminology) will have flowed from what they saw other ministers doing. I.e. it will have been connected to the visible aspects of the ministerial role.

The reality of ministry is that there are many other things which are expected to be done. The person who had a clear sense of calling to preach and to teach, also finds themselves expected to fulfil a bread and butter role in pastoral care, chair meetings of various kinds and be involved in the administration and running of an organisation which has many of the characteristics of a small business.

Sometimes, in the midst of that it happens that people lose sight of the original focus of their calling, or that the demands of the other aspects of the ministerial role become such that they are no longer able to give adequate attention to that part of their role. It's very easy for deflated balloon syndrome to kick in at that point, and it can be very hard amidst the continuing demands of the role to find space to refocus, and to adjust what one is doing to give greater priority to the things which were the focus of the call in the first place.

There are still many places where the structure presumes a more or less omnicompetent minister, even though there are not many places left where people still believe in the idea of the omnicompetent minister.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I wonder what it was that they were expecting that they didn't get. Surely anyone who spent any time in the denomination of their ordination would have some idea of the reality..?
In the case of Readers, whose central calling is preaching, I think they would expect to preach.

I get to preach quite a lot.

I thionk that some of the clergy and congregation would like me to do other things that I am not very good at more than I do. And I sometimes feel guilty about not being able to fulful those expectations. But they really want someone else, not me. When that person comes along things might work better.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Engaging in Christian ministry in a post-Christian culture is inherently frustrating.

It's like trying to sell Cabbage Patch dolls after the craze has passed.

Perhaps the problem is that the system attracts people whose strengths are primarily in pastoral work and in teaching and preaching, whereas current circumstances require significant investment in people who are called to be evangelists. It seems to be very rare to find these skills and/or callings all in one person. Churches are beginning to see the need for skilled evangelists (or 'evangelism enablers'), but most denominations still focus on the pastoral, preaching/teaching role, which must indeed be frustrating if you're constantly met with decline, and you don't feel able to do anything about it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I wonder what it was that they were expecting that they didn't get. Surely anyone who spent any time in the denomination of their ordination would have some idea of the reality..?
In the case of Readers, whose central calling is preaching, I think they would expect to preach.

There lies one of the difficulties, so it seems. When priests see it as their job to do the preaching and teaching, whether or not this was their specific calling, the Readers I speak to are sidelined to occasional preaching at or leading 'lesser' services, while the priests are complaining at having so much sermon preparation to do. I don't know whether perception of status has something to do with this.

The priests saw their roles as far more to do with spirituality and pastoral engagement and far less to do with administration and financial management, although they knew the latter would be part of the package.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@Raptor Eye - there is your problem, what is all this crap about 'lesser services' and the idea that administration is not part of a calling?

Simple solution is not to ordain anyone.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Raptor Eye - there is your problem, what is all this crap about 'lesser services' and the idea that administration is not part of a calling?

Simple solution is not to ordain anyone.

You may be right [Big Grin]

Does ordination give someone a status which might inflate an ego......?

Are people called into the holy order of an organised Church? Somehow a calling into a monastery or convent seems more clear cut.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

In my opinion parish ministry where there is one priest helped by a few Lay ministers or Lay Pastoral Ministers is totally outdated.

Team ministry with larger churches is where it will be at in the future IMO.

Training is still based on the old model...which leads to inevitable disappointment and discouragement.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I wonder if some people feel a calling from God and mistakenly assume that means get ordained and get a church, because that's the only use of "calling" by the church so it's the only way they know to respond to a calling. It being the wrong calling, they are not happy, the itch remains.

Yes a "discernment process" supposedly prevents the "wrong" people from being ordained. From what I've seen, the discernment process is flawed. Some good people, a number of mediocre, a few who don't belong there at all.

The USA Methodists apparently recently changed their rules to allow them to get rid of their mistakes instead of the lifetime guarantee of employment. At least they are finally admitting the discernment doesn't always work!

[ 25. May 2012, 14:11: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

/Tangent/ As (UK) Baptist ministers are employed by individual churches, they have never had the guarantee of lifetime employment. They can be sacked much more easily than an Anglican priest; they could decide to leave a church and end up finding themselves unemployed.

These situations are not very common - but they do occur. /Tangent ends/

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my opinion parish ministry where there is one priest helped by a few Lay ministers or Lay Pastoral Ministers is totally outdated.

Team ministry with larger churches is where it will be at in the future IMO.

Training is still based on the old model...which leads to inevitable disappointment and discouragement.

Well, I can't speak for Australia, of course - but all my clergy training was about collaboration - teams, groups, integration of lay and ordained etc. And I understood that that was very much the CofE approach in general? Most Teams, eg, couldn't exist without that approach. However, it's not about teams with larger churches - it's teams with larger numbers of churches which can be a problem in itself.

The title of the thread reminds me of an anecdote told about Dwight L Moody. Someone observed to him, you're always praying about being filled with the Holy Spirit. When you pray that way, aren't you filled, then - so why keep praying about it? His reply was: oh yes, but I leak!

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

quote:
Belle Ringer: I wonder if some people feel a calling from God and mistakenly assume that means get ordained and get a church, because that's the only use of "calling" by the church so it's the only way they know to respond to a calling. It being the wrong calling, they are not happy, the itch remains.

Yes a "discernment process" supposedly prevents the "wrong" people from being ordained. From what I've seen, the discernment process is flawed. Some good people, a number of mediocre, a few who don't belong there at all.

I can't speak for the US but in my part of the UK every vocations event I've ever been to has put huge emphasis on 'it might NOT be ordination'. There's even a popular book which pretty much tells you that even if you think you're called to ordination the chances are you're not!

Just taking ordained ministry as an example (purely because Reader ministry tends to be more 'clear-cut' in the churches I've known):

How do you pull out what and who is 'good at it'? Leaving aside the issue of those who cause great harm - and plenty lay ministers and members of congregations do that too - if a priest is who someone is then how can you tell them they're not 'good'?

How do you judge them to be mediocre? They might have a rich and committed prayer life where they pray, in detail, for each member of their congregation...but be crap at paperwork and miles behind organising the finances, does that make them a mediocre or 'bad' priest?

The discernment process isn't perfect but I'd suggest it's pretty decent and it's the best we can do at the moment.

So, I suppose my question is: What would you do differently? How would YOU select people?

ETA: I've met a lot of clergy types and I've never met a single person who I'd deem 'unfit' to be ordained. I just don'e think I have the right to judge that. But perhaps I'm just easy to please.

[ 25. May 2012, 15:22: Message edited by: Masha ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Masha

Frank Viola, proponent of the concept of the organic church, sees it this way. The problem, in his mind, is that we invariably start from the office and look for people to fill the office, rather than starting from what people's revealed gifts are. If you're looking to fill jobs, it must be easy to see just what you want to see. In his scenario, however, 'ministry' is simply a matter of giving a formal blessing to roles that people are already performing in their local church. In other words, they've already become ministers 'organically', so there's no need to take someone on who hasn't already seen their skills put to use in role.

This is a departure from how things work in institutional churches, or how they're ever likely to work, but I thought I'd mention it.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

I have observed a pattern of people called to ministry later in life. They undertake years of study and hard work. They are then typically called by a small, older, conservative congregation that is probably best understand as a chaplaincy.

Disappointment ensues when they realize that theologically, liturgically, evangelically, socially, and musically, their congregation is stuck in 1956.

Few pastors will have the opportunity to serve a growing church that embraces evangelism, liberal theology, and cutting-edge worship practices.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo

Few pastors will have the opportunity to serve a growing church that embraces evangelism, liberal theology, and cutting-edge worship practices.

Is it even possible for all three of those to be present in the same place at the same time?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Masha:

How do you pull out what and who is 'good at it'? Leaving aside the issue of those who cause great harm - and plenty lay ministers and members of congregations do that too - if a priest is who someone is then how can you tell them they're not 'good'?

How do you judge them to be mediocre? They might have a rich and committed prayer life where they pray, in detail, for each member of their congregation...but be crap at paperwork and miles behind organising the finances, does that make them a mediocre or 'bad' priest?

The discernment process isn't perfect but I'd suggest it's pretty decent and it's the best we can do at the moment.

So, I suppose my question is: What would you do differently? How would YOU select people?

ETA: I've met a lot of clergy types and I've never met a single person who I'd deem 'unfit' to be ordained. I just don'e think I have the right to judge that. But perhaps I'm just easy to please.

I think this throws some light on it too. Everyone is unique, and will have a unique calling, but the role mould to be squeezed into will never be exactly the right shape. Discernment will hopefully filter out those of completely the wrong shape.

There may be something in the 'bottom-up' idea, which takes the natural role, develops it and draws people together into ministry teams so that all aspects are covered.

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

SvitlanaV2,

Actually that IS how it's supposed to work.

That's why people don't get ordained and learn 'on the job' as it were.

They look for people who are using gifts and ministering in their local context. Those people are encouraged to study theology and spend a few years in formation. Only then are they ordained. So I don't see it as the 'powers that be' looking for someone to fit a job spec. There is no one clergy job description and how ministry looks varies from person to person.

Of course, YMMV. As they say around here.

[ 25. May 2012, 19:02: Message edited by: Masha ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Masha

So why are there situations where someone is ordained who isn't suitable? Surely, if they've organically developed into ministry in their own churches, there wouldn't be any shock when they get the official seal of approval, would there?

Perhaps the problem occurs when the churches in which they've developed their skills are rather unusual, and the jobs available to them afterwards are in a very different environment. But that too seems like rather poor management of the individual's skills.

However, I'm not really convinced that our churches have much sense of organic ministry. The usual situation is that churches are desperate to fill posts, and anyone with okay social skills, who's fairly articulate and intelligent will be coerced into a job. I've often heard ministers complain about how lay people are appointed to jobs in church! And because of the special expectations put on ministers, it's not easy for an ordinary church member to get a real feel for the responsibilites and limitations of the role, I imagine.

I also think ministers themselves have some boundaries around what they feel is their distinctive role, and they don't necessarily want to see those boundaries blurred by the laity. But I accept that my experience will be different from yours.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Masha

So why are there situations where someone is ordained who isn't suitable?

Because things don't always work the way they're supposed to work?

I've known at least one cleric who said they would've said whatever was needed in order to be ordained. It worked; until that person realized that there were constraints on their ordained ministry which they didn't want to work within. They knew about them before selection and training, but they truly thought they'd be able to 'sort it out' once the 'magic' was done.

More innocently, some folks do have extraordinarily bad experiences which can put them off.

I think, too, one doesn't know how it'll feel to be in various circumstances of ministry, till one is there. Some people think they'll love the idea of being the people's pastor - but the feeling doesn't always match the anticipation. Maybe it's a bit like wanting to be a much loved family GP, only to find out a few years in, you'd prefer to work in a morgue with the variety of patient that doesn't talk back?

Where the wisdom comes into it, is knowing whether it's just a natural blip in ministry, or a fair indication of a reasonable change of direction.

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

I hesitate to say this, as it may come across as self-righteous and pompous, if so I apologise in advance.

I wonder whether the problem is the "My ministry..." attitude. (i.e. the focus is on me, what I have achieved, what I could achieve if it wasn't for X) rather than the focus being on God (what does God call me to do in this small/depressing/whatever parish)?

Having too strong an idea of what I want to do in ministry can make the focus to much on ME (and what I clearly know what God has called ME to do), rather than taking the attitude "I'm here, I'm here to do God's work, what needs doing?"

After all, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth...?"

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

I've known at least one cleric who said they would've said whatever was needed in order to be ordained. It worked; until that person realized that there were constraints on their ordained ministry which they didn't want to work within. They knew about them before selection and training, but they truly thought they'd be able to 'sort it out' once the 'magic' was done.

[...]

Some people think they'll love the idea of being the people's pastor - but the feeling doesn't always match the anticipation.

But if these people were already aware of the issues by already having got their hands dirty in the job, then these rather romantic assumptions wouldn't exist, would they? This is what I'm talking about.

I've read about young clergy who rail against their elders for not 'bringing the church into the modern era', for letting things slip, for clinging to the past - and then realising that they too find themselves up against brick walls, or against a clanking machinery that noone can manoeuvre except in the traditional way. This seems to be the way things go. But that just suggests that the whole system is somewhat faulty.

Anyway, this is just the way things are, so I'm just talking. I don't suppose there's much to be done about it.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

A horrific percentage of clergy are green (Insights)/Introverts (MBTI) touchy, feely, love everyone, anything for peace, quiet and keeping the family together types. So bascialy we are screwed.

Clergy are too nice, ministry is not, The gap between expectaions and reality is huge. Some never make it across.

AtB Pyx_e

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Myers-Briggs is a load of old bollocks - and if they use that in selection in any way it unlikely to be helping.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
I hesitate to say this, as it may come across as self-righteous and pompous, if so I apologise in advance.

I wonder whether the problem is the "My ministry..." attitude. (i.e. the focus is on me, what I have achieved, what I could achieve if it wasn't for X) rather than the focus being on God (what does God call me to do in this small/depressing/whatever parish)?

Having too strong an idea of what I want to do in ministry can make the focus to much on ME (and what I clearly know what God has called ME to do), rather than taking the attitude "I'm here, I'm here to do God's work, what needs doing?"

After all, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth...?"

I agree that the focus may turn upon themselves, especially if status and ego kick in.

It may be the other way around however, if they're trying to do all that needs doing, but this isn't fulfilling their calling. As I understand it, a calling isn't often the same thing as what people would choose to do for themselves, but they accept as they want to serve God.

As Jesus said to Mary & Martha, only one thing is needed? God's work for them isn't necessarily all that needs doing.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
A horrific percentage of clergy are green (Insights)/Introverts (MBTI) touchy, feely, love everyone, anything for peace, quiet and keeping the family together types.

REALLY misunderstanding Myers-Briggs categories here.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

The explain it better, just don't tear one bit down and think it's good enough.

Intorverts in the MBTI approach draw their energy from solitude. Something that you have to be very skillful to get as a clergy person, most just get stressed.

The fact stands that most clergy ar Green/ Introvert. They are too nice.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Its still a load of old bollocks .

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The explain it better, just don't tear one bit down and think it's good enough.

Intorverts in the MBTI approach draw their energy from solitude. Something that you have to be very skillful to get as a clergy person, most just get stressed.

The fact stands that most clergy ar Green/ Introvert. They are too nice.

Yes, introverts draw their energy from times of solitude, but that doesn't mean they can't engage in groups, just that that needs to be offset by time alone. Actually, clergy often do have an unusual amount of solitary time during the week (working on sermon, etc.)-- especially in a smaller church w/o a large staff. As someone who falls midway on the MB scale, I sometimes find the time working alone in the office draining (and thus tend to spend far too much time chatting on the Ship), Sundays are draining for introverts, but not ordinarily excessively so.

This book, written by a friend and colleague, details the misperceptions well: Intoverts in the Church

But the rest of your comments (peace at any cost, etc.) have to do w/ methods of dealing with conflict-- not with introversion/ extroversion, which was what I was getting at in my comment. You can have extroverted "accomodaters" (which is what you are describing) and introverted tyrants, and just about every other variant. Totally different scales.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

But the other subscales have next to no construct validity.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Bit more googling I figure out you're referencing another scale that I'm not familiar with, so my comments may be off base. I was taking your comments to be a reference to Myers Briggs. Too late to edit, so once again, foot in mouth, perhaps.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Apparently there are quite a few different studies into personality types and ministry, and a range of different models. It's not just Myers-Briggs.

If certain personality types predominate in the ministry, that's because the selecting bodies accept such types for training, and because such personality types are then trained and appointed, congregations come to expect such personality types to be appointed in the future, and the kind of people who consider entering the ministry probably have that kind of personality themselves, because the people they see modelling the clergy role are people like this. It's a cycle.

People who don't fit this model are less likely to experience a 'call' to the ministry, and if they do, they're probably discouraged by the reactions of other people who can't envison them in the traditional clergy role. (And who can't imagine a clergy role that's not 'traditional'.)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Its still a load of old bollocks .

You're right. Unfortunatly our bit of the Church of England is addicted to the stuff. Its really irritating.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Disappointment ensues when they realize that theologically, liturgically, evangelically, socially, and musically, their congregation is stuck in 1956.

Sounds like paradise to me. [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Myers-Briggs is a load of old bollocks - and if they use that in selection in any way it unlikely to be helping.

That is usually said by people who have encountered it used badly or who have little self-knowledge.

Posted by aig (# 429) on :

Think² asked

quote:
Do ordinands get taught the psychology of group process ?

Maybe - it depends on the college and course. Within my college ordinands are on ~10 different pathways and my intake have ~3 hours a week when we learn as a group together. So, in those 3 hours we cover areas which are considered important; this year it has been liturgy, spirituality/ prayer,the nature of the Anglican church, preaching and work with children.
We are a diverse and articulate group: I think if we had a session on group processes we would immediately enter the storming phase and remain there for some time. The extroverts would love it, obviously, as would those who diss MBPI.
We do Ministry next term - but I am on an exchange trip to Yale, and will never find out what it is.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Myers-Briggs is a load of old bollocks - and if they use that in selection in any way it unlikely to be helping.
That is usually said by people who have encountered it used badly or who have little self-knowledge.

Or have actually looked at the research evidence.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aig:
Think² asked

quote:
Do ordinands get taught the psychology of group process ?
Maybe - it depends on the college and course. Within my college ordinands are on ~10 different pathways and my intake have ~3 hours a week when we learn as a group together. So, in those 3 hours we cover areas which are considered important; this year it has been liturgy, spirituality/ prayer,the nature of the Anglican church, preaching and work with children.
We are a diverse and articulate group: I think if we had a session on group processes we would immediately enter the storming phase and remain there for some time. The extroverts would love it, obviously, as would those who diss MBPI.
We do Ministry next term - but I am on an exchange trip to Yale, and will never find out what it is.

I was more thinking about how group think and compliance work. Though of course group dynamics are useful as well.

Posted by aig (# 429) on :

This isn't taught, although, if our group is representative of C of E clergy, the chance of our developing groupthink seems slight. The image of herding cats is probably more accurate.
I suspect one person has had training in this, however, as he prefixes every question with the words 'May I play devil's advocate?'
Compliance is a different issue - we are like Pavlov's dogs - reacting instantly to bells and tapping, provided it is grouped in threes...

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

I've known at least one cleric who said they would've said whatever was needed in order to be ordained. It worked; until that person realized that there were constraints on their ordained ministry which they didn't want to work within. They knew about them before selection and training, but they truly thought they'd be able to 'sort it out' once the 'magic' was done.

[...]

Some people think they'll love the idea of being the people's pastor - but the feeling doesn't always match the anticipation.
But if these people were already aware of the issues by already having got their hands dirty in the job, then these rather romantic assumptions wouldn't exist, would they? This is what I'm talking about.

Well, the case I quoted - and I know there are others - is about people who really think they're the exception to the rule. It's about people ignoring what they're being told and taught because as Bax says they are focussed on 'my' ministry. The person I was thinking of spoke all the time about 'my' ministry to such an extent, it threatened relationships with colleagues and proved a barrier to any kind of rational discussion. I'm afraid that person's individual ministry ended rather badly, and I'm afraid - in that case - it could not be laid - at least entirely - at the door of the diocese or the Church. For this person, it wasn't about 'romantic' notions, it was about this person's individual notions, in the face of what they were being taught and told.

I think we do have to accept that in a few instances - hopefully just a few? - there are some people so determined to fulfil their own wishes, nothing else matters. It happens in other professions, the clergy is no exception.

However, having said that, I still stand by what I said that most disappointment with clerical work is maybe related to how it 'feels' in reality; compared to the anticipation of what it would be like. A romantic notion only becomes merely 'romantic' when it's proved to be unrealistic, after all. And I guess a lot of that is about how to sustain oneself through difficult or dry periods of ministry or doubt.

A bit like marriage maybe? Do you give up because you have a massive disagreement with the spouse, or find out he's not all he's cracked up to be; or he's harder work than you thought, or less rewarding? Is it worth persevering, cutting one's losses?

There would be bound, also, to be the cases where selectors recommend someone who they perceive is suited for training for ordained ministry, but who won't two or three years later actually make a good priest. But I think the processes and the people probably do the best they can.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aig:
This isn't taught, although, if our group is representative of C of E clergy, the chance of our developing groupthink seems slight. The image of herding cats is probably more accurate.
I suspect one person has had training in this, however, as he prefixes every question with the words 'May I play devil's advocate?'
Compliance is a different issue - we are like Pavlov's dogs - reacting instantly to bells and tapping, provided it is grouped in threes...

'Triads'! We did this a fair bit, mostly in listening skills exercises, however.

We did do the Belbin thing, too - as well as Myers-Briggs. Belbin was about group dynamics and the advantages of balancing complementary personalities in teams.

In a perfect world maybe. [Smile]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my opinion parish ministry where there is one priest helped by a few Lay ministers or Lay Pastoral Ministers is totally outdated.

Team ministry with larger churches is where it will be at in the future IMO.

Training is still based on the old model...which leads to inevitable disappointment and discouragement.
Well, I can't speak for Australia, of course - but all my clergy training was about collaboration - teams, groups, integration of lay and ordained etc. And I understood that that was very much the CofE approach in general? Most Teams, eg, couldn't exist without that approach. However, it's not about teams with larger churches - it's teams with larger numbers of churches which can be a problem in itself.

I was thinking of one large church with four or five lay or ordained (would have to have at least a couple ordained if it's Anglican) full time paid ministers.

We have collaboration here between parishes through things like Deaneries. But that's different from a larger team of full time, paid, trained ministers in one parish.

Can't help but think the whole "working on your own in a dying culture" thing is doomed to fail.

Reckon you need the support of other leaders (and the ability to cover the entire range of ministries required in any one community) to get anywhere.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Myers-Briggs is a load of old bollocks - and if they use that in selection in any way it unlikely to be helping.
That is usually said by people who have encountered it used badly or who have little self-knowledge.

That is an arrogant and elitist personal insult, which ought to have been made in Hell, not here where we'd be kicked off for answering it in kind.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was thinking of one large church with four or five lay or ordained (would have to have at least a couple ordained if it's Anglican) full time paid ministers.

The CofE doesn't much go for megachurches, we much prefer the local parish.

There are cathedrals like that of course and a few famous "shrines" (both high-church and evangelical).

Our "team" has three churches in two parishes. There are two full-time ordained ministers and a training curate.

There are three other ordained clergy (two retired and one who works elsewhere) and four readers, but all unpaid of course.

That's probably quite typical for a large urban parish - and by CofE standards we are large, maybe 150 regular Sunday attenders in one church and 50 in another.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was thinking of one large church with four or five lay or ordained (would have to have at least a couple ordained if it's Anglican) full time paid ministers.
The CofE doesn't much go for megachurches, we much prefer the local parish.

We do too. But 60% of our parishes are not financial ( they cannot pay their own way and are subsidized by the Diocese and other parishes).

The Buzz is that the move is being made to restructure things on a rather large scale.

I'm hoping it will go the way I have outlined above. I have heard a Bishop hint as to something like "working closer together".

I'm thinking four or five full time leaders for a parish of about 300 - 500.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I'm experiencing a patch of severe disillusionment with my role as a lay minister. I don't get any joy or satisfaction in it anymore.

Part of it is a feeling of not being appreciated. In addition to "front and center" assisting duties some Sundays I also took on our church's online presences, which included our website, a blog and our church Facebook page; it turns out that our pastor doesn't even read any of it, and judging from the minimal feedback I've ever received (usually from friends elsewhere)hardly any one else does either, so I've basically said, **** it to the blog (which I'd originally envisioned as bringing some added depth to the readings for each Sunday, commemoration days, interactive "fun" stuff, etc.). Ditto the Facebook page, which I had tried to seed with interesting websites and things I found on the Web.

Doing our monthly newsletter is another task of mine. Our pastor is a horrible procrastinator (and this is coming from an admitted procrastinator) who nonetheless refuses any help at all in writing the articles -- I'll get them about 24-36 hours before deadline, usually in a ridiculous continuous narrative that has to be broken up into separate articles anyway. On about three occasions now, too, I've had to take the blame for date/time errors regarding upcoming events even though the pastor's the one who's sent me the erroneous information. (And this is just one example of interpersonal...stuff I have to put up with; the other story is too long to tell here, but it was a case of blindsiding me when I needed some moral support that left me feeling patronized and insulted.)

I was on light duty, volunteer-wise, in the months after my seizure last September; have also been away in Florida for a couple of months on family business with our kids; I admit thoroughly enjoying that time away from lay ministry...going to church when we wanted to, actually getting to sit in the pew with my DP in what came to be our Florida church-away-from-home and worship without being called into action in some way, not being bothered with the communications stuff.

Now that we're home and I'm slowly getting back into the swing of things (I had a recent injury and was out of commission for another two weeks), I feel my stress amping up again.

We have two other lay ministers. One is aspiring to bigger and better things and is now a Synodically Approved Minister, a notch up the food chain from my position, meaning that he gets his marching orders directly from our bishop's office and spends many if not most Sundays on assignment to various pastor-less congregations in our synod. So the other lay minister and I have been having to alternate "on" Sundays on a fairly frequent basis. And she has her own complicated life going on in the midst of this, and is feeling burned out as well. Neither of them have the aptitude or interest in helping with any of the communications-oriented jobs I've been doing. Nor does anyone else in the congregation.

Right now the prospect of jumping full-tilt boogie back into my previous lay ministry schedule does not fill me with gladness. I'm ready to say **** it to the whole endeavor. I don't know what I was expecting to do when I got involved in lay ministry, but not this sort of seat-of-the-pants, disorganized volunteer gig, and not while enduring the alternately neglectful/patronizing treatment. I'm just tired. And all of this is rapidly eroding my spiritual life. I actually dread showing up in church tomorrow morning, Pentecost Sunday, not only because I don't want to be roped into some unforeseen task but because I frankly don't want to hear about how swell church "community" is. It's not very swell for me right now for a number of reasons.

[ 26. May 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

LutheranChik, sounds like you need to step away from doing stuff at church and just concentrate on yourself, home, family and other kinds of work - or whatever will refresh you. If s/he didn't sound like such a numpty I'd say talk to your pastor about it, but maybe you need to chat with some other spiritual advisor with a bit of objectivity.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

If we insisted that congregations had to be that large we'd have to close 90% of our churches - maybe more because whenever two churches merge the new one never gets as many members as the two old ones used to have, which is one reason that the fashion for closing churches when parishes merge that we had in the 1960s-1980s is now over. It decimated church attendence in many urban areas. Never quite took off the same way in rural areas - which is why many rural churches share one full-time minister between five or more congregations. I've heard of eleven which is getting absurd.

And we would lose the real benefits of having a local church in every community. Most of our congregation can walk to church on Sunday. That's really worth something.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Myers-Briggs is a load of old bollocks - and if they use that in selection in any way it unlikely to be helping.
That is usually said by people who have encountered it used badly or who have little self-knowledge.
Or have actually looked at the research evidence.

OK, I have been told off, but you made an unsubstantiated assertion that MBTI was 'a load of bollocks'.

I have worked with it for over twenty years in both education and ministry.

I am well aware of research that exposes it MISuse.

Can you back up your sweeping and dismissive assertion by some evidence, please?

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

If you look at my link above you will find referenced discussion as to the problems with its construct validity.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I second Anselmina's suggestion LutheranChik. As it's eroding your spiritual life rather than helping it to grow, something must change.

While it isn't all about us and how we feel, if we feel frustrated and undervalued it will impact on our spiritual life & so it must be addressed.

I was interested in your comments about your colleague. 'Bigger & better things' and 'up the food chain' imply a higher status. I wonder whether our ideas about status sometimes cause conflicts in us. If we think the leader gives us lesser status than others this may equate with feeling undervalued. The leader may be completely unaware of how his or her actions and attitudes impact on us.

How many people bring what they were told about team working and character types as in Myers-Briggs etc into real life? Only if training is put into practice until it becomes habitual will it have been effective.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
If you look at my link above you will find referenced discussion as to the problems with its construct validity.

Thank you - I will look at it tomorrow, when i have more time and we have 'done Pentecost' - this issue is too important to me to gloss over it in a hurry. though any website called 'FooFoo' doesn't inspire much confidence.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
How many people bring what they were told about team working and character types as in Myers-Briggs etc into real life? Only if training is put into practice until it becomes habitual will it have been effective.

I have done so on an almost daily basis.

When i was a Head of Dept., I used it as a tool for my staff. We all found it invaluable to understand how to get the best out of each other rather than finding our differences irritating e.g. meeting (or now) declines.

I used a junior version on my pupils. It helped them on their 'Who am I? quest. (Danger - only trained MBTI folk should use it at all, especially on kids.)

In our church ministry team, ditto what I said about my dept.

As a spiritual director, I use it with each newe directee if they consent - and nobody hasn't nor has any found it unhelpful - in fact all have been enthusiastic and grateful.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Follwoing on from LutheranChick'c earlier comments and one made later:
How many of us truly take the time to become aware of how our actions and attitudes impact others?

And if we did, would it make a difference to our working lives?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Raptor Eye: I have no desire to get involved in the SAM program. Everyone I know who's gone that route has wound up spending most of their Sundays away from their families, sometimes at the opposite end of the state, leading worship in underserved parishes. That's not something I want to do or would ever subject my partner to.

I mentioned this individual's work only because it takes him out of the lay ministry rota much of the time, placing more of a burden on us. And it erodes the idea of a team effort -- I mean, we'll have lay ministry meetings, but they wind up being about comparing calendars and trading "on" Sundays.

Sorry to whine. It's just frustrating and disappointing -- no "there" there, just filling a slot on a rotation. It makes me sad, because I used to enjoy doing what I do.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK, I have been told off, but you made an unsubstantiated assertion that MBTI was 'a load of bollocks'.

I think "bollocks" here is a technical term used by scientists to describe things that really no-one with any sense ought to believe. Like young-earth creationism, or the idea that the moon landings were faked in Hollywood, or enneagrams.

Myers-Briggs is only marginally bollocks compared with those things. There is a plausible story behind it. Unfortunately when you look into it it turns out not to be true. Its good fun as a sort of ego-boosting party game, but it is not a serious description of psychology.

And we've had at least three or four long long threads about it in the recent past here so there is probably no point in repeating it all. In the unlikely event that anyone is interested in the old threads the two longest of them seem to be here and here.

The second one contains an overlong, but I think fair, description of how MBTI is supposed to work (mostly of its fans don't seem to realise) and also some very sensible contributions by Timothy the Obscure, including some links to some other sites. Though I would say that because he agrees with me on this.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't want to start a tangent (so PM me for full details - I'll merely skecth here) but cannot allow Think²'s assertion to go unchallenged. I looked at all his links and, just as I expected, the 'research' on MBTI is based upon its MISuse.

The paper by Ron Zemke talks of MBTI being used over a two hour period. Proper use takes far longer - a convent near me spreads it over two residential days.

David J. Pittenger shows woeful ignorance - he reckons J stands for judgemental - it does NOT. He concludes that it 'should not be used for career planning counselling'. Indeed it shouldn't - that is exactly what MBTI practitioners are taught. There is often a list of 100 jobs related to each of the 16 types. These are NOT suggestions. They are simply a survey of what careers these types went into - summative, not formative. (Having said this, if MBTI is used alongside other careers education material, it has an uncanny knack of being accurate - the last time i did a battery of tests, the result came back with: teacher, minister of religion, social work, barrister, at the top. I had seriously considered all but the barrister job during my teens and early twenties and have done/am doing the first two and loved/am living almost every minute on the job.

Pitenger also says, 'MBTI claims to reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type'. That is absolutely NOT what MBTI claims. Far from innate, our preferences develop as a way of coping with all our experiences, e.g. my father was biploar and my mother often told me to be very quiet because 'You will make daddy ill.' So my natural, boyish exhuberance was crushed and I spent long hours alone, in my bedroom. Thus, I became an introvert.

BUT it is not fixed for all time, as the researcher suggests. A lifetime in teaching, a love of performing amateur dramatics, preaching - all of these have bought out my extroversion. One aim of MBTI in spiritual direction is to help people become rounded - to tone down some preferences and to 'bring up' less-preferred shadow sides.

The 16 types are not indetikit nor static - the four 'letters' are a dynamic - which is discovered when we work on 'the inferior function' - the most difficult thing to understand and which these researchers clearly haven't.

[ 27. May 2012, 18:09: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Leo, perhaps we should start a different thread on this. There are two key issues as I see it - whether a tool measures something reliably over time, and whether it measures what it says it measures. And I don't think the MBTI does either.

It's about as insightful as statements like these:

"Most of the time you are positive and cheerful, but there has been a time in the past when you were very upset."
"You are a very kind and considerate person, but when somebody does something to break your trust, you feel deep-seated anger."
"I would say that you are mostly shy and quiet, but when the mood strikes you, you can easily become the center of attention."

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Raptor Eye: I have no desire to get involved in the SAM program. Everyone I know who's gone that route has wound up spending most of their Sundays away from their families, sometimes at the opposite end of the state, leading worship in underserved parishes. That's not something I want to do or would ever subject my partner to.

I mentioned this individual's work only because it takes him out of the lay ministry rota much of the time, placing more of a burden on us. And it erodes the idea of a team effort -- I mean, we'll have lay ministry meetings, but they wind up being about comparing calendars and trading "on" Sundays.

Sorry to whine. It's just frustrating and disappointing -- no "there" there, just filling a slot on a rotation. It makes me sad, because I used to enjoy doing what I do.

Thank you LutheranChik. There's no need to apologise. I think it's a good thing to express our frustrations in a safe place. Sometimes it helps us to recognise our feelings and decide what, if anything, to do. That's probably why the people I spoke to in the op told me about the mismatch they perceived between calling and reality.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I think most people in ministry are naturally the keenies. Be they lay or ordained.

As a lay person I went to church 2 or 3 times on Sundays and would be involved in 1 or 2 other things in the week, would read theology & spirituality for pleasure. Would head off for bible weeks and retreats as a natural extension of my faith. All whilst working 50 hours a week.

Thing is most of the Church isn't really like that. Which is okay. But if you have been a keenie most of your life, trained with other keenies, even married a keenie you develop a huge disconnect with where most people actually are in terms of commitment. This can lead to easily deflatable ministers who assume & expect too much.

Now you can deal with this in a number of ways. Plant a church for keenies only (High or Low), rail against the congo for lack of commitment (which is how you could read this post), or try to learn some patience and serve people where they are.

Because thankfully however we engage with discipleship in this life we have Purgatory to sort us out afterwards. [Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Leo, perhaps we should start a different thread on this. There are two key issues as I see it - whether a tool measures something reliably over time, and whether it measures what it says it measures. And I don't think the MBTI does either.

It's about as insightful as statements like these:

"Most of the time you are positive and cheerful, but there has been a time in the past when you were very upset."
"You are a very kind and considerate person, but when somebody does something to break your trust, you feel deep-seated anger."
"I would say that you are mostly shy and quiet, but when the mood strikes you, you can easily become the center of attention."

Mostly? Shouldn't be.

When I do MBTI with a directee, I give them a 26 page response.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm experiencing a patch of severe disillusionment with my role as a lay minister. I don't get any joy or satisfaction in it anymore.

Part of it is a feeling of not being appreciated.

A colleague of mine once commented that people don't generally feel burned out as a result of being too busy, they feel burned out because their work is not appreciated. In my limited experience, she was right. Knowing that your work is actually useful to someone and that it is appreciated is an important part of being able to derive satisfaction from doing it. If it's only a matter of being too busy, a break should be sufficient to restore your ability to enjoy the work.

[ 28. May 2012, 18:11: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by Eleanor Jane (# 13102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:

Right now the prospect of jumping full-tilt boogie back into my previous lay ministry schedule does not fill me with gladness. I'm ready to say **** it to the whole endeavor. I don't know what I was expecting to do when I got involved in lay ministry, but not this sort of seat-of-the-pants, disorganized volunteer gig, and not while enduring the alternately neglectful/patronizing treatment.

Hi LutheranChik,

Goodness this rang some bells with me! It seems to me that a church that isn't seat-of-the-pants... neglectful etc. is rarer than hen's teeth.

As I progressed in my career (not that I'm a high flyer at all!) I had to pull out of church commitments 'cos I just couldn't cope with the crapness! I was speaking a whole 'nother language and the Vicar (in particular) didn't even realise that the language existed.

I guess it's the nature of the beast where ministers can't be experts or even competant in all or most of the wide variety of tasks they're involved in and where any volunteer who is willing (pretty much) is given open slather to do whatever.

Well done for stopping doing things - it's wise to pilot something like Facebook or a blog, review and scrap it if it's not working/ is too much work for the results. In my previous church I found a lot of a) going after every idea that anyone came up with b) overwork and c) not reviewing or stopping projects.

I hope you find some more rest and restoration and wisdom for your choices.

Cheers,
Eleanorjane

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

By the laws of carry on, Leo, I am obliged to respond that size isn't everything. Do you wish to start an actual thread on this ?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
By the laws of carry on, Leo, I am obliged to respond that size isn't everything. Do you wish to start an actual thread on this ?

No, it has been done before.

However, my last word on this is a challenge to you. If you ask me by PM, I shall send you a MBTI 'test' and, when you return it to me, I will 'mark' it and return detailed results to you and they will be nothing like the platitudes and generalisations which you think makes up MBTI but which is more akin to horoscopes in red top newspapers.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

OK - but I also want a reference to at least one scientific study in a peer reviewed journal that is not by, or backed by , the people promoting and marketing the assessment.

Deal ?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Haven't time to do this right now - not backing out but my trust in MBTI is backed by some 20 years experience as a practitioner and feedback etc. I have already shown the severe limitations of the research you pointed to.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0