Ship of Fools: Clinical and Pastoral Education (CPE)

Thread: Clinical and Pastoral Education (CPE) 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=026448

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

For those of you that have done CPE, what was good about it, what was bad about it?

What would you keep the same, what would you change?

I'm nearing the end of my course and have a number of mixed feelings about it. I'm curious what others think of their experiences.

Do tell.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

In my experience, CPE is largely bollocks, witness the Enneagrams, Myers Briggs testing, and other random practicing of psychology without a license that I had to endure. I took CPE in in a well-regarded chaplaincy program in a hospital system in a large metropolitan area.

The principal benefit to CPE was access to souls needing care in various regulated institutional settings. Some of those settings highly valued chaplaincy and integrated it into the care team. Others thought that religion and chaplaincy were pests to be endured. The last setting was innocent of chaplains and surprised at what could be done.

By-the-by benefits were the excellent seminar on professional boundaries, the, for me, essential nature of record keeping, and the benefit of meeting folk from a variety of backgrounds and intended ministry settings.

Otherwise it was a wasted summer of sitting around in witless, weak-tea Criticism/Self-Criticism sessions, but without the bracing tonic of Marxist analysis.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think pastoring is primarily a talent and a gift. Not everyone in church ministry is able to be good at pastoring. So education in this area is a little problematic.

If you discover you're not good at it (even if you have the title Pastor), better to delegate the role to someone (or some group) with the necessary.

TSA is right to highlight boundaries. Ignorance of, or abuse of, boundaries is a cause of much strife in churches and elsewhere.

But I think TSA is too hard on the various means of uncovering human diversity, however soft-science or non-science they may be. Human diversity is perplexing; we need some language and a model or two to help us get our heads around it. Any kind of CPE has to explore that. And I guess it is also helpful to get some idea of the complex boundaries which enable us to distinguish to some extent between human awkwardness, unhappiness, pathological mental states etc. That come come in very handy in serving a local congregation.

[ 11. November 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

CPE isn't one generic "thing" any more than an Introduction to English Literature module in university is one generic "thing." So I'm not sure how one has a conversation about it. CPE supervisors are allowed to develop their own theories and style and the range is diverse.

Doing 5 units of it, I had a fantastic supervisor for 3 units and another supervisor for 2 units who might as well have been in an alternative timeline for all we were able to communicate with each other.

The thing I like about it is the thing that most people seem to hate: that it gives one the unique opportunity to see oneself through the eyes of other people and to be called on one's BS. The issue, however, is that if the supervisor is a milquetoast or a bully, then this part of the programme is not going to be very effective. I have the feeling that, down through the ages, there has been quite a lot of bullying until recently and now it's gone rather milquetoast.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

My courses in Spiritual Care, as my Multifaith Academy for Chaplaincy and Community Ministries now refers to them, were a very useful.

They provided a framework from various human sciences - Maslow, Erikson, Fowler etc - , skills in talking and listening, and self understanding and awareness, and a community of support for buddies and mentors. The academy also provides ongoing education in other faith traditions and retreats for personal spiritual growth oriented to spiritual care.

While it may be true that a person needs to be the right sort of personality these skills enhance an innate ability.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

CPE is a good idea in theory. Clergy to be need the opportunity to hone their pastoral skills in CPE type settings. That said, CPE doesn't really provide that. I suppose it's good for people who like that sort of thing. Not something I believe should be mandatory. I wish other alternatives were more available.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Most of the chaplains in Australia are not clergy or ordained.
In the US CPE and a DD appear to be preferred education in some areas. I am not sure how this translates to other faith traditions.
In Europe (?Denmark) the military have humanist chaplains.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Oh! And did I mention the stilted, idiot role play exercises that formed a substantial portion of my CPE's delightful daily sessions together? Schematic, soul-less, theatre exercises are no substitute for sitting beside actual souls.

quote:
Barnabas62:
But I think TSA is too hard on the various means of uncovering human diversity, however soft-science or non-science they may be. Human diversity is perplexing; we need some language and a model or two to help us get our heads around it. Any kind of CPE has to explore that.

Barnabas62 is probably right, but I believe there is no substitute for actually living with all sorts and conditions. That's what curacies ought to be about.

Perhaps all that role playing, the Enneagrams, the Myers Briggs tests, and the small-group, faux talk therapy could be proved useful in making baby-priests grow up faster, but I'm seeing any of that research.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

TSA,

I do understand that yours was a bad experience, but all courses need not be tarred with the same brush.
Because I had a choice of where to get my training I avoided one place which stated effectively that all those who did repent and become Christians went inevitably and irrevocably to hell. I just knew I would not fit in there.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Oh! And did I mention the stilted, idiot role play exercises that formed a substantial portion of my CPE's delightful daily sessions together? Schematic, soul-less, theatre exercises are no substitute for sitting beside actual souls.

CPE does appear to be more about navel gazing than pastoral ministry. The program takes a one size fits all approach. I see it as one of the many hoops one has to jump through before being ordained.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I wonder why CPE is required for ordination. The clergy aren't swiss army knives. Some are suited to Pastoral Care and others who are not should use the talents they have. Just because they are not good chaplains does not mean they are not part of the body.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Providing pastoral care is part of what clergy do. Some are better at it than others but you can't be a cleric and not be called upon to provide pastoral care. Clergy working as part of a large staff don't have to do as much. Most of us don't have that luxury. We have to be responsible even for the aspects of the vocation we don't do as well.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think pastoring is primarily a talent and a gift. Not everyone in church ministry is able to be good at pastoring. So education in this area is a little problematic.

Skills in sports are primarily talents and gifts, but you still see even top champions training and practising in order to develop their gifts, understand their application better and elicit their full potential.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
TSA,

I do understand that yours was a bad experience, but all courses need not be tarred with the same brush.

Ya see, Latchkey Kid, I do seem to have been under-impressed by my experience, but I don't think mine was atypical.

Rather, I attended a well-regarded, well-run CPE program, hewing to the CPE standards, that trains a wide variety of seminarians from nationally ranked schools.

That's why it's not just one bad egg out of a dozen. I disdain the entire CPE enterprise, because mine was pretty typical.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I belong to a few LinkedIn chaplaincy groups and some of the contributions leave me wondering about the skills and attitudes of some of the members. I've been a spiritual carer for just over a year and do not claim great expertise yet, but there do seem to be chaplains without much insight.

I don't know the ACPE and like standards so cannot comment on American courses.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Is CPE done in the UK? I've never done it. As part of my pre-ordination training we did pastoral placements and reflections, and had an excellent course on pastoral psychology, but that was about it. Post-ordination training in the CofE is mostly a mess, and depends a lot on the training incumbent, of whom I hear little else but horror stories.

Most healthcare chaplains, therefore, rely on unpaid placements (I suppose we might call them internships these days?) or voluntary sector work (hospices, usually) for any training they might get prior to taking up their first post. Consequently, I find many new starters in chaplaincy have substantial training needs, but this isn't necessarily a problem as long as the team they're joining has the resources to meet those needs.

For years now, the national governing bodies for NHS chaplaincy have been talking about pre-employment training - a basic portfolio of knowledge and skills before you can even be considered for employment. But one of the several problems with that is, who would sponsor it? The NHS, just on the off-chance that the people taking the course might then apply to become chaplains? I don't think so! The Church, which the participants would essentially be leaving in order to go and work for someone else? Probably not. Self funding - on a CofE stipend? I doubt it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Meanwhile, many US denominations require CPE for ordination-- self-funded, no stipend at all for most positions (in fact, you pay for the privilege). Since it is more than a full-time job, this has added significantly to the outsize student debt of most seminarians.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In my experience, CPE is largely bollocks, witness the Enneagrams, Myers Briggs testing, and other random practicing of psychology without a license that I had to endure. I took CPE in in a well-regarded chaplaincy program in a hospital system in a large metropolitan area.

The principal benefit to CPE was access to souls needing care in various regulated institutional settings. Some of those settings highly valued chaplaincy and integrated it into the care team. Others thought that religion and chaplaincy were pests to be endured. The last setting was innocent of chaplains and surprised at what could be done.

By-the-by benefits were the excellent seminar on professional boundaries, the, for me, essential nature of record keeping, and the benefit of meeting folk from a variety of backgrounds and intended ministry settings.

Otherwise it was a wasted summer of sitting around in witless, weak-tea Criticism/Self-Criticism sessions, but without the bracing tonic of Marxist analysis.

Thanks for sharing your experience TSA. It sounds remarkably like my own. The amateur psychology (hugely dependent on whichever supervisor happens to be taking the course) is positively eyebrow raising.

What do you mean by "bracing tonic of Marxist analysis"?

The role-play idiocy caused alot of friction between my supervisor and I. Thankfully rage got me through.....

[ 13. November 2013, 06:23: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think pastoring is primarily a talent and a gift. Not everyone in church ministry is able to be good at pastoring. So education in this area is a little problematic.
Skills in sports are primarily talents and gifts, but you still see even top champions training and practising in order to develop their gifts, understand their application better and elicit their full potential.

Quite right. The problematic dimension is, I think, associated with "eyes trying to be feet" (1 Cor 12).

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Providing pastoral care is part of what clergy do. Some are better at it than others but you can't be a cleric and not be called upon to provide pastoral care. Clergy working as part of a large staff don't have to do as much. Most of us don't have that luxury. We have to be responsible even for the aspects of the vocation we don't do as well.

I understand this. The difference between us probably relates to our different outlook on the calling and practice of any ministry within the church. It is still possible for any member of the clergy to delegate (to a lay member or a team) pastoral care, but two criteria need to be satisfied.

a) You have such folks in the congregation.

b) Other members of the congregation accept in principle that delegation is both proper and may be more effective.

But then, I come from an "all-member-ministry" tradition. Some are called to be teachers, some pastors, some evangelists etc. So you look for folks who have distinctive gifts and see they get the training. That's exercising responsibility just as much as doing things yourself.

This understanding still works when one has a high view of the priestly role and see some crucial activities as reserved for folks called to the priesthood. It's about the proper use of talents and gifts.

It's not a good idea to foster belief in priests or ministers as "jacks of all trades". That's a priest-killer.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What do you mean by "bracing tonic of Marxist analysis"?

Perhaps I over-snarked the pudding and obscured my meaning.

I was referring to those sessions after the role play when we critiqued our performance during those soul-less charades. A good Marxist analysis would have been more enlightening than the laughable psychologizing that typifies small group work, where the appalling ignorance of the group is synergistically pooled to produce an even greater fund of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I just did CPE this last summer. I'll take work with patients, and even individual supervision, but I absolutely dreaded group work.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What's the problem with "group work"?

Group discussions are what a group make them. I've been in good ones and bad ones. Self-consciousness, feeling some pressure to role-play, or collude, may all be there potentially, but you can always be you and see where it gets you. Might encourage others to be more genuine - if they are inhibited by the setting.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I did CPE some years ago in the US. I'd been warned about its history, and visited several programmes. However the CPE programme I attended was incredibly useful and formative. I'm still looking back to it and to the things I learned from it, on an almost daily basis. What things? Some of them are memories of events and people. Some of them involve self-awareness, knowledge of myself and how I respond in certain kinds of situations. Some of them have to do with how to listen to people and actually be there in the room, and how to keep my own bugbears from getting in the way. That doesn't mean I loved every bit of the CPE; I didn't, and I was suspicious of the requirement, resistant to the bullshit, and generally prickly and defensive. It was, though, incredibly useful, and I've thought countless times that it's a pity there is no similar requirement for ordinands in the Church of England.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0