A Volley from the Canon, Number 88
WHAT CONGREGATION LEADERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
OR
“Ten Things Your Confirmation Class May Have Failed to Mention
About the Episcopal Church”
During the past half-century, The Episcopal Church has done, frankly, a horrible job at retaining those people who have grown up in it, the first such period in which that has been the case (but ditto for the entire Main Line of Christianity). However, at the same time, it has done a marvelous job of attracting—US!—the immigrants from other denominations and communions, or from church-less-ness, who have made The Episcopal Church our spiritual home. We’ve never in our history had so large an influx.
Something else we have not done terribly well is teaching new recruits and even “cradlers” about ourselves, our own communion. Consequently, we often encounter conflicts based on mis-communications or erroneous suppositions, often brought along from other churches or from no-church. Here are some examples.
1. We practice all three historic ordinations in The Episcopal Church, not just one as in Protestantism, and recognize the order of laity as well. Each of these four orders has its role to play in the mission of the church. They complement one another, but they are different.
We receive the order of laity upon our baptism. Some of us later experience, and have affirmed by the larger church through agonizing formation and examination, a call to the holy orders of ordained ministry; one might then be ordained a deacon, either as a permanent vocation, or as a passage to priesthood. The deacon models the role of servant in the congregation, and has a particular responsibility for raising the plight of the poor, sick, and out-cast to the attention of the community. Some deacons are, in due course, ordained to the priesthood, and are given authority to carry out some of the functions of the bishop in a locality, the “parish,” in his or her absence. A few priests are eventually ordained bishop, to serve as chief pastor and leader of the church in their geographic area, or “diocese.” Yet, inside every bishop, there remains a priest, a deacon, and a baptized person. Each order is separate, and distinct.
2. The Episcopal Church is not a congregational church, nor is it a presbyterian one—Episcopal means “having the governance of bishops.” The basic unit of the Episcopal Church is the diocese, and the bishop (“ordinary”) of the diocese is head pastor to all. Each congregation, from parish to preaching station, is a local branch of the diocese, and it falls under the supervision of its bishop (episkopos means “overseer”).
3. Ministries come under Episcopal oversight, too. Priests serve local congregations under the authority and by appointment of the bishop. (Remember that service called “The Institution,” when the bishop “installed” the new rector or missioner?) Priests are expected to have a high level of professional competency, and thus they enjoy a degree of autonomy in their work. Nevertheless, they work under their bishop, and their authority is derived from his or hers. Deacons, from the inception of the order (Book of Acts), have “belonged” to the bishops. They may be assigned to the supervision of a priest, but only on loan. They work directly for and on behalf of their bishop. And the laity? They also place themselves under the pastoral care of their bishop, in the sacrament of confirmation or reception.
4. Vestries, wardens, and congregations do not “hire” a rector or missioner. Rather, they prayerfully, and with the assent of their bishop, “call” one. Bishops want their congregations to be happy with the selection of their clergy, and the laity are rightly involved in the discernment of the best candidate for their clergy leadership. But the question is not “who is the best person we can get to fill this position?” but “whom is God calling to serve in this role, in this place and at this time?” The “call” cannot be issued without the approval of the bishop. It is the bishop who makes the appointment.
5. Therefore, a vestry cannot “fire” its rector, and the rector cannot “quit.” That would be like one partner in a marriage saying to the other, “You leave now!” Sure, you hear of it happening occasionally, but it is not proper or canonical, and it can only stand if all parties assent to it. When relational problems develop between an Episcopal rector and his or her congregation, the bishop (often through staff) is involved in working through the conflicts and achieving an appropriate resolution—which might, though not painlessly, involve a parting of the ways, but hopefully leads to reconciliation.
6. The vestry, then, is not the clergy’s employer, and the senior warden is not the clergy’s supervisor. The bishop is. Episcopal bishops tend to meet with their clergy often, and to know them well. Not much happens in an Episcopal congregation that the bishop does not know about almost instantaneously. A good senior warden is a friend, trusted confidante, valued aide, and sometimes advisor to a clergy leader, and has an important role in supporting and encouraging him or her. Vestries do well to select a Warden who is equipped for those roles, and not one who has the goal of “shaping up” the clergy—to their own liking.
7. The governance of the Episcopal Church includes all four orders, is modeled after the United States Congress, and is representative—but it is not entirely democratic. In parish meetings, laity have predominance. In diocesan conventions, priests and laity share equally. In General Convention, bishops have equal voice to the other orders. It takes a three-quarters majority in any diocesan deputation to cast an affirmative vote on a resolution in the House of Deputies (laity and priests/deacons), and either the Deputies or the Bishops can block action from the other house. The church is not geared for precipitous or ill-considered shifts in practice. By design, it takes time to turn this ship! Sometimes, it takes patience and restraint to live in it, too.
8. If anyone claims to speak for the Episcopal Church, but proclaims a position contrary to that of the General Convention, that person is misrepresenting the church. Only the General Convention determines the teaching, discipline, and policy of the Episcopal Church.
9. There are no “independent contractors” or “clergy at large” in the Episcopal Church, especially in terms of ministry. Note our striking lack of famous independent televangelists or “Minister’s Name Ministries.” Everyone belongs to, and is responsible to, some ecclesial authority, generally their bishop.
10. Contrary to popular belief, the Episcopal Church is not an “anything goes” denomination. We are not as stringent as the Catholic Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints. It is tough to get excommunicated from TEC (but you can manage to do it). We have learned over the centuries that it is best to allow a considerable amount of leeway in terms of opinions people might express, and even, to a lesser degree, actions they might take. After all, if they contradict the General Convention, they speak only for themselves. We are all still subject to the disciplines of our particular order, though—laity, deacons, priests, or bishops—the order to which we are called by God, and in which ministry we are affirmed by our bishop.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Appreciative Inquiry Redux
ONE MORE COMMENT ON MUTUAL MINISTRY REVIEW THROUGH APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
While the Appreciative Inquiry method does not accomplish everything, I have never known a Mutual Ministry Review using Appreciative Inquiry NOT to produce a plan of action for the coming year or so that addressed concerns of all present. I have never known the process NOT to bring the majority of the participants closer together and in better relationship with one another than previously, so that the likelihood of their working together productively was improved. These are helpful and positive results, but they might not be exciting, and they certainly might not resolve all issues. That is not their goal.
The process does not always satisfy everyone, particularly in settings where there is significant and deep conflict, usually of long standing. When people come to a meeting “loaded for bear,” they are predictably disappointed if they do not have the opportunity to designate and shoot a bear. Bear-hunting, though a traditional practice, is nevertheless unproductive to the healthy functioning of a congregation. The very fact that people crave it indicates that the level of conflict in the organization is high. Nothing positive is gained from a session in which an emotional explosion takes place and antagonists square off to blame one another for all perceived failings. No real resolution occurs: combatants bide their time to fight another day.
One person’s “truth-telling” is another’s “venting” or “scape-goating,” and there is a distinction to be made between stating facts and expressing opinions, which can be lost in the heat of an angry and alienating exchange. There is a time for the truth-telling aspect of that, though—in the calmer and safer environment of the Conflict Resolution process, led by an experienced and competent facilitator. A Mutual Ministry Review through Appreciative Inquiry is a short-term activity to be done occasionally as a check-up on how the organization is functioning. Conflict Resolution is a longer-term and more involved project.
Appreciative Inquiry, then, is not Conflict Resolution. It is a way of stepping outside conflict to accomplish some positive change. It can help a congregation move forward, even while preparing to deal more directly with its conflicts in a deeper way.
While the Appreciative Inquiry method does not accomplish everything, I have never known a Mutual Ministry Review using Appreciative Inquiry NOT to produce a plan of action for the coming year or so that addressed concerns of all present. I have never known the process NOT to bring the majority of the participants closer together and in better relationship with one another than previously, so that the likelihood of their working together productively was improved. These are helpful and positive results, but they might not be exciting, and they certainly might not resolve all issues. That is not their goal.
The process does not always satisfy everyone, particularly in settings where there is significant and deep conflict, usually of long standing. When people come to a meeting “loaded for bear,” they are predictably disappointed if they do not have the opportunity to designate and shoot a bear. Bear-hunting, though a traditional practice, is nevertheless unproductive to the healthy functioning of a congregation. The very fact that people crave it indicates that the level of conflict in the organization is high. Nothing positive is gained from a session in which an emotional explosion takes place and antagonists square off to blame one another for all perceived failings. No real resolution occurs: combatants bide their time to fight another day.
One person’s “truth-telling” is another’s “venting” or “scape-goating,” and there is a distinction to be made between stating facts and expressing opinions, which can be lost in the heat of an angry and alienating exchange. There is a time for the truth-telling aspect of that, though—in the calmer and safer environment of the Conflict Resolution process, led by an experienced and competent facilitator. A Mutual Ministry Review through Appreciative Inquiry is a short-term activity to be done occasionally as a check-up on how the organization is functioning. Conflict Resolution is a longer-term and more involved project.
Appreciative Inquiry, then, is not Conflict Resolution. It is a way of stepping outside conflict to accomplish some positive change. It can help a congregation move forward, even while preparing to deal more directly with its conflicts in a deeper way.
A Volley from the Canon, #86
A Volley from the Canon, Number 86
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
As a dog-lover, I’ve been interested in training techniques for a long time. I remember when choke collars, physical correction, and much scolding were considered essential parts of dog training, which focused largely on what the trainer wanted the animal NOT to do. Negative reinforcement techniques do actually work to eliminate unwanted behaviors. More recently, however, trainers have begun to teach animals what they DO want them to do, instead, working with the creature’s own interests and desire to gain. That works, too, but it has an added advantage: whereas negative reinforcement accomplishes a goal at the expense of the trainer’s relationship with the animal, positive reinforcement accomplishes the same goal and also builds the relationship.
Humans are much more complicated (?), but the same holds true for us. When we are criticized, and when corrections are harsh enough to overcome our resisting reactions, and when we can’t get away, we do tend to conform to the behavior the one in power is attempting to force upon us. We’ll still act out negatively when we think we can get away with it, though. Alternatively, when we receive encouragement and positive reinforcement for good or desired behavior, we will go all out to produce more of that behavior in order to receive more praise. Consequently, we have less time and inclination to engage in less desirable behaviors, to the point that often, they will cease altogether. This principle is actually borne out in behavioral studies.
With which adviser will we have the stronger and more productive relationship?
Appreciative Inquiry is a method of evaluating the effectiveness of group and individual efforts by concentrating on doing more and better that which is already working. It does not mean that we cannot acknowledge weaker areas or growing edges. It just means that criticism and judgment will not be the focus of our conversation.
The result is that a Mutual Ministry Review, using Appreciative Inquiry methods, can be an opportunity for positive growth and encouragement, contributing to a stronger working relationship among clergy and lay ministers in a congregation. It can be something to look forward to and lead to celebration, rather than being a dreaded and anxiety-producing task akin to being sent to the principal’s office in school. Vestry, Wardens, and Clergy all come out with a clearer vision of what their goals and purposes are in a congregation, and how they can accomplish those things more effectively and more collegially. Most of all, it emphasizes that all of our works, and all of our responsibilities, are shared together. We have “many gifts—but the same Spirit working in us.”
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
As a dog-lover, I’ve been interested in training techniques for a long time. I remember when choke collars, physical correction, and much scolding were considered essential parts of dog training, which focused largely on what the trainer wanted the animal NOT to do. Negative reinforcement techniques do actually work to eliminate unwanted behaviors. More recently, however, trainers have begun to teach animals what they DO want them to do, instead, working with the creature’s own interests and desire to gain. That works, too, but it has an added advantage: whereas negative reinforcement accomplishes a goal at the expense of the trainer’s relationship with the animal, positive reinforcement accomplishes the same goal and also builds the relationship.
Humans are much more complicated (?), but the same holds true for us. When we are criticized, and when corrections are harsh enough to overcome our resisting reactions, and when we can’t get away, we do tend to conform to the behavior the one in power is attempting to force upon us. We’ll still act out negatively when we think we can get away with it, though. Alternatively, when we receive encouragement and positive reinforcement for good or desired behavior, we will go all out to produce more of that behavior in order to receive more praise. Consequently, we have less time and inclination to engage in less desirable behaviors, to the point that often, they will cease altogether. This principle is actually borne out in behavioral studies.
With which adviser will we have the stronger and more productive relationship?
Appreciative Inquiry is a method of evaluating the effectiveness of group and individual efforts by concentrating on doing more and better that which is already working. It does not mean that we cannot acknowledge weaker areas or growing edges. It just means that criticism and judgment will not be the focus of our conversation.
The result is that a Mutual Ministry Review, using Appreciative Inquiry methods, can be an opportunity for positive growth and encouragement, contributing to a stronger working relationship among clergy and lay ministers in a congregation. It can be something to look forward to and lead to celebration, rather than being a dreaded and anxiety-producing task akin to being sent to the principal’s office in school. Vestry, Wardens, and Clergy all come out with a clearer vision of what their goals and purposes are in a congregation, and how they can accomplish those things more effectively and more collegially. Most of all, it emphasizes that all of our works, and all of our responsibilities, are shared together. We have “many gifts—but the same Spirit working in us.”
A Volley from the Canon, #85
A Volley from the Canon, Number 85
MUTUAL MINISTRY
The phone rings or the email alert dings: I have a message from a Senior Warden.
“It’s time for us to evaluate our rector, according to his/her contract,” he tells me. “Can you come out and facilitate a job performance review?”
The quick answer, just here among us friends, is ‘NO.” That is not what we do, and it is not what the clergy-vestry Letter of Agreement calls for. What we do is called a Mutual Ministry Review, and it involves an assessment of what is working best among the whole congregation, particularly its leadership, lay and ordained.
It’s easy to see where the request was coming from: a traditional business model of employer-employee relations. In an environment in which laborers are a commodity to be used up, chewed up, and spat out, to be easily replaced by other fresh units in abundant supply, that is a tempting, albeit unappealing model. It is not a Christian model, and it holds no attraction for the church.
First, clergy are not expendable or easily replaced. Even under the best conditions, a change in clergy leadership is costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to the life of a congregation. When a congregation is fractious, intractable, adversarial, and blame-projecting, and after it has burned through a couple of rectors in short, contentious order, it renders itself unattractive to future clergy leadership—especially the ones with more gifts, who are in higher demand elsewhere. By its own behavior, the congregation can send itself into a downward spiral, even a death spiral, of conflict and judgment. The whole congregation would do well to pay close attention to the care and feeding of its ministry leadership, both lay and ordained.
Second, as important as strong clergy leadership is to a congregation, clergy do not have all the power to attract or repel either present or future members. The best and brightest rector cannot build a congregation where the folks in the pews are shooing them out the back door as fast as the clergy can lure them in the front. Nor can the clumsy and inept pastor run everyone off where the congregation is warm, supportive, and spiritually committed. Many a congregation has stalled under competent clergy leadership and many a congregation has thrived under inept clergy leadership. It is simply not fair or honest to place all responsibility, and especially all blame, on the clergy leader.
And it doesn’t work. Next week, in a follow-up, I will explain the Appreciative Inquiry process, which is much more effective than a negative critique in producing positive change in the behavior of congregational leaders. Part three of this trilogy will be “What congregational leaders need to know about the Episcopal Church.”
MUTUAL MINISTRY
The phone rings or the email alert dings: I have a message from a Senior Warden.
“It’s time for us to evaluate our rector, according to his/her contract,” he tells me. “Can you come out and facilitate a job performance review?”
The quick answer, just here among us friends, is ‘NO.” That is not what we do, and it is not what the clergy-vestry Letter of Agreement calls for. What we do is called a Mutual Ministry Review, and it involves an assessment of what is working best among the whole congregation, particularly its leadership, lay and ordained.
It’s easy to see where the request was coming from: a traditional business model of employer-employee relations. In an environment in which laborers are a commodity to be used up, chewed up, and spat out, to be easily replaced by other fresh units in abundant supply, that is a tempting, albeit unappealing model. It is not a Christian model, and it holds no attraction for the church.
First, clergy are not expendable or easily replaced. Even under the best conditions, a change in clergy leadership is costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to the life of a congregation. When a congregation is fractious, intractable, adversarial, and blame-projecting, and after it has burned through a couple of rectors in short, contentious order, it renders itself unattractive to future clergy leadership—especially the ones with more gifts, who are in higher demand elsewhere. By its own behavior, the congregation can send itself into a downward spiral, even a death spiral, of conflict and judgment. The whole congregation would do well to pay close attention to the care and feeding of its ministry leadership, both lay and ordained.
Second, as important as strong clergy leadership is to a congregation, clergy do not have all the power to attract or repel either present or future members. The best and brightest rector cannot build a congregation where the folks in the pews are shooing them out the back door as fast as the clergy can lure them in the front. Nor can the clumsy and inept pastor run everyone off where the congregation is warm, supportive, and spiritually committed. Many a congregation has stalled under competent clergy leadership and many a congregation has thrived under inept clergy leadership. It is simply not fair or honest to place all responsibility, and especially all blame, on the clergy leader.
And it doesn’t work. Next week, in a follow-up, I will explain the Appreciative Inquiry process, which is much more effective than a negative critique in producing positive change in the behavior of congregational leaders. Part three of this trilogy will be “What congregational leaders need to know about the Episcopal Church.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
