When I was first starting parish placements
through my seminary training, a hot topic was on the table across the diocese
in which I was serving: clergy
evaluations. The bishop had appointed a
task force to create a model and a standard that could be used regularly, in
every congregation, in order to constructively and formally offer feedback to
the ordained leadership. The bishop
assured the priests, in one of many stump speeches, that this would also allow
the clergy the means of formal, constructive and regular forum in which to
reflect on their experience of their congregation.
There was much resistance to the bishop’s
idea. The mere suggestion of evaluation
created a great deal of anxiety among the professional clerical ranks. I get it.
Now that I’m ordained, I get it.
It is too easy to feel too vulnerable too much of the time, to feel as
if your every move, every word, is under scrutiny anyway. Congregations can be combative and unfair
with their ordained leadership. Clergy
evaluations were widely seen as giving permission, breathing room, to this sort
of nitpicking.
I get it.
And yet, I count myself lucky to now be serving in a congregation that does have a history and a process of
evaluation in place. A small committee
is available to both the clergy and the congregation as a communication
go-between of any concerns or complaints, on anybody’s part. The committee is charged with the task of
providing an annual evaluation time in which feedback is offered to, and
received from, the ministry team. It
turns out that the bishop’s stump speech arguments are true: done right, regular evaluation provides a
sense of support, accountability, and relationship. It connects the dots between all of the
material, ideas, stories, and projects we are continually throwing out there,
and the people with whom we are serving.
It gives us an opportunity to reflect, as well as to be heard, to be
heard with honesty and in a place of safety.
Where are these committees and
communication tools for our bishops? In
all of that long-ago bishop’s carefully-metered, and ultimately ignored, PR
material, there was never a word said about episcopal oversight or
accountability.
As a lowly priest who has lived and worked
in three different dioceses and heard stories of countless more, I feel the
effects of this omission constantly. Twice
I have been in transition at the same time in which there has been transition
within the bishop’s office, and both times, decisions were made by a man just
trying to get his feet under him in a totally new position and vocation which
were short-sighted, which were a denial of the episcopal office as providing
pastoral care to the pastors. These
decisions changed the course of my life both times. And as I have been in more
stable and settled times of my life, I have been one of hundreds of clergy who
have experienced the following, unfortunately-common, occurrences we have with
our bishops:
-phone
calls not returned
-letters
not answered
-pastoral
care not extended, or not at a level which meets even the most basic
standards to which
we are ourselves are held.
-decisions made
and imposed without a clear sense of where or why they are
happening.
-blatant
favouritism, sexism, and ageism at play
-language
and policy which indicates very clearly that the episcopal leadership is
operating out of
fear and a need for survival, rather than out of Gospel principles.
-language
and policy which continually makes the mistake of creating a system
where the parish
supports the episcopacy, a denial and confusion of the true
episcopal vocation
of service in support of the parishes.
-our bishops
playing right into the hands of those most willing to ‘suck up’, who
exemplify the
insecurity and fear which drives individuals to mis-use and mis-
understand their
power, who make decisions according to power-plays and
popularity-grabs.
I have been on the receiving end of a
bishop’s office upholding the breaking of basic human rights violations in the
workplace. Most recently, I have been
forced, along with an entire diocese, to participate in a fundraising campaign
which not just falls short of, but actually stands in opposition to, every
thing we seek to teach our congregations about the principles of Christian
stewardship. I know what it is to rail
maddeningly under a system that professes to stand with the marginalized, that
understands part of its job to be a voice for the voiceless, and yet leaves its
parish leadership dis-empowered and without options.
We continue to serve under this appalling
model of leadership, we don’t quit, we don’t file law suits, we shut up and put
up, because we have no choice, no voice.
We are powerless. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. If I truly believe myself called to parish
ministry as an ordained leader, I don’t question, I certainly don’t seriously
or legally question, or else I will be black-balled out of a vocation.
Interestingly, I can see any of these
bishops with whom I have had problems, or whose decisions I have questioned, I
can shake their hands, look them in the eye.
I feel predominantly friendly toward these people. Or at least
sympathetic. I know what it feels like
to be on the receiving end of leadership without accountability. But I also know that we do no favour to the leadership
by cutting them loose from responsible, safe, regular and honest critique.
Our diocesan newspapers are without
editorial freedom. Our priests are
silenced, dis-empowered, voiceless. Our
lay people feel primarily dis-connected from their bishops, and most of our
long-time Anglicans who have operated in parish leadership will share stories
of actually being punished by bishops, bishops playing fast and loose with
discernment in order to pair up ‘problematic priests’ with ‘problematic
parishes.’ In truth, part of what makes
our bishops’ jobs so difficult is that they are surrounded by negativity, they
live in a bubble of critique, but of a muttering, nebulous, cloudy sort. Angry and unhappy comments make their way
through the bubble continually, but without any evaluative structure which can
actually make critique helpful, conversational, fair. In the meantime, our bishops bear the weight
of the church’s collective anxiety, they see the big picture, and that picture
is full of uncertainty and challenge.
Cut off, power and fear are a potent mix. No wonder that our bishops, when noting the
challenges of their vocation, mostly do so in a complaining tone, describe lack
of sleep and constant worry as the basic assumptions of the job. The system as it is effectively removes them
from any of the real and honest interaction which keeps each of us grounded,
denies them those time-tested-true methods of professional evaluation which
allow us to know where it is we stand, to express ourselves in response, and to
open ourselves to grow and change within our working life.
Evaluation is not just sound professional
practice, it is Christian practice. It
is about keeping the avenues of communication open which foster true and mutual
and honest relationship. It is about
taking seriously our responsibility to each other. It is about diffusing fear, anxiety and
negativity and committing ourselves to God’s promise that these powers do not
win the day. It is about investing
ourselves in the possibility of transformation:
that we have not been created to stay static, that God is on the move,
that we’re invited for the ride, that somehow in those relationships to which
God has invited us we can find the grace to challenge and support – and
therefore learn from – one another.
Contributed by MS
