Pastoral expectations

[lismore]

(I'm looking after four churches where thirty years ago there were three priests, for example)

That's a big change. Is there a reason for the declining numbers of clergy? Less people coming forward to train, or fewer attendees? God Bless

 

[Paidiske]

That's a big change. Is there a reason for the declining numbers of clergy? Less people coming forward to train, or fewer attendees? God Bless

Smaller congregations, basically. So the budget shrinks, and they have to amalgamate to be able to pay a full stipend. But they amalgamate budgets but not congregations, so I run around between places which once were able to pay for a priest in their own right.

If that makes sense?

 

[stevevw]

A conversation I had today left me wondering what most people expect. When someone has a pastoral need and wants prayer or a conversation with their minister, do they expect their minister to initiate that? Do they expect to have to reach out and indicate their desire? Do they expect something else?

Generally, while I'm very happy to make time when I know of someone's need, I get very frustrated with the expectation that I'll be mind reader enough to know without being asked. And I especially dislike the situation that happens when they don't ask, but then complain to others that I didn't visit or call. But it seems some people genuinely think they shouldn't have to, and I'm wondering how prevalent that is...

I worked at a community centre and I like the way our Service Manager had an open door policy and created a friendly and relating culture. She was big on transparency as I think this reassures everyone that nothing sinister was going on. She use to do the rounds and pop her head in to see how everyone was going. Had a weekly get together and one on one chats as well to keep in touch. This is part of key principles for good communication.

I would imagine your situation is a bit different as your congregation may vary and its hard to establish policies and proceedures. It may be hard to build rapport and trust with everyone and some people are reluctant to talk about their issues. Because belonging to a congregation is more voluntary like a Club in some ways there is no obligation for members to cooperate.

There will always be gossips and I think no amount of openness will make them satisfied. I remember being a member of the local footy club and there was always some who griped and whinged. It can be a delicate situation where you have to be diplomatic because not everyone sees eye to eye. But there was a common ground in that we all went for the same footy team at the end of the day.

I think those who do complain may usually have something on their mind but are not good communicators. Often its just a case of misunderstanding or miscommunication. Some may like a more anonymous way to get in contact like an email or messager like on Facebook initally. I think thats all you can do and just create ways for people to communicate and let them know if they have any problems to get in touch.

 

[Paidiske]

It's interesting, I started this thread nearly five months ago. Reflecting on how the particular relationship which prompted it is going (in summary: not well; she's just informed me she doesn't want me to take her funeral), I think there's another issue as well, and that's the confusing of friendship with the pastoral relationship. The person who was upset with me expected me to behave like a friend (and part of that, for her, means that her friends care enough to reach out unprompted), and has felt hurt and rejected that I haven't.

Whereas I see it as important to maintain the distinction; that although I am friendly in my role, we are not friends as such. And that protects us both. Not that that's an excuse for coldness or distance, but that all of the stuff already posted about applies.

But there's a whole lot of baggage - on both sides of that conversation - that would need time and space to unpack, that of course we don't really have, because we don't have a relationship in which we can have that conversation.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Whereas I see it as important to maintain the distinction; that although I am friendly in my role, we are not friends as such. And that protects us both.

This is a very important point for persons in any professional role and also those in a parenting role. There is an important difference in being friendly versus being friends.

 

[lismore]

Whereas I see it as important to maintain the distinction; that although I am friendly in my role, we are not friends as such.

Hello! Just my perspective but I think in an age when loneliness is widespread and levels of trust in various 'professional' and authority figures is extremely low (politicians, lawyers, doctors, police, even clergy), perhaps many are looking for a friend. Someone to know them and their needs, to be there for them (Proverbs 17:17). Society is changing, the model of 'professional', detached clergy is perhaps under numerical strain because that is not where people are at anymore. God Bless

 

[Paidiske]

Well, it's maybe a separate conversation. But I would maintain that I absolutely cannot be both a close friend, and a good minister to someone. (At times, for example, I've encouraged my husband to seek out pastoral support from someone else because I can't be his wife and his pastor in that kind of way).

It doesn't mean we don't care about people, but it's about boundaries.

 

[seeking.IAM]

But I would maintain that I absolutely cannot be both a close friend, and a good minister to someone...It doesn't mean we don't care about people, but it's about boundaries.

In my profession, it is considered an ethical violation for a therapist to have a "dual relationship" with a client, a breach so significant that it can result in action against one's license to practice. Even accepting a social media friend request from a client is considered to fall outside of the scope of a professional relationship and therefore as being unethical. A professional relationship is a one-direction relationship while friendships are two directional. We can be friendly, kind, compassionate, and supportive to those we serve, but that doesn't mean we're having coffee with each other Saturday morning or going to the matinee Saturday afternoon. And, it doesn't mean I will be talking to you about my problems in the same manner you talk to me about yours. That's the difference between staying in a professional role and being friends.

 

[Paidiske]

In my profession, it is considered an ethical violation for a therapist to have a "dual relationship" with a client, a breach so significant that it can result in action against one's license to practice. Even accepting a social media friend request from a client is considered to fall outside of the scope of a professional relationship and therefore as being unethical. A professional relationship is a one-direction relationship while friendships are two directional. We can be friendly, kind, compassionate, and supportive to those we serve, but that doesn't mean we're having coffee with each other Saturday morning or going to the matinee Saturday afternoon. And, it doesn't mean I will be talking to you about my problems in the same manner you talk to me about yours. That's the difference between staying in a professional role and being friends.

While ministry's boundaries are a bit more relaxed than that, and there is a dimension of reciprocity to the community life of a church, there's something in common here. I absolutely do agree that I do not share my problems with people in my pastoral care, they way they share theirs with me.

 

[stevevw]

The line between frienship and professional duty can get blurred sometimes especially in situations like s Club or Church because its voluntary and though there are some unspoken standards or ethics like no threats or violence there is a lot that is left unclear like the line between friendships and professional duty and its hard to apply because people can take things personally and don't understand the overarching standards that need to apply when a group of people get together under the one roof. I guess Moses is a good example having to appease and look after the Isrealites.

Because Church is viewed as more social I think people may see it as a place to make contact with others and get support, perhaps the only place they have so some will place high expectations on this. While at the same time adminstrators or facilitators need to work to higher professional standard that has to be neutral to individuals when administering or even doing pastoral work I would imagine. Some people don't see this side and I would imagine those who are in need can sometimes be only thinking of their own situation that needs attention and not consider this.

 

[Deegie]

While ministry's boundaries are a bit more relaxed than that, and there is a dimension of reciprocity to the community life of a church, there's something in common here. I absolutely do agree that I do not share my problems with people in my pastoral care, they way they share theirs with me.

I think that's spot-on. And beyond that, in a friendship, I can rely on the other party to help meet my needs (whether social, spiritual, financial, romantic, etc). In "professional" ministry, that's a recipe for disaster. I am there entirely to support them and not vice versa. Not to mention that they are also my employer and the complications that brings.

 

[Paidiske]

Ah, fortunately technically those in my pastoral care are not my "employer." (If anyone, that's the bishop, although here Anglican clergy are not considered "employees" as such). Occasionally I do have to remind them that they're not my employers (or managers)!

 

[Deegie]

Ah, fortunately technically those in my pastoral care are not my "employer." (If anyone, that's the bishop, although here Anglican clergy are not considered "employees" as such). Occasionally I do have to remind them that they're not my employers (or managers)!

That definitely sounds preferable to me! Here in the States, Episcopal churches hire and pay their own clergy (with the Bishop's consent). Although as a tenured rector, they cannot unilaterally terminate me. But they still get to set things like annual pay raises and the like. A small part of me always strives to keep the Vestry happy with my performance, even if I don't like to admit it.

 

[The Liturgist]

In "professional" ministry, that's a recipe for disaster

Indeed I am pretty sure that becoming reliant on their congregations for inappropriate support is what led to the rise of many cults.

 

[Paidiske]

That definitely sounds preferable to me! Here in the States, Episcopal churches hire and pay their own clergy (with the Bishop's consent). Although as a tenured rector, they cannot unilaterally terminate me. But they still get to set things like annual pay raises and the like. A small part of me always strives to keep the Vestry happy with my performance, even if I don't like to admit it.

Like any arrangement, it has benefits and drawbacks (for example, none of the protections of employment law apply to us, either, except - weirdly - OH&S requirements). It's very clear here that clergy are appointed and licensed by the bishop, although with the consent of the parish*. The parish also does not set the stipend; that's determined at a diocesan level (although the parish may choose to pay more in different ways; I know a colleague who negotiated a very generous book allowance from the parish, for example).

*The consent of the parish matters more for clergy "in charge;" for assistant clergy the lay leaders might get no choice at all except in whether or not they have someone (but no say in who that someone might be).

It's a delicate thing; I don't minister to meet the expectations of key parish leaders, but I'm always aware that some decisions will burn goodwill, and that if you burn too much goodwill you lose the cooperation needed to act on other important things. So it can be a balancing act where you need to keep people happy enough to work with you, even when you need to challenge them.

 

[Deegie]

It's a delicate thing; I don't minister to meet the expectations of key parish leaders, but I'm always aware that some decisions will burn goodwill, and that if you burn too much goodwill you lose the cooperation needed to act on other important things. So it can be a balancing act where you need to keep people happy enough to work with you, even when you need to challenge them.

So very true. I feel like I've finally been there long enough and built up enough trust and respect (a goodwill savings account, if you will) that I can finally get things done without the resistance I faced in the beginning. I've seen colleagues compromise their boundaries in pursuit of that by working too much, never saying no, and not standing up for what's right (whether theologically, liturgically, ethically, or in conflict situations) because they want to be liked. I'm proud to say I've done very little of that and still gotten to a very good place.

 

[hislegacy]

A conversation I had today left me wondering what most people expect. When someone has a pastoral need and wants prayer or a conversation with their minister, do they expect their minister to initiate that? Do they expect to have to reach out and indicate their desire? Do they expect something else?

Generally, while I'm very happy to make time when I know of someone's need, I get very frustrated with the expectation that I'll be mind reader enough to know without being asked. And I especially dislike the situation that happens when they don't ask, but then complain to others that I didn't visit or call. But it seems some people genuinely think they shouldn't have to, and I'm wondering how prevalent that is...

James 5:13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.

If you also look at Luke 9 and 10 - Jesus told His disciples and the 70 others what cities receive you - stay. When someone asks, they give you permission to speak into their lives.

 

[linux.poet]

I expect to have to reach out for pastoral assistance of any kind. If I do not reach out, I wish to be left alone.

 

[Paidiske]

Oddly, recently I had the other absolute extreme. One of my ladies had a medical incident and collapsed while alone in the church, with the doors locked. Instead of ringing me (who was, like, maybe fifteen metres away across the road) to open the door for the ambulance, she rang someone in the next suburb. When I later asked her why, she said, "It was your day off!" To which I told her that if getting that door open ASAP is possibly the difference between living and dying, scruples about days off are out of place!

Never a dull day in this job...