ACCOUNTABILITY OF RECTORS
(A
Supplement Regarding Negative Factors and Traits Affecting the Accountability
of Rectors)
[Please e-mail
suggestions to canon@rtnolan.com]
Canon Richard T. Nolan (ed.)
and about 20 Contributors
Contents
INTRODUCTION
PERENNIAL ISSUES RELATED TO EFFECTIVE
ACCOUNTABILITY
COMMENTS AFTER THE INITIAL POSTING
AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE
INTRODUCTION
Lack of Effective
Evaluations
Little impetus is evident
for the development and implementation of truly effective methods for holding
rectors accountable. Periodic
evaluations are often flawed, because they appear to have no consequences or
because their contents and methods are inadequate. For example, a hand-picked senior warden is
hardly an impartial evaluator; a stacked vestry is unhelpful; generalities
avoid significant specifics; critical comments can be useless, if no motivation
to change has been included!
This Document’s Focus
The
purpose of this project is to explore some of the negative issues that escape
attention in comprehensive evaluations. In a sense, this is a
supplementary resource to evaluation processes which include positive
aspects of a rector’s ministry. We are
not aware of assessments that encourage straightforward mention of issues noted
in this project. Especially noteworthy here are contributors’ concluding suggestions and
comments.
A Hope for Discussion
There are, of course, wonderful rectors who provide
excellent ministries! Some others are
dedicated, good, and eager to receive suggestions for their growth. Nonetheless, inept and unethical rectors who
abuse the power of their office exist in parishes large and small.
Not intending to engage in clergy bashing or gossip,
the following observations of more than one parish and their rectors are
offered here as submitted by a variety of lay and ordained persons in a
number of dioceses. Our
intention is to promote discussion with the hope that the Episcopal Church will
somehow deal with matters such as these, ways that are pastoral yet decisive,
including changes in national and diocesan canons. Truly comprehensive evaluations may be possible,
such that gifted rectors may be recognized, supportive measures established,
and remedies implemented.
One contributor has suggested that
many bishops will not welcome such discussion for a variety of personal and
professional reasons, including their own escape from effective accountability
when they were rectors. Moreover, the tensions
that might follow some thorough evaluations would be more than many bishops
would want to deal with. I hope that there will be sufficient interest among
our chief pastors that comments skeptical of their interest will be proven inaccurate.
Code of Silence
Observers have frequently encountered a code of silence among clergy (similar to what we hear about lawyers, doctors, educators, and the police), such that criticisms of colleagues are perceived as cheap shots, idle gossip, or indications of mean-spiritedness, envy, insensitivity, and/or disloyalty. Also contributing to the reluctance to raise issues is the dread of instant diagnoses and categorizing, such as “triangulate,” “undermining,” “combative,” “passive-aggressive,” “hostile,” “authority problem,” “vindictive,” “confrontational,” “sick,” “not a team player,” and whatever else is in vogue at the time. Though helpful when employed accurately, these labels – often used imprecisely and with incomplete information about their target - stifle collegial conversations and trivialize unfavorable comments. If one is still at a pre-retired stage, the appearance of any of these classifications can significantly reduce the possibility of other calls and, in any case, damage one’s credibility. [Regrettably, there are clergy who will knowingly lie about their critics (their motivations as well as the content and circumstances of the criticisms) in attempts to preserve their immunity.] Genuine concern for the well-being of clergy and the Church requires attention to difficult matters with love and candor instead of silence.
PERENNIAL ISSUES RELATED TO
EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
Most of the issues/obstacles listed
here are not incorporated within evaluations of rectors. Yet they are serious matters. Comprehensive evaluations should be precise
enough to allow such factors to be raised along with positive aspects of
ministry.
Items 1 – 18 focus on aspects of ministry. Items 19 - 22 concentrate on personality. Clearly these distinctions (ministry and personality) are a bit artificial and overlapping.
An example is provided for some items, but to offer such in some cases would be too indicative of the actual rector.
MINISTRY
1. “Loyalty” to the Rector.
The
Governing Principle. There is “loyalty,” and there is
“loyalty.” The military “good soldier”
model of loyalty is often naively adopted in some hierarchical churches. For example: when the rector’s hand-picked
senior warden is told that (s)he must never disagree with him/her during a
vestry meeting or in front of others, when the vestry is charged that loyalty
to the rector is a governing principle of vestry activity, when self-appointed
parish “spiritual directors” advise their disciples that loyalty to the rector
is an essential aspect of mature “spirituality,” when assisting clergy and lay
staff are told that “the people” expect a united front with the rector on all issues,
the deck is stacked. The rector is
crowned and protected. The good
soldiers march to the his/her drum and appear unanimous in thought and
deed. [For alternative understandings of
loyalty, please see “loyalty” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian
Ethics and David E. Soles, “Four Concepts of Loyalty” in Moral Issues In
Business (7th ed., Wadsworth, 1998).]
Effects. Immunity from
constructive criticisms shelters insecure and weak would-be leaders. A dictatorship is made invulnerable. Vestry meetings may run as a rubber stamp of
the rector and of executive committee deliberations. Executive committee members may become
reluctant to be assertively candid at its meetings. Personnel committees feel restrained from
open and frank discussion. The vestry
(also hand-picked, though ostensibly elected by the parish) may have the
reputation of being rector’s protective “parents.” A dependency on the rector develops that may
diminish strong lay leadership and a genuine team ministry. The rector not only makes canonically
required decisions, (s)he does it as a army general rather than a presiding
pastor/officer.
Furthermore,
some “loyal” parishioners and staff members have the propensity to continually
excuse questionable behavior on the part of the rector with "Oh, that's
just him/her. That's just the way he/she is. Nothing
is meant by it, don't take it so personally.
Just live with it."
Although “casual churchgoers” are
usually beyond the serious effects of the military model, more involved parishioners
are likely either to be involved for a short amount of time before they
realize the incompatibility of their notions of loyalty and withdraw or to
remain as intimidated, obedient/dependent individuals – not unlike “cult”
members.
An
Example. The parishioner’s entire life has been the
local congregation, though (s)he has served on one or more committees at a
diocesan/national level. On one occasion
the rector verbally abused him/her so badly that (s)he left the church grounds
feeling terribly hurt. Another
parishioner was telephoned by someone at the church and was asked to extend
some TLC to the victim. On the way to an
emergency and unable to reach the injured party by phone, the helping
parishioner emailed the wounded party with a pastorally intended, professional
description of the rector’s sometimes brutal way of relating to people with the
assurance that (s)he was not being treated uniquely and that all would return
“normal;” the email was prominently marked CONFIDENTIAL. Whereupon, the LOYAL
victim showed the email to the rector, thereby breaking the confidence but
earning his/her favor. “Loyalty” gone
awry! (See the entry “Toxic Faith” in
the “Constructive Criticisms……” subsite of www.philosophy-religion.org.)
2. The Rector Knows and Works the Three Big Rules.
1. Show up for parishioners’ crises. The rector,
who psychologically identifies with people in difficulties, is eager to
show up as quickly as possible whenever a parishioner is in trouble. However, once there, his/her pastoral skills
are modest.
Effects. The rector
knows well that the people for whom (s)he puts in appearance or to whom (s)he
genuinely ministers at any level “owe” him/her. Such individuals are unlikely to be critical
in any way afterwards.
2. Be at all Sunday (and some other) Services. The rector
insists on being visible at Sunday Services, whether or not (s)he has a
liturgical assignment. If on rare
instances (s)he does not vest, (s)he will be seen standing at the rear of the
nave and will greet people as they leave.
If an assistant or visiting cleric is to officiate at a marriage of
friends, the rector usually insists on participating.
Effects. The rector may
be perceived as dutiful, as “earning his/her salary,” as doing his/her
job. Other clergy, however, feel untrusted - like “the help” who need supervision.
3. Look the part. With an accent
on appearances, the rector is a clerical fashion plate. Groomed impeccably, utterly charming and
well-spoken, (s)he is in collar virtually all of the time anywhere near home
base. (S)he is convinced that (s)he is
one of the most visible and prominent individuals in the region. [On the other
hand, a rector and other active clergy who rarely wear a collar and
specifically mention that they do not serve in an office involving power are
pretending or are in denial of the responsibilities of the office as perceived
by most laity.]
Effects. A commanding
and attractive presence is maintained; subtle reinforcement that “appearances
are everything” is enhanced.
3. The Rector Values Highly Extra-Parochial Board/Committee
Membership.
“...
and be among us to share in the councils of this diocese...” (Page 562, Prayer
Book). The rector welcomes diocesan as well as
national service on church-related and other boards and committees. Although (s)he is frequently late in
arriving, early in departing, and contributes minimally, (s)he spends a great
deal of time away from the parish, supposedly on these tasks. (S)he gets his/her strokes outside the
parish. Although often annoyed by the
inordinate time spent away, wardens and vestry assume that there are no
limitations on their rector in this regard; moreover, they are fortunate to
have such a well sought after rector.
Effects. Significant
areas of parish ministry are deficient.
The rector frequently mentions his/her service on these boards and
committees during sermons and announcements.
His/her absences are “justified.”
Who would dare challenge such a celebrity in demand? Quality question are not raised, even though
the rector’s presence on boards is somewhat welcome, because it is well known
that (s)he, as a society rector, has access to sizeable contributions.
An
Example. In one case, the married rector was using
these trips, in part, for extra-marital sexual adventures.
4. The Rector Attends Anti-Jewish/Racist Clubs.
A
“Society Rector.” Some rectors have access to family money
and/or their spouse’s family wealth.
Some are in the Social Register, most are not. Some are wanna-bes. Their personal resources and cravings for
social status are not the issues here.
Needing to please prosperous and prominent parishioners at any cost
is. When the rector readily accepts
invitations to dine and play at social clubs that have earned the notoriety of
excluding people of color as well as Jews, a major moral issue is raised. This is not perceived as an ethical issue in
his/her parish.
Effects. The rector’s
presence and participation affirms and reinforces these immoral forms of
anti-Jewish sentiments and racism. The
pulpit’s prophetic function is compromised.
The people have not grasped that Jesus Christ would be refused entrance
to these clubs.
5. The Rector Backs a Secret Club in His/Her Parish.
An
international, church-related honorary association carefully selects its
members. However, there are
“self-styled” or bogus chapters at the national and local levels. The Rector supports an unannounced and
unscheduled chapter in his/her parish.
(S)he invites well-to-do parishioners to join, and unpublicized Services
and meetings are held periodically. The
members are generally unaware that the chapter is counterfeit. Financial arrangements and contributions are
also secretive.
Effects. For
whatever reasons, the rector has established an apparent caste system, an elite
and secret association within his/her parish. It gives the appearance of having favorites or an
inner circle within the parish. This is potentially divisive, smacks of fraud, and
raises suspicions of financial irregularities.
6. The
Rector Baptizes Children and Adults in Violation of the Spirit and Letter of
the Canons.
Weekday
baptismal rites are conducted, such that the rector has begun Services without
knowing who the Sponsors are; the small congregation of relatives and friends
fumble through the Service giggling and with cameras flashing; the picture
takers ignore his/her requests to stop taking pictures during the Service. Periodic baptisms at the Easter Vigil and
other designated times are much more orderly, but normally with inadequate
preparation of sponsors and/or parents.
Effects. Parents, sponsors, and adult candidates are
cheated from comprehending the foundational Christian ritual that provides
one’s basic identity as a named child of God. Here one is ordained as a minister and is
called to live out the Summary of the Law.
Inadequately prepared participants walk through the Service with minimal
understanding or effects. The Church has
become a public utility providing, almost on demand, a “nice” rite of passage
with little or no commitment expected. A
great moment of religious education is missed.
The rector rationalizes this procedure by an appeal to (magical) “grace”
given in the Sacrament. The reality is
that the rector does not want to offend anyone, especially the affluent.
An Example:
A rector has made it very clear that (s)he regards the canons and Prayer Book
rubrics as guidelines or suggestions, virtually none obligatory. His/her parish is in part a ministry to the unbaptized and unchurched, a type
of missionary activity; lovely ceremonies are provided, in the spirit of a
“public utility.” The parish is
“user-friendly.” Commitments either to God through Christ and/or the Church are
non-issues at any point. The diocesan bishop is aware, but chooses to do
nothing.
7. The Rector Solemnizes Marriages in Violation of the Spirit
and Letter of the Canons.
Ditto
related comments on baptism.
An Example. One
rector routinely married divorced people without the bishop’s permission, for
“pastoral reasons.” In that State,
clergy are given permission by the State to marry people, provided that they
stick to the procedures of their religion.
Because the rector did not, technically all of those marriages are
illegal.
8. The Rector Presents Ill-Prepared Candidates for
Confirmation.
Ditto
related comments on baptism.
9. The Rector Has Battered and Bullied Grieving People.
The
rector has his/her own rubrics regarding funerals. The “sermon” is ill-prepared and often
includes inappropriate comments, sometimes with pitiable attempts at
levity. They all smack of being canned
with clumsy regard for the emotions of the bereaved. (S)he clearly meets his/her own ceremonial
needs and insists on the type of Service and Committal (s)he prefers, even if
the bereaved has requested an alternative within Anglican boundaries.
Effects. Wary
parishioners make arrangements elsewhere with their own selected liturgical leadership,
and subservient parishioners simply bend and meet the rector’s needs.
An Example. On
two recent occasions a rector was so bullying that two separate families within
a month did not show up for the inurnment in the parish columbarium. Local funeral directors are very aware of
his/her insensitivities.
10. The Rector Accepts Sizable Personal Financial Gifts.
Not
only are substantial gifts made to the Rector’s Discretionary Fund (some in
lieu of a pledge to the parish), but also personal gifts – such as the costs of
first class travel for professional and personal reasons – are provided by
wealthy parishioners. There are no
parish records of such gifts or expenditures.
Effects. The
rector has been procured as a private chaplain to do the bidding of such
contributors, who in turn have little connection with the mission of the Church
or its finances; some do not worship – other than at the “big two”
holidays. Their commitment is to
him/her personally, not to God through Christ and his Church. A sense of stewardship is virtually absent.
An Example. When
it was suggested that the rector write a confidential memorandum for use after
his/her departure, (s)he laughingly declined with “That’ll test the pastoral
skills of my successor.” The suggested
memorandum would have contained the names of donors to the Discretionary Fund
or to other funds, people known only to the rector.
Another
Example. A rector cultivated the elderly, especially
lonely widows/widowers, with understated suggestions that they leave something
for him/her in their wills. (S)he “hit the jackpot” when an entire estate was
willed to him/her – resulting in a very early retirement from ordained
service.
11. The Rector’s Sermons Are Disorganized, Banal, Unchallenging,
and Self-Serving.
The
heading of this section almost says it all.
Examples.
Some rectors use
a "bully" pulpit, giving sermons which refer to issues with a
particular parishioner or explaining the rector’s side of a controversy (self-
serving, self-centered sermons, which are different from simply bad sermons).
Others utilize an effective
technique of including in their worst sermons a sob story or a personal,
emotional anecdote that blunts criticisms.
In fact, there are worshippers, moved by such tales, who actually like
such “feeling” homilies devoid of discernible content!
Assisting
clergy “get the message” to avoid controversy in the pulpit and in anything
written in the Sunday leaflets. They are
advised that such topics “belong in the classroom” (where a dozen people might
show up for a parish course; among the dozen, 3 are just lonely and
uninterested in the topic, 3 are mentally unwell, and 6 are genuinely
attentive.)
12. The Rector is a Liturgical/Ceremonial Terrorist.
Insistent
on being the Absolute Master of Ceremonies, the rector appears to enjoy the
adrenaline rush prior to Services.
Although a minimal printed outline of participants’ assignments is
available Sunday morning, ten minutes prior to a primary Service (s)he is thrashing
about and barking orders to acolytes and other assisting ministers in an
attempt to create order from chaos.
Contributing to the disorder are participants arriving three minutes
before the Service is to begin.
The
rector assures newcomers that each ordained person may celebrate according to
his/her style and provides no significant guidelines. In conflict with this generosity, at some
intuitive level the rector believes that others will know what (s)he really
expects and do it expertly. Along with
stern and sometimes sarcastic stage whispers to acolytes and others,
individuals may find themselves in embarrassing circumstances - as if (s)he has
been ceremonially dim-witted and clumsy.
(Some clergy have suspected that the rector, who truly wants Services to
flow well, is conflicted by another dark desire to see assisting clergy make
fools of themselves.)
Effects. The
atmosphere before and during Services is anything but prayerful. Although the congregation is usually unaware
of the bedlam and lack of preparedness, ceremonial participants are often
unnerved. They usually do not worship;
at best they perform. They live in fear of making a mistake and of being
humiliated. Some participants wonder
prior to Services, “what’s going to happen to me here today?” Acolytes are not plentiful, and their
memories of worship are laden with anxiety.
An Example. The
new curate has positioned him/herself differently from where the rector would
prefer at the free standing altar.
Whereupon, obvious to the congregation, with an impatient, disgusted
look, the rector puts his/her hands on the curate’s shoulders and positions the
humiliated curate, as if a child in need of adult supervision!
Another Example. An assisting individual prefers to mentally
walk through the ceremonial prior to Services; the rector knows this well. On a given Sunday, it has been done. Yet, as the entry procession begins, the
rector switches his/her seating and changes his/her spoken part. With a spirit of prayer crushed for him/her,
feeling betrayed and rattled, (s)he embarrassingly sobs walking down the
aisle as (s)he tries to sing the entry hymn.
The rector, astonished, shakes his/her head somewhat sympathetically at
this “over-reaction.” (“Sadistic” would be an appropriate label for the
rector’s behavior.)
Another Example. If other than the rector has preached, (s)he
makes announcements that seem intended to rival the sermon, at least
time-wise. When cautioned about this
insult to the preacher, the rector replies (with regard to announcements),
“This is my time with the people.”
Even if (s)he has been the preacher, the same “show” often goes on.
Attempts at humor, with resulting polite laughs, interrupt the flow of
worship. Whose needs, however
pathological, are being met?
Another
Example. Without adequate preparation for the
worshippers, the rector has imposed ceremonial that runs counter to the
parish’s traditions. That it is “his/her
show” is clear, and the congregation‘s preferences are ignored or
trivialized. Services have become so
wordy that younger people are leaving,
and older people worship less often; but (s)he persists with his/her
brand of “liturgical correctness.”
13. The
Rector’s Management and Leadership Style Leads to Management-by-Crisis.
Phobic
of any confrontation whatsoever and of displeasing those significant to
him/her, the rector is utterly indecisive.
The results of most meetings are muddled with participants wondering
what, if anything, was decided.
Moreover, (s)he has things just the way (s)he wants them, and any
decision introducing something new or rethinking something in place could upset
the status quo that is serving him/her well. Thus, the parish is all but stagnant. When a decision MUST be made, even on
relatively routine matters, it happens only when a crisis demands it.
Effects. High
anxiety is a constant among those needing the rector’s decisions. The parish is generally paralyzed.
An Example. Many
reports have been submitted that note rectors’ passion for the status quo
for up to ten years prior to retirement.
(S)he is on automatic pilot, cultivating years of ease for him/herself,
but allowing the congregation to stagnate.
Bishops appear to ignore this reality, even when it is clear to them.
A Further Example. The rector places more importance upon retaining his/her job
than on the welfare of the people for whom he/she is spiritually accountable.
14. The Rector Does Not Communicate in Timely
Fashion (phone calls returned, acknowledgment of special gifts, RSVP’s, etc.)
Effects. People feel trivialized, and their needs go
unmet. Some vow that they’ll never
contribute again! Common courtesies are
ignored.
A
Related Example. The rector’s bride fails to acknowledge many
parishioners’ wedding gifts.
15. The Rector Makes a Minimal Attempt to
Protect the Staff With Written Agreements.
While the rector enjoys tenure and
wonderful “perks,” his/her staff members are on hand at his/her discretion. (S)he resists putting anything of detailed
substance in writing.
Effects. The rector is
the important one with power. Everyone
else is “the help” and quite dispensable.
An
Example. If a curate should die, there are no
provisions in writing that protect the curate’s family with housing and other
compensation for a specific time.
Another
Example. An absurd and heartless notion, a terrible
part of “oral tradition,” is alive and well that staff must offer resignations
when a new rector arrives. Hardly an
incentive for long-term commitments by clergy called to an assisting
ministry. It implies that Christ’s
ministry in that place is invested wholly in the Rector, whoever (s)he is at a
given moment .
A
Further Example. The talented and devoted groundsman
has been co-opted to serve also as the rector’s spouse’s chauffer and errand
boy. While there is grumbling, the
unbudgeted perk goes unchecked. The
Wardens and Vestry look the other way as portions of the grounds are all but
neglected. The groundsman
has no job description and can apparently be co-opted for the rector’s personal
use.
16. The Rector Compromises His/Her Pastoral Role In Matters Of
Communication and Lay Participation by Recurrently:
a) discussing one parishioner with another.
b) taking parishioners into his/her confidence concerning church issues,
especially those concerning other persons for whom he/she is spiritually
responsible.
c) discussing parishioners and staff with colleagues within the same community
(other than one colleague who may function as a spiritual director).
d) insisting on being treated as just "one of the guys" (via
crude jokes and behaviors, etc.).
e) approaching parishioners as personal friends without appropriate boundaries.
f) becoming angry and/or vindictive at any sign of disagreement with him/her.
g) trying to use his/her canonical power to prevent full participation by
parishioners with whom he/she disagrees.
h) establishing rules beyond the canonical requirements for full participation
in the community.
i) lying or stretching the truth.
j)
advising
a quick cover-up and a "forgive and forget" attitude which denies
parishioners the opportunity to express their experiences.
17. The
Rector is Intolerant of Views Different From His/Hers.
Although
the Anglican Communion has always acknowledged more than one interpretation of
most matters of doctrine and morality, the rector stifles discussion of
Anglican views other than his/hers.
Whether from the pulpit or in study groups, his/her version must
prevail, and other informed insights are
either ridiculed or dismissed.
Effects. Parishioners are discouraged from thinking
through significant matters and from understanding views that are within an
Anglican perspective. Their
comprehension is limited to the rector’s vision of the Faith. The richness of the Prayer Book’s Catechism
is diminished. While the rector supports
religious education for adults, (s)he has failed to distinguish religious
education from indoctrination; brains must be “checked at the door” except for
the capacity for passive assent.
18. The
Rector Favors Devotional and Enrichment Groups and Movements.
The
rector expects parishioners to be enthusiastic about prayer and meditation
groups of various types as well as personal/marriage enrichment movements.
Effects. Those who worship faithfully on Sundays
appear to be regarded as lesser or incomplete Christians. The “supplements” often have a
holier-than-thou, elitist ethos. Many
people participating seem to need desperately a validating spiritual experience
or therapy of some sort. While
spiritually sound and health-giving for some, the elevation of such activities
to normative Prayer Book standing is misplaced.
Is not one’s baptism nurtured by Eucharist sufficient? Can a rector seemingly demand more,
especially from parish leaders?
PERSONALITY
19. The Rector is Abusive, Unstable, and
Undependable.
The rector is abusive with virtually
all others: one minute a hug, the next a hit.
His/her apparent mood swings indicate an emotional instability. Because of these factors, indecision, and
fear of confrontation, (s)he is inconsistent
and undependable.
Effects. To work
closely with him/her or to attempt to have a familial or friendly relationship
is to court abuse. Those codependents
who stay with him/her are destined to a toxic relationship (that might indicate
that they, too, need at least pastoral counseling).
20. The Rector is a “Control Freak.”
The rector needs to be in control of
virtually every person and every activity.
(S)he is unable to delegate, other than on paper. Although the parish has all sorts of
committees and looks good on paper, (s)he dominates virtually every one of
them, whether or not (s)he is in attendance.
Effects. A dictatorial
empire characterized by the rector’s exercise of power alienates willing and
competent lay and ordained ministers, both voluntary and paid. An adversarial relationship develops with
“dissenters.”
21. The Rector’s Personal Life is Problematic, Such That His/Her
Ministry is Adversely Impacted.
Rector “A” - A marriage from
hell is unhelpful. When home is
embattled, one is less able to minister.
And, word gets around and becomes fodder, especially for
mischief-makers.
Rector “B” – A married person
who maintains same-sex alliances in the region.
Adultery is adultery, regardless of the gender of the partner. So hot to handle, the stories result in a dwindling
congregation.
Rector “C” - A married person
who hires curates with the carefully designed plan that the curate be available
for sexual favors. Very few discover the
arrangements with succeeding curates.
Nonetheless, not only is adultery adultery,
but a prostitute is a prostitute! Also,
this is potentially explosive well beyond the parish (s)he serves.
22. The
Rector Sometimes Flirts, Hurtfully.
The rector has been known to hug
members of the opposite sex, or make “cute” remarks, especially when they are
pastorally vulnerable.
An
Example. The divorced parishioner had sadly concluded
a relationship and was lonely. The
married rector’s hug with an “I love you” was perceived as more than
pastoral. When the parishioner sought
counseling from another member of the (loyal) staff, the parishioner became the
victim!
[from clergy (including the episcopate), diocesan consultants, parish personnel committee members, wardens and vestry, and other lay people]
1) “This project should be widely available, so that evaluators, vestries, and members of congregations will know that it’s everyone’s responsibility to take into consideration and act on these matters. The consequences of ongoing weak evaluations and ethical breaches need to be spelled out, ranging from pastoral care and continuing education to formal requests for resignations. However, one would hope that in most instances the overall positive aspects of a comprehensive evaluation would be the context for negative findings.”
2) “If either a diocesan bishop or a vestry will
not take the initiative to implement effective accountability measures, they
will continue to have less than responsible rectors as well as those who could
be assisted to improve their ministries. … Perhaps it would be crass to state
that without implementation ‘they’ll get what they deserve.’”
3)
“As time-consuming as it would be, a formal evaluation should be created with
the ordination vows and baptismal vows as the heart of the evaluation.
The evaluation should not only ask professional ethical questions, but also
questions which relate uniquely to ordination and the role of rector and/or
priest; questions which address issues of power over, etc. Anyone who
refused to recognize they have spiritual power over others conferred by their
ordination would be confronted.
“Again, as time-consuming and
probably expensive as it would be, each diocese should have an evaluation group
consisting of both lay and ordained. This group would meet periodically
with each rector with the purpose of holding each rector accountable to the
professional and ethical behavior adopted as guidelines. This would be
different than the clergy support peer group which now meets. The
professional evaluation group would have the good of the parishes and diocese
and congregants as much at heart as the priest.”
4) “With the election of each new vestry or bishop's committee, a lay and
an ordained member of the evaluation team would meet with the new vestry to
explain the guidelines for professional and ethical conduct, and to give them
the tools for assessing the rector. At evaluation time for each rector,
two members would again meet with the vestry and help with the
evaluation. This would eliminate the ‘go around the table and tell me
what I have done well’ evaluation.”
5) “The evaluation team would be both
elected and appointed with rotating terms of two years. There would be an
effort to alternate participation by different parishes and missions as well as
regions. The evaluation team would have training by those working in
these fields.”
6) “To get the average corporate parish
rector to voluntarily enter into such a system of review would be a remarkable
achievement. I am was amazed to learn how very similar corporate rectors are in
their wish for invulnerability.”
7) “I have noticed through my experience how
desperately we need these guidelines and some professional evaluation
method. In my case, if these guidelines had been in place, my bishop
would have been able to at least call the priest to account for some
actions. The church pleads ‘body of christ’
(deliberately lower-case) when these issues arise, but then shouts ‘corporate
structure’ when asked to behave as the Body of Christ. It has the best of
both worlds and doesn't want to give it up. In almost no other vocation
or profession is there such a blatant attempt to escape accountability.
However, in one way, totally different from our understanding of the Body of
Christ and stewardship, etc., is the idea that as parishioners and tithers to the church, we are stockholders in a business
and have the right to demand ethical responsibility from board members and
employees. I really don't like that picture, but then I really dislike
being told to ‘just go somewhere else’ as well. The understanding of the
law is that this (the church) is a club and we don't have to belong and therefore
it is okay for the club to make the rules.”
8) “… for me it underscores the desirability/importance of/need for a clergy code of ethics - of which I am aware of two - one for the Diocese of Oxford and the other coming out of the Church of Wales . … some situations you describe are ones around which some good education needs to take place - not just for the clergy, but also for the laity. … Education re expectations - what are reasonable expectations of clergy and the rector - what kinds of behavior fall outside or beyond personality and become undermining of others (whether ordained or not); matters such as 'conflict of interest', receipt of gifts, etc. need clear guidelines - which in turn need to be widely made known; - evaluation is a tricky business - please note that I am not saying that it is not important, because it is - what becomes difficult is ensuring first of all a workable position description clearly understood by all parties, then how does this become operable in the context in which it is located, what are the criteria being used to measure/indicate goals and objectives being done - and what happens when there are conflicting ideas about the carrying out of these things (which can happen in any situation, but particularly in a larger congregation that is polychromatic, as it were, along dimensions of socio-economic status, age, etc.).”
9) “You might discover that apathy and fear are
so engrained among church people (clergy included) that the very purpose of
this excellent supplemental resource is beyond what they can deal with.”
10)
“I hate to tell you how much of what you observed can be applied to managers in
corporations who get into a position of power. While there are accountability
processes, they are very weak at the top of an organization (which, of course,
is where a rector is). … I think it all comes from an attitude of ‘I'm so
special that normal ethical precepts don't have to be applied to me.’ … Any of
these kinds of behaviors just impedes the work of the Holy Spirit in a
congregation."
COMMENTS AFTER THE INITIAL
POSTING
1) From a rector: “This was not helpful; just
sensationalism.”
2) Another disapproving rector thought that this
project was the entire evaluation process and, therefore, too negative.
3) From a lay deputy to General Convention: “I am delighted that I have had the chance to
read this great document, and would like to add another suggestion.” The suggestion focused on clergy behavior
during social times at the diocesan and national levels wherein “street
language” and actions related to too many cocktails are inappropriate. The use of “damn” and “hell” (not theologically!)
in sermons is also tasteless. Wary of
inviting guests to Services, the deputy remarked, “I can’t trust what will come
out in the sermon. … I am not a prude,” but further notes that the least common
denominator need not govern either clergy or lay language.
4) From a rector: “I have already downloaded your
‘Accountability’ piece and distributed it to all clergy in this diocese…. An excellent piece of work.”
5) From a parishioner: “It’s hopeless. The Vestry is in deep denial or will
willingly look the other way. So many in
the parish are indeed dependent on the prestige of its location and will
grumble or express dissatisfaction, but say or do nothing about it. It’s an ‘in’ place. The rector, whose style is discussed in many
of your comments, can do whatever he wants.
For the most part, honorable assisting clergy do not remain, and rarely
is one to be found in the congregation.”
AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE (after
the initial Nov. 2000 posting)
THE RECTOR INFLATES THE PARISH’S MEMBERSHIP
STATISTICS
In order to qualify the parish as highly complex (and
thereby elevate clergy compensation recommendations on the diocesan scale) as
well as for prestige reasons, the Rector includes as members seasonal people
whose true memberships are elsewhere. It
seems that the national canons do not prevent an individual from being listed
in more than one parish as a member.
Unless limited by diocesan canons or parish by-laws, there is no
technical prohibition against this practice.
For the above-mentioned reasons, one
rector lists about three times a more likely accurate number, according
to a parish officer.
One retired priest’s wife wrote that
she and her husband pledge to three parishes and are considered members of
each, with no transfer letter sent to any of them.