Well we learn something everyday. Until this evening's edition of BBC's An Island Parish I never fully understood that Methodist Ministers on the move were handed a complete file of vacancies together with a pen portrait allegedly written by each church. We went through this a few years back but our pen portrait was subverted by the powers that be. We weren't allowed to tell prospective Ministers about the church as it was and the result, predictably, was a disaster.
According to the programme the Reverend David Easton was apparently - this last summer - looking for a new post. We know this isn't true as his appointment to Aberystwyth had been announced in the Autumn of 2008 after the furore following the last series highlighting the vote against extending his stay on Scilly. I can't say that I am happy that we, the Methodist Church, have connived with those elements of tonight's programme that were apparently fabricated for the cameras. Why the deception? We don't need it.
One other aspect of this is that the programme shied away from the spiritual side of the process. If David had been seeking God's guidance for his future this was not stated this evening. The whole thing was presented as just another secular appointment process, which I fear that, too often, it is.
Steve Wild, the Chair of the Methodist District in Cornwall arrived with 150 Methodists from the mainland to express solidarity with the Methodists on Scilly. I'm not certain if the solidarity was for the failure to extend David's stationing or whether it was to mourn the public relations disaster of the last series. However I think it showed Methodism in a positive light, even if the singing of God be With You Till was even more off key than when I sing it.
I have a nagging feeling - and I write as someone who has spent an entire working career in public relations - that there hasn't really been an attempt by anyone with professional PR experience within the Methodist Church to engage with the programme makers. I may be wrong but I suspect the Cornwall District was just left to get on with it. Let us hope disaster is averted when the series returns in January. Meanwhile I would prefer there to be no further "reconstructions" for the cameras, but don't put a fiver on it.
If you wish to know more about this story click the label below marked "An Island Parish"
Posts
10 comments:
Every minister on the move writes a Profile. Every circuit seeking a new minister does likewise. The ministers then see a complete list of Profiles of circuits so they can collate a shortlist. The circuits do likewise. In my experience, an important part of exercising what Paul calls the gift of discernment is learning to decipher what I call "estate agent language"...
It is then down to the matching group (Chairs and lay reps from Districts) to match the ministers with the circuits. Far from being just another secular appointment process, I know they take this process very seriously indeed, and it is a very prayerful and very demanding process - my Chair arrived at our District Retreat last year direct from stationing, and had that peculiar mix of exhilaration and exhaustion which comes from engaging in such a demanding exercise. It is then up to the ministers and circuits to decide whether or not they want that match - and that is usually where we discover how much gloss the 'estate agent language' has applied.
"Subverted by the powers that be"? Obviously I can't comment, since I don't know your situation. However, if there was proper care taken during the visit, problems should have been anticipated and avoided?
As far as "Island Parish" is concerned - well, most Methodists can't get their heads around our system; why should we expect the BBC to understand it?
Thanks Tony for helping my readers understand the process. I'm glad to have your assurances that this process is both prayerful and demanding.
My experience as a church steward was very different. We did not see the prospective Minister's profile, was told that she was the only available candidate so there was no choice, and an individual in our congregation was encouraged to write an alternative profile to that which had been drafted by the stewards.
Within five years a basically sound church was near to spiritual, physical and financial collapse. One of the other churches in the circuit simply refused to work with the appointed Minister.I and other stewards stood down and waited for the storm to pass.
So my personal experience of the stationing system and the way in which the Methodist hierarchy operate has been entirely negative.
Fortunately we are now picking ourselves up and going through something approaching recovery but it is far easier to destroy than to build!
I do hope that the "Island Parish" experience helps the Methodist Connexion to understand how important it is to be transparent in these matters.
You refer to "the Methodist hierarchy" - which bit do you mean? In this case, who told you she was the only choice? That sounds to me like a half-truth - at that stage in the process, she would have been the only person available, because she was the only one matched (unlike the previous system when there were 3 to choose from). If you had declined (and you could have done so), you would have gone into the next round of stationing. If that was the third round, the Chair and Superintendent would have been looking for alternatives - the few ministers not yet matched, a change in oversight to work with a diaconal or lay-worker appointment, etc. There is always a choice - sounds to me as if you were manipulated by someone who wanted this match to stick rather than do any more work.
As to seeking a further rewrite of the profile - on whose authority? It is the circuit invitation committee which is responsible; perhaps they felt the profile was unhelpful?
I do cringe when I hear folk fire salvoes against "the hierarchy", partly because I know some of the very dedicated folk who have District and Connexional office, and partly because I know a little of the issues/relationships between different parts of the so-called hierarchy. In your case, I suspect the manipulation was closer to home than Methodist Church House. Unfortunately, there are toxic appointments which cripple and destroy ministers, and there are difficult or incompetent ministers; it is difficult for those in the stationing process to juggle with those balls among their set.
We were told this person was the only available candidate by circuit officers. I spoke to the District Chair who confirmed this.
We had a meeting of the churches involved and were split 50-50, after a little bit of jiggery pokery by one indidudual, this was assumed to be an "invitation".
The alternative profile was sought at circuit level. The steward's agreed profile was tampered with leaving out a crucial phrase that exactly summed up the position we feared and the position we found ourselves in.
This appointment was pre-ordained because the prospective Minister's husband had got a job the previous year at the local theological college. It was convinient for this family but I certainly did not feel that the Connexion was seeking the mind of Christ on the matter. It certainly wasn't about the needs and aspirations of our church.
I appreciate what you say about salvoes at the "Methodist hierarchy". As I think this blog shows I am very much a fringe member of the Connexion (my attempts at offering to serve within the hierarchy are routinely thwarted). What I think needs to be undertstood is that when we were thrown into the restationing process, it was our first upfront experience of the system. In real life I have hired (and fired) staff over a thrity year period and I know that the process we were involved in was fundamentally flawed. This process we did not understand and this inexperience was used to impose a result that suited certain people.
This has been the problem with the Island Story. What is taken for granted by those in the know comes as a shock for those on the fringe or outside.
Finally I think that we need to acknowledge that we do have some basket cases in Methodism. There are churches and Ministers who are toxic. Churches are easy to deal with, a toxic church will surely die if just left to get on with it. Toxic Ministers are more of a problem. The present system of shunting them around so that they destroy a series of churches is one of the more unbelievable aspects of the itinerant ministry. In any other field of employment incompetent staff are performance managed, disciplined and have their contracts terminated. We need a more comprehensive system of performance review that can manage poorly perfoming Ministers out of the system altogether. Too often we regard ourselves as a job centre for the unemployable.
In case anyone thinks that this issue is David's 'bete noir', I was senior steward designate at the time. The stewards discovered that the Church Council secretary had written the profile. We do not know on whose authority, certainly not on the authority of the stewards or the Church Council. The request was sent to the secretary to be passed on, which happened but a draft had already been made. The stewards decided to revise the draft substantially. However, the intial draft was submitted before the revision. The whole process was surrounded by an atmosphere of mystery and secrecy. The outgoing senior steward claimed that major changes were afoot about which he could say nothing. We never got to the bottom of that.
My recollection is that the stewards' draft was initially and then edited. There was a meeting of all the stewards of the four churches involved together with the candidate and the circuit stewards and superintendent. The church council secretary (above) also turned up without, apparent, invitation and was allowed to vote. This skewed the result. We were too nice to protest at her presence.
There was one church for, one against and two divided. Without that person there would have been three churches against. This could not have been deemed to be an invitation.
It was made very clear that we had no choice in the matter. I think that even the circuit had been told that this was the case.
The person appointed was almost the exact opposite of what we had been looking for. I still have the stewards' profile and it must have seemed like a declaration of opposition to the incoming minister. This was not deliberate but the consequence of an arrangement being made for the convenience of others rather than the pastoral needs of the church.
The circuit has been badly damaged; four churches have been damaged to various extents; the current Superintendent has to pick up the pieces; a deal of mistrust has been created; manipulation and confrontation became the order of the day; some were made ill with the stress of working with this misnister and somse people left.
Theologically, we should always be sceptical of human systems, even church ones. They have a nasty tendency to drift towards the World System which is opposed to God. They can do this even when good and intelligent people are in post. I recommend a book called 'Systemantics' by John Gall. It really is quite enlightening.
My recollection is that the stewards' draft was initially ignored and then edited.
Thank you for telling me the story - I'm sorry if my questions have made you retrace some painful times. At the very least, your process appears to have been mismanaged, if not deliberately manipulated. To be honest, if someone had told my circuit that they had no choice, I suspect they'd vote no just to prove that they do - *if* they weren't entirely happy with the candidate. Sometimes it's better to do without.
Quite apart from the difficulties you've faced, the legacy of your experience means that your circuit will find it harder to trust the Connexion or even the District in future, and that cannot be a good thing. But it is also important for the Connexion to learn that it must listen to local people.
It's interesting to hear - what I assume is only some - of the story. It sounds very credible and I'm sorry that your circuit had to go through this ordeal.
Theologically, we should always be sceptical of human systems, even church ones.
Absolutely. The church is a human system, it is not God incarnate.
Island Parish has been a complete PR disaster for the Methodist Church. The only person to shine through has been Rev David Easton who has shown such grace and generosity throughout a thoroughly confused and cruel process. I hope he finds his congregations in Wales more understanding of his obvious and God-given talents.
From what I can gather, Island Parish is filmed in it's entirety a year in advance, so the current series which aired during 2009 covers 2008.
Having said that, the 2008 series which was filmed in 2007 did mention at the very end David Easton being asked to move on.
It's also worth saying that having watched the previous series of Island/Seaside and Country Parish as an Anglican, I've had much the same frustration at the way some aspects of the way the Church of England operates were shown. Check out in particular the appointment of Guy Scott as chaplain to the islands which I talk about in this post.
Post a Comment