As I chat with lay and clergy members of my diocese and
elsewhere, one of the disturbing pictures that has emerged in the last dozen or
so years is what I call Failed Cleric Syndrome (FCS).
I don’t mean a moral or mortal failure;
rather, I am using the word in the sense of collapse, breakdown, and frustration. I'm talking about ministries that keep experiencing one “bad call”
after another, and where the clergy person in question seems unable to choose
aright in succeeding calls, usually assigning almost all the blame to the
congregations involved, preceding clergy, the bishop, etc.
The failures that concern me here are not the Really Big sins and vices
that have always plagued the ordained and call for immediate action or removal.
Nor am I focusing on the issues of addiction, mental illness, personality
disorders, &c. that plague many—though these matters do
intersect with some of what I will write about.
I am speaking here of some ways a cleric can make the often
difficult situation of parish ministry much, much harder than necessary. If
parish and diocesan ministry committees and commissions, rectors/vicars, and Bishops were more attuned to these things the rate of failed calls would likely decline, with
corresponding benefit to congregations, clergy, and dioceses. In fact, the
entire Church would be blessed if there were fewer such situations, as they
give rise to an ever-increasing level of frustration, cynicism, and bad feeling in
congregation after congregation.
The reason I am writing about this when no-one asked me is
that I am growing very concerned about the mounting number of failed calls and hurt
clergy/congregations. How many tearful lunches and conversations have I had
with colleagues who find themselves in terrible situations, unable to see any
way out, yet whose perceptions and actions are almost guaranteed to make the
situation worse? How many times have relatively new clergy been assigned to
parishes that require considerable skill in leadership—clergy whose formation
has been of a kind and duration that makes patient, grounded-yet-flexible, creative response
almost impossible. I believe this to be wrong and unjust to all involved.
To top it off, the general culture in our tradition seems to
have decided that the best solution to such situations is to “blame and move
on” after a relatively short time, creating a sort of morbid game of musical chairs, with fewer
and fewer viable positions—and a considerable number of embittered clergy and congregations who
don’t seem to learn very much from their sorrows.
It isn't that those with FCS are unaware of a problem. Such clergy often go to trainings, read books, articles, and blogs—but frequently for the wrong reasons. They are most interested to find out why other people failed them, or what whizz-bang technique, like a newly-discovered vitamin, is missing from their own personal arsenal of skills (and will thus make it "all better" with a minimum of actual alteration and growth). What is needed is a deeper appraisal, a willingness to see what needs radical renewal or completion on the level of our being, not just our doings.
I don’t personally see failure as a bad word, in and of
itself. I tend to think we don’t learn much from success, but can learn a great
deal from failure. But, if we cannot deal with failure openly, honestly, and
with a sense of humility, it means we will not be learning much at all.
Friends across the Episcopal Church tell me that what I am
styling the FCS phenomenon continues to mount in parish after parish, diocese
after diocese, but that the responses from “on high” seem calculated only to
deepen the problem, focused as they tend to be on techniques or ideals that
avoid the root causes. We have talked ourselves into a corner; more "techniques" won't fix things. They might help here and there, but this is more a matter of fundamental principles.
I am also very conscious as I write this that I am hardly a
model cleric. Indeed, as I go through the list of FCS symptoms, I cannot help
but see that some of this symptomology has been with me from the start, while
others come and go.
There is only One Great High Priest who is perfect and
without flaw: Jesus Christ our Lord. All other Christian priesthood is
derivative from him, and there are no perfect lay or clergy persons—and the one
writing this is almost painfully aware of this on a personal level. My concern is about saving the Church and its ministry much pain...and perhaps putting the focus back on our mission rather than on retrenchment resulting from FCS.
The degree to which our ministries point to Christ,
glorifying him, is the degree to which a ministry is whole and holy. There
comes a point when having too many symptoms of FCS begins to obscure the view
of Christ Jesus in our ministries. What I am writing about are some of these
symptoms, especially those having to do with elemental skills in faith,
relationships, and leadership.
This is not meant to be an exercise in egotism, but the fruit of 20+ years of ordained experiences…my own and others’. It should go without saying that many clergy do not suffer from FCS. It is entirely possible that I am totally wrong about everything I am writing. That is for others to decide. Obviously, these are personal opinions, perhaps worth what you have paid for them. But, the heartache I witness seems to call for a response, and this pastor wants to think aloud about it as well as pray about it. So, whatever you might think or feel, here
goes…
1. Lukewarm
discipleship
Of all the symptoms of FCS, this is to me the most
significant and common.
When a pastor is pretty clearly neither a committed believer
nor a transmitter of the “saving message” of the Gospel, the community suffers.
Christians generally do not come to church to prop up an institution—though some
parishes try to operate this way. For the most part, we come to church to worship God and share in community, to be
forgiven, inspired, connected, taught, healed, nourished, and sent out renewed to
“love and serve” God and neighbor. In Anglicanism, clergy are central to
this—like it or not.
When the discipleship of the pastor is weak for a long while
the effect is to dampen the discipleship of the flock. The stronger disciples
in the parish will gradually have to go to other places for nourishment,
dividing their loyalties and eventually withdrawing support. The weaker
disciples will find comfort—for a while—in their pastor’s non-committal stance;
but eventually the lack of challenge and experience will tell. Attendance at
worship and formation offerings declines; leadership then decides to pare
offerings because “no one is coming,” and the cycle becomes a sort of reverse
feedback loop of retrenchment.
It is not that every cleric has to be “on fire” for God all
the time; not at all. Our humanity is and must be central to our calling, and
there are times when we are tired, hurt, or very needy disciples. But it is
essential that the people—on the whole—see in their pastor the life of
faithfulness, wrestling, and raw discipleship that shows courage, commitment,
and clarity about where the source for Christian life, teaching, and practice
lay: Jesus Christ our Lord, in the power
of the Holy Spirit. We will all manifest this in somewhat different ways,
but manifest it we must.
FCS often becomes quite clear when some group, cause, or
identity secondary to the Gospel overtakes our primary identity as disciples. The
late Terry Fullam had a saying that went something like this: “When Christ is
at the center, everything else is peripheral; when anything else is at the
center, Christ becomes peripheral.” This is a very useful thing to hold onto in
ordained life.
Churches where discipleship is being lived out in some clear
way by the clergy are churches where the culture, conversation, and capacity
for discipleship in all members
likely flourishes. Such communities can address a wide variety of issues and
concerns in ministry that finds its power in the Risen Christ. To minister from
some other source—no matter how energizing—is unsustainable and often leads to
damaging results.
Much like how children at home can see the true state of
their parent’s marriage, those we serve can see very quickly in our manner of
leading liturgy, sermons, pastoral care, writings, and conversation whether we
are active disciples—however poor, fragile, or unskilled—or just institutional
hacks. If the former, they will have more patience with us and indeed often
labor alongside us to make up our lack; if the latter, they will tend either to
collude with us in turning the church into some sort of social, political, or
elitist club, or reject us for the frauds we have become. Either way, we are
not living up to our vows, and our tenure will be made much harder and more
conflicted.
2. An inability to
sustain healthy relationships
This is another of the major symptoms of FCS, and is
surprisingly common. I have spoken to many clergy over the years who not only
do not like many of the folks they serve, but feel they cannot worship with
them, avoid visiting them, and in general develop elaborate bureaucracies of
congregational avoidance. They find this to be true in parish after parish.
There can be many reasons for this. I have met a fair number
of clergy who managed to get through the discernment process (and even
psychological examination) who have some serious undetected organic or personality problems
(e.g. bipolar disease, severe depression, narcissistic personality disorder, borderline
personalities). The stress and strain of ordained life quickly exposes what was
hidden or ignored earlier. This gives rise to many very real tragedies.
Often, such people exhibited some “star quality” that the Bishop,
Commission on Ministry, or home parish leadership idolized to the exclusion of balance, common sense, or sustainability in ministry. Modifying St. Paul, “the wages of
idolatry is despair.” When we put forward people for Holy Orders because that individual has some narrow but currently attractive characteristic, we do no one any
favors. It simply is not provision enough for the journey ahead.
For a long while, for instance, the emphasis in the Episcopal Church was "being pastoral." So, we looked for this in people to be ordained...almost the to the exclusion of most other qualities. The upshot is that many folks in a collar today lead with a wishy-washy sort of attitude, looking for the best way to smooth over things and be "welcoming" but avoiding substantive teaching, spiritual depth, transformative worship, tough decisions, setting healthy boundaries, and establishing clarity about God's mission to the Creation through the Church. Being "pastoral" became an idol, and (as idols always do) led to paralysis in the Church's true, diverse, and complex work.
My experience is that the majority of FCS sufferers simply don't have very good interpersonal skills. What was valued in them by others in the ordination process was something other than a gift for being in community, for enduring character, or something so simple as being able to hold a conversation with someone with whom they differ for more than thirty seconds.
This is often rooted in ecclesiology. If a person thinks the Church is a body of like-minded people who gather for religious activity, or a spiritual club for one identity group or another, it is easier to keep our distance and take no risks. If a person believes the Church to be Christ's Mystical Body, then the hard work of being in community over time takes on spiritual urgency and value. FCS tends to see church as the former and makes light of the latter view.
For a long while, for instance, the emphasis in the Episcopal Church was "being pastoral." So, we looked for this in people to be ordained...almost the to the exclusion of most other qualities. The upshot is that many folks in a collar today lead with a wishy-washy sort of attitude, looking for the best way to smooth over things and be "welcoming" but avoiding substantive teaching, spiritual depth, transformative worship, tough decisions, setting healthy boundaries, and establishing clarity about God's mission to the Creation through the Church. Being "pastoral" became an idol, and (as idols always do) led to paralysis in the Church's true, diverse, and complex work.
My experience is that the majority of FCS sufferers simply don't have very good interpersonal skills. What was valued in them by others in the ordination process was something other than a gift for being in community, for enduring character, or something so simple as being able to hold a conversation with someone with whom they differ for more than thirty seconds.
This is often rooted in ecclesiology. If a person thinks the Church is a body of like-minded people who gather for religious activity, or a spiritual club for one identity group or another, it is easier to keep our distance and take no risks. If a person believes the Church to be Christ's Mystical Body, then the hard work of being in community over time takes on spiritual urgency and value. FCS tends to see church as the former and makes light of the latter view.
I would suggest that, instead of grabbing people for Orders
that fit one or another highly desirable criterion just now (and such new "essential" criteria seem to be cooked up every few years), we look for the
ability of that person to get along with a variety of people, make and keep
commitments and friendships, follow through over time, think spiritually about community, and manifest balance and
steadiness in relationships. These are all essential skills in parish ministry, ignored or downplayed at our peril.
