Walking With instead of Walking Away: Fourth essay in the Care for Clergy Series

This is the fourth essay in the Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls writing project

by The Rev. Dennis Fotinos

Over the years I have known quite a number of clergy who have experienced challenges in ministry that came in a wide range of seriousness, from relatively mild to traumatic. Sometimes the difficulties were caused by the clergy themselves, and sometimes by members of the congregation, and sometimes by a combination of clergy and congregation. In most cases I came to learn that the clergy involved in these conflicted situations found themselves increasingly isolated from their judicatories, and from their clergy peers within their denomination. The sense of isolation and rejection grew over time and increased the pain and stress of the experience, often described by those going through it, as making things almost worse than the original conflict itself. 

As a priest of some forty-three years experience I have observed, and been a part of this process far too many times. As a result of getting to know a priest who had been in the midst of a very painful and difficult dissolution of the pastoral relationship with his congregation, I heard again about the feelings of isolation and abandonment that so often accompany these experiences. This priest experienced feelings of failure, worries about future employment prospects, and anxiety about his ability to support his family in the future. All these only add to the pressure and can easily push, even the strongest individuals, towards depression and despair. 

As I thought about writing this piece, I did some further research, talking with some other clergy in the area to find out if what I have been describing was a widely experienced reality. I was not surprised to find that it was far too widely experienced, and that the experience was shared across denominational lines. 

The way many clergy are treated during conflicts seems to bear poor witness to the mercy and compassion of Christ that is at the heart of our faith. The care of clergy who are in the midst of conflict in their congregation or who have recently undergone such conflict should be as good as we would expect to provide members of our congregations who are going through painful personal or family crises. 

It seems to me that this should be the case no matter what has been done, even if the clergy person is guilty of a gross violation of their vows and responsibilities. Again, I believe clergy persons who have committed serious breaches of their pastoral responsibility should be treated as well as we would expect to treat members of our congregations who have seriously violated moral and/or civil laws. 

In cases that are not violations of civil or moral laws, but the breakdown of trust brought about by inexperience such as heavy-handedness, or other poor judgment, is the Church not better served by assisting such clergy with support, counseling, and training so that they can process the experience, learn from their mistakes, and become better and more effective leaders in the future? 

People who respond to a sense of “call” spend years in the formation process working with Commissions on Ministry, Standing Committees, undergoing psychiatric evaluations, and spending up to three years in seminary. I believe we should work with clergy who find themselves in conflicted situations as well as with the congregations that have been involved in the conflict or crisis so that all parties involved and hurt by the conflict can find resolution, and discover insights that can lead to growth and healing. 

More often than not it seems, when things start to go sour, judicatories, pressed by unhappy congregational leadership, invoke disciplinary canons and the clergy involved become increasingly isolated as friends and colleagues tend to distance themselves, for whatever reason, including fear for one’s own vulnerability, or satisfaction it was them instead of me, to not knowing quite what to say if I contacted them. The longer the silence by colleagues the more difficult it becomes for them to initiate contact. So, the clergy person who is “in trouble” feels more and more isolated and abandoned. In far too many cases these clergy end up leaving parish ministry, and in many cases leave their denomination, and/or the Church as a whole. I believe that support and care can help many clergy in distress work through these challenges and grow in ways that can be of great benefit to themselves, their families, and their future congregations.

But instead of seeing distressed clergy grow from their experience we far too often see them suffer from decreasing self-esteem and depression, and all too frequently become stigmatized so that they find it hard or impossible to find subsequent employment in a church or church related ministry. Some find it difficult to find any kind of job after being through a devastating departure from parish ministry. Lowered self esteem and depression do not help in a job search in either the Church or the secular world. 

In some cases it has been hostile and destructive behavior by lay persons that has precipitated the conflict and crisis. Peter Steinke and other systems theory proponents have much to say about the destructive potential of lay persons with personal agendas which may not even be understood by the perpetrator of the conflict. 

One model for ministering to clergy in distress that I find worthy of emulation is one I came to know about while serving in the Diocese of Texas. The ELCA Synod that was reasonably contiguous with the Episcopal Diocese of Texas had a policy which I felt is worthy of consideration by the Episcopal Church. It may be that the Lutheran Synod’s policy is simply the national policy for the ELCA. This policy has to do with clergy who are in distress or conflict and whose situation comes to the attention of the judicatory leadership. In those cases, the judicatory, (Lutheran bishop) assigns the pastor who is in a conflicted or crisis situation a chaplain who does not report to the bishop, and who is charged to maintain total confidentiality in relationship to their “charge”. This chaplain provides spiritual guidance and support throughout whatever subsequent process may ensue. This ministry is provided to all clergy in conflict or crisis no matter how heinous the actions/behavior of the clergy involved. I am aware of a much beloved senior Lutheran pastor who was charged and convicted of numerous counts of pedophilia and who has been sentenced to life in prison. From the time the allegations first emerged a chaplain was assigned who has walked with him throughout this journey through the courts and appeals, and final verdict, and sentencing, and who continues to minister to him in jail. Another chaplain was assigned to the pastor’s wife to provide her and their adult children with support and ministry. The family has also received psychological counseling to help them process this painful experience. 

Most of us (clergy) would do this for our parishioners. It seems to me that we would/should do at least this much for our clergy colleagues who are experiencing a crisis…whether of their own doing or the result of other complex factors that are part of parish life.

In another situation, a Lutheran pastor was being attacked by some members of the congregation who were seeking to get rid of the pastor. Again, the Bishop assigned a chaplain to the pastor, and offered to assist with expenses related to professional training in addition to counseling for the pastor. In this case, the pastor availed themselves of the support, counseling, and training, and was able to engage support from lay members who were not aligned with those creating the conflict, and the pastor and parish worked through the conflict. Several of those who led the attack on the pastor ended up leaving the congregation, but, according to a consultant I know, the parish is much healthier as a result. In this case both the clergy and the congregation learned incredibly valuable lessons through the experience and came out much stronger and more effective in their ministries.

I believe we can and must do a better job of supporting clergy in and through conflict, and helping them after the experience to process what they have been through so that they can learn, grow, and find healing. I believe this should be the case whether or not the clergy involved feel called to remain in parish ministry or feel called to leave parish ministry. This kind of care and support will help us build stronger and healthier Christian communities and more effective leaders and will bear more faithful witness to the life and teaching of Jesus by which we profess to seek to live. This can also provide a compelling example of what Christian community life can be in contrast to so many other aspects of community that people experience in their lives. I pray that we will have the grace and courage to work for change in the way we treat clergy and clergy families in distress. 

The Rev. Dennis G. Fotinos Dennis graduated from the General Theological Seminary and was ordained a deacon in May of 1971. He was ordained a priest in May of 1972. Dennis has served parishes in SE Florida, Western North Carolina, Western Louisiana, Pittsburgh, and the Diocese of Texas. He retired in 2008 after 38 years in active parish ministry. Currently, he lives in the Asheville, NC area in retirement where he continues to do supply work, consult with parishes in transition and assist parishes doing parish life assessment in the hopes of discerning and implementing their mission.

The above essay was written out of a partnership between The Episcopal Women’s Caucus (EWC) and The Network of Episcopal Clergy (NECA.) This project developed following a watershed moment when in January 2014 the Diocese of Newark passed a resolution seeking that their Bishop appoint a task force to explore Dignity of Work issues related to clergy and workplace bullying.  This essay was written as part of a collection of essays written to begin to address the challenge of challenging calls and the issue of workplace bullying. While the views in this essays are the authors own and we acknowledge that no one essay will be able to identify all the issues involved, our hope is that in and  through the collection of pieces we might support what has begun locally in the Diocese of Newark and more importantly, further the conversation in the wider Episcopal church. As these essays are both sponsored and being released jointly by both NECA and The EWC please read all the essays at The Episcopal Women’s Caucus blog and  The Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls Writing Project.

If you are a clergy person in the midst of a challenging call or you have gone through it and would like to see the beginnings of a set of resources that might support you, please see the  NECA Resource Page

If you would like to write about your own experience of a challenging call or forced resignation for posting on the Episcopal Women’s Caucus blog please send your essay to motherkaeton@gmail.com

A Tale of Three Churches: Caring for Clergy, third essay

Forced Pastoral Exits- A Tale of Three Churches by The Rev. Terri Pilarski

One story: The months preceding the formal “New Rector Installation” service were relatively calm and easy. Afterward, a member of the Vestry claiming to have “issues with authority,”  began blatantly opposing every point raised by the Rector in Vestry discussions. The wardens and Rector teamed up to listen to and work with this Vestry member, enabling better communication and more effective Vestry meetings.

Later, another parish conflict arose over human sexuality and whether openly gay and partnered persons should be bishops. The Vestry and Rector along with other community faith leaders organized a series of ecumenical and congregation-wide conversations on human sexuality. Although a few people left the parish because of the Episcopal Church’s stance on partnered gay bishops, most people stayed. The leadership encouraged open conversations which revealed more diversity within the congregation than was previously assumed. Eventually the anxiety eased and the congregation was able to focus on mission and ministries. 

A second story: Six weeks into a new call the new Rector hired a consultant to help navigate complicated interpersonal dynamics, which revealed themselves in the first week of the Rector’s arrival. That week, in separate incidences, three different people closed the Rector’s office door and then proceeded to insist that the Rector fire the Parish Administrator, who had been hired by the interim. Members of the congregation continued to tell the Rector what the Rector could or could not do, in no uncertain terms. Six months later there was open conflict in Vestry meetings. Ten months into the call the Rector arranged for the consultant to meet with the Vestry in an effort to learn more about the conflict. Despite great effort to identify issues and concerns, the “Problem” could not be clearly articulated. A pattern emerged, as soon as one issue was addressed another one reared its head. 

Not long after, following the New Rector installation service, the Bishop had a closed door meeting with the Vestry, without the Rector present, in order that the Vestry could speak “freely.” A few days later the Bishop called and told the Rector how to respond to concerns that were raised by the Vestry. When the conflict continued to rise the Bishop made a second visit with the Vestry, this time with the Rector present, and told the Vestry what to do. Seventeen months into this call the Rector began receiving daily emails, carbon copied to undisclosed recipients,  that were personally and professionally demeaning. The Bishop had a second closed door meeting with the Vestry, again without the Rector present. After that meeting the Bishop told the Rector to resign and laid out a plan for the Rector’s departure. The Bishop stated that the Rector’s leadership style was not a good fit for this parish. 

A third story: The priest was called to a parish that felt like a “perfect fit.” The first two years were filled with enthusiasm and joy.  However, in the third year conflict arose. For the better part of an entire year the leadership team and Rector wrestled with concerns about process, who had authority and how were decisions made. This culminated in two public conversations with representatives from many of the parish committees. The conversation was facilitated by a parishioner and a member of the diocesan staff, both trained mediators. These conversations eased the anxiety in the system by providing an opportunity for everyone to speak and be listened too and a plan was put in place for moving forward.

Conflict is a normal and natural part of human relationships and congregational life. The absence of conflict does not mean that a congregation or a relationship is necessarily healthy. Absence of conflict may indicate a system or relationship that is stuck in patterns of behavior that ensure a false sense of comfort at the expense of interpersonal growth and well-being. This comfort is false because people are suppressing their true feelings in an effort to get along. Christians congregations have a tendency to “be nice,” believing it’s the Christian thing to do. Paradoxically being nice usually means people are quietly tolerating other people who are not being nice to one another. It also manifests as unspoken pressure to accept values, beliefs, and behaviors that are not one’s own.

A normal aspect of congregational life, conflict can play out in healthy and unhealthy ways. Typically conflict manifests as anxiety over seemingly random issues or an insistence that a particular person is the problem. Successful resolution can happen when individuals in the leadership team (Bishop, priest, Vestry, Commission Chairpersons, etc) are able to navigate the situation by monitoring their own feelings, choosing to respond thoughtfully instead of impulsively by separating feelings from action and recognizing their particular role in the conflict. A group of mature leaders, not just the clergy person, need to be willing to seek reconciliation rather than blame, confront, by meeting face to face, the unhealthy behaviors, and strive to create and maintain boundaries for healthy behaviors.

In the parish in which the conflict ended with a forced pastoral exit, the underlying anxiety over congregational and cultural changes in leadership were similar to what other churches face in the world today. However this congregational system exhibited symptoms of unhealthy behavior well documented by the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center and numerous books written on church conflict. The symptoms included an unwillingness to adapt. This manifested as inflexible and insistent behaviors intended to protect a few and hurt others. The instigators used scare tactics and anger to spread and increase anxiety. There was an expectation that the female Rector would “behave like the obedient daughter and do what she was told,” a typical experience of women in leadership. The Rector’s efforts to hold open conversations among the leadership team in order for the members to grow in understanding of one another failed because certain members would not publicly speak about their feelings and intentions. Instead they circulated emails undermining the leadership with distorted information intended to raise anxiety. Meetings of the Vestry and other groups, without the Rector present, perpetuated a pattern of covert behavior and silencing of the Rector. The ensuing “flight-pattern” of people leaving or threatening to leave the parish added to the anxiety. This was exacerbated by a tendency to look after self-interests and not the good of the whole. There was the presence of demeaning verbal and non-verbal communication. The destructive behavior was marked by domination and subordination patterns. The parish had a history of alcoholism and a long history of conflict with previous Rector’s in which people left the church rather than reconcile. The conflict escalated so quickly that the Rector was unable to establish and maintain trusting relationships with key leaders.

Underlying the behaviors were significant cultural shifts. During the months in which the conflict was elevating the country fell into an economic depression which impacted this congregation of predominantly retired people. Incidents of undocumented people crossing the border increased the tension in local neighborhoods. The first black President of the United States was elected, a challenge for even the most liberal members of this community. And, the parish was experiencing leadership from its first female Rector. These cultural and systemic-wide changes aroused anxiety in people who, as is typical, played out their anxiety through congregational life. Within eighteen months the conflict in this parish had reached an “intractable” level of intensity, the stated objective of at least one person was to humiliate the Rector and punish her by getting her fired. Arbitration was necessary and the end result was a forced pastoral exit. Intervention from professional church mediators may not have salvaged the relationship but it would have enlightened all parties to the unhealthy dynamics at play. 

Forced clergy exits have a tendency to focus on “cause and effect” - who did what or what caused the conflict. In church settings the Rector or lead pastor, the most vulnerable person in the system, is usually determined to be at “fault.” (See Lombard Mennonite Peace Center Mediation training.) Focusing on cause and effect fails to recognize that the set of circumstances that force an exit in one congregation will not have the same end result in another. Unhealthy responses to conflict seek places outside the self to lay blame, thus moving the anxiety from self to other. Navigating conflict toward a resolution that retains the clergy-congregation relationship requires each person involved to recognize their role in the conflict.

As human beings grow from infancy to adulthood we learn patterns of behavior that influence how we respond to challenges and differences of opinion, personalities, cultures and societal norms. Because individuals have emotional connections to other people we are all affected by the behavior of others'. Our ability to recognize how we feel as we experience other people informs our options for responding. When we are able to understand that a behavior causes us to respond in a certain way we can intentionally choose to respond in a different way.

When responding to congregational conflict and anxiety, leadership needs to remember that an emotional system has been activated, one that resides beneath the issues being raised. The issues are symptoms of the underlying emotional system. Recognizing the underlying emotional dynamic requires making constructive decisions to separate feelings from actions. Feelings are natural, but nurturing hurt feelings and acting destructively from hurt feelings perpetuates unhealthy conflict. This can be accomplished by: stepping outside of one’s own subjective responses to what one “feels" is happening; actively listening to others, with the intent of learning, rather than reacting to emotions or positions; staying clear about one’s own goals, values, and beliefs while simultaneously being a non-anxious presence; and remaining in relationship with all the people involved. Being willing to change, adjust, and compromise can lead to healthier conflict transformation. Healthy communication practices rely on direct conversation with the individuals involved instead of gossiping about others. No one person holds the whole truth of a situation, it takes enormous effort to honor everyone’s perspective. Compassion, empathy, and a desire to stay in relationship are key factors in reconciling conflict.

Conflict is a normal aspect of human relationships, reminding us that we are vibrant and alive. When our motivation to resolve conflict is toward relationship building instead of self-preservation, bullying, or power and control, conflict can be transformational, building trust and deepening our awareness of ourselves and others. Scripture provides us with examples of how to do this as we grow up in every way into the body of Christ. 

(See in particular 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4, and Matthew18).

The Rev. Terri C. Pilarski serves as the Rector at Christ Episcopal Church in Dearborn, MI and as the Convener of the Episcopal Women's Caucus. She holds a dual degree M.Div/MSW with an emphasis in Family Systems for Congregations and is trained in Mediation for Congregations and Healthy Congregations by the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center and Appreciative Inquiry with Rob Voyle. In addition to serving on the board for the EWC she previously served on the boards of OMNI Youth Services in Chicago and the RevGalBlogPals, as a regional Dean in the Diocese of Chicago, and as a regional liaison for Episcopal Migration Ministries. 

The above essay was written out of a partnership between The Episcopal Women’s Caucus (EWC) and The Network of Episcopal Clergy (NECA.) This project developed following  a watershed moment when in January 2014 the Diocese of Newark passed a resolution seeking that their Bishop appoint a task force to explore Dignity of Work issues related to clergy and workplace bullying.  This essay was written as part of a collection of essays written to begin to address the challenge of challenging calls and the issue of workplace bullying. While the views in this essays are the authors own and we acknowledge that no one essay will be able to identify all the issues involved, our hope is that in and  through the collection of pieces we might support what has begun locally in the Diocese of Newark and more importantly, further the conversation in the wider Episcopal church. As these essays are both sponsored and being released jointly by both NECA and The EWC please read all the essays at The Episcopal Women’s Caucus blog and  The Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls Writing Project.

If you are a clergy person in the midst of a challenging call or you have gone through it and would like to see the beginnings of a set of resources that might support you, please see the  NECA Resource Page

Let's Be Adults and Partners

 (This is the second essay in a series from The Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls writing project, written by The Rev. Ton Ehrich)

On returning from a brief sabbatical, a priest heard the other shoe fall.

"A small group of 'advisers' told me tonight that some people are not finding joy in church," she said. "The advisers say it is irreparable and that I should consider not returning. I'm shocked, hurt."

It was like a scene from ancient Israel, when a husband could dismiss a wife with merely a certificate of divorce. No need to explain why or to negotiate. In that patriarchal culture, the husband had all the power.

In the modern Episcopal Church setting (echoed in other denominations, as well), the "husband" is usually the vestry, and the "wife" is usually the priest (male or female). The husband has more power. Never mind what best practices of normal employment of a professional might suggest. The vestry feels free to push their priest around or out the door. 

The dynamic is set up in the typical search process, when pastor and search committee start out like online daters -- reading forms, comparing profiles, looking for flaws -- and then proceed to "fall in love." 

Many use the language of "marriage." Lay leaders ask, in effect, Will you love us? Will you be faithful to us? Will you stay home, cook our meals and make our beds? The pastor asks, Can I trust you? Can we grow old together? Will you hit me, the way my last husband did?

The dynamics aren't as overtly patriarchal as ancient Hebrew practice. They are more like a 1950s marriage. Still, they are a long way from a 21st Century partnership of equals marked by mutuality, transparent expectations, shared responsibilities, mature accountability.

Moreover, these husband-wife dynamics are nothing like the typical hiring of, say, a new CEO by a corporation or a new president of a college, where expectations and duties are clearly defined, power balances clearly stated, and tenure and termination agreements clearly written into a contract and made legally binding.

In transactional analysis terms, vestries and clergy often collude in establishing a parent-child relationship.

The vestry gets to treat the pastor as a child, not fully capable, not to be trusted with important matters. As happens in other settings, the "parent" vestry also wants to swap roles and play the "child," whom the parent-pastor cares for, indulges, excuses, and drops everything to please. (Watch an episode of "Father Knows Best" to see this convoluted dynamic at work.) 

For their part, clergy tend to buy into this dysfunctional relationship because they, too, want to be loved and taken care of, and they, too, want to be in the caregiving role of "parent." 

To an extent, this dysfunctional psychodrama is structural, written into the rules that define church governance, rules that still reflect loathing of overbearing Roman clergy in the early Reformation. 

Vestries have hiring power and firing power. The priest gets keys to the church and can chair vestry meetings, but the vestry controls the money, level of staffing, and job security. 

Family dynamics come into play. Vestries and clergy don't truly form a new marriage (except in a startup church). It's more like a blended family, in which the vestry represents continuity and protects the existing "family." I believe vestries want the new pastor to succeed, but when push comes to shove, which usually happens within the first 18 months of a pastorate, the vestry feels more loyalty to the original family than to the still-new pastor. They feel compelled to protect the ongoing institution, its facilities and traditions, against this outsider who wants a place at the table. 

Small wonder that the new pastor seeks out his or her own people, often newcomers themselves, often younger than established leaders. Now the "marriage" is riven with warring siblings and generational conflict. Small wonder, also, that clergy tend to fixate on liturgy, where their authority is largely unquestioned, rather than do the more critical work of organization development, change management, leadership training, and volunteer recruitment. 

Another factor is scope of activity. In exercising their power and historic distrust of clergy, vestries try to do too much. In corporate terms, they try to function both as board of directors and as operating managers. Vestry committees try to run the various operations, such as education, worship and membership development. 

Problem is, a vestry committee isn't accountable to the pastor in the way an operations manager is accountable to the chief executive officer. Committee members do what they feel like doing, and if they perform poorly, they can't be reassigned or fired. The pastor has insufficient leverage to achieve positive outcomes.

Meanwhile, the board business that a church needs done doesn't get done. Human resources protocols, for example, are weak or non-existent. Legal matters, financial management, insurance and fiduciary standards fall into untrained hands. It's much more fun to choose an education curriculum than to prepare an employee handbook. It is more fun to dream up a mission project than to consider protocols for handling sexual misconduct, property insurance, and preparing for an orderly transition in top leadership. 

A better system would be this:

1. Have the vestry serve as a board of directors, doing the work that directors typically do, elected by the stakeholders on a three-year rotation and accountable to them. The pastor serves as chair of the board or as a member of the board under a lay chairperson. Directors are selected for their wisdom, maturity, relevant skills and ability to work with a strong pastor. 

Because of decades of dysfunctional psychodrama, I suggest the board employ a process observer, whose duty is to call out board members (lay and clergy) when they behave in a parent-child manner or act out marriage rituals. 

2. Create a second leadership group, focused on operations (mission and ministry), recruited by the pastor and accountable to him or her. These people are responsible for the "product," if you will, such as education, worship, mission, pastoral care. Some will be paid staff, some will be volunteers. They are chosen for their expertise and for their willingness to devote the time needed. If they perform poorly or their life-situations change, the pastor can replace them. 

This operations group is an effective way to engage new constituents and identify emerging leaders. Attitudes will improve. Atmospherics will improve. Job satisfaction will improve. Performance will improve. 

Even the smallest church needs both functions, and they need to be separate. 

This structure can happen within existing Episcopal Church rules. It would require a new self-definition by both vestry and clergy, some foundational work in defining the new operations group and setting boundaries, and a willingness to respect those boundaries. 

Both vestry and clergy will need to abandon the parent-child dynamic. This system only works adult-adult. I can tell you from personal experience that everyone is happier and more effective when they are functioning as adults, not being maneuvered into parent or child roles. 

We will need to lose the marriage paradigm. It's artificial, and it leads to conflict. Better to have top leaders working with mutual respect, defined accountability and a clearly stated balance of power.

Tom Ehrich is president of Morning Walk Media (http://www.morningwalkmedia.com) and publisher of Fresh Day online magazine (http://www.freshday.org), based in New York City. After six years as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, Tom served Episcopal parishes for 20 years, then went into technology and, in 2004, launched Morning Walk Media to do faith-related publishing and church consulting. His daily meditations are read around the world, and his weekly newspaper column is syndicated by Religion News Service to over 100 papers.

The above essay was written out of a partnership between The Episcopal Women’s Caucus (EWC) and The Network of Episcopal Clergy (NECA.) This project developed following  a watershed moment when in January 2014 the Diocese of Newark passed a resolution seeking that their Bishop appoint a task force to explore Dignity of Work issues related to clergy and workplace bullying.  This essay was written as part of a collection of essays written to begin to address the challenge of challenging calls and the issue of workplace bullying. While the views in this essays are the authors own and we acknowledge that no one essay will be able to identify all the issues involved, our hope is that in and  through the collection of pieces we might support what has begun locally in the Diocese of Newark and more importantly, further the conversation in the wider Episcopal church. As these essays are both sponsored and being released jointly by both NECA and The EWC please read all the essays at The Episcopal Women’s Caucus blog and  The Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls Writing Project.

If you are a clergy person in the midst of a challenging call or you have gone through it and would like to see the beginnings of a set of resources that might support you, please see the  NECA Resource Page

Ehrich Essay link on Neca blog

Let's be adults and partners –By The Rev. Tom Ehrich-http://necacaringforclergyproject.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

The six hyperlinks in close that will go out with all essays

resolution- http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/sites/default/files/resources/140AC_R04_Res.pdf

NECA- http://episcopalclergy.org/

The EWC - http://www.episcopalwomenscaucus.org/

The Episcopal Women’s Caucus blog - http://episcopalwomenscaucus.blogspot.com/

 The Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls Writing Project. - http://necacaringforclergyproject.blogspot.com/

Confronting Clergy-Congregational Conflict

 Written by Donald V. Romanik. This essay is part one, other reflections by a variety of authors will appear in the weeks to come as part of the Care for Clergy Project developing methods of addressing bullying, conflict, and forced exits in the clergy-congregation relationship. 

Christ Church in Anytown, USA is an Episcopal congregation with an average Sunday attendance of around 75 and an annual budget of about $150,000 with an aging but beloved physical plant. The parish is facing the usual challenges of finances, and hence stewardship; declining membership; leadership development and quite frankly, relevance. The vestry wants to grow but has no idea what that entails of what that even means. The Rector has been in place for five years. He/she is competent, hard-working but somewhat “stuck”. Furthermore, like most priests, he is introverted and hence perceived as aloof, and tends to over function. More and more the Rector is being pressured to do something to improve, enhance and energize the life of the congregation. Once again, the vestry has no idea what that actually means but the dialogue and rhetoric continue – “we need to grow, we need to change, we need to engage in our community, we need strategic direction and focus, we need the Rector to lead us, guide us and direct us.”

The Diocese is struggling with finances, staff reductions and the ongoing challenge of convincing the congregations that they’re actually getting something for their assessment or voluntary contribution but couching it in terms of communion, community and engaging in God’s mission in the world. The diocesan convention passes resolutions on global warming, immigration reform and economic justice but little is said about congregational vitality and sustainability. Actually, other than in matters of deployment and transition, the diocesan office provides little in terms of resources and support to congregations except when something is perceived to be wrong. The bishop is affable and well-liked but is unable to articulate a vision for the Diocese, surrounds himself with a small group of trusted advisers and avoids conflict at all costs.

The Rector finally decides to do something she perceives as being bold, creative or new, e.g., reinvigorating the music program by “asking” the current organist to leave or freeing up money in the budget by eliminating the full-time office assistant position or changing the service times and instituting a new contemporary worship style or inviting the local social service agency to tutor children at risk in the parish house or meeting with the head of the altar guild and convincing her it’s time to step down. While the Rector believes that he covered his bases and talked to the right people in advance of these decisions, the rumblings begin - “Who does she think she is?” “He never came to the vestry for approval.” “She’s out of control.”  “The parish is coming apart at the seams.” “I never really liked him anyway.” “It’s time for new clergy leadership.” “We need to go to the bishop.”

A small group of parishioners meets with the bishop to articulate its concerns and the bishop concludes that something indeed is wrong. After a brief telephone conversation with the Rector the bishop decides to come to Christ Church the following Sunday to celebrate, preach and facilitate a meeting of the entire parish. The bishop asks the Rector not to attend and encourages the congregation to be open, honest and share all of their hopes, fears, frustrations and dreams. The Bishop loses control of the meeting as it becomes a general gripe session against the Rector. Afterward, the Bishop decides to assign a “consultant” to work with the Rector and the parish leadership to resolve their issues but the sniping continues and the differences seem irreconcilable. People take sides, some people leave and the Rector begins to lose any sense of control, influence and authority. After several months the Bishop “convinces” the Rector that he needs to resign for the good of the congregation. The parties negotiate a separation agreement, the Bishop assigns a durational priest–in- charge and the Rector begins her discernment and search process with a “scarlet letter” on her chest hoping that she finds another job before her severance runs out.

Over the past few years, I have become aware of several situations like the one described above. While the factual circumstances may be different, there are some common elements – (a) a congregation with significant challenges with a desire but inability to change; (b) ineffective or dis-empowered lay leadership; (c) a priest who feels pressured or compelled to somehow respond to the challenges without the necessary training, support or resources; (d) a diocesan infrastructure that is unable or unwilling to manage conflict at the congregational level, and (e) an embedded process that scapegoats the clergy, divides the community and damages the future vitality of the congregation.

My purpose here is not to solve the problem of forced clergy resignations but to offer some ideas on how to prevent or avoid the circumstances that lead to this painful, wasteful and divisive result. I have concluded that it’s really about leadership or leadership development and the critical need to articulate and implement a shared vision for the local faith community. Accordingly, I offer the following suggestions:

    1. Priests need formational and ongoing training and resources in identifying and developing lay leaders as full partners in ministry as well as in visioning, strategy development and conflict management. Traditional seminary education and even alternative formation programs still perpetuate the theory that clergy have the primary if not solitary responsibility for the health and vitality of the congregation and provide little or no training in developing skill sets in such areas as collaboration and team building. It is little wonder that in addition to maintaining an attitude of “Father/Mother knows best” clergy also feel the need to over-function. They tend to measure their effectiveness by how much time they’re spending on individual tasks rather than the impact of their ministry on the congregation and its individual members.  Furthermore, conflict often arises when lay leaders do not effectively participate in the formulation and implementation of key decisions that are central to the life of the community.

    2. Each faith community, of whatever size or configuration, needs to engage in an ongoing process of visioning and strategic thinking. This is a shared process between the Rector and the Vestry with appropriate input from the full congregation. And I’m not necessarily talking about formal mission statements to print in the bulletin or strategic plans that sit on the shelf. I am advocating a thoughtful, prayerful, yet practical process of determining where God is calling the congregation and concrete steps to get there. Without such a process, significant decisions on part of the Rector and even the Vestry are perceived as arbitrary and capricious rather than specific steps to move forward with a particular strategy or vision.

    3. While bishops may need to preach and teach the role of the church in God’s mission in the world, they also have to provide specific and concrete ideas, suggestions and solutions for struggling congregations. It is very difficult for a local faith community to look beyond its walls when it is fighting for its very survival.  Even a painful and controversial suggestion of closing or merging is more helpful to a congregation than pretending that the problem doesn't even exist. Dioceses also need to engage in a process of visioning and strategy development. Once again, decisions about budget cuts and staff reductions are much easier to explain and comprehend when the Diocese is able to articulate a broader vision for its future if not its very existence.

    4. We need to implement healthier and more effective ways to deal with conflict at all levels of the church. Currently, we usually ignore conflict - hoping that it will go away, escalate it by blowing it out of proportion or dealing with conflict in passive aggressive ways. Bishops especially need training and access to resources on conflict management.  And, while it may be appropriate to bring in outside experts and consultants to deal with high-conflict situations, the Bishop is still the primary person responsible for the ongoing health and functionality of the diocese and its congregations.  Consequently, he needs to confront and manage conflict head on. This role cannot be delegated to consultants or diocesan staff.

These four suggestions, in and of themselves, are not going to solve the complex issues of relationships between and among clergy, congregations, bishops and diocesan staff. They do, however, provide some positive steps for moving forward in a time of significant challenges and anxiety. We can no longer afford any more dispirited clergy, dis-empowered lay leaders, damaged congregations or broken systems.  After all, we are in this together because we are the Body of Christ.

Donald V. Romanik has been President of the Episcopal Church Foundation (ECF) since 2005. Formerly, he served as an attorney in both government and private practice and has been active in civic, charitable and religious organizations. While at ECF, Mr. Romanik has stabilized its infrastructure, led a comprehensive strategic planning process, and developed partnerships and collaborations throughout the Church  He is a proponent of lay leadership and the ministry of all the baptized. His book, Beyond the Baptismal Covenant: Transformational Lay Leadership for the Episcopal Church in the 21st Century, advocates for a new type of entrepreneurial priest and effective clergy+lay partnerships . ECF is an independent, lay-led organization that helps congregations, dioceses and other Episcopal communities of faith develop leadership and raise resources for ministry. ECF provides comprehensive and innovative programs, products and services in the areas of leadership and financial resource development.

The above essay was written out of a partnership between The Episcopal Women’s Caucus (EWC) and The Network of Episcopal Clergy (NECA.) This project developed following  a watershed moment when in January 2014 the Diocese of Newark passed a resolution seeking that their Bishop appoint a task force to explore Dignity of Work  issues related to clergy and workplace bullying.  This essay was written as part of a collection of essays written to begin to address the challenge of challenging calls and the issue of workplace bullying. While the views in this essays are the authors own and we acknowledge that no one essay will be able to identify all the issues involved, our hope is that in and  through the collection of pieces we might support what has begun locally in the Diocese of Newark and more importantly, further the conversation in the wider Episcopal church. For more information please click through to learn about  NECA and The EWC. To read all the essays please go to The Care for Clergy in Difficult Calls Writing Project.

If you are a clergy person in the midst of a challenging call or you have gone through it and would like to see the beginnings of a set of resources that might support you please see NECA Resource Page or The Episcopal Women's Caucus OR contact the Episcopal Women's Caucus through  the "Confidential Contact Form" on the top of the page.