Supervision for those in ministry

[Paidiske]

A fascinating piece on the importance of supervision for those in ministry, here: Professional supervision after the Royal Commission

I think the key paragraph is probably this one:
"Supervision makes visible practices of power and influence, and guarantees a conversation about power in a discursive space. The effect of supervision, if used consistently and authentically, is it ensures that it’s harder to misuse power — not because the supervisor seeks to control, but because supervision offers the space for a person to understand their power, to ensure they do no harm and can become informed so as to withdraw consent from situations in which they are experiencing harm.

From my experience, supervision breeds cultural safety."

My own experience would suggest that this is the ideal, but whether or not that happens is very hit and miss. I'd be interested in others' take on it, and how else we might do the same kind of work effectively?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

A fascinating piece on the importance of supervision for those in ministry, here: Professional supervision after the Royal Commission

I think the key paragraph is probably this one:
"Supervision makes visible practices of power and influence, and guarantees a conversation about power in a discursive space. The effect of supervision, if used consistently and authentically, is it ensures that it’s harder to misuse power — not because the supervisor seeks to control, but because supervision offers the space for a person to understand their power, to ensure they do no harm and can become informed so as to withdraw consent from situations in which they are experiencing harm.

From my experience, supervision breeds cultural safety."

My own experience would suggest that this is the ideal, but whether or not that happens is very hit and miss. I'd be interested in others' take on it, and how else we might do the same kind of work effectively?

Some churches have a hierarchy and dioceses. Ideally, those in the higher position are supposed to oversee those under their care/charge. As Jesus said, to be great is to serve, and whoever would be the greatest must be servant of all.

Some traditions do not have a structure like that.

 

[zippy2006]

"Supervision makes visible practices of power and influence, and guarantees a conversation about power in a discursive space.

The problem is that supervision is only good when the supervisor is good. Some of the most supervised entities have been the most horrifically evil entities, because the supervisors themselves were evil. None of these solutions seems to comprehend the depth of the problem, and there is a tacit assumption that the supervisors (or the government itself) are always beneficient.

If there is a problem with things happening in private, dark spaces, the answer is not supervision so much as extending existing laws to those spaces. For example, psychological counselors act within private spaces, and they are bound by strict laws regarding their relationship with their clients. The same should be true of ministers.

 

[Carl Emerson]

A fascinating piece on the importance of supervision for those in ministry, here: Professional supervision after the Royal Commission

I think the key paragraph is probably this one:
"Supervision makes visible practices of power and influence, and guarantees a conversation about power in a discursive space. The effect of supervision, if used consistently and authentically, is it ensures that it’s harder to misuse power — not because the supervisor seeks to control, but because supervision offers the space for a person to understand their power, to ensure they do no harm and can become informed so as to withdraw consent from situations in which they are experiencing harm.

From my experience, supervision breeds cultural safety."

My own experience would suggest that this is the ideal, but whether or not that happens is very hit and miss. I'd be interested in others' take on it, and how else we might do the same kind of work effectively?

Maybe we could consider the relationship between Power and Love...

Jesus was tempted to appropriate power, and chose Love.

 

[Paidiske]

Some churches have a hierarchy and dioceses. Ideally, those in the higher position are supposed to oversee those under their care/charge. As Jesus said, to be great is to serve, and whoever would be the greatest must be servant of all.

Some traditions do not have a structure like that.

Supervision in a clinical sense is different from supervision in an operational sense, though. I have both a bishop and a supervisor, and I wouldn't want my bishop for my supervisor!

If there is a problem with things happening in private, dark spaces, the answer is not supervision so much as extending existing laws to those spaces. For example, psychological counselors act within private spaces, and they are bound by strict laws regarding their relationship with their clients. The same should be true of ministers.

I think it's more difficult. Counselors tend to work with people one-on-one; the dynamics of a community are very different. And the expectations of clergy are much more complex. And there are things like, the minister's spouse and children are often in their congregation; in counselling it would be a complete no-no to have one's immediate familly member as a client. I'm not saying laws shouldn't apply, but I think laws which work with, rather than against, the culture of churches would be tricky to get right.

(Leaving aside the fact that when governments do make laws, there's usually no end of ecclesial squawking about violation of freedom of religion...)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Supervision in a clinical sense is different from supervision in an operational sense, though. I have both a bishop and a supervisor, and I wouldn't want my bishop for my supervisor!

I think it's more difficult. Counselors tend to work with people one-on-one; the dynamics of a community are very different. And the expectations of clergy are much more complex. And there are things like, the minister's spouse and children are often in their congregation; in counselling it would be a complete no-no to have one's immediate familly member as a client. I'm not saying laws shouldn't apply, but I think laws which work with, rather than against, the culture of churches would be tricky to get right.

(Leaving aside the fact that when governments do make laws, there's usually no end of ecclesial squawking about violation of freedom of religion...)

Sounds pretty difficult, I hope you get an answer that helps with a worthwhile application.

 

[zippy2006]

I think it's more difficult. Counselors tend to work with people one-on-one; the dynamics of a community are very different. And the expectations of clergy are much more complex...

Well, the article is about the Catholic Church and the Royal Commission's recommendation, following the child sexual abuse scandal, that all religious and pastoral ministry workers undertake professional supervision. It was written by a Jesuit who is a practicing psychologist. So I am assuming that the basic goal is to avoid things like the child sexual abuse scandal.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, the article is about the Catholic Church and the Royal Commission's recommendation, following the child sexual abuse scandal, that all religious and pastoral ministry workers undertake professional supervision. It was written by a Jesuit who is a practicing psychologist. So I am assuming that the basic goal is to avoid things like the child sexual abuse scandal.

The author is Catholic, but the legal requirement for supervision will apply across all faith communities. (The biggest hurdle to that, and the reason it doesn't apply yet, is that there simply aren't enough accredited supervisors for us all, right now. My diocese currently requires all clergy to be in clinical supervision, although there's a discussion to be had about "how much is enough?") So I am thinking of this as a bigger-than-Catholic conversation.

But yes, the basic goal is to avoid abuse (not just child sexual abuse, but serious misconduct more generally).

 

[zippy2006]

But yes, the basic goal is to avoid abuse (not just child sexual abuse, but serious misconduct more generally).

Right, and that is why I was speaking about laws opposing criminal acts.

This stuff goes back to Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. As they well knew, these problems are only symptoms of a deeper problem. Plato envisioned rebuilding the system from the ground up; Aristotle sought to make do with whatever was available (and he did not expect to be able to do much with a decadent, democratic society).

I really doubt supervision will have much effect. Ceteris paribus, the supervisors are more corrupt than those being supervised, because power and corruption are correlated. The scandal of the Catholic Church was not that priests were corrupt, but rather than their overseers were corrupt and were not acting to remedy known problems. So perhaps increased supervision is worth a try, but I sure hope nobody will be surprised if it doesn't work.

 

[Paidiske]

Ceteris paribus, the supervisors are more corrupt than those being supervised, because power and corruption are correlated. The scandal of the Catholic Church was not that priests were corrupt, but rather than their overseers were corrupt and were not acting to remedy known problems. So perhaps increased supervision is worth a try, but I sure hope nobody will be surprised if it doesn't work.

I wonder if it helps when supervisors are, in fact, outside the power structures of the institution? For example, my own supervisor is a lay person (she does happen to be Anglican, but that's not why I see her). Others would see supervisors from other denominations, or with no particular faith affiliation.

This is part of the point I was trying to make about clinical supervision and operational oversight being two separate functions; your clinical supervisor is not (usually) your "boss."

 

[zippy2006]

I wonder if it helps when supervisors are, in fact, outside the power structures of the institution? For example, my own supervisor is a lay person (she does happen to be Anglican, but that's not why I see her). Others would see supervisors from other denominations, or with no particular faith affiliation.

I may sound pessimistic, but I think it will make only a small difference. I have seen laypersons commit the same administrative crimes that priests and bishops have committed, and this is because they are also committed to the institution in such a way that they are willing to commit crimes and sins on its behalf, even though they are outside of the "power structures".

If a supervisor is outside the institution altogether then a hierarchical relationship has been established, where the institution is subordinated (by being accountable to) a separate organization. I take it that this often happens in the Anglican church with respect to the government. This would only work if a corrupt institution is subordinated to a morally superior institution.

This is part of the point I was trying to make about clinical supervision and operational oversight being two separate functions; your clinical supervisor is not (usually) your "boss."

As long as you are professionally accountable to someone, all that I have said holds. I take it that a supervisor is generally understood to be someone to whom you are professionally accountable to.

Granted, the article seems to shift back and forth between talking about supervisors and talking about counselors, where the former have authority and the latter do not; or the former have deliberative authority and the latter have only consultative authority. Counselor-relationships do not run into the problems I have pointed out, but they also lack the necessary authority-accountability that the Royal Commission would seem to require.

In my opinion the entire culture is problematic, and this is why we see the same symptoms in churches that we see in politics and businesses. If that is right, then the only real way forward is to change the culture, and to begin with oneself. Rather than supervision qua supervision, we need good supervisors, and more than good supervisors, we need good Christians--lay and clerical alike. It seems to me to be a question of goodness and sinfulness, not so much a question of structural organization. So yes - organic counseling, virtuous friendships, strong communities, and healthy social lives would all contribute to a better culture. It's just that there is no silver bullet. It's not as though we simply had the puzzle arranged poorly, and a rearrangement will solve the problems.

I spoke about law in a very pragmatic sense, for law provides the means by which an individual can be held accountable for their actions, even by the demos. If there is an absence of commonsensical laws, then there will be an absence of accountability in even the most fundamental sense. An example would be the case I gave, where professional therapists in an ongoing counseling situation can be held accountable for taking advantage of their clients, but priests who are in an effectively identical situation cannot be held accountable. That is an example of the absence of a commonsensical law in the U.S., but I'm sure there are other examples. If we are looking for a silver bullet, then fixing some of the legal gaps seems like a good place to start. The new assumption here is that the Church is no longer to be considered morally superior; e.g. the priest cannot be considered morally superior to the therapist, as though those seeking the aid of a therapist require legal protections but those seeking the aid of a priest do not.

 

[Paidiske]

If a supervisor is outside the institution altogether then a hierarchical relationship has been established, where the institution is subordinated (by being accountable to) a separate organization. I take it that this often happens in the Anglican church with respect to the government. This would only work if a corrupt institution is subordinated to a morally superior institution.

To some degree, but it's a very particular type of subordination. For example, our parish has its accounts audited by an external auditor each year; you could argue that's a kind of subordination, but its focus is limited to a very particular task.

As long as you are professionally accountable to someone, all that I have said holds. I take it that a supervisor is generally understood to be someone to whom you are professionally accountable to.

In a sense? I mean, my supervisor is not telling me what to do, and has no power to compel me to do anything. Generally there's an agreement in place between supervisor and supervisee that, for example, in instances where the supervisor has grave reason to be concerned about your safety or someone else's safety, they can report that to the bishop or other authorities as relevant.

But the accountability is generally more relational than that; my supervisor is the person who will listen to my frustrations and anxieties and struggles, look me in the eye, and say (for example), "I'm really concerned about your risk of burnout." And then together we can have a conversation about what steps I might take to manage that risk. (Which is why I happen to be on annual leave right now).

In my opinion the entire culture is problematic,

I won't disagree with that!

If that is right, then the only real way forward is to change the culture, and to begin with oneself. Rather than supervision qua supervision, we need good supervisors, and more than good supervisors, we need good Christians--lay and clerical alike. It seems to me to be a question of goodness and sinfulness, not so much a question of structural organization.

I think it's a bit of both, in that we can have structural organisation which is deliberately blind to our sinfulness, or we can build in deliberate - well, accountability seems to be the right word, which at least provides some buffers to our worst tendencies. But I don't disagree that fundamentally if we were all better Christians, the need would be less.

It's not as though we simply had the puzzle arranged poorly, and a rearrangement will solve the problems.

True.

The new assumption here is that the Church is no longer to be considered morally superior; e.g. the priest cannot be considered morally superior to the therapist, as though those seeking the aid of a therapist require legal protections but those seeking the aid of a priest do not.

Given recent history, I don't think we can really argue for moral superiority, can we?

 

[zippy2006]

To some degree, but it's a very particular type of subordination. For example, our parish has its accounts audited by an external auditor each year; you could argue that's a kind of subordination, but its focus is limited to a very particular task.

Yes, that is a good example.

In a sense? I mean, my supervisor is not telling me what to do, and has no power to compel me to do anything. Generally there's an agreement in place between supervisor and supervisee that, for example, in instances where the supervisor has grave reason to be concerned about your safety or someone else's safety, they can report that to the bishop or other authorities as relevant.

But the accountability is generally more relational than that; my supervisor is the person who will listen to my frustrations and anxieties and struggles, look me in the eye, and say (for example), "I'm really concerned about your risk of burnout." And then together we can have a conversation about what steps I might take to manage that risk. (Which is why I happen to be on annual leave right now).

As I said in my last, I think there is a difference between a supervision relationship and a counseling relationship. If someone has no power to compel you, and is only giving support and counsel, then I would not really call this supervision. Oxford Learner's Dictionary gives, "the work or activity involved in being in charge of somebody/something and making sure that everything is done correctly, safely, etc. [For example,] Very young children should not be left to play without supervision."

Supervision is relevant because the prevention of the crimes that the Royal Commission is concerned about presumably requires accountability and the power to compel.

Sorry to hear about your burnout.

I think it's a bit of both, in that we can have structural organisation which is deliberately blind to our sinfulness, or we can build in deliberate - well, accountability seems to be the right word, which at least provides some buffers to our worst tendencies. But I don't disagree that fundamentally if we were all better Christians, the need would be less.

Egregious errors in structuring can create problems, but I don't think egregious or deliberate errors of structuring are what has happened, at least in the Catholic Church. Instead, I think a shrinking priesthood is spread too thin. Rectories which once housed four or five priests now have only one priest, if that. Camaraderie, clerical friendship and support, and organic apprenticeship have all been displaced by isolation and overworking (for the three parishes that jointly had seven priests now have only one). Most of the natural counseling-relationships and even some of the supervision-relationships have disappeared.

Given recent history, I don't think we can really argue for moral superiority, can we?

I don't think so.

 

[Paidiske]

As I said in my last, I think there is a difference between a supervision relationship and a counseling relationship. If someone has no power to compel you, and is only giving support and counsel, then I would not really call this supervision. Oxford Learner's Dictionary gives, "the work or activity involved in being in charge of somebody/something and making sure that everything is done correctly, safely, etc. [For example,] Very young children should not be left to play without supervision."

That's not what clinical supervision means. That said, my experience of it is that (if the relationship is working) there is real accountability.

Supervision is relevant because the prevention of the crimes that the Royal Commission is concerned about presumably requires accountability and the power to compel.

I'm not sure that it does require the power to compel? I mean, what would we compel people to do, or not do, in a supervision setting, that would prevent such crimes? (There are other things, like codes of conduct for ministry with children, where I absolutely agree that the power to compel is important, but that compulsion comes from elsewhere than one's supervisor).

Sorry to hear about your burnout.

Thanks. Fortunately I think we've nipped it in the bud, although I'm going to have to be intentional about self-care and so on for a while.

Egregious errors in structuring can create problems, but I don't think egregious or deliberate errors of structuring are what has happened, at least in the Catholic Church. Instead, I think a shrinking priesthood is spread too thin. Rectories which once housed four or five priests now have only one priest, if that. Camaraderie, clerical friendship and support, and organic apprenticeship have all been displaced by isolation and overworking (for the three parishes that jointly had seven priests now have only one). Most of the natural counseling-relationships and even some of the supervision-relationships have disappeared.

I do agree that these contribute to real problems. Loneliness and isolation are big issues in ministry. That said, I think it's hard to say that structural issues aren't at least part of the problem.

 

[zippy2006]

That's not what clinical supervision means.

First, the question here is not about clinical supervision. Clinical supervision is for the unlicensed or for apprentices who are not yet capable of acting on their own. The article rightly describes clinical supervision as a stage of development, but nowhere does it claim that the Royal Commission is requiring clinical supervision. Second, clinical supervision entails precisely what the Oxford definition sets out, whether or not someone wants to view that as the primary aspect of the supervision. There is a mentorship aspect to clinical supervision, but there is also the aspect of accountability for the unlicensed (and usually the supervisor assumes partial responsibility for what takes place in the clinical setting).

I'm not sure that it does require the power to compel? I mean, what would we compel people to do, or not do, in a supervision setting, that would prevent such crimes?

The idea here is that if a supervisor were aware of the crimes that were taking place during the child abuse crisis, the crimes would have been addressed promptly by the supervisor, who wields the necessary compulsory power to deal with them. Secondarily, it is the idea that someone acting with that accountability and subordination would be less likely to misbehave.

Thanks. Fortunately I think we've nipped it in the bud, although I'm going to have to be intentional about self-care and so on for a while.

That's good to hear.

I do agree that these contribute to real problems. Loneliness and isolation are big issues in ministry. That said, I think it's hard to say that structural issues aren't at least part of the problem.

Given how prevalent the problems are across large sections of society, each with different structures, I don't think structures--which are what we tend to blame everything on nowadays--are the problem.

 

[Paidiske]

First, the question here is not about clinical supervision. Clinical supervision is for the unlicensed or for apprentices who are not yet capable of acting on their own.

That's not how I understand it. I'm making a distinction here between the type of supervision the Royal Commission is talking about (for which clinical supervision is a common term), and operational or managerial supervision (being someone's "boss.")

The idea here is that if a supervisor were aware of the crimes that were taking place during the child abuse crisis, the crimes would have been addressed promptly by the supervisor, who wields the necessary compulsory power to deal with them.

That might be part of it, but I think more relevant is the idea that good supervision would have helped people recognise warning signs of unhealthy patterns of life and ministry, and take action before it got to that point.

Given how prevalent the problems are across large sections of society, each with different structures, I don't think structures--which are what we tend to blame everything on nowadays--are the problem.

I think partly it depends what we mean by structures. For example, I would describe what you talk about - a shrinking priesthood, increasing isolation, and so on - as structural issues.

But deeper than that, I think my discomfort with the line of argument that says "structures aren't the problem," is that it kind of discourages looking at the ways our structures can and do contribute to problems. Deciding a priori that they're not an issue, rather than being open to seeing how they might contribute either to healthy or unhealthy situations.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

This is one of those very sticky topics. How do you supervise/manage somebody who has the Divine calling and thinks they answer to somebody higher than you. That is a very tricky issue. Where is the the line between control and contain. Directions and dictation

 

[Paidiske]

How do you supervise/manage somebody who has the Divine calling and thinks they answer to somebody higher than you. That is a very tricky issue. Where is the the line between control and contain. Directions and dictation

That's probably why they make us take oaths of obedience to the bishop!

 

[Bob Crowley]

While the suggestion is probably a good one, there are going to be several factors involved in whether it will be successful or not.

First of all does the church have the funds to be employing "Supervisors"? Parish priests already have a formal supervisor in their bishop or archbishop. They have other priests or pastors they can talk to.

In a religious setting is clinical supervision the type that is required? It sounds more to me like someone that a priest or pastor can go to if they have issues that are bothering them, and in the case of Catholic priests at least, the confessional is out of bounds in the sense they can't mention the emotional load someone else's confesssion might have on them.

Unless the church is going to employ outsiders to fill the role, possibly a formal or informal network of religious (or church employees) who can be relied up to support each other might be a better way to go.

But I am just a sheep. The decision as to how the shepherds should be "supervised" is really up to them.

I don't think the "sheep" should be doing the supervising. I remember my old pastor's joke that he generally did not accept Sunday dinner invitations from parishioners.

He said he usually found the main course was "Roast Parson!"

The sheep tend to judge their shepherds, and would make poor supervisors.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

That's probably why they make us take oaths of obedience to the bishop!

conveinent for the Bishop. I not sure about oaths of obedience to any one other then God now. I am 52 years old and I did all that and I was cheated, lied to, manipulated by my elder and Church leaders so vows of obediance are not high on my list. What is really troubling to me is how many people want to be obeyed and have their way and don't want to follow Christ. Equally suprising is how many people have no clue what they are talking about but they want people to listen to them. And Just as suprising is that people have no idea what they are doing want to be in charge and make decisions. Scary, the dumbest people want the most say.