You could not pay me enough to be a CPM. 

Indeed. In 2002 John Smith, a past CPM in our conference, called it the most soul-destroying work he has ever done in the United Church.

Clearly, it will be a position that calls a person with very specific skills & interests - who will actually find it meaningful and rewarding.

Odd that when someone begins a thread about "talking" about things they do not like about the church it is called inappropriate or negative. Yet, others feel the need to vent or even take a old fashioned dump where they will, without.  Will they too be called inappropriate, negative or their "bitch session" labelled as such, or is it gendered or is it what title they have or a club?

It's odd.

Except I had no objection to the thread CH started. Indeed I thought it was a discussion that needs to happen in any organization.

Likewise. I have the skills required for the job. I also know what is involved and it is not my line. My comment was an accurate reflection of the work involved by someone who did it for several years. I was also physically present when the words were spoken.

I know you did not criticize the "what don't you like" thread, GordW, neither did I.

I also believe it is a conversation needed.

I did notice though that it was criticized where others are not.

I however also do not find "you could not pay me enough" to be a conversation.  So, I will bite (and invite) by asking "why?". 

Because I have enough of a sense of what the position imnvolves to know that it would not be work that would feed me.  AT teh same time it would eat up all my time and energy (well beyond the "regular" hours) and I am selfish enough to want time with my family.  I have a suspicion that we have created a position for the CPM that is untenable.  On one hand they are expected to serves as "Pastor to the Pastors" and act in a supportive role.  OTOH they are in charge of helping Presbyteries interpret and enforce personnel poilcy, including disciplinary processes.

Hi GordW,

Makes it hard for the left hand to not know what the right hand is doing eh?

Maybe those roles need to be separated?  And if they ever are who would want to get near the heavy role?

I've looked at the job description and note that London Conference is also to be a testing site for the Effective Leadership:  Healthy Pastoral Relations recommendations.  Which while potentially very exciting and rewqarding also have the potential to be demoralizing and destructive.

I note also an emphasis on justice and no mention at all of mercy and humility which maybe suggests that only one hand winds up being used in this office.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The one with the toilet paper....maybe?

Thanks for sharing. The nuances and the reasoning behind comments can matter.

If you're ready to really try something new, make the role *actually* that balance between supportive and enforcing standards of practice (on both the volunteer leader side, and the ministry personnel side)... this is the challenge.

Sounds like commenters here aren't up for it, but why not share this with your networks? You (we) never know who will hear the call.

No, Martha. It's not a matter of being "up for it". It's a matter of knowing yourself, your skills and your strengths. I could do the job well,. I have all the qualifications and then some. But, like Gord, I have been around the United Church long enough to know and see the results. It can't be the same person. That's just bad governance practice. But the United Church of Canada is somewhere in the late 19th century in its governance practice. And that won't change for at least two GC's. So I am just not interested.

Hi Martha,

The comment suggests that all previous CPMs fell short in this regard.

If failure is that wide-spread we should be open to consider whether that failure is the result of CPM's who are incapable of finding such balance or possibly a system that rejects such balance.

The United Church of Canada at the court level of the Pastoral Charge places the responsibilities of  oversight for the conduct of members and their pastoral care into the hands of the Session.  This is a good practice in that many hands make light work and that it allows for differentiation to be made when individuals being challenged about their conduct are also to be cared for pastorally.  It has the power to eliminate conflict.  The minister advising the Session could still be a pastoral resource for the congregation.

Ideally that model type operates at the conference level.  The CPM shouldn't be leading  review panels though it may advise them.  The CPM should be a pastoral responder to individuals subjected to reviews and yet, there is a dynamic at play here that doesn't seem present at the Pastoral Charge level.

In the Pastoral Charge we are most likely dealing with fellow workers in the vineyard.  At the Conference level we are dealing with careers.  Genuine conflict at both levels though the Pastoral Charge being more tight knit probably notices problems and deals with them while they still qualify as molehills.  By the time it gets to the CPM it is most likely on the way to becoming a mountain.  The stakes are much, much higher and mistakes that much more critical.

Add to that the reality that an adversarial environment is probably established long before the CPM is sought out and it is highly unlikely that the CPM is observed by all parties as fair and impartial.  The presupposition of bias will call any attempt to be gracious or merciful into disrepute.

This might explain some of the charges that wind up being laid at the feet of individuals who have held this particular office.

Interesting comment.  I hear more "I don't want to do that" more than I hear "I can't do that."  We could discuss why the job does not attract which might help in the actual discernment and ultimate evolution of the position or we could just dismiss the comments as cowardism.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I did not read "balance has not been achieved in the past" in Martha's comment.  I suspect some CPM's have had the good fortune to serve in times and places where balance was possible.  There is, as pointed out above, the reality that perceptions by the people involved will usually create an impression of lack of balance.

One of our early CPMs, Gordon Macbeth, moved to Toronto to serve in the National office and died of a heart attack. I have worked with many CPM's over the years. Some were not affected by the stress of their work, but many were.

Oh for heaven's sake!

There's new processes being tested and will take a special strength to envision and enact. Read the job description; ponder the possibilities.

Some commenters here are reading Too Much into my previous comment.  Step off, boys. Take it at face value, and stop being so negative!

ps: I have no opinion whatsoever on 'the past' anything. That takes too much effort.  There is a lot to look Forward to:)

I did ponder. Still not interested. This will not rescue trhe church. It will take foundational governance reformation to do that, and that nis barely being talked about except at the highest levels.

Hi Martha,

Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

Learning from the past is the best way to avoid repeating the same mistakes isn't it?

Or is it just a negative waste of time?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. - Santayana.

Indeed. But 'it won't fix it and I'm not playing' is just too Grade 2 for my taste.

Hi martha,

Well that is always one helpful way to characterize discussion.  It works in Grade 4 so it is that much more mature.

While you may not agree with the premise that holding both roles in balance (the pastoral and the disciplinary) is difficult bordering on the impossible, automatically discounting a competing premise that there needs to be a division is so, "I'm taking my ball and going home."

I understand the financial reality that makes the Church want to concentrate the responsibilities into one position.  I am not convinced that this will always be the cheaper alternative.  The stakes are high and mistakes much more costly and not just in dollars and cents.

For the record.  I am about 18 months into a Pastoral Relationship I would consider it irresponsible to tell them that they should start putting together a JNAR to find a possible replacement.  Which is the primary reason why I wouldn't bother applying.  That said, I made sure that I read the job description before I made any comment. 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Grace and peace to you.

as you wish. But after more than three decades in ministry, I think I know what works for me. And this doesn't. And neither does the job description, as John has better elucidated.

Have a happy thanksgiving. And 'I'm not interested' is an absolutly valid reason for...well, not being interested.