I am finding another tactical change to be necessary. I am beginning to realize that my saga has reached the point that it is painfully subjecting me to a form of daily stress that really isn’t healthy. Therefore, I am going to try to knock out “the rest of the story” as quickly as I can. This way, I will be able to observe the upcoming Holy Week in ways that will hopefully be more meaningful.
My life experience with superiors in general has proven to be adversarial, but my relationship with Michael Downing, Thomas Mattick, and William Dew was incredibly so, beyond my wildest imagination particularly since it occurred within the context of my beloved United Methodist church.
Downing considered himself to be a “big idea” kind of guy, and when this was imposed upon a congregation that was not that far away from meltdown, it had caustic results. The “honeymoon” of the first few weeks exposed a parish desperate for loving, healing, but most of all genuine fidelity. A veil of deceit and betrayal started to lift as Don Smith left and Michael arrived. A number of parishioners expressed to me their great hope that Michael and I were going to evolve into the co-pastoral team that would put Trinity back on the path of spiritual faithfulness. It didn’t take long, however, for Michael to reveal his grandiose egotism, a personality that had no room for traditional staff, much less an older and more experienced associate.
The Discipline of The United Methodist Church does allow for the appointment of “co-pastors” to a single charge. It is rarely done, and when it is it is usually to accommodate a clergy couple. Trinity’s Staff-Parish Relations Committee did not have a disciplinarily correct understanding of a co-pastorate but used the term to signify their hope that Michael and I would share equally in the congregation’s pastoral leadership. I have tried to be clear in explaining why such a concept was absolutely, unequivocally unacceptable to Downing. His co-pastor was his wife, Nancy (who was primarily responsible, as I understand it, for Michael’s decision to enter the ordained ministry), and the two of them had no practical knowledge of how to include others in their imperial quest.
A review of my first few entries in this series will show that my father played an incredibly significant role in the formation of my impressionable understanding of what theology, religion, and the church are all about. Of these, one fundamental of being ministerial stood out: Thou shalt not form personal friendships with parishioners because of the potential damage that it could do to one’s objective and impartial ministry to the whole congregation. This I believed. I believed it so strongly, in fact, that it seemed improper of those pastors who would intentionally engage in such behavior. The trouble was that when the overwhelming majority of clergy saw the “buddy” approach to congregational interaction as perfectly acceptable, my conviction disadvantageously placed me in a distinct minority.
Thus the “battle of the pastors” at Trinity began. At the risk of sounding a braggart, I genuinely saw it as my pastoral responsibility to minister to the whole congregation. Michael, on the other hand, immediately set about forming personal relationships with those he perceived could be used to his advantage. This perspective, of course, generalized to Downing’s relationship to staff. Having had no practical experience with a staff (other than as a student associate while he was in seminary), Michael was prone to one-on-one’s in his office while the rest of an already paranoid staff were left outside wondering what was happening in the senior pastor’s office.
As I was subjected to these exclusive encounters, Michael’s understanding of my role in his scheme of things began to emerge. When you consider that a United Methodist pastor vows to put the needs and concerns of the community of faith ahead and above of her or his own, it is (at least to me) quite unbelievable that our relationship quickly devolved into the semantics of what differs between an “assistant” versus an “associate”. Michael recognized that Rick Altman had served as Smith’s ex officio assistant, and since one of his first objectives was to get rid of Altman it made sense, I guess (in a very convoluted way), for him to think of me as Rick’s replacement. Michael’s charge to “straighten things out” at Trinity was coming from the district/conference, and with the hierarchy’s backing he really didn’t have to worry about the wishes and the desires of the local congregation—certainly not with regard to having to work with an associate that many parishioners regarded as his equal.
While Altman was justifiably at the top of Downing’s “hit list”, Director of Education Linda Petty and Director of Music Raymond Barnes were next. The church secretary that had been at Trinity for several years before my arrival moved on (and up) to be Nate’s secretary in the district office, a position that she continued in as Mattick replaced Holt. The founding director of the preschool was ready to retire, and this basically left Michael looking at a clean sweep that included me. In his opinion no one was better suited to the single-handed repair of Trinity than he, and it was just a matter of implementing his “buddy system” to place supporters in key positions that would eventually sing praises of his glory and honor. Naturally, when I was sitting across the desk from Downing I was his closest confidant, but I knew full well that I was immediately replaced by whoever met with him next.
No comments:
Post a Comment