Someone asked me to ponder this thought. Can clergy take off their clergy hat occasionally? Or do you have to always behave as a clergy? I think this was someone's way of telling me to straighten up and fly right. Keep quiet. Don't be quite so honest. Really, so being dishonest is what being a clergy is all about? I am sure they meant I should be more tactful. I am sure this is a criticism that I could use and I should speak more carefully.
Here is the irony. Church people are "concerned" about these things. "Pre-Christians" / seekers / unchurched - whatever the term of the week - comment on how refreshing it is to know a "real" person who happens to be clergy. "Church people must be confused that you are not a hypocrite like many of them - behaving one way at church and another way away from it." "I could have stayed in church if my preacher was more like you." "I wish your church was closer to me; I would visit."
I don't mean to sound egotistical. I realize for every person who thinks my bluntness is refreshing, there is someone who is offended by it. I know my style is not for everyone.
I know that church leaders should be and are held to a higher standard. I know we should be more disciplined. I know congregants should be able to look up to their pastor.
So maybe I am not such a great clergy. Maybe I should rethink this whole thing. I like being able to speak my mind. I don't want to be a cookie cutter clergy. I am not just like everyone else.
I love the people at my current appointment. But I wish more people were inspired and passionate. Some are. But for too long they have been accustomed to the staff taking care of things. I am not sure they actually understand they are a vital part of the church. But I think they are starting to get involved. But if I dare to say I would love for people at my appointment to be passionate, someone will misconstrue this as bashing my church.
I like working with youth. It is really where I am most comfortable. But only a few youth at my current appointment are committed to regularly participating. And some are actually staying away because of me. Some people are critical of the youth counselors who have volunteered since I started working with youth. I certainly feel like there are more people dissatisfied with my youth work than those who see my vision. But when I suggest that maybe they need to hire an actual youth director, some assume I do not want to work with youth rather than seeing that I am just open to the church re-evaluating the situation.
I am quite aware of problems at my home church. I was included on recent mass emails. I opted not to respond or get involved because I thought it would not be appropriate. My closest friends might have heard an opinion, but I have not commented publically on the situation. And let me be clear here: It would be unwise for anyone to assume that I have taken a "side" and even more unwise to assume they know which "side" I have taken. But, in fact, some have made such assumptions and have become critical that a clergy now appointed elsewhere would get involved in home church drama.
So if being clergy means I cannot say how I feel on my own blog or post comments on my friends' blogs; I cannot admit my shortcomings; I cannot be honest; I cannot be concerned for my home church (of which my child is still a member), perhaps I don't need to be clergy. Or perhaps people should rethink their expectations of clergy.
summer 2013 retreat(s)?
11 years ago
2 comments:
i would like to offer a vote of "no clergy" in this and your particular situation.
that is, altogether, different than a vote of "no confidence" mind you, but a selfish want to be connected to you by more than email and blogs and now only seeing you four to five times a year.
:)
Thanks. Maybe we just need to make sure we see each other more often.
Post a Comment