This morning someone pointed out to me that it's hard to find my recommendations for the MFC on this blog. That observation is accurate. I have been dancing around the subject, collecting my thoughts, while I sought a better understanding of where the MFC was in its process. I will use the label "Recommendations for the MFC" to make it easier to locate posts on this subject.
Now I am ready to make more specific and systematic recommendations. Once I get them all together, I will submit them to the MFC. In the meantime, I would love your feedback.
Each year when the MFC visits Berkeley, it has an informal get-together on Holy Hill. At this year's gathering, it was quite evident how hard the volunteers who make up the MFC work reviewing tons of paperwork and attending meetings. Redesigning an examining process is a major undertaking. Any recommendations for the MFC should account for these facts.
My first recommendation is that the MFC charter a research team. Ideally this team should include as a consultant or a member a psychometrician (a psychologist who specializes in tests and measurements). It should also include UU and non-UU ministers and laity. A process like this always benefits from a multiplicity of perspectives.
The first task of the team would be to review the existing competencies and to collect information about ministerial competencies. Excellent sources for such information are ministers who are well respected by their colleagues and by those whom they serve.
Posts
The Major Cost of Entering MInistry
7 years ago
One of the problems the MFC has, in my opinion, is how hard they work. The MFC work load makes it impossible for most people to serve on the committee, it adds to the self-justifying tendency, and it can hardly promote doing a really good job, no matter how dedicated it's volunteers are. Any improvements in MFC procedures have to look at reducing the MFC workload, or they won't be improvements, no matter how good on paper.
ReplyDelete