Temporary Autism

Autism is defined in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary as:

A variable developmental disorder that appears by age three and is characterized by impairment of the ability to form normal social relationships, by impairment of the ability to communicate with others, and by stereotyped behavior patterns.

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell lauds the merits of "rapid cognition," something we sometimes know as "intuition." However, he also points out that it can often go astray. One example he gives is what he calls "temporary autism."

Gladwell is focusing on our ability to assess the emotions of others by "reading" their faces, an ability that people suffering from autism appear to lack. Gladwell says that when those of us who are not suffering from autism becomes sufficiently stressed, we become temporarily autistic, losing our capacity to read in the emotions of others.

I went to the MFC presentation at the General Assembly in 2007 in Portland. A then member of the MFC said that he knew that ministerial candidates were stressed by the MFC interview, but he didn't think that the MFC members were all that scary a bunch and that the candidates would face much greater stresses when they became ministers.

I would have to agree that the MFC members are not all that scary a bunch. In fact I find them to be hard working, talented, dedicated, and well-intentioned. But the former MFC member's assessment did not take into account the situation in which the candidates find themselves when they are facing the MFC.

When working as a chaplain in medical center emergency rooms and critical care, medical, surgical, and psychiatric units, there are people and situations that are more frightening than the MFC and its members. Yet no single interaction has the foreseen capacity to postpone or even derail one's call to ministry.

In the parallel situation of a job interview, you know that if you don't get this job, you are likely to get another. You may also know that there are discrimination complaint and other review procedures if you believe you have been treated unfairly.

None of these options really apply to the MFC interview. If you're UU down to your bones and you're not fellowshipped as a UU, it's not likely that you're to become a candidate for fellowshipping in another religion. Furthermore, there's no review process outside of the MFC for its preliminary fellowshipping decisions.

The pressure therefore is enormous. When I listen to the stories of aspirants and candidates who "froze" in their interviews, it sounds an awful lot like temporary autism.

What do I recommend?

• Put less emphasis on the interview in the fellowshipping process;
• Create a review process outside the MFC; and
• Increase interview training for aspirants and candidates.
  

Fire in the Belly; Pain in the Heart

No, I'm not trying to come up w/ a list of symptoms for some undiagnosed illness. Rather I've been looking at my own motives for writing this blog.

The pain in my heart is for all those who have been unnecessarily wounded by our current processes for examining for ministry. Let me stress the word "unnecessarily." We need an examining process. There are those who may not be ready for ordained ministry. For those who are ready, a good examining process endorses their efforts and demonstrates support from our Association.

The question I'm raising is whether our current processes for examining for ministry represent best practices in examining and, if not, what are the best ways to modify them.

The MFC has asked the Board of Trustees to charter a comprehensive review of ministerial examining. It's great that we're on the same page regarding this need.

Yet, the fire in my belly and the pain in my heart are fueled by concerns about the damage that may be done while this review is undertaken. On Sunday, I heard another tale of woe about the actions of a Regional Subcommittee on Candidates (RSCC). My interlocutor wanted to know why the RSCC would substitute its judgment for those of individuals such as CPE supervisors and internship supervisors who had much more experience with his performance.

OK, let's presume that this candidate had "stage fright." Several other candidates have reported having same. After all, it feels like one's entire future is being compressed into a one-hour interview. Let's also allow that susceptibility to stage fright isn't a good trait in ministry. The question remains whether we want to use this as an opt-out in our examining process or merely advise candidates how to prepare to overcome it.

WARNING: I may be radically oversimplifying. There may be many reasons over and above stage fright that are causing these candidates to stumble. It just saddens me that so many are receiving what appear to be unnecessary wounds.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Let's not wait several years to convene a blue-ribbon panel. Let's start modifying the process now. The MFC and RSCCs can provide additional guidance about their current expectations. This guidance will inform candidates and provide useful information for the panel.
  
• Seminaries, academic advisers, internship supervisors, CPE supervisors, and others should be designing and implementing more opportunities for candidates to become test wise. For example, Fred Helio Fred Garcia teaches an outstanding course at Starr King in Media Skills in Public Ministry, which can help candidates prepare for challenging interviews. (As an aside, the film Frost/Nixon is a guide to some of the the perils and challenges of interviewing.)
• Candidates and aspirants can do more to educate themselves about the process and prepare themselves for the interviews. I am pleased with the buzz for this blog. We may start a new motto: "Mock Interview: Don't leave for your MFC/RSCC interview without one."
  

Bringers of Hope; Companions in Despair

One of my CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) supervisors, Rev. Dr. Peter Yuichi Clark, taught me that a critical role of chaplains is to be bringers of hope.  It was a challenge to figure out what this meant to a non-theist like me.

The Rev. Patty Franz, then a hospice chaplain, was a guide.  I asked her what one said to a dying person when you yourself had no clarity about what happens after death.  She told me to ask patients what they imagined would happen.  In time, I saw myself not bringing hope but drawing out the hope that was already within others.

Candidates preparing for their MFC (Ministerial Fellowship Committee) interviews are frequently told that the MFC is looking for "ministerial presence."  Is the candidate able to minister to the MFC?  Is the candidate someone that the MFC members would like to have as their minister?

When I was preparing for my MFC interview, I certainly had my bouts of fear and despair.  Before and during the interview, I had moments of high anxiety. How does one bring hope and be a companion to despair when one is feeling hopeless and afraid?

Before reading my answers, I recommend you reflect on your own answers.  What's below worked for me, but each of us has within ourselves the answers to these questions.

I found myself asking for help and guidance.  There's a long list of UU and non-UU ministers and lay persons who supported me.

For some reason, I am reminded of my work on a unit for persons with serious psychiatric illnesses.  I was frightened.  Yet, I came to learn that I was not alone, that others "had my back."

When you go in for your MFC interview, there will be a whole bunch of folk who will have your back.  The members of the Committee are not nearly as frightening as they may appear in your imagination.  They have your and UUism's best interest at heart.  Bring the hope that is within you and draw out the hope that is within them.

Developmental, Selection, & Gatekeeping Interviews

When people think of employment interviewing, they usually think of selection interviews, which are used for appointment, advancement, and entry. Appointment interviews, a.k.a. hiring or employment interviews, are usually competitive. When we go for an employment interview, we know that we need to show the interviewer(s) that we are the best qualified candidates for the job.

An entry or gatekeeping interview is like an hiring interview, except it is usually non-competitive and our objective is to show that we are qualified -- but not necessarily best qualified -- for the position or occupation.

A developmental interview is noncompetitive and is more about acquiring information than providing it. Let's say an office work wishes to be considered for the office manager position when it becomes available. In developmental interviews, the current office manager and her or his supervisor can guide the worker on the training, education, and experience s/he would need to become well qualified for the office manager job. While the worker's current qualifications are relevant, the main focus is on the gap between current qualifications and those required for the office manager position.

One of my favorite bits of movie dialogue comes from Casablanca. Capt. Renault asks Rick why he came to Casablanca. Rick replies that he came to Casablanca for his health, for the waters. Renault exclaims that they're in the desert. Rick calmly replies that he was misinformed.

While there is often overlap between developmental interviews and gatekeeping interviews, the Regional Subcommittee on Candidacy (RSCC) interviews have been evolving from developmental to gatekeeping interviews. It therefore would be helpful to aspirants for UU ministry to understand this distinction and prepare accordingly.

This evolution is laudatory. It's helpful to aspirants for UU ministry to learn as soon as possible that they may not be qualified.

The reform that would benefit the process is that aspirants be taught that the purpose of the interview is gatekeeping so that they can both demonstrate the qualifications they have already acquired and their knowledge of those that they need to acquire before they present themselves to the MFC (Ministerial Fellowshipping Committee).

"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

By the time of your MFC interview, you may feel a little crazed like Nora Desmond, the character who spoke the above line in the movie Sunset Boulevard.

Many people take umbrage at the thought of an interview being a performance, especially an interview for the ministry. After all, is the ministry about authenticity? Aren't you supposed to bring your true self to the interview and be evaluated on who you really are?

However, there are two meanings of "performance." Sometimes we use the word in reference to pretending, or even deceiving. The actor pretends to be someone else. The con man (con person?) intends to deceive. Yet we also talk about how well someone performed in the Olympics or what a wonderful performance the orchestra gave last night.

It is in this latter sense of performance that I'm using the word here. Sermons and interviews are performances. I am not encouraging deception or even pretense, but I am encouraging as with a good performance, and practice, practice, practice.

In the performance of an interview, body language and tone of voice are as important or even more important than words and their meanings. "Ministerial presence" may be found more in appearance and tone than in content.

Knowing this, it is important to have your mock interview videorecorded. If you can, have two cameras -- one on you and one on the panel. While it is inappropriate to video the panel's deliberations, record the sermon, the interview, and the feedback you receive after the panel finishes deliberating.

Then make this recording your favorite TV program. Pay careful attention to your posture, facial expression, body language, timing, and tone of voice as you view the video. Many of us find that our internal impression of how we did can vary dramatically from what's on the screen. Also, it's often difficult to absorb a lot of feedback at once. Watching the video several times and/or watching it and pausing it for reflection can help one absorb the feedback and make adjustments in one's performance.

The Mock Interview - Your Key to Success?

Sorry I've been off-line for a few days. I picked up a bug -- biological, not computer -- that put me out of commission. I'm glad to be back.

Although the main purpose of this blog is to recommend modifications to the examining process for UU ministry, the recommendations (even if immediately accepted) couldn't be immediately implemented. Therefore, individuals preparing for MFC interviews in 2009 can expect to be examined under existing procedures with whatever modifications are already in progress. Not wanting to leave these candidates in the lurch, this blog will also include suggestions for preparing for your MFC interview.

Though I have sought and received input from many individuals, including the aspirants, candidates, ministers, seminary professors, UUA board members, UUA staff members, and WRSCC members and staff, the opinions expressed here ultimately will be mine. (At least, until you start posting comments on them.)

If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a small town to raise a minister. Many, many people assisted me in preparing for my MFC exam. Today, I will focus on the Mock Interview, which I found to be the turning point in my preparation.

Those of you who have carefully examined the Competencies for UU Ministry may have some idea of the fear and trembling with which I faced the examination. Whom do you know is well-versed in all 14 of these competencies? After 4 years of seminary and a year of residency, I was aware that there were still gaping holes in my knowledge. Cramming felt like drinking from a fire hose, alternating with despair regarding the impossibility of filling all the gaps before examination time.

Well, in the mock, I learned that I could handle most of the questions that were directed at me. More importantly, I was advised by seasoned ministers that I should give up trying to become "Mr. Know-It-All" (my phrase, not theirs) and focus on ministerial presence.

I have much more to say about the mock, but this post is long enough and the day has gotten away from me. More soon.