Learning from the Streets

This is the fourth blog ive written on the subject of the management of youthworkers by Clergy in a church setting, or the management of youthworkers at all. Usually its easier to point out the problem, rather than propose solutions ( which is what my other blogs have done). So, this one is an attempt to start a discussion on what might faithful management of a youthworker look like?

Why Faithful? well, for one reason really. Paul Ricouer talks about role identity, and suggests that “Humans come to know themselves by attesting their power to say, their power to do, and their power to recognise themselves in a character in a narrative, and in the power to respond to a call” (Ricoeur, Oneself and another p22),

Faithfulness is a theme that runs through Vanhoozers work since 2005, in Drama of Doctrine,  as, in considering the whole grand theodrammatic actions of God, that Humanity is currently situated between Acts 4 and Act 5 (the emergence of the church, and the consumation) – with a responsibility to be faithful to the eternal insights of the whole drama, the prompting of God (as also performer), and crucially the context of the world around us, in the very immediate of performance in the present. Being faithful in following the way is what we’re called to do, and be.

One of the key reflections of Line Management from the perspective of youthworkers is that they feel as though the role of manager for clergy is secondary to the responsibilities of being a clergy- the stuff that clergy are trained to do – such as funerals, or school assemblies, wedding prep, PCC meetings – and maybe because line management isnt even conceptualised in personal leadership identity training, or advised upon, it seems to be left to be improvised by individual clergy at individual times.

What the problem with this?  well- three things – firstly that where might be influences that clergy seek for examples of management to learn how to be a manager, secondly there might be limited shared practice of it across clergy, thirdly the person who may be employed in a church by the PCC might not be being treated as well as they could be.

1. If the cues for being a good line manager come from the WHSmith bookshelf, Sir Alex Ferguson, or Bill Gates – what comparison is there between Ltd Companies management ethics & values, and the ethics, and values, mission & organisation of the church. Is the best way to manage people the same as coaching or sports anyway?  As Foucault suggests, there is a power in normalistion, and so, even thought the weight of common sense might indicate that learning and adopting from successful managers would be deemed appropriate – is it appropriate in the church? Does actively rejecting methodoloies of business for management because of the ideologies of business  which includes capatalism, money (and as we have also seen tax avoidance) – feel like a more appropriate thing for the church to do as it seeks appropriate management methods?
2. Ok, so i’m not privy to alot when it comes to Clergy on a personal level, however, I would wonder quite how many conversations happen between them in regard to the methods, approaches and learning experienced – not of having a youthworker, but of managing one. – over and opposed to funerals, PCC’s, diocese politics.  If Clergy aren’t talking about it, its probably likely that learning isn’t shared around diocese – or where clergy have the space to reflect on management within their practice – that’s assuming that they as clergy have opportunity to reflect on practice anyway.
3. If Management is something you as clergy might not have any guidance on, or shared practice, then are you able to act with that new employee in a way that is appropriate for them? But what is it that you might have?

Power dynamics are at play, in any supervisory, management relationship ( Kogler 1999 in Ord , J 2012) – they might be at play in any relationship, given what Foucault regards as power (being everywhere, between the structures)

Assuming that Power is more prevalent in Hierarchical relationships, especially in organisations – what might be the examples of where a line management between Clergy and Youthworker are issues of power?

Well – 1. where does line management happen? – ive never had a line management meeting by clergy that isnt in their house/office/church or study.

2. Who sets the agenda, decides on topics of conversation

3. who makes the final say

4. how might decisions be made

5. who might be asked to do what – has a youthworker ever asked Clergy to do ‘something on a Sunday’ – usually its the other way around..

These are just a few examples, and, in a hierarchical line manager type relationship, the hierarchy and sense of subordination sets the tone, the clergy os both the line manager, and clergy- thus as Giddens argues disposing to have two roles both of which carry with them echelons of historical power ( in the hieracrchy, and default by role).

And for many a clergy – holding both positions of power humanly speaking, whilst also wanting to embody a theological model of christlikeness which could be said to be sacrifical, empowering and kenotic – could be somewhat of a conflict, especially if the role of line manager is not one that they understand or have theological or appropriate theological cues for.

The question is – does the Youthworker need to have a line manager? what is the stipulation?  employment law? policies?

Would it not be better to decide upon on what functions a youthworker needs around them to flourish in a church setting, and if one person, such as clergy have to fulfil that take on that role- does that role itself need to be known as ‘line manager’?

Clergy – think about it, you have the opportunity to help educate, spiritually supervise, guide, equip and resource someone to also help you in the mission of God in the church/parish – what kind of person might they want you to be, what kind of actions should you take? and is line manager (by title) the appropriate name for the role that you want to ideally take?

If suitable performing is an enabler to feeling like being part of the ongoing narrative (Ricouer, above) – then would replacing ‘line manager’ with ‘Discipler’ be a better term – both spiritually and theologically?

Discipler/ learner might enable a ongoing learning, working together, collaborative intention – over and above the silo streams of youth ministry in one area, that intertangles with clergy work one Sunday a year, or the odd confirmation group. Discipler might also enable a reduction in the power dynamic. Its also more Frieran, in terms of ongoing learning, as you might learn process and practices from the youth worker and vice versa. Arent you more likely to want to disciple someone than line manage them?

So, maybe for Clergy – line management shouldn’t be line management at all. If its a word from a world that doesn’t fit the church- then Learner/discipler might be  better for the ongoing values, principles and actions of performing the ongoing redemptive drama on the stage – where all are performing.