SAMPLE SUPERVISION PROGRAMME

MARTIN LUTHER

SupervisorBenedict

Frequency: Monthly

Cost: ?? per session. Up to 2 hours.

Process: See expectations set out below and in the pages that follow.

Venue:

Supervisees will prepare to present, within a confidential environment, specific issues from their life and ministry. As a basis for the session, they will present a variety of written material (it may simply be a paragraph telling a story of an event), either on the day or preferably in advance by email (eg. journal notes, verbatim, poetry etc.). This will come from three areas: (i) a ministry case study with biblical and theological reflection; (ii) a ‘whole of life’ issue that may include anything from marriage and parenting to illness to hobbies and self-care; (ii) faith and belief. Obviously there will be a great deal of overlap but we try to make sure, over time that a holistic focus is maintained. All three do not need to be covered in each session. One of the tasks of supervision is to enable the supervisee to integrate the three major ‘texts’ that we are working with: 1.The ‘text’ of the person’s experience 2.The ‘text’ of scripture and Christian tradition 3.The ‘text’ of culture and the context of ministry

Supervision for Leaders in Ministry – A Preliminary Discussion

An agenda for pastoral leaders seeking supervision

The literature on supervision in pastoral formation focuses on several symptoms and underlying issues. In many cases, if one returns to the original learning context of the pastoral carer or minister (particularly pre-1990’s) there was an identified lack of: •Motivation and confidence in field supervisors as trained and proficient practitioners •Supervisors’ deliberate and systematic training (often minimalist)

•Minister/student motivation for supervision due to a lack of cultural reinforcement and modelling •Minister/students’ financial support to seek out and engage supervision •Clear goals for supervision in a ministry/pastoral setting as opposed to a therapeutic setting

There are almost certainly two underlying causes: a long (hopefully disappearing as the past 15-20 years of sound formation begin to tell)

history of academic pastoral formation that relegates practice to what happens outside the walls of a particular Church/parish/college and the Western myth of ministry as an individual, independent endeavour. I intend to focus on two points: the lack of clarity in supervision goals and the model of theological education as a key to good reflective practice. The key to finding an effective balance is a good process and a clear picture of the roles and responsibility of the supervisor and the supervisee.

In the past, it has been argued, placements or ministry appointments have often been more concerned about the amount of work done or making sure that the tasks fit in with the church/agency priorities than with the education of the student, minister, chaplain or care worker. However the problem placements are often the ones where there are no high work needs or expectations and the person is simply expected to hold the ground or go through the motions of ministry. The same may be true in Churches where no formal reviews of ministry personnel are undertaken. There needs to be a tension between work and education to provide the opportunity for full learning that continues to be part of practice after the initial training and formation period (James, 2005). In order to experience a sense of developing or ongoing call in any profession the person must perform a real ministry, a ministry that would not happen if they were not there, where regular review is normative and where a clear job specification with specific KPIs gives the minister or priest something to aim for. The weight of this responsibility often becomes tied to the inner core and drives of the person. If these drives are somewhat skewed or dysfunctional they can be identified and simply become a matter of formation and change. In fact, one assumes supervision and feedback will stimulate an experience of self-awareness for the student or minister. In the case of students or seminarians upervision is rarely offered in ministry placements where nobody really gives ministerial responsibility to the student or where there is no form of integrated review. Ie. They treat the student more like a student than a worker, or, after graduation, the Church frames the minister as someone less than concerned about personal growth and development.

In this context, action and reflection become welcome partners with high levels of creative and confronting energy but we must beware of emphasising either partner to the detriment of the other. Pastoral Formation, or ongoing vocational development for experienced ministers or priests, depends on a balanced approach. We need to avoid the dichotomy between ‘knowing’ either as contemplation or as action. A very early, classic description of formation in community declares that “All meaningful knowledge is for the sake of action, and all meaningful action is for the sake of friendship” (John Macmurray. The Self as Agent, London: Faber. 1957: 15). This is a great concept for pastoral ministry and theological reflection and points to a model of supervision where mutuality and community create an environment of learning. Ministers, and all of us who are in the field, learn when they experience themselves as one who cares (ministry) with the intention of building some sort of relationship or community and I would argue that the goals of Pastoral Formation and supervision, need to centre on care for the person not on simply achieving learning goals . This has implications for the mode and methodology of supervision. Consider the following summaries of qualitative research on effective supervision from the perspective of the supervisor and how they make their supervisory task a ministry centred on care. I have written these themes with an eye to many conversations with ministers and students as they asked me the questions: “What is a supervisor? How would I know a good one and what would we be doing anyway?” This is not a comprehensive treatise or a definitive statement – it is a conversation starter.

Conclusion

Theory without practice is boring and irrelevant. Practice without theory can be downright dangerous. Between theory and practice lie those liminal moments of reflection, theological at their core: (i)

accountable to the Church; (ii) eclectic and surprising in style, (iii)

embracing of the pain of growth; (iv) ecumenical in spirit; (v)

kairotic, opportune and responsive to the seasons of life; (vi)

hospitable and welcoming at heart. I, and others who work with people like you and I, will only know those moments by their fruit!

The Relationship Task of Supervisors in a Pastoral Leadership Context

1.Happily fuzzy! It’s not teacher/pupil, it’s not counsellor/client and it’s not apprenticeship …. It’s a bit more like a mentor, but ……… there may be many modes. Many of the points that follow express something of a covenant relationship where agreed goals blend with careful management of relationship and community.

2. Multiple metaphors How supervision is experienced can be described in very subjective ways by those who receive it: elder sister, junior colleague, partnership, working relationship, effective but clinically distant. Some avoid ‘mentor’ because of the power implications. The ‘Apprentice’ model places too many skills and insights in the hands of the supervisor. Come up with your own metaphor and develop a freedom that suits your style and context. Nobody has yet written a definitive text on this topic because as Emmanuel Lartey (citing Kluckholn and Murray, 1948) points out: “every person is in certain respects (i) like all others, (ii) like some others, (iii) like no other” (In living colour: An intercultural approach to pastoral care and counselling. London: Cassell. 1997: 12). This is true for both supervisee and supervisor and for the unique combination of both.

3.A changing, modifying relationship The relationship changes over time. For some it may start with a teacher/pupil feel to it, for example, but a “working alliance” is closer to reality. “It seems to move towards colleague/colleague” for some people and perhaps even start there. The supervisee may learn to challenge the role or direction of the supervisor and then may exercise adult learning options. “I moved from mentor to sponsor to colleague” said one supervisor. It is dynamic and mutual to some degree and can be very different to supervision in many other helping professions. Dual relationships are common within pastoral ministry (and the maintenance of boundaries is essential) but there needs to be some expression of being on a journey together. They may socialise in semi-formal contexts but perhaps not as friends. There is a level of distance maintained. The dual relationships must be managed and this in itself is a learning task for ministry. “I would never dream of playing golf with a counselee but I might with a person in supervision, it adds to the dimension of mutual understanding.” “I might invite a supervisee along to a conference with me.” This depends on the level of evaluation that takes place and the role of the supervisor in the process. Context will make a difference. Parish-based ministry may differ from agency relationships.

4.Power The relationship has elements of discernment and containment for the benefit of all parties. (See below). It is never fully symmetrical. It is not quite a peer relationship. You can sometimes be colleagues without being peers and, depending on the process, the supervisor assumes responsibility for the unfolding process of supervision. This is one of the luxuries for supervisees who may come from ministry contexts and live with self-expectations where everything seems to drop on their shoulders. This is their time. They are not responsible for managing the session, it is a safe place where they have the floor, set the agendas, tell their story and reveal who they are inasmuch as they feel safe. This power differential places responsibility on the supervisor to maintain careful boundaries.

5.Practical issues •Supervisees should have a choice regarding their supervisors. •Supervisors may self-disclose more than they would to parishioners. •The relationship should bear evidence of familiarity with transference and counter-transference issues. •A supervisory ‘contract’ or agreed set of goals and appropriate process (covenantal in nature) is essential to the relationship. •If there is a fee involved, this may be paid by the supervisee, their employer or a blend of both. •For pastoral leaders it usually works better ‘off site’ if possible.

6.Focus I usually ask a supervisee to prepare specific issues from their life and ministry. They will present a variety of written material either on the day or in advance by email preferably (eg. journal notes, verbatim, poetry etc.) from three areas: a ministry case study with theological reflection; a ‘whole of life’ issue that may include anything from marriage and parenting to illness to hobbies and self-care; faith and belief. Obviously there will be a great deal of overlap but I try to make sure, over time, that a holistic focus is maintained.

Additional Perspectives 1.A teaching perspective may be an important part of supervision. There is the translation of theory into practice in addition to any formal learning programme. This is small ‘t’ teacher – often as the enabler, facilitator or catalyst of learning. Modelling is also important in the relationship as is the passing on of the realities of ministry by way of information. Books or articles are recommended appropriate to the moment of learning. I often email specific writings that will continue the conversation for the person. Role-plays and scenarios are often used.

2.A counselling perspective (not therapeutic in intention but using counselling skills) is sometimes appropriate for a part of a session but must be very sensitive to referral issues. Working with reactions and feelings requires sensitive listening, reframing, challenging etc. It is sometimes necessary to deal with highly emotive issues and feedback. The supervisor needs to have good listening and referral skills so that major issues can then be dealt with outside the supervisory framework. The supervisor will be aware of the nuances of referral options from GP to Spiritual Director or Pastoral Counsellor to Psychologist. They also need to know when to just let the supervisee “stew on their own” and not rescue them out of the particular set of feelings and responses. Some adopt a minimalist approach and only deal with what interrupts effective supervision. It is always a question of how far you pursue matters and this is why all supervisors should also be in some form of supervision. The supervisor basically helps the other person monitor, name and deal with issues that arise then deals with them personally or simply refers. The issue may or may not be directly related to supervisory goals – the aim is holistic pastoral care.

3.Monitoring professional ethical issues is a key task in supervision. Codes of practice will be engaged, examples of boundary issues will be discussed and problematic boundary practices will be challenged and illustrated. Issues of sexuality will be considered and possibly discussed at a realistic and self-disclosing level. Awareness and implications of boundary transgressions in all areas (sexuality, money, power, spiritual abuse) will be canvassed at some time or other. Not to do so is irresponsible. The supervisor’s duty of care is to the minister or the student, the ministry focus area, the wider church, the agency or the college attended and of course, the person who is receiving ministry from the supervisee. The dilemma of reporting is real! At some point supervisors may have to say: “This person is unsafe.”

4.Some evaluation of the supervisee is essential. Performance criteria, ongoing education, peer supervision and accreditation, and an understanding of core competencies must be considered. The supervisor must not feel inhibited or restrained in this process by political or relational agendas from Colleges, Parish Councils, wider Church or other party. This will of course be discussed with the supervisee. Feedback must be documented and used so as to enable the supervisee to learn and grow. Mutual evaluation must be considered when defining the relationship between the person and the supervisor. The supervisor needs to be accountable too. There is a power element here but it is used for the welfare of all parties equally. This is an ethical issue for the supervisor.

NOTES:

*****

(by Alan Niven)