Comment by Scott Wells

June 29, 2008 @ 9:59 pm

Yeah, that drew my attention — and a raised eyebrow — too. Will be nice to see what the response in the ministerial college will be.

Comment by jinnis

June 29, 2008 @ 10:49 pm

After a quick read, I agree - there could be a better title to the article.

Incompetence is no more specific than “conduct unbecoming a minister” and that phrase has been around for a long while. I can think of some very obvious examples of incompetence, but it is quite subjective too. The MFC is a funky mix of objective and subjective and is constantly evolving, so it can be hard to pin down definitions that remain consistent over time.

I do appreciate the effort to fix the complaint process so it is less like a trial for the minister in question.

Comment by Jess

June 30, 2008 @ 4:16 am

I think the addition of “incompetence” is a good one — there have been cases of ministers going from church to church wreaking havoc not out of poor intention but out of a lack of skill, and it’s good that the MFC does not have to wait for some form of misconduct to address such situations. Denny Davidoff said it best when she said that it’s not about being “nice” but about addressing real concerns with the quality of ministry in our churches, particularly when we’re talking about real harm that can come to our people.

There is a real danger in covering the story this way, though, in that perhaps our congregants with some kind of grudge against a minister can now feel empowered to make accusations of incompetence — which means that excellent accountability and transparency in the process of disciplinary review need to be put into place, with particular diligence as the changes go into effect. From the presentations of Wayne Arnason, Burton Carley, and Jory Agate during the debate, I have good reason to believe they are.

Comment by ogre

June 30, 2008 @ 7:05 am

There being, in the history of my congregation, a case of what could very reasonably be called “incompetence”–but not really “conduct unbecoming”–I listened carefully. The individual in question left real wounds on the congregation, and minefields which the minister (now many, many years later) still has to be wary of. Further, that individual went on to injure other congregations.

To my knowledge, we could not have been protected from this (though who knows–it’s old history and I’ve never investigated to see if evidence of incompetence preceded coming to us). But other congregations (plural) could have been.

I was perfectly happy voting for the change. Only in projecting future (radical) changes to the association that would violate very common understandings about the nature of the association and our polity (and history) could I see it being the leading edge of something problematic. Or, I suppose a highly hostile and dysfunctional MFC.

Getting final fellowship takes one out of what might be called “probationary status.” But I can’t see that it should mean that a minister who displays incompetence–which doesn’t simply mean that one screwed up significantly once–ought to be protected… and that at the cost of serious risk of harm to a current AND future congregations.

In the end, the Association exists to benefit and assist the congregations. But all this does is permit the MFC to “red flag” someone. Congregations can still do as they will. The MFC can’t terminate a minister, just fellowship.

Note that at the other end of the process, the MFC can only threaten refusal to consider fellowshipping for a candidate minister who takes a call without the approval of the MFC (for thre years, as I recall)–this for someone in training who is likely to have not yet fully developed the required competencies of a minister. And that is also about ministerial competence. It is in place because experience suggested ministerial confidence may crystallize ahead of full competence (and without, I might note, more approval than the support of the UUA board).

I’m all for supporting and protecting ministers–but not in ways that protect them from consequences from doing real harm to congregations and that congregations and other ministers will suffer for, for years.