Mr. Crankypants here, and as usual he has something on his mind, which is this: Why is it that people in the United States assume that everything a minister says has to do with morality? — actually, morality and guilt. As if ministers are predominantly supreme moral and ethical arbiters. Speaking as someone whose alter ego happens to be a minister, Mr. Crankypants is uniquely placed to assure you that, on average, ministers are not that much better at moral and ethical distinctions than are non-ministers. It is true that ones would like a minister who is not going to molest one’s children nor rob one blind, but having an honest minister does not mean one should feel guilty every time one sees one’s minister.
Nor, despite what the acolytes of John Carver will try to tell you, are ministers essentially supermanagers and/or superadministrators. Trust Mr. Crankypants, most ministers have little formal training in management and administration, and even less skill. The effort to equate ministers with Chief Executive Officers is a lost cause, unless your congregation plans to pay your minister a salary equivalent to a CEO salary (we’re talking six figures for a chump CEO, and seven figures for a competent CEO for a nonprofit organization, just so you have no illusions about this). It is true that there are a few ministers with MBAs, but if your minister gave up a well-compensated position in the business world, you would be wise to be a little bit suspicious about why he or she decided to drop that seven-figure salary in favor of the pittance your congregation pays.
No,– in Mr. Crankypants’s experience, it is unwise to expect a minister to be either particularly moral or ethical (thus no need to feel guilty when you see your minister), nor to expect your minister to be particularly adept as a manager. At best, we can hope for minister who approximates to a holy person. But we’ll probably have to settle for someone who actually does maintain a daily spiritual practice, and who might be occasionally inspired (a word which literally means, O best beloved, infused with spirit, or Spirit). Ha! –too bad my stupid alter ego, Dan, is none of the above; except that he does maintain a daily spiritual practice.
Now that that is settled, Mr. Crankypants will head off to bed.
Somehow I think the morality piece has a direct tie-in with my least favorite subject — clergy misconduct. “As if ministers are predominantly supreme moral and ethical arbiters.” I guess it’s because when they are really bad (not just slightly immoral), that same warped perspective comes into play. I can’t tell you how many times I was told, “He’s only human.” OK. So? Is that the issue? Or is the issue really just where he falls on the scale of human folly? If the latter, I’d say it’s pretty far over on that scale — at least when unrepentant, which is the kind I know about. And then it falls on the UUA’s shoulders (not the shoulders of folks like Dan, Mr. CP or me) to deal with this ugliness, including helping muddled congregants get past the “he’s only human” mindset.
I don’t have any expectations of my ministers on a personal level (is this bad?), but because the church I attend is so large, I want them to be faithful leaders – somehow integrating their vision with the will of the church members to coordinate a community that is both gratified/satisfied and challenged. I’m not sure if that makes sense.
uugrrl — I’d draw a distinction between being a moral exemplar and a moral arbiter. A moral exemplar takes care of his/her own behavior, and in so doing could perhaps serve as an example for other people, if those others decide to take him/her as an example. A moral arbiter, on the other hand, tells others how to behave — often without reference to his/her own behavior! Ted haggard is a wonderful example of a moral arbiter who is not a moral exemplar — he told the people in his congregation how to behave (“don’t have homosexual sex”), while he himself was off engaging in precisely the behavior that he told others to refrain from! In my view, American culture tends to push clergypersons into the role of moral arbiter. But I think what Mr. C. is asking for is for clergy to move away from the hubristic role of serving as moral arbiters — to, as it were, take care of the log in their own eyes before trying to remove the speck from their congregation’s collective eye.
uugrrrl — You write: “I can’t tell you how many times I was told, ‘He’s only human.’ ” Mr. Crankypants would love to throw that phrase back in the teeth of the people who inflicted it on you — maybe saying something like, “Human enough to go to jail!” or “Human enough to get his a$$ sued!” or “Oh, you mean human like Charles Manson!” As if being human is an excuse for bad behavior. Yeesh.
h sofia — Mr. Crankypants is not pleased — you managed to say what he was trying to say more concisely and more coherently. It’s not polite to be a better writer than Mr. C.
Sorry, Mr. C. If it makes you feel any better, you’re the only writer who doesn’t annoy me when you speak of yourself in the third person.