Survey results can sometimes act as a “wake up” call. The recent MFCA survey sent out to alumni produced significantly different results than the same survey administered to active candidates. This could be explained by the fact that the alumni now have more ministry experience and the lens through which they view their MFCA experience has become more realistic. Another possibility is that the MFCA has been listening to candidates as they complete their exit interviews and our continued efforts to improve how we provide service to candidates is reflected in how our ministry is being perceived and received.
Never the less, we want these results to serve as a “wake up” call so that we can address deficiencies and improve the MFCA process. Many of the lower survey scores reflected an evaluation of the classis and may not be easy to remedy by action of the MFCA. The mandate placed on us will, however, require the cooperation of the MFCA with the many classes and will also require collaboration with the RCA seminaries since they play an equal role in the “Certificate of Fitness for Ministry” (CFM) process. The new team created by this year’s General Synod, identified as the Call, Care and Standards Committee (CCSC) will need to look at the results of these surveys and possibly take action at a denominational level.
Alumni gave the MFCA relatively high scores on “communication” and the “sense that they were known and heard by MFCA.” For many this was said in contrast to how classis did similar functions. This was validated by the comments. Alumni scored MFCA lower, more in the “average” mid-range category in the areas of “Spiritual Formation” and “Personal Wholeness.” The best rating was given in the area of “Denominational Identity,” an area where we should do well since that is certainly one of the priorities of the program and one of the more obvious and measurable products of the program. Yet, in this day and age denominational identity is not perceived as terribly important, especially when it is compared to spiritual formation and wholeness. The younger candidate especially tends to emphasize relationships with others and God as crucial to their ministry. As one of the respondents wrote in the comments section:
“I definitely think MFCA is helpful, but still missing ‘something’ that can make it really strong. Don’t feel there’s enough unity perhaps… like people know each other’s ‘positions’ but not as ‘persons’ and so the work is just a duty rather than a joy of being together as God’s children.”
Other people wrote:
“My seminary was much more important and relevant than my Classis or MFCA. For my process, my Classis and MFCA would have been better focused on engaging me in contact with the RCA and the development of personal relationships within it.”
“Although I felt affirmed by both the Classis and MFCA, it was my seminary and personal pastor mentor who had the greatest impact on the formation of my personal identity and skills. Because I was distant geographically from both the Classis and MFCA, there were times I felt isolated from either of their processes.”
“I felt disconnected from MFCA when I was in the process. That was just something I had to do. Not sure how else MFCA can help candidates prepare for the ministries they will serve since every congregation and situation is different.” (stated AAR candidate)
The unique place and effort of the MFCA in the life of the candidate is certainly reflected in many of the comments. When there are supportive efforts on the part of the seminary, the supervised ministry site and mentors there is not as much of a need for the MFCA to provide the support. In situations where those other entities are not providing adequate support the onus is with MFCA and therefore we are obligated to provide program and resources for everyone in the process so that those who do not have the proper care will be looked after by the MFCA and its staff.
The fact that we have approximately 100 candidates at any one time in the process, and over 83% of those individuals reside east of the Rocky Mountains provides an enormous challenge. Communication remains extremely important and opportunities to gather folks together must remain a priority.
It is noteworthy to recognize that there were no negative comments about program requirements such as the courses and Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). As a matter of fact there were several comments such as “My ‘highlight’ of my MFCA journey was completing CPE.” The CPE requirement is meant to address the “Personal Wholeness” and “Ministry Development.” It does not propose to connect folks more to the denomination but it does assist in making for healthier pastors who are self aware and have better defined boundaries.
Another area that was highlighted by alumni in the survey was the psychological testing. This has become a more important part of the process and not only has the MFCA reduced the costs to candidates, the MFCA has also investigated other psychological services and added to our number those now able to provide useful and relevant diagnostic reports. We are diligent about providing candidates with the results and feedback of such assessments and candidates can rest assured that the committee members who participate in the interviews only read the summaries that the candidate also receives. No surprises and confidentiality is strictly maintained. We can confidently say to the person who wrote the following that “yes, we have improved and we are committed to continue to improve…”
“From what I hear, the psychological evaluation has been improved since I took it, but at that time it was done over the phone for those not in Michigan, DEFINITELY a BAD idea. I have seen enough of these tests to know that it is difficult at best to get an accurate picture of a person based on answers to questions and a short interview... This resulted in an evaluation that I felt did not give a very accurate picture of me. I was concerned about who would read it so I asked what was done with the psychological test results. I was told that the evaluation was simply filed away and would not be seen by others. Then when I received the packet of information that was distributed at my mid-term interview, parts of the summary page of the psychological evaluation was included.”
There will continue to be occasions where the psychological assessments will not be done in person but recent efforts to avoid that scenario has included bringing a psychologist to Holland, Michigan during the intensives so that candidates can meet in person with the psychologist. The addition of having Rev. Dr. Chuck DeGroat on the west coast with the Newbigin House of Studies has also been a welcomed option for psychological assessments.
The MFCA staff is more than open to hearing ideas from others about how we can improve our process. We will do our best to listen and avoid becoming defensive and make excuses. It is our desire to prepare individuals well for ministry. If you have not yet taken one of our surveys and would like to do so, please contact Kristen at kmcclain@rca.org or call at 800-435-5136. Comments to this blog are also welcome.
Cor
No comments:
Post a Comment