I've been thinking about a life question of mine lately. I think most of us can relate to the idea that we are citizens of more than one social world. I also think that most of us can relate to the idea that occasionally those worlds come into conflict, and this can cause stress.
For me, the identifiers "Intellectual" and "Christian" have at varying times worked well together and caused enormous internal strife. There have been times that I would consider myself an "Intellectual Christian", that is, someone who is following the Way but claims not to be "one of those idiots". There have been other times that I would consider myself a "Christian Intellectual", that is, a thinker who somehow still manages to have faith. The problem always seems to be deciding which one is my "dominant" identifier.
I've found recently that I do better when I am unaware of my identifiers. This is difficult to explain. There are times that I am simply ignorant to the labels that get thrown around about certain types of people, and in this ignorance I feel less pressure to fit into a certain box. I think it is that way for most people.
One of the joys of functioning in both the church and academia is that I see a lot of symmetry. It seems to me that people are people no matter where you go, even if a lot of important details change from one place to the next. This used to bum me out, but now I feel enriched by the experiences I get to have in a variety of environments. I don't know how this happened, but I'm glad it has.
One of the things I have noticed is that, social structures aside, situations work best when the right people are involved. This is challenging and encouraging. How we define "right people" may depend heavily on the situation at hand.
I'm thinking a lot about the research topic I discussed in my last post. I got some feedback from two colleagues yesterday, and one of them pointed out that my focus was on the negative aspects of being a minister in the Methodist church. I had not really thought about it, but I realized this was a very important insight. In studying how the lives of pastors are impacted by the expectations and roles they live out, I've been presumptuous in thinking that the only impacts I will see are stress and distress. But what about people who are deeply fulfilled by challenging other peoples' views, or who have unique gifts that allow them to handle conflict with incredible grace (just to speculate)?
I'm interested in the interaction between person and situation, and this seems particularly relevant in the relationship between pastors, their churches, and their well-being. I think my focus on distressing outcomes for pastors assumed that the individual (minister) was a subject of the roles and expectations embedded in their situation, and not a participant. In addition to looking at negative outcomes, such as a pastor burning out or selling out, I should also be interested in how people succeed in both conviction and well being. What constellations of pastor characteristics and congregation characteristics work? How do negative experiences help leaders mature instead of giving up on or giving in to difficult situations?
In other words, how do ministers stay happy and just in the face of difficult circumstance? I don't think it is a simple matter of "moral fiber", but I wonder if there are some common factors both in terms of life experiences and social support. Does a pastor both have to have the "right stuff" and the "right people" to make it through the world with their soul intact? Do we all?
No comments:
Post a Comment