Are Clergy Professionals?

Storyteller's World: Tony writes, "most of all, the work we do is all about people. But those people are very rarely 'clients' in the way that the people dealt with by professional therapists, counsellors etc. are. They are friends, family, brothers and sisters in Christ; and yes, of course they are often also 'perishers', as a delightful Mrs Malaprop in a former parish used to describe my parishioners. ("Of course, you have to worry about all your perishers, don't you, vicar?")"

Over the years, I've mused over this. The church is meant to be about a living, loving community of brothers-and-sisters-in-Christ; this hardly invites the idea that the leader is a professional [which would make parishioners 'clients'] and yet clearly professional standards in care, administration, confidentiality etc etc are required. Members of [other ?] caring professions may live a good way away from their places of work, clergy often do not and often live a family life somewhat in goldfish-bowl conditions [and personality-wise most clergy are ill-suited to that, btw]. They live as members of one or part of the communities they "serve". In fact some of the terms of service for CofE clergy definitely cross over the line of professionalism; living in close proximity and even socialising with 'clients' is not perhaps maintaining a professional distance.

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that the role of clergy has essentially grown out of the roles of community leader, soul-friend, and a kind of older family member; all very personal and based on bonds of love and service. Other professions seek to offer care but not such personal involvement [which can lead to bad diagnoses or favouritism or whatever else]. We clergy are trapped then in a clash of expectations; we are to be professional but we are to be friends. We need not to be partisan but we need to care for each; we are required to be 'human' but not in certain ways. So we may be expected to act as a friend might except when it suits our 'client' to have us more distant, but if we misread either way we will be slagged off for being over-chummy or too cold. neither model will do and yet both must be followed.

I sometimes wonder whether it is such a good idea to have clergy in the kind of way that the western world has seen hitherto. Is the institutionalisation and professionalisation of the role actually becoming a hindrance in mission and real pastoral care? I exagerrate, I suspect. But there is a little niggle for me that says that perhaps the foundations are shakier than we think.

My main calls to ordained ministry were to teaching and preaching and administration of particularly sacramental worship. Pastoral care was not really the foremost [though I'm told I'm good at it, on the whole]. On the other hand some people are clearly pastoral foremost and have less love for the teaching or proclamation or presidential side of things. Much of the tension I have tried to name above seems to revolve around the pastoral dimension which is the side that has seen most growth in secular wannabes [counsellors, social workers, doctors to some extent and so on]. Is there a fragmentation going on and is it healthy if so?

Perhaps, as I once said to a parishioner where we were trying to define what our relationship was, we are 'professional friends' -but that seems to have connotations of insincerity which may not at all be the case or even true. To be called to befriend and to answer that call as wholeheartedly as possible, to learn to give respect and to develop empathy with those who come across our path. To try to see things their way while not necessarily agreeing, to learn the hard art of speaking the truth in love are all borne out of both friendship and professionalism. Perhaps it is here that a synergy of roles resides?