Jurney The The FROM READINESS TO EFFECTIVENESS An Onging Survey f the Prbatinary Prcess in The United Methdist Church Secnd Editin 2005 LOVETT H. WEEMS, JR.
The Jurney FROM READINESS TO EFFECTIVENESS An Onging Survey f the Prbatinary Prcess in The United Methdist Church Secnd Editin 2005 by Lvett H. Weems, Jr. A research prject cnducted in cperatin with the Divisin f Ordained Ministry, General Bard f Higher Educatin and Ministry f The United Methdist Church, and Annual Cnference Bards f Ordained Ministry thrugh a grant frm the Lilly Endwment, Inc. t Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy fr its Prgram t Imprve the Quality f Cngregatinal Pastral Leadership. This survey and reprt were dne cllabratively with the G. Duglass Lewis Center fr Church Leadership at Wesley Thelgical Seminary in Washingtn, DC. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS THE PROJECT Backgrund... 1 Purpse... 2 Descriptin... 2 Prfile f Respndents... 3 SURVEY RESULTS... 4 OBSERVATIONS Overall Prbatinary Prcess... 13 Observatins abut the Cmpnents Supervisin... 13 Cntinuing Thelgical Educatin... 15 Mentring... 15 Cvenant Grups... 16 KEY THEMES FROM FIVE YEARS OF PROBATIONARY SURVEYS... 18 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Prcess as a Whle... 19 Cmpnents Supervisin... 19 Cntinuing Thelgical Educatin... 20 Mentring... 21 Cvenant Grups... 21 APPENDIX Study Authr and Other Cntributrs... 22 Survey Questinnaire... 23
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS The purpse f this research prject is t help United Methdist annual cnferences develp prbatinary prgrams mre likely t assure that prbatiners mve frm readiness fr ministry at the beginning f the prbatinary perid t effectiveness in ministry by the end f the perid. The methd was t learn frm the experience f thse wh have gne thrugh the new prbatinary prcess. Findings are based n survey results frm thse rdained in 2002 and 2003. A similar previus survey was cnducted with thse rdained in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The findings in the current survey are cnsistent with thse reprted in 2003 based n the previus survey. The establishment f trust amng all participants is fundatinal fr a psitive and frmative prbatinary experience. The quality f the leadership f the varius cmpnents f the prbatinary prcess is critical. This is mst true fr mentrs. Selectin f the right leaders fr the right tasks is essential, alng with mre adequate training. Prbatiners mst want and expect thse functining in any type f supervisry r mentring rle t be caring, available, and accuntable. Prbatiners want the prbatinary prcess t engage and utilize their practical ministry experiences during thse years. Establishing a cmmunity f supprtive relatinships is seen as ne f the mst significant results f the prbatinary years. Of the fur recmmended cmpnents f the prbatinary prcess, mentring ranks high in cntributin t prbatiner grwth and success and was, fr many, the mst imprtant dimensin f the prbatinary prcess. The right match f mentr and prbatiner, frequency f meetings, and a fcus n previusly agreed upn ministry tpics characterize successful mentring. One-n-ne mentring and mentring thrugh grups bth seem t wrk. Participatin in a cvenant grup, increasingly available in cnference prbatinary prgrams, is appreciated. The mst imprtant factr determining the cvenant grup s impact n prbatiner grwth was the quality f grup facilitatin. Grups that cmbine spiritual frmatin practices with discussin f ministry tpics seem mst successful. Supervisin is the mst cnsistently present cmpnent f the prbatinary prcess, yet ranks last f the cmpnents in the extent t which it cntributed t prbatiner grwth. Cntinued satisfactin with cntinuing thelgical educatin is present s lng as it fcuses n practical issues f ministry and des nt repeat seminary wrk.
The Jurney FROM READINESS TO EFFECTIVENESS An Onging Survey f the Prbatinary Prcess in The United Methdist Church Secnd Editin 2005 BACKGROUND In 1996, the General Cnference f the United Methdist Church apprved a new prbatinary prcess f at least three years fr candidates seeking rdinatin in the denminatin. Under the new legislatin, a candidate seeking rdinatin wuld be cmmissined fllwing the cmpletin f educatinal and ther requirements. The cmmissined minister then enters a prbatinary perid f at least three years under the supervisin and guidance f the persn s annual cnference bard f rdained ministry. The cncept f a prbatinary perid was nt new in United Methdism. In 1996, the standard prbatinary perid was tw years. A majr emphasis f the advcates f the 1996 legislatin was that f a new understanding f the prbatinary perid, nt merely the adding f an additinal year t the current prbatinary perid. A key cmpnent f the new understanding f the prbatinary prcess was fund in what was expected t take place during the three r mre years f prbatin. The current (2004) Bk f Discipline f the United Methdist Church describes the prbatinary prcess as fllws: 326. Prbatinary Service f Cmmissined Ministers - All persns wh are cmmissined ministers shall be appinted by a bishp ( 430) and serve a minimum f three years fllwing the cmpletin f educatin requirements fr full cnnectin as a prbatinary member f the annual cnference. During the prbatinary perid, arrangements shall be ffered by the bard f rdained ministry fr all cmmissined ministers t be invlved in a curriculum that extends thelgical educatin by using cvenant grups and mentring t supprt the practice and wrk f their ministry as servant leaders, t cntemplate the grunding f rdained ministry, and t understand cvenant ministry in the life f the cnference. The specialized service f prbatinary members shall be evaluated by the district superintendent and the bard f rdained ministry in terms f the prbatinary member s ability t express and give leadership in servant ministry. The General Bard f Higher Educatin and Ministry thrugh its Divisin f Ordained Ministry was charged with establishing the recmmended guidelines fr annual cnference bards f rdained ministry t use in develping their respective prbatinary prgrams. Principles and Guides fr Annual Cnferences recmmends fur dimensins supervisin, cntinuing thelgical educatin, mentring, and cvenant grups. 1
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The purpse f this research prject is t learn frm the experience f thse wh have gne thrugh the three year prbatinary prcess in rder t assist cnferences in develping prbatinary prgrams mre likely t assure that prbatiners mve frm readiness fr ministry at the beginning f the prbatinary perid t effectiveness in ministry by the end f the perid. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PHASE ONE In 1996, the General Cnference f the United Methdist Church apprved a new prbatinary prcess f at least three years fr candidates seeking rdinatin in the denminatin. Fllwing the cmpletin f educatinal requirements, future clergy spend at least three years under the supervisin and guidance f an annual cnference bard f rdained ministry. In 2002, thirty-six annual cnference bards f rdained ministry participated in a research prject cnducted by Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy fr the Divisin f Ordained Ministry t assess the prbatinary prcess. Clergy rdained in 1999, 2000, and 2001 were surveyed. Surveys were sent t 800 clergy with 250 persns cmpleting and returning the survey. The reprt f this prject, The Jurney frm Readiness t Effectiveness: A Survey f the Prbatinary Prcess in the United Methdist Church, was published in 2003. The reprt can be fund nline at either f these web addresses: http://www.wesleysem.edu/centerleadership/reprt2.pdf http://www.spst.edu/resurcing/prbsurvey.htm PHASE TWO Cllabrative Research Prject f Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy and the G. Duglass Lewis Center fr Church Leadership Phase Tw builds upn the initial research prject published in 2003. The results frm the first survey and the feedback frm cnference bard f rdained ministry representatives have helped identity issues that need further data, as well as issues nt cvered n the riginal survey. A request was sent t chairs f bards f rdained ministry in Octber 2003 requesting the names and current addresses f persns wh cmpleted prbatin and were rdained in 2002 and 2003. A survey was sent t each f the clergy named. The survey instrument was based n the previus survey used fr prbatiners wh were rdained in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The riginal survey was develped in cnsultatin with a task frce named by the Divisin f Ordained Ministry that included deacns, elders, staff, directrs, annual cnference bard f rdained ministry representatives, seminary representatives, and district superintendents. The survey was revised based n feedback frm a gathering f persns respnsible fr the prbatinary prcess in annual cnferences. Names f 838 rdinands frm 2002 and 2003 were submitted frm frty-fur annual cnferences with 328 persns cmpleting and returning the survey (clse t a 40% return rate.) 2
RESPONDENTS BY JURISDICTIONS Nrth Central Jurisdictin (NCJ) Nrtheastern Jurisdictin (NEJ) Suth Central Jurisdictin (SCJ) Sutheastern Jurisdictin (SEJ) Western Jurisdictin (WJ) Ttal Respndents - 66 respndents frm ten annual cnferences - 66 respndents frm nine annual cnferences - 54 respndents frm ten annual cnferences - 116 respndents frm eleven annual cnferences - 26 respndents frm fur annual cnferences - 328 frm frty-fur annual cnferences CONFERENCES REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS 1. Alabama-West Flrida (SEJ) 2. Arkansas (SCJ) 3. Baltimre-Washingtn (NEJ) 4. Califrnia Pacific (WJ) 5. Central Pennsylvania (NEJ) 6. Central Texas (SCJ) 7. Daktas (NCJ) 8. Desert Suthwest (WJ) 9. Detrit (NCJ) 10. East Ohi (NCJ) 11. Eastern Pennsylvania (NEJ) 12. Flrida (SEJ) 13. Hlstn (SEJ) 14. Illinis Great Rivers (NCJ) 15. Iwa (NCJ) 16. Kansas East (SCJ) 17. Kentucky (SEJ) 18. Luisiana (SCJ) 19. Minnesta (NCJ 20. Mississippi (SEJ) 21. Missuri (SCJ) 22. Nebraska (SCJ) 23. New England (NEJ) 24. New Yrk (NEJ) 25. Nrth Carlina (SEJ) 26. Nrth Gergia (SEJ) 27. Nrth Texas (SCJ) 28. Nrthwest Texas (SCJ) 29. Oklahma (SCJ) 30. Oregn-Idah (WJ) 31. Peninsula-Delaware (NEJ) 32. Rcky Muntain (WJ) 33. Suth Carlina (SEJ) 34. Suth Gergia (SEJ) 35. Suth Indiana (NCJ) 36. Suthwest Texas (SCJ) 37. Virginia (SEJ) 38. West Ohi (NCJ) 39. West Michigan (NCJ) 40. West Virginia (NEJ) 41. Western New Yrk (NEJ) 42. Western Nrth Carlina (SEJ) 43. Wiscnsin (NCJ) 44. Wyming (NEJ) PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ORDINATION Deacn 26 (7.9%) Elder 302 (92.1%) EDUCATION Seminary Graduate 311 (94.5%) Curse f Study Graduate 12 (3.7%) Basic Graduate Thelgical Studies 6 (1.8%) AGE AT COMPLETION OF PROBATIONARY PROCESS Range 26 t 66 Mean 43.75 3
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS GENDER Female 155 (47.3%) Male 173 (52.7%) RACE Native American 2 r.6% Asian r Pacific Islander 11 r 3.4% African American 29 r 8.9% White 277 r 85.0% Hispanic/Latin/Latina 4 r 1.2% Multiracial 2 r.6% Other 1 r.3% (4 did nt specify a race) YEARS OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE UMC (OR PREDECESSOR DENOMINATIONS) AT TIME OF ORDINATION Range 2 t 62 years Mean 24.3 years YEARS OF MEMBERSHIP IN ANOTHER DENOMINATION PRIOR TO THE TIME OF ORDINATION Range 0 t 50 Mean 8.9 YEARS SPENT IN THE PROBATIONARY PROCESS Tw Years 48 (14.7%) Three Years 190 (58.1%) Mre than Three Years 89 (27.2%) PERCENTAGE OF PROBATIONER EXPERIENCING THE FOUR RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS (N=328) (N=324) 96% 94% (N=235) (N=251) (N=246) 71.6% 76.5% 75% DS SUPER. BOM SUPER. CONT. EDUC. MENTORING COV. GROUPS 4
COMBINATIONS OF THE FOUR COMPONENTS EXPERIENCED BY PROBATIONERS SUPERVISION MENTORING COV. GROUPS CONT. EDUC. % OF PROBATIONERS 41% 15% 14% 14% 6% 6% 2% <1% KEY COMPONENT INCLUDED IN PROBATIONER EXPERIENCE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FOUR COMPONENTS CONTRIBUTE TO PROBATIONERS GROWTH AND SUCCESS SUPERVISION BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT A great deal 15.9% [N= 52] Smewhat 32.0% [N= 105] Very little 28.9% [N= 95] Nt at all 23.2% [N= 76] SUPERVISION BY BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY A great deal 14.2% [N= 46] Smewhat 33.9% [N= 110] Very little 34.3% [N= 111] Nt at all 17.6% [N= 57] CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION A great deal 40.2% [N= 96] Smewhat 46.0% [N= 110] Very little 9.6% [N= 23] Nt at all 4.2% [N= 10] MENTORING A great deal 46.3% [N= 115] Smewhat 31.0% [N= 77] Very little 14.5% [N= 36] Nt at all 8.1% [N= 20] COVENANT GROUPS A great deal 40.4% [N= 99] Smewhat 41.6% [N= 102] Very little 15.1% [N= 37] Nt at all 2.9% [N= 7] A GREAT DEAL A GREAT DEAL AND SOMEWHAT COMBINED DS SUPER. BOM SUPER. CONT. EDUC. MENTORING COV. GROUPS 5
SUPERVISION BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT HOW OFTEN DID YOU RECEIVE SUPERVISION FROM YOUR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT? Less ften 64.7% (N=213).3% [N=1] Once a week.9% [N=3] Every ther week 10.9% [N=3] Once a mnth 4.6% [N=15] Every ther mnth 18.8% (N=62) Quarterly WAS THE TIME SPENT WITH YOUR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT...?.3% [N=3] T much T little 42.9% (N=139) 56.2% [N=182] Abut right HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE LEVEL OF TRUST PRESENT BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT DURING THE PROBATIONARY PROCESS? Lw [N=32] Mderate 9.8% 27.2% (N=89) 8.5% [N=28] Very lw 24.2% [N=79] Very high 30.3% [N=99] High 6
SUPERVISION BY BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY HOW OFTEN DID YOU RECEIVE SUPERVISION FROM YOUR BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY? Less ften 69.9% (N=228).3% [N=1] Once a week.6% [N=2] Every ther week 7.7% [N=25] Once a mnth 7.4% [N=24] Every ther mnth 14.1% (N=46) Quarterly WAS THE TIME SPENT WITH YOUR BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY...? 4.3% [N=14] T much T little 30.3% (N=98) 65.3% [N=211] Abut right HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE LEVEL OF TRUST PRESENT BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY DURING THE PROBATIONARY PROCESS? Lw [N=54] 16.5% 12.2% [N=40] Very lw 6.7% [N=22] Very high Mderate 38.5% (N=126) 26.0% [N=85] High 7
CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION HOW OFTEN DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION? Less ften 39.1% (N=91) 9.9% [N=23] Once a week 1.3% [N=3] Every ther week 8.6% [N=20] Once a mnth Quarterly 31.3% (N=73) 9.9% [N=22] Every ther mnth WAS THE TIME SPENT WITH CONTINUING EDUCATION...? T little 16.0% (N=38) 5.1% [N=12] T much Abut right 78.9% (N=187) HOW OFTEN WAS THE CHOICE OF CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION MADE BY YOU? Almst all the time 34.0% [N= 80] Mst f the time 20.0% [N= 47] Sme f the time 14.9% [N= 35] Rarely r never 31.1% [N= 73] HOW OFTEN WAS THE CHOICE OF CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY? Almst all the time 24.4% [N= 57] Mst f the time 13.7% [N= 32] Sme f the time 23.9% [N= 56] Rarely r never 38.0% [N= 89] WHEN THE SELECTION WAS MADE BY THE BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY, HOW OFTEN DID YOU HAVE INPUT INTO THE CHOICE OF TOPICS? Almst all the time 9.1% [N= 18] Mst f the time 8.1% [N= 16] Sme f the time 19.8% [N= 39] Rarely r never 62.9% [N=124] 8
WHO SPONSORED THE CONTINUING EDUCATION EVENTS IN WHICH YOU PARTICIPATED BY PERCENTAGE? BOM spnsred cntinuing educatin: 1-24% f the time 16.8% [N= 24] 25-49% f the time 17.5% [N= 25] 50-74% f the time 17.5% [N= 25] 75-99% f the time 18.2% [N= 26] 100% f the time 30.1% [N= 43] The mean (average) is 62%. The median (half mre, half less) is 70%. Cnference r district spnsred cntinuing educatin: 1-24% f the time 30.2% [N= 39] 25-49% f the time 24.8% [N= 32] 50-74% f the time 22.5% [N= 29] 75-99% f the time 12.2% [N= 17] 100% f the time 9.3% [N= 12] The mean (average) is 44%. The median (half mre, half less) is 33%. Seminary spnsred cntinuing educatin: 1-24% f the time 29.8% [N= 28] 25-49% f the time 23.4% [N= 22] 50-74% f the time 14.9% [N= 14] 75-99% f the time 11.7% [N= 11] 100% f the time 20.2% [N= 19] The mean (average) is 48%. The median (half mre, half less) is 33%. Fr thse indicating a percentage f their cntinuing educatin was spnsred by smene else, the mean (average) is 52%. The median (half mre, half less) is 50%. WHO PAID FOR YOUR CONTINUING EDUCATION BY PERCENTAGE? BOM, cnference r district paid fr cntinuing educatin: 1-24% f the time 15.8% [N= 24] 25-49% f the time 21.7% [N= 33] 50-74% f the time 24.3% [N= 37] 75-99% f the time 13.1% [N= 20] 100% f the time 25.0% [N= 38] The mean (average) is 58%. The median (half mre, half less) is 50%. Lcal church paid fr cntinuing educatin: 1-24% f the time 16.7% [N= 22] 25-49% f the time 18.9% [N= 25] 50-74% f the time 25.0% [N= 33] 75-99% f the time 21.2% [N= 28] 100% f the time 18.2% [N= 24] The mean (average) is 57%. The median (half mre, half less) is 50%. Persnal funds paid fr cntinuing educatin: 1-24% f the time 28.3% [N= 32] 25-49% f the time 20.4% [N= 23] 50-74% f the time 24.8% [N= 28] 75-99% f the time 10.6% [N= 12] 100% f the time 15.9% [N= 18] The mean (average) is 48%. The median (half mre, half less) is 50%. 9
MENTORING WAS THE MATCH BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR MENTOR GOOD? Yes 87.2% [N=212] N 12.8% [N= 31] DID YOU HAVE A ROLE IN SELECTING YOUR MENTOR? Yes 29.3% [N= 72] N 70.7% [N=174] HOW OFTEN DID YOU MEET/HAVE CONTACT WITH YOUR MENTOR? Less ften 14.6% (N=36) Quarterly 11.7% [N=29] Every ther mnth 18.2% (N=45) 4.0% [N=10] Once a week 4.0% [N=10] Every ther week 47.4% [N=117] Once a mnth WAS THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT WITH YOUR MENTOR...? T little 19.8% (N=49) 4.9% [N=12] T much Abut right 75.3% (N=186) DID YOU MEET WITH YOUR MENTOR ONE-ON-ONE OR DID MOST OF THE MENTORING TAKE PLACE WITH A GROUP? 11.1% [N=27] Primarily in a grup setting 88.8% [N=213] Primarily ne-n-ne HOW OFTEN DID THE MENTORING PROCESS HAVE CLARITY OF FOCUS BASED ON PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AND AGREED UPON ISSUES? Sme f the time [N=57] 22.9% Rarely r never 17.3% (N=43) 34.9% [N=87] Almst all the time Mst f the time 24.9% (N=62) 10
COVENANT GROUPS HOW OFTEN DID YOU ATTEND? Quarterly 11.1% [N=27] Every ther mnth 17.6% (N=43) 2.0% [N=5] Less ften 5.7% [N=14] Once a week 1.6% [N=4] Every ther week 61.9% [N=151] Once a mnth WAS THE TIME SPENT WITH YOUR GROUP? 5.3% [N=13] T little 9.1% [N=22] T much Abut right 85.6% (N=208) HOW MANY CANDIDATES WERE IN YOUR GROUP? 1-3 peple 16.8% [N= 32] 4-6 peple 31.6% [N= 60] 7-9 peple 24.7% [N= 47] 10-16 peple 25.8% [N= 49] 20 peple 0.5% [N= 1] 30 peple 0.5% [N= 1] The mean (average) is 7.3. The median (half mre, half fewer) is 7. The mde (mst cmmn number) is 8. HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL FACILITATION/LEADERSHIP FOR THE GROUP? Excellent 29.6% [N= 72] Gd 44.4% [N=108] Average 19.8% [N= 48] Pr 6.2% [N= 15] [N=33] Rarely r never HOW OFTEN DID YOUR COVENANT 13.7% GROUP FOCUS ON SPIRITUAL 8.3% FORMATION PRACTICES? [N=20] Almst all the time Sme f the time 56.4% (N=136) 21.6% [N=52] Mst f the time 11
HOW OFTEN DID YOUR COVENANT GROUP FOCUS ON SPECIFIC MINISTRY TOPICS? 3.6% [N=9] Rarely r never 8.2% [N=20] Almst all the time Sme f the time 40.4% (N=99) 47.8% [N=117] Mst f the time HOW OFTEN DID YOUR COVENANT GROUP FOCUS ON A COMBINATION OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION PRACTICES AND SPECIFIC MINISTRY TOPICS? 9.5% [N=23] Rarely r never Sme f the time 46.1% (N=112) 18.5% [N=45] Almst all the time 25.9% [N=63] Mst f the time 12
OBSERVATIONS FROM THESE RESULTS (fllwed by bservatins frm pen-ended questin, What else wuld yu like t add abut... OVERALL PROBATIONARY PROCESS Amng the jurisdictins, there were differences in tw cmpnents. In terms f the cntributin f cvenant grups, the Suth Central (3.48) and Western (3.47) jurisdictins scred significantly higher than the ther jurisdictins. In terms f the cntributin f cntinuing educatin, the Western (3.5) and Nrth Central (3.44) jurisdictins scred significantly higher than the ther jurisdictins n a 4.0 scale. There are wide variatins in results amng the varius annual cnferences since each cnference prgram is shaped smewhat differently frm thers. The nly significant difference between the respnses f men and wmen was the extent t which cntinuing educatin cntributed t grwth (3.36 fr wmen, 3.07 fr men) [t=2.83, p=.005*]. The nly racial grup ther than white with large enugh numbers t d fllw up analysis was African American. The nly significant difference between the respnses f African Americans and whites came n the extent t which cvenant grups cntributed t their grwth (2.7 fr African Americans and 3.22 fr whites) [t=2.76, p=.006]. There are n significant differences based n age. There are significant differences between deacns and elders in tw categries. The cntributin f supervisin by a district superintendent ranked 1.85 fr deacns and 2.45 fr elders [t=2.95, p=.007]. On the ther hand, mentring made a greater cntributin t deacns wh rated it 3.63 cmpared t 3.11 fr elders [t=2.1, p=.037]. There are n significant differences fr lifelng United Methdists cmpared t thse wh had fr a time been members f ther denminatins. There are n key differences between respndents that spent mre than three years in the prbatinary prcess and thse wh spent three years r less. Of thse rdained in the tw years under review (and wh returned surveys), 27% spent mre than three years in the prbatinary prcess. The prbatiners view f the prcess ranges frm extremely helpful t a waste f time. On the ne hand, there were cmments that the experience was helpful and meaningful. Fr thers, it was an experience t get thrugh, nt persnally meaningful, but jumping thrugh hps. Unclear expectatins can be a majr stumbling blck. When prbatiners clearly understand the purpse, prcess, timeline, and expectatins, there is a gd chance they will receive the experience well and benefit frm it. The quality f all aspects f the prbatinary prcess varies tremendusly. Smetimes respndents indicate that their cnference has devted serius attentin t a particular aspect f the prcess and that this is reflected in the quality f that particular cmpnent. Hwever, mre ften the respndents suggest that whether r nt the experience was psitive depended mre n the match, abilities, and interest f the assigned supervisr, mentr, r cvenant grup facilitatr. Sme indicate that three years is t lng. SUPERVISION Supervisin by a district superintendent and bard f rdained ministry is the nly cnsistently present cmpnent f the prbatinary prcess acrss cnferences. Hwever, supervisin by bth the district superintendent and bard f rdained ministry ranks abut the same, and last f the fur cmpnents, in the extent t which it cntributed t the prbatiner s grwth and success. 13
SUPERVISION (BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT) Where supervisin des cntribute, the level f trust between the prbatiner and the superintendent is the mst imprtant factr in determining supervisin s impact n the grwth and success f the prbatiner. [.621 Spearman Crrelatin*] Frtunately, prbatiners reprt high levels f trust. Over eighty percent reprt trust levels f very high, high, r mderate. Next in statistical significance is the frequency f supervisin. [.479 Spearman Crrelatin*] Twthirds f prbatiners reprt receiving supervisin frm their superintendent less ften than quarterly. Over frty percent feel the time spent with their superintendent is t little. Cmments als indicate a desire fr the district superintendent t be mre invlved with the prbatiners and the prbatinary prcess. District Superintendent supervisin greatly depends n the relatinship between the superintendent and the prbatiner. Prbatiners that had a psitive experience felt supprted by their superintendents. Thse wh were nt psitive abut the experience primarily discussed the lack f cntact r neglect suggesting it was nt really supervisin. There was a general theme that the superintendent did nt have the time and that the rle was unclear and pssibly inapprpriate. Several prbatiners indicated that they did nt knw the superintendent was suppsed t be their supervisr, r that the superintendent did nt understand that rle. The mst cmmn pattern appears t be that the superintendent relates t clergy in the prbatinary prcess in the same way they relate t all clergy in the district, thus prviding what mst prbatiners see mre as availability than adequate supervisin. Prbatiners tend t see a systemic prblem rather than a lack f interest n the part f the superintendent. There is a feeling that superintendents have nt been alerted t the imprtance f this supervisry rle fr prbatiners and have nt been prvided with adequate mdels and training fr the task. SUPERVISION (BY BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY - BOM) Where supervisin des cntribute, the level f trust between the prbatiner and the bard is the mst imprtant factr in determining supervisin s impact n the grwth and success f the prbatiner. [.643 Spearman Crrelatin*] Trust levels reprted by prbatiners are nt as high fr bards as they are fr district superintendents. Next in statistical significance is the frequency f supervisin. [.468 Spearman Crrelatin*] Seventy percent f prbatiners reprt receiving supervisin frm their bards less ften than quarterly, thugh sixty-five percent are satisfied with the amunt f time spent with their bards. Thirty percent want mre time. Sme had a psitive, supprtive experience and fr thers the experience was negative. Cncern was viced that the BOM evaluated but did nt supervise. There was als cncern that the evaluatin was based n limited cntact with and knwledge f the prbatiner. The bard supervisin prcess can be intimidating and smetimes adversarial. The interviews are high stake events. Expectatins smetimes seem unclear r arbitrary. The baseline expectatins prbatiners want mst frm bards are gd administratin f the prcess and gd interviews. 14
CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION Mst cnferences include cntinuing thelgical educatin in their prbatinary prgrams. (72%) Thse wh experience cntinuing thelgical educatin find it t be the mst helpful f the fur recmmended cmpnents cntributing t their grwth when a great deal and smewhat respnses are cmbined (86%). Where cntinuing thelgical educatin cntributes, the mst imprtant factr in determining its psitive impact is whether the selectin f the tpic was made by the prbatiner. [.372 Spearman Crrelatin*] Over fifty percent reprt that they selected the tpics almst all the time r mst f the time. Having input n the tpics als has a significant psitive crrelatin. [.325 Spearman Crrelatin*] There is ne negative crrelatin (meaning a factr making it less likely that the cntinuing educatin will cntribute t grwth). When the selectin f tpics is made by the bard with n input frm prbatiners, there is a negative crrelatin f -.230 Spearman Crrelatin*. Thirtyeight percent f prbatiners reprt that their bards selected the tpics almst all the time r mst f the time. Only seventeen percent reprt that, when the tpics were selected by the bard f rdained ministry, they had input int the chice f tpics almst all the time r mst f the time. Frequency f participatin in cntinuing educatin events breaks dwn rughly in thirds with ne-third participating quarterly, ne-third less ften than quarterly, and ne-third mre ften than quarterly. Hwever frequently they participate, prbatiners feel that their frequency is abut right. Frequency f participatin is nt a majr factr in cntinuing educatin s cntributin t grwth. [.192 Spearman Crrelatin*] There is n single pattern regarding wh spnsrs the cntinuing educatin events in which prbatiners participate. Mst participate in a range f events spnsred by bards f rdained ministry, cnference, district, seminaries, and ther prviders. While the largest single grup f events is spnsred by cnference bards, all surces have significant participatin by prbatiners. Less than ne in five prbatiners either has cntinuing educatin expenses paid 100% by thers r must pay 100% f the cst themselves. Mst fund their cntinuing educatin thrugh sme cmbinatin f lcal church, bard, cnference, r district funds. Cmments tend t indicate a satisfactin with seminary educatin but a reluctance t repeat the thelgical disciplines during the prbatinary perid. Virtually all the suggestins fr cntent fcused n functinal aspects f ministry. Cntinuing educatin is a strng value fr prbatiners, but fr sme it presented a challenge in terms f balancing wrk lad and time devted t cntinuing educatin. Sme pursued mst f their cntinuing educatin n their wn apart frm the prbatinary prcess. A desire fr mre chice and input int the tpics selected was viced. Prbatiners want cntinuing educatin that is directly relevant t their ministries and that des nt repeat their seminary educatin. MENTORING Wrking with a mentr during the prbatinary prcess is cmmn. (73%) Mentring ranks first amng the fur cmpnents in the extent t which it cntributed a great deal t the prbatiner s grwth and success. When thse respnded a great deal and smewhat are cmbined (77%) and cmpared with the ther cmpnents, mentring falls behind cntinuing educatin (86%) and cvenant grups (82%) There is a statistically significant difference in the extent t which mentring cntributes t grwth and success between deacns and elders (deacns 3.63 cmpared t elder s 3.11 n a 4.0 scale) [t = 2.1, p =.037] 15
Where mentring des cntribute, the mst imprtant factr in determining the impact f mentring n the grwth and success f the prbatiner was the clarity f fcus n previusly identified issues. [.625 Spearman Crrelatins*] Sixty percent reprt that there is such a clarity f fcus almst all the time r mst f the time. Anther statistically significant predictr fr success f mentring was frequency f cntact with the mentr. [.523 Spearman Crrelatins*] Abut ne-half met with their mentrs mnthly with mst f the ther half meeting less ften than mnthly. Seventy-five percent reprt the time spent with mentrs t be abut right. Mst f the thers desire mre time. As ne wuld expect, having a gd match between the prbatiner and the mentr is a key variable. Where prbatiners indicated the match was gd, they felt that mentring cntributed t their grwth and success at a rank f 3.4 (n a 4.0 scale), cmpared t a ranking f 1.6 by prbatiners wh felt there was nt a gd match. [p = d.001**] Frtunately, almst ninety percent reprt a gd match. Prbatiners having a rle in the selectin f the mentr is als statistically significant. Fr thse wh had a rle, their ranking fr mentring cntributing t their grwth and success was 3.46 cmpared t 3.04 fr thse wh did nt have a rle. [p=.002**] Just under thirty percent reprt having a rle in the selectin f a mentr. Whether prbatiners received mentring ne-n-ne r in a grup was nt statistically significant. Thse in ne-n-ne mentring rated the mentring cntributin t their grwth and success as 3.16 cmpared t 3.19 fr thse invlved in grup mentring. [p=.902**] It appears that the mentr cnnectin is the prime relatinship fr the prbatiner in terms f reflecting n ministry. What is imprtant is that there is regular, meaningful, effective cmmunicatin between prbatiner and mentr. When that happens, the experience is successful and effective. Mentring is verwhelmingly psitive fr mst. Mentring is ften cited as the mst helpful part f the prbatinary prcess. The match is imprtant. Mentring was mre effective when the mentrs were clear abut their rle and valued the prcess. While prbatiners wuld like t have input int the selectin f mentrs, the larger cncern may be that quality, fit, and willingness be the key criteria fr assignment f mentrs. Stability in the relatinship is smetimes a prblem. A few had multiple mentrs during the prcess. Smetimes this was gd and smetimes bad. Sme received mentrship fr nly a prtin f the prbatinary prcess. COVENANT GROUPS Participatin in a cvenant grup is cmmn. (75%) The median size f a grup is seven, meaning that half the prbatiners were in smaller grups and half in larger grups. The average size fr a grup was 7.3 participants. The single size grup reprted mst ften by prbatiners was eight participants. The largest grup had thirty members. There was n relatinship fund between the cvenant grup size and hw much the cvenant grup cntributed t their grwth. Cvenant grups rank high in their cntributin t the prbatiner s grwth (82% when a great deal and smewhat respnses are cmbined). Where cvenant grups d cntribute, the mst imprtant factr in determining the cvenant grup s impact n the grwth and success f the prbatiner is the quality f the facilitatin. [.592 Spearman Crrelatin*] Abut three-furths f prbatiners rated the facilitatin f their grups as excellent r gd. Als imprtant t the success f cvenant grups is the cmbinatin f a fcus n spiritual frmatin and ministry tpics. [.425 Spearman Crrelatin*] Frty-fur percent f prbatiners reprted being in grups that cmbined these tw features almst all the time r mst f the time. 16
When the fcus is nly n spiritual frmatin practices, there is still a high crrelatin with cntributin t the prbatiner grwth. [.413 Spearman Crrelatin*] Thirty percent f prbatiners reprt being in grups where the fcus was nly n spiritual frmatin practices almst all the time r mst f the time. Hwever, when the cvenant grups fcus nly n ministry tpics withut spiritual frmatin practices, the crrelatin t prbatiner grwth is less. [nly.206 Spearman Crrelatin*] Fifty-six percent f prbatiners describe participatin in such grups almst all the time r mst f the time. Mst grups meet mnthly (ver 60%, with mst f the thers meeting less ften). Meeting mre frequently des nt seem t make much difference. [.182 Spearman Crrelatin*] Almst all prbatiners (ver 85%) feel the time spent in cvenant grups is abut right. Participatin in cvenant grups seemed t be a psitive experience. The mst psitive utcme f the cvenant grups was the develpment f supprtive relatinships that ften were sustained beynd the prbatinary perid. Islatin is ften an experience f the prbatinary perid, and cvenant grups ften prvide a needed cnnectin with clleagues. There was a great deal f variability in the quality f the facilitatrs. A cmmn cmplaint is a lack f leadership and directin fr the grups. Fr sme, this hindered the value f the cvenant grups; fr thers, the relatinships frmed utweighed the pr facilitatin. Grups were generally less successful when there was a lack f cntinuity in the membership. Lgistics, such as driving distance, were smetimes a prblem. Grups were less successful when they lacked fcus r became cmplaint sessins. When the spiritual frmatin dimensin f the grups is lst, the value f the grups t participants drps significantly. NOTES *The Spearman Crrelatin is ne index t determine the statistical significance f a variable. The fllwing reference may help the reader get a sense f the significance f the numbers used in the Spearman Crrelatin. As with all effect size indices, there is n gd answer t the questin, What value indicates a strng relatinship between tw variables? What is large r small depends n the discipline within which the research questin is being asked. Hwever, fr the behaviral sciences, crrelatin cefficients f.10,.30 and.50, are by cnventin interpreted as small, medium and large cefficients, respectively. S. B. Green and N. J. Salkind, Using SPSS fr Windws and Macintsh: Analyzing and Understanding Data: Third Editin. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003), 240. **A t-test is used t examine the difference between tw grups. The t-value represents the sampling distributin fr the differences between the mean scres f the tw grups. The p-value indicates the prbability that the difference fund between the tw grups is nt a real difference but a chance difference. In the behaviral sciences, the decisin rule typically fllws that an acceptable level f chance is when p <.05. When p =.05 this means that there is a 95% chance that the difference is a true difference between the grups, r 5% likelihd that the difference is due t chance. 17
KEY THEMES FROM FIVE YEARS OF PROBATIONARY SURVEYS (1999-2003) 1. TRUST The establishment f trust amng all participants is fundatinal fr a psitive and frmative prbatinary experience. Where trust is established, prgrams are viewed as helpful. Withut trust, anxiety and fear dminate the experience. Wrking against trust between prbatiners and BOMs are: lack f directin t the prcess incnsistency in dealing with candidates failure t select, train, and hld leaders accuntable lack f regular cmmunicatin with prbatiners The bard interview prcess itself was fund t be helpful fr sme, but prblematic fr many prbatiners. Keeping needs f prbatiners in the frefrnt can help avid the jumping thrugh hps cmplaint. 2. LEADERSHIP After the establishment f mutual trust, the quality f the leadership f the varius cmpnents f the prbatinary prcess is critical. This is mst true fr mentrs. It is als true fr cvenant grup facilitatrs, cntinuing thelgical educatin leaders, interview team leaders, and district superintendents. Selectin f the right leaders fr the right tasks is essential. Enhanced training is needed. Mre guidance, directin, and structure are needed fr cvenant grups. Leaders must be caring, available, and accuntable. 3. PRACTICAL Engage and utilize ministry experiences in all cmpnents f the prcess. 4. RELATIONSHIPS Building a cmmunity f supprt and friendship is seen as ne f the mst significant results f the prbatinary years. Retreats and cvenant grups are repeatedly named as ccasins fr establishing and sustaining relatinships. Imprtant and lasting relatinships with mentrs and district superintendents are ften established during these years. 18
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROCESS AS A WHOLE The building f trust amng all participants must be the initial primary gal fr the prcess since all else depends n the establishment f trust. A system t measure imprvement in the trust level is needed. A part f the initial trust building is devting adequate time t interpreting the prbatinary prcess as a jurney frm readiness t effectiveness s that candidates cme t see the prcess as smething fr them. Frm the beginning f the prcess, allw prbatiner input int the cntent f the prgram. Test every aspect f a cnference s prgram by the standard f mving candidates frm readiness t effectiveness, thus viewing every cmpnent frm the prbatiner s perspective. Bards f rdained ministry need t mnitr these key elements f trust building: Sense f caring and encuragement by emphasizing quality f relatinships Cnsistent quality in all aspects f the prcess Cmmunicate regularly and ften Hld all leaders accuntable Find ways t invlve district superintendents mre extensively thrughut the prcess. The findings are encuraging because: Mst cnferences are ding what they are suppsed t d. Prbatin appears wrth the time given t it. SUPERVISION Supervisin shuld be a much mre psitive cntributr t the prbatiner s grwth than it is currently. While supervisin is mandated and perating, this cmpnent f the prcess appears t be the ne that is least understd in terms f gals and respnsibilities, as well as the least effective cmpnent. SUPERVISON BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT If superintendents can d nly ne thing special in relatinship t prbatiners during a year, it shuld be t visit them at a time when the prbatiner is functining in ministry ther than Charge Cnference. The next mst imprtant thing t d is t have a sessin with each prbatiner each year at which gals fr the cming year are set by the prbatiner in cnsultatin with the superintendent and the previus year s gals are reviewed. 19
If the rle and expectatins f superintendents in the prbatinary prcess have nt been delineated, the cabinet and BOM shuld develp a prcess t clarify rles and expectatins. Despite the best intentins, this is ne f the weakest parts f the prbatinary prcess. With all their many respnsibilities, superintendents must have standard prcedures r at least minimal expectatins s time with prbatiners is built int their year-lng planning. Training in supervisin needs t be prvided fr superintendents. SUPERVISON BY BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY The develpment f clear and specific criteria that the bard will use at each stage in the prcess t make judgments will alleviate sme prbatinary cncern. Prbatiners need t knw assessment criteria. Make sure that bard members fully understand the entire rdinatin prcess. Make sure the bard has a clearly utlined prgram fr the prbatinary prcess, and that the prgram and its ratinale are cmmunicated early and regularly t all prbatiners. Strive fr cnsistency in dealing with all prbatiners. Give great care and time t the selectin f all leaders wh will wrk with prbatiners, including cvenant grup facilitatrs, mentrs, and interview teams. Cmmunicate, cmmunicate, and cmmunicate. Give particular attentin t the interview prcess in terms f preparatin, cmmunicatin, prcess, and training. Arrange n-site visits, preferably at a time when the prbatiner can be bserved engaging in ministry leadership. (At least ne cnference has used trained lay visitatin teams quite effectively.) Prvide enhanced training fr everyne engaged in prbatinary prcess leadership rles. Encurage cllabratin between the bard and cabinet, and prvide new district superintendent rientatin and training fr their respnsibilities related t prbatiners. CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION Make sure quality cntinuing educatin based n needs identified by the bard and prbatiners is available, and that the prbatiners participate regularly in cntinuing educatin thrughut the prbatinary prcess. Give thanks fr hw well this cmpnent tends t be ging, but review the educatinal cmpnents t avid duplicatin with seminary wrk and t put the emphasis n practical issues that relate t the prbatiners needs. Allw prbatiners t have input fr the selectin f tpics. 20
MENTORING Put mentring frnt and center in the prbatinary prcess. By the accunt f survey respndents, mentring is likely the area where the greatest difference can be made in the lives and ministries f prbatiners. Enhanced training fr mentrs is the mst identified need by far. Make sure mentrs are assigned, trained, and functining frm the beginning f the prbatinary prcess. The three keys t successful mentring prgrams appear t be: selectin f the right mentrs adequate training with the rles f the mentr and prbatiner clearly defined accuntability The three keys t a successful mentring relatinship appear t be: establishment f a relatinship f mutual trust and respect meeting regularly and ften fcusing n a mutually agreed upn agenda f tpics fr the sessins Gd mentrs shuld be able t: serve as a psitive rle mdel share infrmatin that will help the prbatiner grw in effectiveness give guidance in the prbatiner s cngregatinal, cnference, and denminatinal ministry develpment COVENANT GROUPS Effective cvenant grups are very imprtant t the prbatinary experience. Cvenant grups mst need quality leadership and directin. Give greater attentin t the selectin, training, and supprt f facilitatrs; and cnsider establishing recmmended structures and guidelines fr the grups. A mdel that appears t wrk well fr cvenant grups cmbines the practice f spiritual disciplines alng with reflectin n tpics and issues ut f the prbatiners experience. 21
STUDY AUTHOR Lvett H. Weems, Jr., is distinguished prfessr f church leadership and funding directr f the G. Duglass Lewis Center fr Church Leadership at Wesley Thelgical Seminary in Washingtn, DC. At the time f the inceptin f this research prject he was president and prfessr f church leadership at Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy in Kansas City, Missuri, where he served fr eighteen years. A frmer lcal church pastr and bard f rdained ministry member in tw annual cnferences, he is the authr f several bks n church leadership. He may be reached by email at lvettw@wesleysem.edu. OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STUDY Rbert K. Martin, Ph.D., assciate prfessr f cngregatinal leadership at Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy, is directr f the Lilly Prject t Imprve Cngregatinal Pastral Leadership at Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy and a cnsultant t this research prject. Amy Reiter, a United Methdist deacn, is a cnsultant t the prject. She was the riginal crdinatr f the Lilly Prject t Imprve Cngregatinal Pastral Leadership and is nw n the staff f the United Church f Canada. Tana Brwn, Ph.D., is the statistical cnsultant fr the prject. Je Arnld, executive assistant at the Lewis Center fr Church Leadership, crdinated the survey and cllectin f data. Michelle Jhnsn, Ph.D., served as research assistant fr a prtin f the prject. Mary Ann Mman, assciate general secretary, and Anita D. Wd, directr f prfessinal ministry develpment, were the liaisns with the Divisin f Ordained Ministry f the General Bard f Higher Educatin and Ministry fr the prject. A number f grups cntributed thrugh review f the survey instruments and findings. They include members f the Clergy Mentr Resurce Team, Divisin f Ordained Ministry staff, Netwrk f Cnference Ordained Ministry Staff, and the Educatin fr Appinted Ministry Cnsultatin that brught tgether cnference leaders frm the Nrth Central Jurisdictin at Garrett-Evangelical Thelgical Seminary. 22
Prbatinary Prcess Survey f Recent Ordinands A Cllabrative Research Prject f Saint Paul Schl f Thelgy and the G. Duglass Lewis Center fr Church Leadership at Wesley Thelgical Seminary SUPERVISION During the prbatinary perid, supervisin is t be prvided by bth the District Superintendent and the Bard f Ordained Ministry. Supervisin may include meetings, interviews, reviews, and annual reprts. 1. Hw ften did yu receive supervisin frm yur District Superintendent? nce a week every ther week nce a mnth every ther mnth quarterly less ften 2. Was the time spent with yur District Superintendent t much abut right t little 3. T what extent did supervisin by yur District Superintendent cntribute t yur grwth and success? a great deal smewhat very little nt at all 4. Hw wuld yu assess the level f trust present between yu and yur District Superintendent during the prbatinary prcess? very high high mderate lw very lw 5. What else wuld yu like t add abut yur experience f supervisin by yur District Superintendent during the prbatinary prcess? 6. Hw ften did yu receive supervisin frm yur Bard f Ordained Ministry? nce a week every ther week nce a mnth every ther mnth quarterly less ften 7. Was the time spent with yur Bard f Ordained Ministry t much abut right t little 8. T what extent did supervisin by yur Bard f Ordained Ministry cntribute t yur grwth and success? a great deal smewhat very little nt at all 9. Hw wuld yu assess the level f trust present between yu and yur bard f rdained ministry during the prbatinary prcess? very high high mderate lw very lw 10. What else wuld yu like t add abut yur experience f supervisin by yur Bard f Ordained Ministry during the prbatinary prcess? COVENANT GROUPS During the prbatinary perid, sme cnferences use cvenant grups f cmmissined ministers as ne cmpnent f training/frmatin f clergy. Cvenant grups prvide encuragement, pprtunities fr reflectin and vcatinal discernment, as well as the frmatin f habits and practices f cvenant ministry. 11. During the prbatinary perid did yu participate in a cvenant grup? yes n 23
Answer questins 12 20 nly if yu attended a cvenant grup. 12. Hw ften did yu attend? nce a week every ther week nce a mnth every ther mnth quarterly less ften 13. Was the time spent with yur cvenant grup t much abut right t little 14. Hw many candidates were in yur cvenant grup? 15. Hw wuld yu rate the verall facilitatin/leadership fr the grup? excellent gd average pr 16. Hw ften did yur cvenant grup fcus n spiritual frmatin practices? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 17. Hw ften did the cvenant grup fcus n specific ministry tpics? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 18. Hw ften did yur cvenant grup fcus n a cmbinatin f spiritual frmatin practices and specific ministry tpics? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 19. T what extent did the cvenant grup cntribute t yur grwth and success? a great deal smewhat very little nt at all 20. What else wuld yu like t add abut yur experience f cvenant grups during the prbatinary prcess? CONTINUING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION During the prbatinary perid, sme cnferences use cntinuing thelgical educatin as ne cmpnent f training/ frmatin f clergy. Cntinuing thelgical educatin can include study grups, self-directed study, cnferences r classes ffered by a seminary r ther educatinal agency. 21. During the prbatinary perid did yu receive cntinuing thelgical educatin? yes n Answer questins 22 30 nly if yu received cntinuing thelgical educatin. 22. Hw ften did yu participate in cntinuing thelgical educatin? nce a week every ther week nce a mnth every ther mnth quarterly less ften 23. Was the time spent with cntinuing educatin t much abut right t little 24. Hw ften was the selectin f yur cntinuing thelgical educatin made by yu? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 25. Hw ften was the selectin f yur cntinuing thelgical educatin made by the Bard f Ordained Ministry? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 26. When the selectin was made by the Bard f Ordained Ministry, hw ften did yu have input int the chice f tpics? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 27. Wh spnsred the cntinuing educatin events in which yu participated by percentage? BOM % Cnference r district % Seminaries % Other spnsrs (please name with percentage): 24
28. Wh paid fr yur cntinuing educatin by percentage? BOM, Cnference, r district % Lcal church % Persnal funds % Other surces (please name with percentage): 29. T what extent did cntinuing thelgical educatin cntribute t yur grwth and success? a great deal smewhat very little nt at all 30. What else wuld yu like t add abut yur experience f cntinuing educatin during the prbatinary prcess? MENTORING During the prbatinary perid, sme cnferences use mentring as ne cmpnent f training/frmatin f clergy. Mentring is cnducted thrugh a ne-t-ne cvenant relatinship that prvides supprt, accuntability, cunsel, and grwth in Christian maturity. 31. During the prbatinary perid did yu receive mentring? yes n Answer questins 32 39 nly if yu received mentring. 32. Was the match between yu and yur mentr gd? yes n 33. Did yu have a rle in the selectin f yur mentr? yes n 34. Hw ften did yu meet with yur mentr? nce a week every ther week nce a mnth every ther mnth quarterly less ften 35. Was the time spent with yur mentr t much abut right t little 36. Did yu meet with yur mentr ne-n-ne r did mst f the mentring take place with a grup? primarily ne-n-ne primarily in a grup setting 37. Hw ften did the mentring prcess have a clarity f fcus based n previusly identified and agreed upn issues? almst all f the time mst f the time sme f the time rarely r never 38. T what extent did mentring cntribute t yur grwth and success? a great deal smewhat very little nt at all 39. What else wuld yu like t add abut yur experience f mentring during the prbatinary prcess? Overall Experience f the Prbatinary Perid 40. What else wuld yu like t say abut yur experience in the prbatinary perid? 25