Clergy Counseling and Consultation
June 12th, 2009An amendment to the 2010 budget was presented by the Commission on Clergy Counseling and Consultation that generated heartfelt discussion on the floor of Conference yesterday morning. The amendment would have restored $63,300 to budget line item 45 to which the 2008 Annual Conference had allotted $158,720. After reviewing a standing vote, the bishop ruled that the amendment was defeated.
We will probably see more clergy leaving and more on disability as a result of this disastrous decision.
I am afraid that this decision is one more sign that many people the mental health issues and diseases are not “real.” Additionally, we have lost out on the opportunity to be served by someone who knows the unique lives of clergy people. I am sad about our decision. It seems that once again we are living out of scarcity rather than abundance and that we are worshiping money rather than God.
Denial is a river in Egypt – right? Living on incapacity leave is devastating to self-esteem and pastoral identity. Maybe by ruling this amendment as defeated we can make room for some young and healthy clergy – until they need some help too!
If we had seen this ministry as a true extension of what God was doing among and for those of whom so much is asked and required, would the vote have been different? Even the Good Shepherd was known to rest on occasion. Where do our human Shepherds turn now?
Right on David!!! BTW, once this is gone more people can go to other clergy crisis places in NC and nearby that are also listed on this site and my own page. Lately, Those have been getting more visits than the link to Jane Clark.
I believe time will prove that eliminating the clergy counseling program, and losing the counselor who has served so faithfully and with such insight into the needs of clergy, was one of the biggest mistakes the North Carolina Conference has ever made. This service has been urgently needed since its inception. Now, with the economic situation as it is, creating more stress on clergy (with personal circumstances and in dealing with problems faced by those they serve), it will be needed more than ever. May God provide a way where the Conference won’t.
Apart from a ridiculously lengthy discussion over minute details of our new Conference building, this had to be the most uninformed and dumbest decision made all week long. Let me remind you: not one single alternative to the CCCS was offered by the opponents to this service–apart from a lot of hot air about some elusive support systems already in place. Oh really?
Apparently we allowed CFA to convince us that clergy well-being isn’t worth
a mere 1% of our annual budget and that our conference health insurance is in a better position to determine who our mental health provider should be. Lord help us, for we are a stiff-necked people.
How can we speak of the “Clergy Health Initiative” with pride, though it will have very little direct impact for the vast majority of us, and at the same time abolish one of the most helpful and most needed programs related to the health of our clergy? Just as the Conference has abandoned MERCI, we are now signaling that the well being of our clergy is not a priority. Has anyone read Matthew 25 lately?
Having deep appreciation for the leadership team that brought this before Annual Conference, I am saddened by what I ses as short-sightedness in their report and with the Conference vote. This was a theological statement. It was couched in stewardship language but was actually a theological commentary on the state of clergy health…mental, physical, and spiritual, and where it ranks on the radar of the North Carolina Annual Conference. Hmmm…love God, love neighbor, “as you love yourself.” It is difficult to draw from an empty well.
Care for clergy has not been abandoned. It will now need to be done through our conference insurance plan. The conference also offers funds to cover costs not covered by the insurance plan through an application submitted by the physician (providing only a case number and none of our personal information). The conference understands those in need as “real” and the care provided to them as ministry. It simply seems to be poor stewardship to have these needs provided for in the conference insurance plan and offer additional grant funds to any in need to defray costs not covered by insurance at the same time paying a full time salary to someone offering identical services. If Jane Clark is still your mental health provider of choice, please continue to use her and have her services paid for through the conference insurance plan.
What a disappointment! Here is a service that supports clergy and clergy family members. Also, this service is being led by a person of high competence and a deep acquaintence with the context of pastoral ministry. Frankly, in this instance I don’t think the leadership of the conference including CF & A know what they are doing. This is just another decision that speaks volumes about the ” non-care ” of the institution of the church. I hope a movement starts now to restore this service at the annual conference next year with immediate funding! I hope that every district superintendent and the bishop’s office reads my comments. If there was a way to appeal this decision I would advocate for it immediately. May the Clergy Counseling and Consultation Service navigate to a place of favor with our conference and today would not be soon enough.
I have no desire to moderate my statement.
James,
The grant provided by the grant is peanuts for clergy and their families in need. Frankly, the Duke Clergy Health Initiative only has enough money to last a very short time. Where will the money come from then? It’s time to think outside of the institutional church box and find help in para church clergy crisis ministries like Pastor Care and others who have been doing this for clergy and their families for years.
I’m glad this topic has attracted so many comments.
The insurance provisions were in place I believe when Bishop Edwards and his team gave consideration to this matter and brought this before the Annual Conference. The criteria for their initial recommendation went well beyond the insurance provisions at that time. If the initial recommendation on this matter were limited to the insurance plan then it would have never been proposed to begin with much less agreed upon by the annual conference. One thing that needs to be remembered is that there are clergy along with their family members that do not have insurance offered by the conference. There was quite a bit of research that went into this initial recommendation. Research it seems that has been set aside for budgetary limits. It is a matter of usefulness, values and perceptions. It is really hard for me to believe that Bishop Edwards and his team were involved in poor stewardship. The services offered by CCCC are not identical. In many ways these services have unique qualities.If you think they are then you enter the realm of comparison of different modalities which is a stretch in itself.
This decision brings great sadness to me because
this ministry is vital, effective, profound and God’s gift to this
conference. Jane Clark Moorman is uniquely qualified to
councel and consult with UM clergy and their families.
Frankly I do not understand and I cannot comprehend
this decision when the need is so great.
Yes we need “Healty congregations” but that will not happen
until our clergy are also healthy, and they cannot be “effective”
until they are healthy. God help us.
John,
I’m not sure you and I are talking about the same grant funding. The funding I’m speaking of is through the conference and not Duke (from what I understand – and I have been known to be wrong… at least that one time back in ‘84). From what I’ve been told, the funding offered to help cover any copays/etc. related to mental health was hardly used by the conference clergy. Those in the know sat around a table trying to figure out how to get the word out about the financial assistance.
Think about this; a pastor is in crisis, a pastor is in depression-
is she willing and able to look for a provider? if one knows of the true
nature of depression and other mental health issues one knows
that one is often not able nor willing (because of fear of stereotyping)
to look for a provider. The ministry provided by Jane Clark Moorman
was accessbile unlike any other. This is what the opponents do not get.
James,
We are talking about the same funding. The conference committee on pastoral care offers anonymous grants for clergy and their family via the application sent in by their therapist or psychiatrist. It is hard for me to believe this gets little use when its availability is in the conference journal every year. I bet many on incapacity leave with depression or bipolar disorder know about this fund and are using it. What I mean by calling it peanuts is that it’s only a maximum of $400 per family.
Also, what I was trying to say about the Duke Clergy Health Initiative is that once it is launched in full form and all of the money is spent, there are not any plans to keep it funded.
We were very saddened to witness this decision as well. Jane Clark Moorman has not only been a valid and reliable resource for clergy families in our Conference (I know of quite a few), but she has been a great resource for pastors and their spouses as they minister to their congregations. We’ve often solicited her assistance in identifying local counseling resources and referrals for congregants in need.
Roger,
RE: Your comment about moderating your statement.
The blogging program we used on this blog automatically tells you that your comment is waiting to be “moderated.” What that means is that the software sent your comment to me and Derek Leek who are “moderators” of the blog. Perhaps moderator is not the best term, because it might imply some kind of editing process. We’re more like administrators. When your comments came to us, we knew that they weren’t abusive, obscene, etc. So we “moderated” them by “approving” them, which means they were posted to the site exactly as you wrote them. It’s in no way a request to you to moderate or modify or retract your statement. Thank you for contributing to the online discussions.
-Taylor Mills
Thank you Taylor for your clarity. That was a first for me on this site and it came across that moderation was in order. If the process you describe is a given and it sounds that way from your description it may be that another term could be used that does not imply editing. I think all of us are engaged in semantics from time to time and this is a good example. Thank you again for your precise explanation. Roger Armistead
John,
you may find it hard to believe that the grants are not being used as often as you may think, but that’s the truth. I don’t want to believe it either and want to figure out how we can make those funds more easily accessible or more widely known.
Donald,
I understand what you’re saying about depression. I struggle with it myself and take medication for it everyday. Before being diagnosed, I didn’t want to speak to a professional so I completely understand your concerns but when my wife pushed me to get help and I made the choice to get help, mental health services in my community were completely accessible and quick to help. I understand the comfort many may feel with Jane Clark because I’ve also been her patient and I care for dearly. If someone stills wants to see Jane Clark after January 1, what obstacles to do you see in them continuing to see her as a BCBS provider?
james
thank you for your comment.
It is just the point that this ministry was offered by the conference….
which made a huge statement that we care enough for our clergy
and recognize the need for such a ministry that we the annual
conference will pay for it…..
I believe we should go exactly the opposite direction of
voting to end this conference ministry….we should expand it.
I do not understand….I am perplexed as to why such a small
part of our conference budget which gives so much back for the
buck has been ended.
thank you
Taylor
Have you noticed the amount of blogging on this issue
versus the other issues?
Is there a way to communicate this reality to the powers
that be?
thanks