The second day...well, the second day for actually writing something. Continuity is difficult if one is organizationally challenged or, if one's computers are found out to be doing odd things or, if one has forgotten exactly where one has put one's blog and how it can be accessed. I am here now--In regards to the position I spoke about in the last post, I was not short-listed for the position, and if it is anything like being short-sheeted, I am ok with that. In honesty, I was disappointed, but the church was definitely program sized and I know that I would be far more effective and comfortable in a smaller parish. I was blues-ed out for about half an hour and then picked myself up. I sincerely believe that the divine has put this out there in my life and I had better keep going until the ministry that needs me and I that I need presents itself.
I contacted another diocese for permission to apply to postings and was granted permission. At this point I have two applications there for very different ministries.

In its own way, this has been a growing edge. Procedures are very different from my current diocese. When one applies for a job here, one phones or writes the bishop who has oversight of the position and forwards a current C.V. and record of education document. The bishop then considers who s/he thinks is suitable for the position and those people are the only applicants the parish sees. One assumes that the bishop is in contact with the archdeacon--and that may or may not be a good thing. Unless one is chosen by the parish, not a whisper is heard; no letter or note of receipt, no letter of rejection--nothing--one realizes after the announcement comes out on the diocesan mail that one is out of luck. After a couple of these, one begins to sense one's worth to the hierarchy. Pastoral care be damned.

In New Zealand, after expressing interest to the Diocesan bishop, the applicant is sent a copy of the parish profile and the parish statistics. One parish included a recent demographic study of the area done by the towns that are home to the parish. The applicant must then respond to the profile as well as supply a reflection of ministry. Along with the C.V., police check, photograph and names and contact information of references, these documents are sent to the Diocesan bishop. These are then read by a committee in both the diocesan office and parish and the references are contacted. All of them.

I like this process.
Firstly, I felt that I really had a chance for someone to take a look at me. Here, I do not believe that our bishops really know us, and there are some very understandable reasons for that. In my opinion they are generally overworked and under appreciated. For the most part they can only go by the quick encounters that they have with their priests, and the opinions of others who have contact with them. Because most of the priests work outside of Mecca, and are therefore seen infrequently, much of our bishop's knowledge of their representatives is either hearsay or impersonal sound bytes, neither of which offer a real picture of the priest. I respect for our Bishops' quick intervention when a priest is in mental, physical or spiritual distress, but that snapshot is not the picture that most of us want the Bishop to have.
Secondly, I really feel that the New Zealand process was good in terms of candidates being able to reflect upon their ministry--has it changed over the years since university? Where do we find our joy, what is our growing edge? As for the parish profile--As a lay person on committee, I would have been delighted to see a document acknowledging and responding to the work the parish had done. I have been on hiring committees that eventually wondered if the chosen priest had even read the profile sent to them.

So now I am in the process of waiting again. I know that this is good; it is a time to reflect and to catch up on the parish I am currently called to serve. Time to wait, time to visit, time to love.