Ministry Reflection Group Handbook

(Information and Guidelines for

Students, Site Educators, and Members)

Emmanuel College Toronto School of Theology

2016-2017

Contact information: The Rev. Dr. Natalie Wigg-Stevenson (Director of Contextual Education)

(416) 585-4548 natalie.wigg@utoronto.ca

Samantha Cavanagh

(Interim Director of Contextual Education – Fall 2016) sam.cavanagh@mail.utoronto.ca

2

Table of Contents

Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Membership ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Process ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Suggested Format for the First Meeting .................................................................................................. 5

Other Meetings .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Group Facilitation ............................................................................................................................................ 6

RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

A Model for Theological Reflection Meetings ........................................................................................ 7

Criteria for Useful Feedback ........................................................................................................................ 9

Guide for Year-End Evaluation Report ................................................................................................. 11

SCHEDULE ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3

INTRODUCTION

A Ministry Reflection Group (MRG) is a group of three to five lay people who are open to engaging in reflection on ministry with an Emmanuel College Contextual Education student, and agree to meet every 4-6 weeks (two-three times per semester) for approximately 1.5 hours. The MRG can help to orient the student to the site and surrounding community, to do theological reflection based on faith experience, to develop and work on specific learning outcomes, and to help students see themselves as they are perceived in their public role. At the end of the second semester MRGs submit a group evaluation report (see page 11).

GUIDELINES Purpose

A Ministry Reflection Group gathers for conversation and reflection on the practice of ministry and ministry leadership in a particular setting with a student. Together they explore the connection between religious faith and everyday life. It is important to create an environment of trust for sharing, feedback, and reflection (please see “Criteria for Useful Feedback” in the “Resources” section of this Handbook). A clear process (see below) for the group will enhance the potential for significant learning to take place.

Membership

In a congregational setting, the members of the group are drawn from various aspects of the faith community’s life and work. In a social agency or institutional setting, the membership may include residents, staff, volunteers and/or interested individuals from nearby congregations. Ideally, the group will be balanced with respect to age, gender, skill, cultural/ethnic background and experience in the practice of ministry. Members are expected to have a desire to reflect theologically with a student about ministry and to be willing to engage in constructive feedback within the parameters of the student’s Learning Covenant.

Process

The Site Educator will invite people to be part of the MRG, convene the first meeting, clarify the purpose of the group, facilitate introductions, explain the Learning Covenant, help to orient the members to the process and tasks. Site Educators will also be part of the last meeting in order to facilitate closure. Note: the Site Educator is a resource person but is not involved on an ongoing basis in the MRG.

One person should be chosen to convene meetings and to act as a contact person for the group and as a liaison with Emmanuel College. Please inform Shawn Kazubowski-Houston (shawn.houston@utoronto.ca) of the MRG liaison’s name and contact information.

4

Future meeting dates, time and place should be established at the first meeting. A process for subsequent meetings should be established at the first meeting. One person should be designated to work along with the student to prepare for each

meeting (this role may rotate among the members).

Responsibilities

To welcome and to develop a relationship of respect and trust with the student To participate in achieving the purpose of the group To respect personal confidentiality and be supportive of the ministry and learning of

the student, other members of the group, and of the site To be faithful in attendance at the meetings To help orient the student to the site and surrounding community To offer constructive feedback as requested by the student’s Learning Covenant To help the student to compare their assumptions about ministry with those of lay

people who are familiar with the learning site or with a particular issue in ministry To engage in theological reflection/conversation related to the student’s learning To offer feedback that helps students see themselves as others see them To read and discuss the mid-term evaluation reports of the Site Educator and the

student To provide a written assessment/evaluation report at year-end which will be shared

with the student, the Site Educator, and the Director of Contextual Education

Opportunities

To work with someone who is preparing for lay or ordered ministry leadership To have theological conversations about ministry practices To articulate and struggle with important issues in the practice of ministry and

function as a partner in the teaching-learning process To develop a fuller understanding of the nature of Christian vocation and of the

relationship between lay and ordered ministries To offer feedback to the student and to Emmanuel College on the practice of

ministry today, especially as it finds expression in a particular learning site To understand more fully God’s invitation to ministry and one’s individual

responses to it To understand and acknowledge differences of viewpoint and conviction and, if

necessary, to work through situations of disagreement or conflict

5

Suggested Format for the First Meeting

Allow time for each participant to introduce her/himself. Share a significant early life experience of faith (this could be either negative or

positive), and/or ask in advance of the meeting for each member to bring an object that evokes what the life of faith means for them at this time.

Invite each participant to introduce themselves and explain why they agreed to become a member of the group.

Clarify the purpose and the process of a MRG (the Site Educator should facilitate this process; copies of this Handbook should be provided for each member).

Choose a group member to facilitate the next part of the process at this first gathering.

Consider what constitutes confidentiality and honest and open feedback. On a flip chart have the group brainstorm possible norms for the group. Ask for a volunteer to make copies of these norms and to distribute them prior to the

next meeting when the group will complete a working set of norms and expectations to which all can agree (material from the responsibilities listed in this Handbook can be incorporated).

Give the student time to introduce her/himself and to present the learning outcomes to date and describe what kind of feedback will be helpful around each outcome.

Members should ask any questions they have for clarification about the outcomes, process and expectations.

Members could be invited to consider what kind of outcome they might set for themselves for this experience.

Choose a contact or chair person for the MRG. Select dates and times for all subsequent meetings. Discuss and assign leadership responsibilities and the topic and process for the next

meeting (the process and topics can be planned by the student and whomever is to facilitate the group at the meeting or the group process can include time at the end of each gathering to consider how the meeting has gone and what changes would improve the process next time).

Discuss how the group wants to open and close each meeting. **The MRG liaison accepts responsibility:

to communicate with the College and to ensure that the evaluation report is submitted on time;

to ensure that meeting agendas and responsibilities have been assigned.

Other Meetings Agenda items might include:

Exploring the student’s learning outcomes and offering feedback that relates to these outcomes

Exploring important and relevant themes in ministry (for example: the meaning of faith, styles of leadership, the power of prayer, boundaries in relationships, dealing

6

with grief and loss, anger at God, the challenge of justice-making, theological and relational stances of missional practices, interculturalism, etc.

Discussing experiences and issues in ministry; these issues could be initiated by the student or by a member

Spiritual enrichment through readings, prayer, bible study, an opening/closing/centering ritual, times of silence

Reflections on each person’s understanding of ministry Using a story or an event to focus discussion about a particular ministry issue

(students may choose to use a Critical Incident Report or other assignment from the Contextual Education coursework for this task; whether or not to use such assignments is always a decision made at the student’s discretion)

Theological reflection/conversation (see “A Model for Theological Reflection Meetings” in the “Resources” section below)

Engage resource persons, materials, books, articles, videos on ministry issues Prepare, by the beginning of April, of a group assessment/evaluation report Plan for closure with the student by mid-March or early April

Group Facilitation

A group may choose to rotate the function of leading or facilitating meetings. The role of the facilitator is to monitor discussion. The student may bring an issue from their placement to give focus to the discussion or other members may wish to bring discussion starters. The conversation should be a blend of voices with time to hear from everyone. A good facilitator makes certain that quieter people have opportunity to speak and may suggest that eager speakers be aware of who has not spoken. Some ways to do that could be: Have speaking go around the circle so everyone has a turn; if someone has nothing to

say, they can pass Clarify the time allowed for the process and the approximate time for each participant

to speak Take a few minutes for discussion in pairs, with pairs bringing thoughts and ideas back

to the group Start with silence for a minute or so for people to reflect and gather their thoughts; this

allows those less comfortable with speaking aloud a few moments to prepare The MRG experience is expected to be a mutual learning experience where everyone contributes to the process and to the conversation. A critical part of the student’s experience in Contextual Education is learning to listen with care to the faith, values, and concerns of others in order to offer hospitable Christian leadership effectively.

***

7

RESOURCES

A Model for Theological Reflection Meetings MRG’s might wish to engage in theological reflection with their student. This section offers some guidelines and suggestions for how to construct that time. Process: Theological reflection with an MRG works well when it is grounded in the concrete practices of ministry. In most cases, then, the student or a member of the MRG will share a concrete example of ministry for the group’s shared reflection. This may or may not be written, but it should centre on a slice of real life – some particular experience the student has had in their ministry site that the group wants to process together. When appropriate, and at the student’s discretion, the conversation may follow the format of, or be a duplicate of, a “critical incident report” that they presented in class. MRG’s should be careful to work with the student to: clarify everyone’s understanding of the experience by asking probing questions; evaluate the experience’s core issues, prioritizing a particular focus for discussion; expand the student’s and their own imaginations, seeking ways to grow personally from

the experience; and encourage deeper commitment for everyone, by discerning together what next

steps in pastoral action the student could engage. Some thoughts about “theology”: Every person of faith already does theological reflection in their own way, whether through engagement with historical and contemporary written theological sources, in conversation with friends, or through the daily reasoning of our own lives with regards to the practices of our faith. In various ways, we all try to forge connections between our faith, the traditions of our faith that we encounter in community, and our everyday practices of life. In other words, we all do some version of what we might call “everyday theology,” either consciously or unconsciously, as people of faith. Theological reflection with MRG offers an opportunity to think theologically in community, to try to tease out some of our more intuitive theological responses to events. Academic theologians are increasingly recognizing that as religious practitioners, none of us ever sees or experiences life in a neutral or atheological way; put simply, religious, or pastoral (or even everyday) experiences are always already theological. Indeed, the ways in which we have pastoral – or any religious – experiences are already shaped by our prior conscious and unconscious, implicit and intuitive, theological (not to mention also political, social, etc.) commitments. So what does this mean for the practice of theological reflection? It means we need to acknowledge the messy dimensions of religious and pastoral experience! It means that we both recognize that we can never find definitive answers to our deeper theological questions and that we have to keep trying to articulate preliminary answers nonetheless. It means that we will most often be left somewhat unsatisfied by our

8

theological activity, but that our dissatisfaction will stimulate our desire to pursue the Divine more fully. The following guidelines are intended to help with this messy process: Rather than applying theological concepts or sacred stories to the context, try asking

what theological concepts and commitments are already embedded within the context, and which themes from sacred stories might illumine it. In other words, look for overlap between concept and context by asking:

o What does my experience reveal about my own theological beliefs or commitments and the theological beliefs or commitments of those around me?

o Where is there agreement and disagreement, consistency and inconsistency, between my and others’ beliefs in this context?

o How did our divergent and shared theological commitments create or defuse conflict in this situation?

To help uncover the theological commitments at play in the experience, try to avoid asking broad questions like, “Where is God here?” These questions tend to narrow our conversation by leading us to over-identify God with anything in the context that seemed to “go right”. Instead, try asking more specific questions like:

o What would God need to do in the context to bring about redemption, and how could I partner in that process?

o How is Divine agency interacting with my agency, and the agency of those around me to liberate this context?

o What is God’s hope for this context, and what sin – personal and structural – is working against that hope?

o What structural wounds obscure the presence of God’s reign in this place? When asking how the experience connects to one’s own faith practices, be sure to pay

attention to the historical, cultural trajectories – both inside and outside religious communities – that give shape to those faith practices. Try asking questions like:

o Who does this faith practice advantage and disadvantage socially, economically, politically, etc.? And how can the practice be reimagined more justly?

o Which theological commitments in this place or this tradition have been wielded as weapons against whom and by whom in our history? What theological commitments can liberate in this context? And, how can the damaging commitments be re-imagined so that they are no longer weapons? What do we keep and what do we let go?

o Why does this theological commitment hold power for me in particular? Should it? Why or why not? How can I hold it anew or find a way to let go?

**Remember that all students and MRG group members will have different forms of theological preparation, interest and practice. While students are expected to draw on their coursework at Emmanuel as a resource for their on-site theological reflection, MRG members are not expected to have the same shared body of theological resources from which they can draw. If ever you feel that the Director of Contextual Education can be of help to you in this regard, please do not hesitate to be in touch.

9

Criteria for Useful Feedback The learning that takes place in Contextual Education can be intense. Feedback can sometimes be difficult to hear and integrate into the experience in a positive way. This section offers some guidelines for MRG members for making their feedback to students hearable and helpful. Students might also find themselves needing to offer feedback to MRG members, and these guidelines can also be helpful in that process. If a conflict arises however, for which mediation is required, the Site Educator and the Director of Contextual Education should be consulted immediately. Good feedback, because it comments on our effect on others, can help us make behavioural changes. Feedback names areas of strength and growing edges. It is best offered within relationships of trust and respect. The Learning Covenant that students and Site Educators develop together provides a framework and permission to offer feedback in specific areas, and MRG members should be provided with a copy of this Covenant. Feedback is useful when it is:

1. Descriptive Rather than Judgmental: By describing your own reaction, you leave the other person free to use the feedback as they see fit. It can therefore be helpful to frame feedback using the following structure: “When you said/did…I felt…. And because I value…I would like…”

2. Specific Rather than General: For example, to be told one is “dominating” will not

be as useful as to be told that “just now when we were deciding the issue, I felt you were not hearing what others were saying.” Directing feedback toward behavior the receiver can do something about empowers them to change.

3. Appropriate: Feedback can be destructive when it serves only our own needs and

fails to consider the needs of the receiver. What we offer needs to be supportive and responsible. Example: “I know that speaking in large groups is difficult for you. I appreciated the effort it took for you to make your contribution to the meeting.”

4. Requested: Because the Learning Covenant has implicitly requested feedback on

the learning outcomes, try to relate feedback to those outcomes. Example: “In relation to your outcome to learn more about offering pastoral care, I noticed that when you responded to (name) in our Bible Study group, she seemed to withdraw. What do you think is going on there?” Students can also request feedback on work not related to their outcomes, and MRG members can seek permission from the student to offer additional feedback on matters arising.

5. Timely: Feedback should be timed carefully. Feedback is most useful at the earliest

opportunity, depending, of course, on the person’s readiness to hear it and the availability of support from the giver/others. Example: “I didn’t find the process we used in Bible Study tonight as helpful as it could have been. Have you time to sit down and talk about it a bit now or can we set up a time to talk soon?”

10

6. Clear: Check to ensure that you are communicating clearly. One way of doing this is to have the receiver try to rephrase the feedback to see if it corresponds to what the giver had in mind. Example: “Let me see if I understand what you are saying to me…”

7. Accurate: Check for accuracy. When feedback is given in a group, both the giver and the receiver have an opportunity to check with others about the accuracy of the feedback. Example: “In this evaluation time, one of you said that more printed resources would have been helpful. What do the rest of you think about that?”

11

Guide for Year-End Evaluation Report The following questions may be used by the MRG to prepare a group written, year-end report. The report should be shared with the student and the Site Educator, discussed and then signed before it is sent to the Director of Contextual Education. Signing indicates the document has been read and discussed, not that all members are in full agreement with every point. Any significant concerns or disagreements should be shared with the group, written and signed before they are submitted in writing.

1. How often have you met? Describe, briefly, the format and content of your meetings.

2. How has it gone? What thoughts/feelings best describe your experience?

3. What has surprised you in this Contextual Education experience?

4. Have there been any highlights in this experience, both individually and as a group? Has anything been missing?

5. Has this experience affected your understanding of ministry?

6. What progress have you observed the student make with his/her learning outcomes?

7. What methods have you used to explore the spiritual dimension of your work

together (i.e. scripture, stories, images, theological themes)?

8. What recommendations/suggestions do you have for a) the student? b) the Site Educator? c) the Director of Contextual Education?

9. If preparing for ordination, please comment about how ready you think this student

is, at this point.

10. Other comments?

12

SCHEDULE

Week Date (Sec 1/Sec 2) PREPARATION/ACTIVITIES ASSIGNMENTS DUE

Week 1 Sept 13/15

Orientation to course (w/ SEs) Introductions to peer group Sign ups

Week 2 Sept 20/22

Check-ins Group norms

Week 3 Sept 27/29

Check-ins Group norms (conclusion) Learning Covenant conversations

Personal Annotated Biographies Learning Covenants

Week 4 Oct 4/6

Check-ins Reports Integrative Paper Check-in

Complete reading Ethnography as… Come with research question

Week 5 Oct 11/12

Check-ins, reports

Week 6 Oct 18/20

Check-ins, reports Integrative Paper Check-in

1st quarter time sheets (total: 48 hours) Come with sense for research method and plan

Week 7 October 24th-28th, READING WEEK: students do not need to be in site.

Week 8 Nov 1/3

Check-ins (with covenant focus) Sign-ups for mini-verbatims

Week 9 Nov 8/10

Check-ins Mini-verbatim cycles

Week 10 Nov 15/17

Check-ins Mini-verbatim cycles

Week 11 Nov 22/24

Check-ins Mini-verbatim cycles

Week 12 Nov 29/Dec 1

Check-ins Mini-verbatim cycles

Week 13 Dec 6/8

Check-ins Mini-verbatim cycles Integrative Paper Check-in Wrap up activity

Mid-year evaluations (submit hard copies signed by student and SE) 2nd quarter time sheets (total: 48 hours)

NOTE: Students do not need to be in site for Winter Break (December 13th – January 3rd)

Week Date (Sec 1/Sec 2) PREPARATION/ACTIVITIES ASSIGNMENTS DUE

Week 1 ---/Jan 5

Re-orientation Check-ins Integrative paper check-in Sign-ups

Resubmit Learning Covenants

Week 2 Jan 10/12

Check-ins Group Norms Discuss reading

Read “Learning Ministry over Time” by Christian Scharen

13

Week 3 Jan 17/19

Check-ins Group Norm (conclusion) (Verbatim cycles)

Week 4 Jan 24/26

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 5 Jan 31/Feb 2

Check-ins Verbatim cycles Share Integrative Papers

Integrative Paper due 3rd quarter time sheets (total: 48 hours)

Week 6 Feb 7/9

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 7 Feb 14/16

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 8 Feb 20th-24th, READING WEEK: students do not need to be in site.

Week 9 Feb 28/Mar 2

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 10 Mar 7/9

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 11 Mar 14/16

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 12 Mar 21/23

Check-ins Verbatim cycles

Week 13 Mar 28/30

Check-ins Verbatim cycles / Course wrap ups, evaluations

Week 14 Apr 4/---

Course wrap ups, evaluations

By Friday April 14th – Due to main office: Final time sheet (total: 64 hours for min. 192 hours total to pass the course) Year-end evaluations – hard copy, signed by student and SE