Next steps
The observation above that MDR has been reasonably well accepted needs to be more thoroughly explored. While I suggest the policy has been thoughtfully developed and implemented, it is also clear that more listening needs to go on. Policy itself needs to be driven by careful listening and reflecting. Research matters, and reflecting and making sense of that research demands a number of lenses other than a purely ecclesiological/theological one.
A more thorough evaluation, and one focused on outcomes if possible, is needed as the policy beds in and develops (Schalock 2001). At the time of writing this paper not all Ministers have in fact had a review, and the time is ripe for a thorough evaluation. There is much right about the policy, its careful work in development and its intentions to move away from a less acceptable form of managerial and hierarchical approaches to reflection, have borne fruit. Not all have noticed, nor will be likely to. However, there are some questions that this initial ‘paying attention’ raises. The breadth, almost confusion, about MDR needs to be looked at and understood. Is it a matter of poor communication, or perhaps, and more likely, the lack of consistency and lack of training of those who have conducted the interviews? How might those involved be trained better? How could we develop our ‘’covenant relationship’ with a greater emphasis on relationship within the ‘psychological contract’.
The importance of the Susanna Wesley Foundation
My final reflection is to underline the importance of the SWF. This is in the first instance because it matters that the Church finds ways of paying attention to those affected by its policies. We need to listen more. It also matters that the Church engages with such research from a variety of lenses and these include those from organisational/management thinking, educational/formational theory as well as theology. However others, too, would benefit from research into the Church. The Church has, over a long period of time, struggled with issues that also affect the secular world; if we are seen as simply another human organisation, we are one that has been around for many years. It is not only theologically driven policies that struggle with professionalisation; other historical professions have found it difficult as well, and raise similar questions of values and humanity. In William Scott’s book on institutions and organisation he offers what he calls a ‘sermon’ in support of the cause of institutional analysis. He advances Philip Selznick institutional approach (Scott 1995 p 273) with its emphasis on the rich values and potential of institutions. This is a humane and positive view of organisation that resonates for me and encourages me to commend the Foundation to you. Beneath human toil and sweat, of paths compacted by the persistence of human endeavour, there are still values and hopes that are undiminished. Gerhard Manley Hopkins writes ‘And for all this, nature is never spent; there lives the dearest freshness deep down things.’ It is these deep down things that are worth exploring within a secular frame of organisational study and with an eye on Church as organisation and revelation.