A little boy once had a dog named Fluffy, which he was supposed to take for a walk but never would. When asked why he would not, he said, “Fluffy is so hairy I can’t tell which end to put the collar on.” This is somewhat like the quandary many people have when asked what they think the ministry is or what kind of person they really think should go into the ministry. There are so many different kinds of ministers and so many different approaches to the ministry that it is hard to describe them all. As a group, ministers can project so much hairy ambiguity that it is hard to tell which end to put the collar on. In fact, speaking metaphorically of course, I sometimes think that some of my colleagues have put their clerical collar on the wrong end. I’ve solved this problem for myself by not wearing one of those things at all.

Sometime soon, this congregation is going to call a new “settled” minister. You will, it is to be hoped, make this decision based on a clear and fair understanding of what a minister does and what you want him or her to do. My aim this morning is to help you clarify your thoughts on this matter by sharing some of my own thoughts and observations about ministers and the ministry that I have made over the forty years that I have been a minister myself.

Ministers, of course, are just people. But, they are people who have taken onto themselves a special relationship with others. They are people who say, “Hey, folks! I am somebody you can trust with your most important questions, your deepest feelings, and your sense of destiny.” This has got to be one of the most presumptuous offers going. It makes promises that “just people” sometimes find hard to keep. Unless entered into with real humility and respect for the privacy and integrity of others, it is likely to end in disappointment, if not outright interpersonal tragedy. Remembering this special relationship of the ministry has been one of the most sobering and challenging aspects of my own ministerial career.

This special relationship is bedrock. It is the basic vow every minister makes at ordination. It is on this basis that people expect their relationship with the minister to rest -- or at least they should expect it, or what is ordination all about?

It is fair to ask, “Why would any person take such a vow?" -- that is, why would anyone consider becoming a minister? I have pondered this over the years about myself and about my clerical colleagues. The conclusion to which I have come is that ministers are motivated by one of two different reasons. One reason is that the person is convinced that he or she simply must be a minister because that is the only vocation in which that person can be his or her authentic self. The other reason is that the person feels that the ministry is one of several options for the use of that person's full range of talents. On the day the ministry seems the best option, then that's probably when this person chooses ministry.

Years ago a senior minister reduced these two reasons to two verbs: be and do. He said some people become ministers to be ministers and others become ministers in order to do ministry. I believe he hit on an important nuance. To me these verbs can indicate how deeply a given person is committed to this vocation. I do have to admit, however, that sometimes it is hard to tell which minister feels which way. After all, they both can be true to their vow to be trustworthy. However, in the practical world, the "do's" sometimes seem to have more institutional success than the "be's" (because they are doing what they want to do) and the "be's" seem to have more career longevity (because they are being what they want to be). I believe two things about this distinction: (a) organized religion would be hard put to do without either; and (b) this is one of the most important things one can find out about a prospective minister's orientation toward the work. It doesn’t tell you so much about how they will work as it does about the spirit they will put into the work.

Once in the ministry, every minister has his or her own intentions for and style of ministry. Interests can be categorized according to the functions of the church, or, in our parlance, organized religion. Style is the manner in which these interests are pursued.

In general terms, people gather as religious groups in order to function in ways in which they can provide support and comfort for one another, worship or celebrate their religion, take actions for the benefit of the larger community, and deepen their understanding of both their religion and life in general. Historically, in the western tradition, these functions have been labeled: pastoral, priestly, prophetic, and preaching. That is, the pastoral relates to mutual reinforcement and comfort, priestly relates to the rituals and liturgies used to express faith, prophetic relates to making positive changes in the larger community, and preaching relates to the exploration and sharing of knowledge that enhances.

Obviously, the expectation is that, when a person becomes a minister, he or she takes on the responsibility of being -- or doing -- all four of these things. The assumption about any given minister is that that person will be a competent leader in all four functions. A look at the skills usually required of a minister suggests this. One job description listing expected ministerial skills is very much to the point. It reads: ministers are expected to be able to talk to others in such a way as to convey information effectively. They should always be actively looking for ways to help people. Ministers must be aware of others' reactions and understand why they react as they do. They must give full attention to what other people are saying, taking time to understand the points being made, asking questions as appropriate, and not interrupting at inappropriate times. Their writing must effectively communicate according to the needs of their audience. They must be able to understand written sentences and paragraphs -- at least those in work related documents, and that covers a wide range from theological and philosophical treatises to computer instruction manuals. Ministers must be able to teach others how to do something; they must themselves understand the implications of new information for both current and future problem-solving and decision-making. Above all, at least in our context, ministers must be able to use logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems. And then, they must be able to make appropriate judgments and decisions considering the relative costs and benefits of potential actions.

Now, let’s add to these skills a few of the particular tasks expected of ministers. Some tasks: organize and lead regular religious services and rites of passage; prepare and deliver sermons and other talks; collaborate with committees and individuals to address financial and administrative issues pertaining to the congregation. More tasks: devise ways in which the membership can be expanded; work with and, in some cases, plan and lead religious education programs; interpret religious doctrines and/or traditions; counsel individuals and groups concerning their spiritual, emotional, and personal needs; train leaders of the congregation, community, and youth groups; take the lead in social action and social justice efforts in the larger community; and visit people in homes, hospitals, and prisons to provide them with comfort and support.

A minister who can do all these things probably can also walk on water. But, the point is they are all appropriate skills and tasks and the ones the minister does best will indicate whether said minister sees himself or herself as a pastor, a priest, a prophet, or a preacher. The reality is that most ministers are not all four at once. Rather, they do well in one or two -- sometimes three -- but seldom all four. But, the usual job description of the ministry tends to assume excellence in everything.

The real issue in regard to tasks and skills is: what does the minister perceive himself or herself as being or doing? Is the pastoral, or priestly, or prophetic, or preaching role most important to that minister? Or, switching to a Meyers Briggs Personality Inventory approach (adapting categories that the UU minister, Peter Tufts Richardson, sets out in his book Four Spiritualities), and asking: is that minister most interested in pursuing community harmony, or a pious spirituality, or good works in the congregation and the community, or an intellectually integrated approach to religion? And, once this aspect of the minister is understood, the next question is: how does he or she approach the tasks and use the skills?

This is the question of style, of "how". In interpersonal and organizational matters this is an extremely important consideration. For, to use animal metaphors, some of us are owls, others are foxes, some are teddy bears, and still others are lions. That is to say, some of us (the owls) try to lead in such a way that those involved come to mutually supportive conclusions; others (the foxes) try to assure that not too much of value is lost by either side; then, others (the teddy bears) just want everyone to be happy; and the last (the lions) want all decisions to fit their point of view. Four other words that fit these approaches: facilitating, negotiating, nurturing, and controlling.

Depending on the congregation, any one of these approaches to leadership may be appropriate. Even in the UUA, I understand that there are, after all, a few congregations that prefer someone to tell them what to do. I've never been a minister to one of those congregations, but I have met a few individual UUs along the way who have wanted the minister to be more of a CEO lion than a facilitator. Also, I have dealt with a few groups that were so fearful of disagreement within their ranks and so uneasy about what the folks in town might think of them that they wanted a teddy bear more than anything. They seemed to need the reassurance that the world was all rose petals no matter how many thorns there were. Then, there were -- and are -- congregations with which I have had considerable dealings that thought a vote could decide everything. All that was needed was a clever negotiating fox to help people understand how their self-interests were preserved if they lost the vote. Occasionally, though, I have dealt with a group which grasped the possibility of actually working together until there was a meeting of minds. They expected not control or comfort or negotiation so much as being enabled (facilitated) to mutual understanding.

-600 Of course, the reality is that there are only a few ministers (and maybe none) who are exclusively only owl, fox, teddy bear, or lion. Instead most of us are a combination of all four, with one predominating but with the others coming forth whenever needed. The real issue with any given minister is: what is the balance? Here the two verbs be and do come into play again. Any one of these approaches may really be a person's basic nature but that person may be able to do the others at will or according to the needs of the situation. If you can figure this out about a minister -- or about any of your friends -- this is an important bit of information. It can help you know when you should be an owl, a fox, a teddy bear, or a lion.

The intentions and the styles of ministers are not the only basic considerations. Actually, before calling a minister, a congregation needs to know what are its own collective intentions. It needs to know what is of most importance to it: the nature of its own community? the qualities of its services of worship and celebration? the support it gives its individual members for their personal religious journeys? the ways in which it professes and extends its principles and values into the world? the coherence and depth of religious thought that takes place within its activities? And on the matter of style, is the congregation truly welcoming, giving teddy bear hugs to everyone indiscriminately? Is it astute enough to pursue negotiations within its membership under tense circumstances? Does it seriously strive for a mutual, a common resolution to issues? Does it prefer, or invite, arbitrary disposition of issues and problems by its leadership?

Obviously, all these aspects of both intentions and styles are essential. At some point, any of them may be appropriate. But some are inevitably more important than others to a congregation so that it seems some can be can be slighted while others cannot. A congregation needs to know how it balances out. And, it needs to know that to leave out any of the intentions is to leave big gaps in both its programming and its character. It needs to know, so that the minister’s strengths can fill in for the congregation’s weaknesses and the congregation’s strengths can fill in for the minister’s weaknesses. This is important if a clear and fair understanding is to be had of what a minister does and what you want him or her to do. After all, your task as a congregation is to know what ministerial intentions and which ministerial style best fit your congregational intentions and style -- something that can not be done without understanding what your intentions and style really are. This is a topic for another time.

It is important to note that it is arbitrary to separate the idea of ministry into two parts and say that one belongs to the professional clergy and the other to the lay members of the congregation. The reality is that it belongs to both parties. Everyone is in it together. This is assumed in all we do, actually. It even shows forth in the songs we sing. A favorite hymn of mine has a stanza for each of the four functions (and emphases) of a congregation. And it has a fifth stanza that brings all four emphases together into one commitment. It sings first of the mystery of life we celebrate, then of our rational ability to live within this mystery, then of the power of compassion to bind disparate people together, and then of the conscience that presses us toward justice. Finally, it holds high a concept of ministry that enables all of these emphases to come to fruition in this life in this world.