In our project we have now completed the Holy
Cow Survey, the active listening sessions, created and distributed a profile of
“us” (not a profile of what we are looking for), invited and received
applications to be our new Bishop.
This is a reflection of the detailed work
involved in reviewing the application letters and supporting documents
including an Office of Transition Ministry (OTM) ministry portfolio, a resume,
references and essays answering 4 key questions:
1. As you read our diocesan profile, what most excites and
challenges you about the possibility of serving as Bishop of the Diocese of San
Diego?
2. Tell us about a personal experience of cultural challenge
and/or reconciliation. How did it affect you?
3. In a time when some see the church in decline, how do you
plan to help the church flourish in the 21st century?
4. How does your ministry proclaim hope?
Candidates were asked to write their essays in
ways that avoided revealing their race, gender, geographical locale, etc., and
then the essays were further were redacted as much as possible, so they could
be read and reviewed without bias or prejudice.
At the start of this work I was inexplicably drawn
to 1_Corinthians 12:12-31 where St Paul describes the church as being one body
with many parts, starting “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all
the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ”.
I prayed, reflected on this passage and recognized
it is not just the church which is a body with many parts, our applicants also
reflect the body of Christ in their ministry and aspirations, and our Nominating
Committee is also a body with many parts.
As part of the body I needed to recognize even
though we are one body, I am endowed with my own biases and free will to make my
own decisions on what I was reviewing. What I may relate to in one application
may not be the same for all committee members.
Before starting the
task of reviewing the applications I read the notes provided by our Consultant
on how to avoid bias in decision making and investigated the theological
aspects of both bias and free will. This exercise later proved to be invaluable
as I formed my impression of each candidate.
In my investigation I
was especially struck by the theology of free will and how it not only applies
to my acceptance of God’s gift of salvation, but also applies in my everyday thoughts
and decisions.
Although the biblical view of free will is
formed by the “fall” into sin by Adam
and Eve and their willfully disobedience to God, there is now also the concept
of freedom in all choices.
Often freedom and free will are used as
synonyms but when I was reading the definition by Mortimer Jerome Adler, an American philosopher, educator, and
popular author, I found I was struck by his definitions of freedom as:
v Circumstantial freedom
from coercion or restraint that prevents acting as one wills,
v Natural freedom (a.k.a.
volitional freedom) to determine one’s own decisions or plans, inherent in all
people, in all circumstances, and without regard to any state of mind or
character,
v Acquired freedom to
live as one ought to live which requires a transformation of a person to acquire
a righteous, holy, healthy state of mind and character. This is the freedom
from being enslaved to sin we all need to live up to Jesus’ commandments to
love God and neighbor.
Then I started to define my own theology and
decided I am most influenced by the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, the 14th
century Dutch theologian.
I believe that while God is all-knowing and
always knows what choices each person will make, still gives them the free will
to make choices regardless of whether there are any internal or external
factors contributing to that choice (circumstantial, natural or acquired).
When I started reviewing the applications I was
very conscious that I have free will, and the freedom to state my own thoughts
on the suitability of the applicant to be our Bishop.
I also recognized, just as with all the members
of the Nominating Committee, I had my own biases that up to this point I had
not really taken a good look at.
With my biases operating at an unconscious
level, I was in danger of arriving at different interpretations of the exact
same data from other committee members.
I may not intend to prefer information that
confirms my beliefs, and I am sometimes not aware of all the ways I cater to
this preference, but as with all members of the body I am susceptible to what
is known as confirmation bias.
Conscious I am constantly bombarded by social
media and half-truths in the news, and I can readily access a variety of news and
information sources which confirm my beliefs and bias I needed to turn to my “bias recognition lens” to search for my own
blind spots. It is these which could cause me to avoid, ignore or decline
information I suspect may be negative or challenging.
When looking at scripture I was comforted in
the knowledge there were others with firmly held beliefs throughout the bible
which God needed to change.
St. Peter believed Gentiles who followed Jesus
should practice all Jewish customs.
St. Paul believed such a requirement was adding
to the gospel unnecessarily.
These Saints both received visions which
revealed God’s will, expanded their understanding of God’s kingdom and changed
their biases.
Looking past my own unconscious biases was challenging
and took additional time in the reviews but I felt this was necessary to do
what I was called to do to the best of my abilities.
In all the document reviews I tried to take
what I had learned about free will and bias and applied the guidelines our
Consultant had provided:
1.
Do
give evidence and explanation to back up your decisions,
2.
Do
make sure to give everyone, or no-one, the benefit of the doubt,
3.
Do
make sure waiving of rules is done consistently,
4.
Do
not insist on certain characteristics such as likeability, modesty or deference,
from some and not others,
5.
Do
not make assumptions on what people want or are able to do,
6.
Do
have a clear definition of vague concepts such as “culture fit” if applied,
7.
Do
give honest feedback.
During this process I was tempted to match the
profiles and applications to the redacted essays.
I resisted the temptation and found that I felt
a lot better about the results of the reviews and discernment.
In reflection, I now find this was a very
powerful exercise which gave me the opportunity to resist temptation to cheat
on the process, recognize my biases, change my beliefs, consistently apply my own
free will in decision making, and the freedom to present my views.
No comments:
Post a Comment