Rüdiger Sweere
Overview
Once a year I am tasked with preparing a group of deacons who are on the path toward ordination to the priesthood in the Archdiocese of Cologne to undertake pastoral work with young people. This preparation involves teaching a methodology training course that deals with structuring group and work processes. It is a great challenge to present the participants with as wide a variety of methods as possible in just one day – especially since priest training is rather top-heavy on theory and the participants rarely have experience with, and in, group processes.
The goal of the training seminar is to introduce the participants to the different phases involved in working with youth groups and to enable them to use a range of methods to structure these phases and processes in a way that best suits the target group. The main focus is on trying out and understanding the methods themselves, as well as stepping out of their personal comfort zones and embracing new experiences openly and without reservation. This educational approach is completely new territory for many of the participants, especially on the reflection level.
Topic
My methodology training challenges the participants with approaches that they have never encountered before. This begins with the setup of the seminar room (without the usual work tables) and ends with the tools I use. As a rule, the participants are very receptive to what they learn in the methodology training, even if it surprises them.
I also always use different METALOG training tools to introduce participants to Experience-Oriented Learning methods and solution-focused approaches.
My goal in using the tools is that the participants should leave the training with an understanding of Experience-Oriented Learning methods, be able to create short staging scenarios, and, of course, have expanded their personal toolbox of methods.
Staging
a. Preparation
When I use Ecopoly in methodology training, I generally do so after a long break. During the break, I arrange three groups of chairs in the room in such a way that the participants can spread out without any input from me. On a table next to the flip chart is the open toolbox and next to it the space gliders.
b. Performance
The classic scenario of Ecopoly is about the dwindling supply of “Ecopozone,” a vital gas on each of the participants’ home planets. In the methodology training, I establish a link early on in the staging phase between the tool and the real life situation of the aspiring priests: The Catholic Church is suffering from a steady decline in members, a trend that will continue to intensify in the future. Fewer and fewer of the parishioners are being christened, more and more people are leaving the church, and so the parishes are slowly dying. The staging of the tool is about the future of the people working at the Archdiocese of Cologne over the forthcoming years.
Under the title “ARC (Archdiocese of Cologne) 2035 – Save All Souls!,” the participants are confronted with a dramatic vision of the future and their will is galvanized to lead a parish that will secure the future of the church. When they become priests, the participants will also take up a leadership role in their parish and hence also be responsible for their parishioners.
Transfer to the real World
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Seminar room | Archdiocese of Cologne |
| Small group | Parish/chaplaincy |
| Space gliders | The different stages of parishioners in their parish life, e.g.: joining, christening, leaving the church, death. |
| Ecopozone bottles | Parishioners |
| Rounds of the game | Liturgical year |
During the training, the candidate priests are tasked with asserting themselves against others in such a way that they can attract as many new parishioners as possible to their parish and thereby secure the future of “their” church.
In this case, the Ecopozone bottles symbolize the parishioners who can be “ordered” from the “CCW,” the “Central Catholics Warehouse”. This means it is possible to “place an order” for “parishioners-to-be” and each group can decide for itself how many new parishioners to add per month. Of course, the normal rules of the tool apply.
c. Progression and finish
The participants quickly fall into game mode and forget the actual seriousness of their task. So far, no group has managed to complete the task successfully and to finish all rounds of the game. It is always a great surprise to discover that their own actions have led to failure and what effects their own actions have on the other players.
Reflection
In the reflection, I first concentrate on what the individual small groups have experienced. In so doing, I particularly address the emotional aspect and ask both the “winner” and the “loser” groups about their emotional states. The question here is not what each individual experienced, but rather, “How did you feel?,” “What is it like to know you gained the most parishioners and yet lost (almost) all church members?”
Then we turn to their personal situations in their own communities: “How would you react if a neighboring parish were to poach your parishioners by offering them something different? What if the neighboring parish’s strategy resulted in your own parish becoming redundant?” This is where they quickly make the transfer to everyday life, since such situations are familiar.
As a rule, the participants agree that mutual success (in the sense of an internal church strategy for recruiting members) can only be achieved if they closely coordinate with each other. The services offered by the church must be tailored to the needs of the community, but they must also remain accessible across a wide range of territories. In this context, cooperation across the customary parish boundaries can satisfy the needs of the faithful.
Conclusion
My methodology training does not lead the participants to an entirely new awakening. They are fully aware that church membership will continue to fall and that the number of clergy serving congregations will continue to decline. However, the reflection on the tool makes it possible for the contents and outcomes to become emotionally anchored in the minds of the participants and for them to now connect these emotions with the underlying problem. A normal discussion round might have produced similar results, but it would lead to this emotional anchoring.
The participants are able to feel what it means to lose parishioners and what it feels like to win them over. In competing with each other and against each other for the target group, the participants become acutely aware of the necessity for a joint strategy of cross-community cooperation. It is hoped that the experience they gain will be reflected in the participants’ future work.