The MethoBlog - Conversation from the Methodist World

What we have here is a failure to indoctrinate « John Meunier's blog

jvoorhees — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:11:47 +0000

The Rules of the United Societies speak not at all of holding proper doctrines. The Holy Club’s self-examination included not a question about doctrine. At the band meetings, Christians were not asked whether they held any improper doctrines since the last meeting.

What we have here is a failure to indoctrinate « John Meunier's blog.

Cranky Christians

jvoorhees — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:54:54 +0000

Our world is broken and in deep need of healing and help. Most of the issues that divide and sometimes destroy our local congregations are truly insignificant — worship styles, leadership styles, preaching styles, and other selfish demands. Oh, certainly these are symptomatic of deeper issues, but we never get to the deeper issues. We often can’t get to the important stuff, because we are bogged down by the selfish, narrow-minded, and insignificant issues of the nominally Christian. Cranky Christians rule the roost. We can’t deal with truly important issues because we are divided over such earth shattering disagreements such as music styles, copier contracts, and the way the pastor chooses to dress.

-Dan Dick at United Methodeviations

Do we know a bad pastor when we see one?

jvoorhees — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:28:07 +0000

In the absence of any clear sense of shared values, clergy are left to work things out for themselves. And there is not standard by which we can say whether Pastor X is advancing the mission of the UMC or hurting it. Couple this with queasiness about numbers and don’t we create a system in which it is hard to know what is expected and even harder to spot those who meet expectations.

Do we know a bad pastor when we see one? « John Meunier's blog.

Thinking About Amendment 1 After The Fact

jvoorhees — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:43:53 +0000

This past week, the Tennessee Annual Conference where I serve engaged in debate and voted on the proposed constitutional amendments for the United Methodist Church. There were few surprises, both in the nature of the debate or in the actual outcome of the vote given our location in the Southeast. However, as I listened to the debate and considered how I would vote (as a person dedicated to full inclusion of all truly seeking after God) I found myself moving to a different line of thinking from much of what I was hearing from my colleagues.

Here is my concern. The impetus behind the change in the constitution was a horribly flawed ruling by the Judicial Council on who is eligible to be a member of the United Methodist Church. The flaw in the ruling was the determination that the pastor is the sole determiner of these eligibility requirements, and thus can choose on their own to exclude certain classes of persons not explicitly mentioned in our statements of inclusion in the constitution. In response, Amendment 1 was created, removing any means of interpreting that some persons are not eligible for membership in our church, thus (in the minds of the makers of the amendment) forcing pastors to welcome all people.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t truly address the core problem of the Judicial Council ruling – the issue of pastoral authority in regards to membership. Yes, pastors theoretically will have to welcome all, but the passage still has pastors doing the interpretive work of what that means, and those who are determined to exclude gays and lesbians (the core group being addressed in this amendment) will continue to find ways to do so.

My fear in painting with such a broad legislative brush that doesn’t address the core issue is that it doesn’t engage in the real conversation needed on the meaning of membership in a post-modern / post-colonial world, nor the issue of appropriate boundaries. Even though I disagree with many of those on the conservative side about inclusion of homosexuals in the church, they raise important points about the nature of who IS eligible for inclusion in the covenant community of membership. Are there classes of persons who fall outside the realm of membership (not outside the realm of God’s grace and love, which is offered and given to ALL)? Why do we exclude some and not seem to take seriously the failure of most current members to keep their vows? And, as David Lowes Watson shared at our annual conference, why are homosexuals excluded and not divorcees, given that Jesus talked much more about divorce than homosexuality?

Being “open to all” is great in theory, but it also raises issues as well. Should openly racist and sexist persons be allowed to be a part of a covenant community which lifts up diversity and openness as a key value? And if so, how then do we deal with what we claim to be their sin?

The problem with board legislative brushes is that they fail to recognize the complexity of the world we live in. Whether on the left or the right, the absolutes we create always seem to be challenged by exceptions to the rule. That is, after all, why we have a Book of Discipline with hundreds of provisions. They are a recognition of the realities of life, an acknowledgment that we do the best we can to live out an ideal, but that life is much more complicated than our idealistic dreams.

Hear me . . . God’s grace is open and available to all. God loves all persons. We are God’s precious children, created in God’s image, and deeply loved. That we should all affirm and raise up as a source of life and hope to the world.

But membership in the United Methodist Church is not about God’s grace. It is about an affiliation in a covenant community seeking to live a certain way of life. All communities, whether a Benedictine monastery or a local neighborhood, have boundaries to define a particular identity. What we must do is have better conversation on the nature of those boundaries, for without that conversation, our legislative fits and starts are doomed to fail.

MethoBlogger Retreat at SoulFeast

jvoorhees — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:31:01 +0000

For the past several years, my family and I have made the trek to the North Carolina mountains to the Methodist Mecca at Lake Junaluska to participate in the Upper Room's Soulfeast event. Last year I had the privilege to lead some workshops and this year Beth Richardson and I will be leading all the worship sessions at this great event.

Soulfeast is an excellent opportunity for persons of all ages to gather and think about how they are formed spiritually. This year there will be programming for children, youth, young adults, and those of us creeping into maturity. I want to share this experience with you and am talking with the Upper Room folks about a MethoBlog premium, such as a discount on registration or a free book offer. I will also be offering a workshop on blogging as a spiritual practice, and would love to have you share in that session. So, click on link above to find out more about the event (featuring South Africa's Trevor Hudson).

UPDATE: Hey everybody, the Upper Room is willing to give MethoBloggers a discount on registration. At the bottom of the registration page is a box titled "Enter Staff Code." If you will enter "MethoBlog" into that box you will get $10 off on your registration.

We're Back

jvoorhees — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:17:23 +0000

You may have never known we were gone, but we were having some severe technical difficulties last night. Thanks to some work by our ISP everything seems back to normal for our conversation about the United Methodist Church.

More Amendment Stuff

jvoorhees — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:35:53 +0000

The West Ohio Conference has put together a good page with a PDF outlining pros and cons related to the constitutional amendments. Visit http://www.2009annualconference.org/content/proposed-constitutional-amendments for more information.

A tip of the ole’ hat to Betsey Heavner at GBOD for this link.

The Video Debate

jvoorhees — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:55:45 +0000

Is This An Attempt to Bypass the General Conference

jvoorhees — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:00:08 +0000

I received an e-mail earlier today informing me of a series of videos that the Good News organization has produced for YouTube featuring Maxie Dunnam and Eddie Fox urging United Methodist annual conferences to reject the proposed constitutional amendments on inclusion. You can see the first of these videos at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MBON4eq7Eo.

Certainly Maxie has the right to try and inform folks about these amendments as they prepare to vote on them during the upcoming Annual Conference season. However, these amendments had the approval of some three quarters of the delegates present and I am wondering if our new age of communication tools has outstripped our rules of organization in lessening the impact of our elected delegates. Yes, this “educating” our folks about what they are voting on is important, but given the approval of the General Conference, should those who actually “won” the debate and vote have the possibility for an equal response.

The larger concern for me is does this direct appeal to members of annual conferences change the nature of our system in negative ways?

What’s your opinion on this? Is this appropriate or should there be an “official” forum for these conversations.

GracePoint United Methodist Church closes its Doors

gavin — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:32:32 +0000

It is with sad news that we share the word that GracePoint UMC will be closing its doors. Quite a bit of energy was spent around the break up of GracePoint UMC into GracePoint Community Church in our methoblogosphere (not to mention to congregations involved). Bishop Scott Jones is quoted,

"We would have liked to continue the GracePoint United Methodist congregation. Unfortunately, there were not enough remaining members to continue the congregation," Kansas United Methodist Bishop Scott Jones said in a news release issued today. "We are disappointed that things worked out this way."

Andrew Conard shares his thoughts saying,

I believe that the new church start that was GracePoint UMC has been and will continue to bear fruit in God’s kingdom.

It is okay that the new church start that was GracePoint UMC did not work out for the Kansas West Annual Conference or the United Methodist Church. I believe that the annual conference should be about starting more new churches, not less as a result of this scenario.

I mentioned similar sentiments to Andrew upon the breakup that a scenario like this does not need linger in our minds in starting a new church (that they might eventually leave the umc) but that whatever we do, we do faithfully and it will bear fruit for the Kingdom of God.

Open Letter to Young UM Leaders

gavin — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:16:17 +0000

not sure you've seen this open letter to young united methodist leaders, regardless of young/old lay/clergy its worth reading.

Methoblogger Mashup in Alabama March 14th

reverend mommy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:12:29 +0000

I'm planning on being in Huntsville to see Bishop Willimon speak about the Wesley Study Bible. Any one going to join me? Let me know at candlemb(at)bellsouth(dot)net.

Thanks!

thoughts on GracePoint UMC

gavin — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:35:29 +0000

as many of you may have heard. gracepoint umc is leaving the umc (the staff and much of the congregation) and creating a new church plant called gracepoint community church. since we are starting to see some commentary come down the feed i figured we'd start compiling some links.

you can also follow along what gracepoint twittering there might be (note there is also twitter reference to gracepoint as "GP" but that is a bit tougher to search through)

Welcome New Featured MethoBlogger

jvoorhees — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:06:14 +0000

When I first was appointed as the pastor of the Antioch United Methodist Church, one of the first persons that I called for help in thinking about leading the congregation was Dan Dick, a consultant on church leadership at the General Board of Discipleship. We were in the process of reworking our leadership structure and all sorts of folks suggested that Dan was the guy to talk to. In the years since, I have called on Dan several times for his thoughts on leadership in our church and I have to say that his suggestions have always been effective.

Dan has left GBOD but has started writing regularly at United Methodeviations. After reading some of his recent posts, I asked Dan if he would be willing to be highlighted as a featured blogger here at the MethoBlog, for I believe that he is saying things that will provoke conversation and will help all of us to be challenged in our ministries. His posts are included in the feed of recently updated blogs (http://methoblog.com/?q=aggregator/rss/1) and we will be listing his articles at the top of the front page for your edification.

Welcome Dan to the MethoBlogging community. We look forward to what you have to say.

Is Our Ordination Process a Scandal?

jvoorhees — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:58:19 +0000

Will Deuel has written an interesting post on his experience of the candidacy process. He writes:

And therein lies the problem. As I see it, the United Methodist Church is so wrapped up in maintaining the system and its procedures that we have forgotten about the people whom the system is supposed to serve. The Board of Ordained Ministry has not created a pathway to ordination, it has created an obstacle course. A skandalon.

And when we serve systems and processes rather than people, we have a problem.

How have you experienced the obstacle course that is our current candidacy process, and do you feel that the focus of your BOM is to keep the riff-raff out rather than welcoming folks into the covenant community of ministry? Are we, for a variety of reasons, paying too much attention to systems and processes rather than people.