My first semester of college coincided with the 2000 presidential election. I started looking at Bush and Gore. Neither impressed me. Correspondingly the major political parties did not either. So I started looking at other options.

As a child born in Regan’s America, in a conservative area of Pennsylvania, I internalized a lot of anti-government sentiments. When I started looking for alternative political parties, the Libertarian party intrigued me. The emphasis on personal autonomy and freedom resonated with my view of the world. Their anti-government positions made sense after years of Republican attacks on the federal government.

One libertarian contention that made sense to me was the unseen costs of government spending. Government spending looked good when you saw an end result like a bridge (that led somewhere). But you could not see was how the money would have been used had it not been taxed. Libertarians ran on the premise that the money was often not used for useful things like bridges and that private actors (individuals, businesses, corporations) would better use the money than the government. There was an unseen cost to the taxes-how the money would have been used in better ways by private actors.

With all the recent attacks on government research spending, I have been thinking about the unseen costs. In a way, the other side of the coin from the libertarian attack on taxes. In the short term, we will not see the impact. We’re riding high with decades of government research spending to make our world a better place. The short-term savings might seem good if you are eyeing giving rich individuals and corporations tax cuts.

The long-term consequences will be in the future and hard to appreciate. Break throughs in medicine will not happen. New technologies and discoveries that will be lucrative will not happen, or at least not happen in the United States. Bright and entrepreneurial people will seek their success in other places.

We cannot see the price we will pay by not making investments, but our futures as individuals and as a country will be less bright. Shortchanging the future makes sense when you have animus towards research institutions, really want tax cuts, and only care about short-term gains. It also makes sense when you don’t care about the future.

It is dangerous to elect a malignant narcissist to the highest office in the country. The Shrinking Trump podcast argues that a malignant narcissist can only destroy. I also have been thinking it might compound the danger if you were to elect a geriatric malignant narcissist. Would he or she be capable of imagining the world existing without the individual in it?

A scene in the television show Community comes to mind. In the third season of the show, the former Spanish instructor, Ben Chang, takes over the community college as a tin-pot dictator. He doesn’t throw himself a military parade for his birthday, but he does instigate a big bash to celebrate his birthday and what he thinks is his ultimate victory over his opponents. As people are fawning over him, a little girl sings this verse, “Chang eats the sun and drinks the skies and they both go with him when he dies.” In his megalomania, Chang appears to eat it up. He probably wishes it were true.

A geriatric malignant narcissist also might struggle with imagining a future where the narcissist is not the center of attention. Instead of leading the country to a strong, bright future, the impulse would be to focus on what meets one’s ego needs in the present. Burn it all down. You won’t bear the consequences. The ensuing chaos almost certainly meets a deep psychological need (at least in some malignant narcissists).

It is lamentable, though. Why I left libertarianism is that I realized it struggles with the common good. If we all act in ways that are best only for ourselves, we have the tragedy of the commons. For all of us to have rights and freedoms, and not be at the mercy of the strongest or people with the fewest scruples, we must surrender some of our autonomy for a greater good.

Funding research is a greater good. It leads to a better understanding of the world. Helps us deal with our biggest problems as individuals and as a society. Creates new opportunities for business. In the TV show Get Smart, Maxwell Smart often lamented something along the lines if only the villain used his or her powers for good instead of evil. In one episode he says, “if only he could have turned his evil genius into…niceness.” Giving geniuses the ability to use their genius for the betterment of the United States (and the world) is better than many other ways we could use the money (or ways we could use their gifts and graces as a society).

Just as government’s role in harm reduction is hard to appreciate and the consequences hard to foresee, the consequences of underfunding research are hard to fully grasp. Consequences there will be. When you are facing a serious health issue, as the climate continues to change, when another country has better AI than the United States, it will be hard to fully appreciate how we created, or did not contain, future miseries and hardships by not investing in the present. The world will go on without the president, but it will be a worse place to be because we have turned our backs on the future.

In a special piece to United Methodist Insight, the Rev. Linda Richard laments recent judicial council rulings related to disaffiliation. The Rev. Richard blames the Judicial Council for not allowing congregations to leave the United Methodist church post the 2020/2024 General Conference. She claims it’s hypocritical. By making this claim, the Rev. Richard makes an attribution error. The judicial council did not decide at General Conference to end disaffiliation. Delegates to General Conference did that. They did also not vote to allow disaffiliation in 2019. Again, delegates to General Conference did that.

This is her second piece on the United Methodist Insight website, where she wants the judicial council to be something else. Instead of the judicial council fairly upholding church polity with due process as an ecclesiastical court, she wants it to overrule what she considers mistakes made by the General Conference. This desire goes against our polity in profound ways.

To lament the actions of the judicial council in relationship to disaffiliation is to have the wrong focus. The Rev. Richard focuses on the wrong actors when she accuses the judicial council of hypocrisy. General Conference allowed churches to leave the United Methodist church under disaffiliation. Annual conferences and annual conference trustees were the arbiters of who met the requirements to leave. Not the judicial council’s fault. It was not the council’s job to determine the eligibility of churches to disaffiliate. This was up to annual conferences.

Whether churches lied was not up for the judicial council to determine. I am not sure it was hypocritical for annual conferences to allow congregations to disaffiliate. The trustees of the annual conference discerned what they thought was best. Annual conferences voted to allow congregations to leave. Neither one of them created the disaffiliation process-that was the 2019 special called session of the General Conference. Both lived into their respective responsibilities in the way they felt led.

With disaffiliation, there is a lot of blame to go around. So much to lament. Blaming the judicial council though is an attribution error. The Rev. Richard may not agree with the outcomes. She may not like the bind some churches are in now, but it’s not the judicial council’s fault. It’s not their problem to solve.

Focusing on people to blame, though, does little to help. People in congregations need to take responsibility for their own decisions, for their own futures. I wish things were different. But pointing fingers and being upset changes nothing. All we can do is take responsibility for our own actions, find the next faithful step, and put our hope in our triune God.

Last week, I was at an event focused on how to disciple people under forty. Most of the attendees were pastors. The presenter showed how younger people are interested in social justice issues. Struggle with anxiety. Want leaders to talk about deep concerns like climate change or gun violence.

One pastor listening to the presentation contended that people of his generation, when they hear the words “gun control,” they hear politics. The presenter and the person then talked about how a younger generation might see these concerns as social justice issues and a different generation see them as political issues. Their conversation gave the impression that if its politics, that is verboten in the church’s life.

I did not want to get us off track, so I kept my mouth closed. But the way they framed the conversation really bothered me. On the superficial level, I think it is better to use the words “gun violence prevention” than “gun control”. While controlling guns can be part of gun violence prevention, there are a lot of other means and methods to reduce gun violence that do not involve controlling guns in the ways that immediately come to mind.

On a deeper level, I am not sure what the difference is between social justice and politics. Social justice is just a way of framing justice work. Working for justice is inherently political. One way we publicly love our neighbor. I contend that justice work is also a spiritual discipline. Watch this sermon from the season of Lent if you want to delve deeper into my thinking about this.

One of my favorite live albums of all times is Precious Friends. Pete Seeger introduces the song “Sailin’ Up, Sailin’ Down,” on the album, by contending, “but what we do is bring people together at the edge of the river. And you know when you bring people together for any purpose whatsoever, you’re in politics.” I think he is right.

Every time a church gathers it’s political. The Greek word we translate as church is ecclesia. Greek speakers did not originally use the word for a religious gathering, but civic gatherings in Greece. Going further, saying Jesus is Lord is a political statement. For the earliest Christians, they were contending Jesus was Lord, not Cesar. Anytime we talk about the Kingdom of God/Kin-dom of God/Reign of God, we are making an attack on the political powers of this world.

Being a Christian is a political statement. The issue is not politics. Christians cannot avoid being political. Where the problem lies is partisan politics. Are we being identified with Jesus or being identified with a secular political party? This is where it gets tricky.

The first Sunday School class I taught, at my current appointment, was based on Andy Stanley’s book Not In It To Win It. In the book, Andy contends that when we pick a partisan political side, we hurt our ability to share the good news of Jesus. I believe he is right. The tougher issue is that sometimes working for justice looks partisan, even when your goal and focus is on Jesus and God’s work in the world.

This was brought home to me when I saw an article United Methodist News printed. It is entitled “Why Our Church Is In Trouble.” The author contends the United Methodist church is in trouble. Uses data to make the case. Then he engages in the correlation-causation logical fallacy.

He engages in this fallacy by then blaming the justice work of the United Methodist bishops and the General Board of Church and Society. Offers no evidence that what they are doing is the reason our church is in decline statistically speaking. It’s a neat trick. State there is a problem and then blame what you don’t like in the church for causing the problem with no evidence linking the two.

His ultimate contention is that the leadership of the United Methodist church is using their power to push an ideological agenda that is political. And from his perspective, the wrong politics. I imagine, though if you asked the bishops or talked with folks at GBCS, that is not how they see their work and ministry.

This is the problem with politics. We cannot avoid it. You gather people for a purpose, it’s political. What one person sees as an act of justice, another person sees as an act of political partisanship. Justice work in the church requires grace and humility.

We need to be gracious to others when we see they trying to discern their next faithful step and it leads to political activity. Again, we cannot avoid politics. When we work towards justice in the world, we need to be humble. Are we doing this as an act of faith or for some other reason? Will this action help my ability to share the Good News of Jesus or turn people away from Jesus?

“But its political” is not an excuse for not publicly loving our neighbors. As long as we proclaim Jesus as our Lord and gather as a church community, we are engaged in politics. Pardon the tautology, but if the church wants to be relevant, we need to be relevant. One way we are relevant is to engage in the challenging work of justice in the world.

Before I begin, please note that I am in the process of shutting down my High Noon Blog. Starting In June, I will be exclusively using my new SubStack (Sifting Sand) for my blog posts and podcasts. Please consider signing up. It is free.

Growing up in the church, I would never have used the word “toxic” in a church context. When I was little, I was unaware of the unhealthy people and dynamics at work in my home church. It was not until I did my field education work at a United Methodist church in Somerville, MA that I would have used “toxic” to describe a member of a church.

I went to visit a couple in the church. We had a lovely visit at first. In the conversation, one of the two asked why we were using matzah for Holy Communion. I thought this was an innocent inquiry and talked about my understanding of it. In my explanation, I suggested reaching out to the Communion steward to give her feedback on it.

Reach out, she did. She yelled at the Communion steward. This upset the pastor. Who did not chastise the person who verbally attacked the Communion steward. The pastor chastised me. I did not intend to have the person go after the Communion steward. The thought never crossed my mind. It was easier though to go after me than confront the toxicity of the person upset by matzah.

Early in my ministry, I encountered people who were caustic. Caustic is a harsh adjective, but it is the most fitting one for their personalities. They could be nice, friendly, congenial, but they could be nasty too. I realized quickly a reason why people would leave the church.

My first encounter with their corrosive personalities is when I met with the staff parish relations committee before being appointed to the church. The committee was asking me questions and one person asked me about my view on a controversial issue. I shared my honest, though diplomatic, perspective. The district superintendent loved my response so much he shared it with the bishop. Everyone in the room seemed satisfied with it. The person who asked was not.

Instead of having further conversation with me about it, he took a different route. Before I got to the church, he salted the earth. The man reached out to everyone and their mothers, informing them of what I said in a confidential meeting. He wanted to know how I could be their pastor with this perspective.

When I found out about his attempts to undermine me before I started my ministry with the church, I was told not to worry about it. That is just how that person is. You just must live with it. As long as I was their pastor, I did have to find a way to coexist with his caustic nature.

He would say biting and mean-spirited things all the time. Sometimes he would dress his words in humor, but often not. At one point, he went on a crusade to get a church leader to attend Sunday School. The way he hounded her did not sit well with the leader. It got to the point where she was on the verge of leaving the church.

I tried to talk with him in a reasoned and civil manner. Saying if his goal was to get people to come to Sunday School, this was not a good tactic. He was not interested in my counsel. Instead, he wanted to know who was snitching on him. After the meeting, he told everyone that I yelled at him for inviting people to Sunday School.

He was not the only caustic person. There was another person who also could say mean and biting things to people. She one time criticized me for writing her a thank you note (to be fair-my hand writing). But whenever I brought up that their behavior was not healthy or proper, people would make excuses for their words and actions. Oh, that is just that person. Don’t take it personally. The person has always been like that.

These experiences led me to think about attractional models of church. For a time, this was a buzzword in church leadership circles. You wanted to create a church community that attracted people from the outside. I started thinking about attraction in terms of health and sickness.

Some would argue only healthy things grow. So, you could judge the health of a church by its growth. Healthy churches grow and unhealthy churches decline. It’s not true though. Cancers grow. Infections grow. I would contend unhealthy leaders and unhealthy people sometimes attract more unhealthy leaders and unhealthy people.

An unhealthy church will not appeal to a healthy person. No one healthy wants to be around caustic people. Churches that care about the emotional and spiritual health of the congregants are going to create boundaries and lines to stop caustic people. They won’t make excuses for a caustic person or turn a blind eye to the consequences of their behavior.

Toxic leaders will send up red flags to someone who is emotionally healthy. An unhealthy person though might resonate with the sickness of the toxic leader. A church can grow by attracting unhealthy people to it. Unhealthy leaders can attract unhealthy people. Sickness can resonate with sickness. We get what we sow. Sometimes unhealthy seeds produce unhealthy fruit.

Up above, I argued the contentions healthy things grow and unhealthy things decline are not true. I then contended that unhealthy things can grow. I would also contend that when a person tries to be healthy in an unhealthy situation, that often can lead to decline, not vitality.

After reading Edwin Friedman’s book A Failure of Nerve, I am convinced that our best bet for making a difference in the world is to be the healthiest version of ourselves. The problem with a healthy person in a situation, though, is that the person points out, either intentionally or unintentionally, the sickness of the situation. Unhealthy people dislike their sickness exposed. A caustic person does not see themselves as caustic. Systems form/develop and people like the system as it is and do not want the system to change. An unhealthy system depends on sickness and sometimes even attracts it.

The irony is that healthy leadership can sometimes lead to a decline in a church. Healthy leadership might be what people say the church needs, but it is not what a church might want. Systems work the way they developed to work. Health is like the light in Plato’s allegory of the cave. It may be what is best, what would benefit us most, but it hurts too much to embrace. Sometimes we prefer the darkness.

One answer is nothing. We are in a time of high polarization. The electorate swings between the two parties. Neither one really captures what the median voter wants in terms of results once in office. Wait for the other party to overreach and then highlight you are not the party in power. Unless you think 2024 marked the start of a new MAGA revolution like the Regan revolution, just wait till the pendulum swings back in your favor.

A dangerous answer would be to prepare for future political battles like they are still happening 2024. The problem is that the future will be so different that the lessons from the past will not be obvious. President Trump has likely changed everything in the political landscape. You cannot release your minions to destroy our political systems and then expect things to go back to the way they were.

We live in times of high uncertainty. Firing so many people, destroying so many norms, disregarding traditions, threatening friends and allies, undermining the post WW II international social order, recklessly starting trade wars, for better or worse, we are in a new era. What can one do when the future is so up in the air?

Not go back to the past. There is a phenomenon in life where we prepare for the future by looking at our mistakes in the past. In some ways, this is proper. An aspect of building wisdom. Yet, I have noticed as a pastor, we often perhaps absorb the wrong lessons. We learn what not to do in the past, but that lesson does not translate well to future problems.

Churches change over time in terms of composition. The communities and larger society changes. Onetime anomalies and mistakes loom large in the collective mind. Past successes also loom large-especially when looking at other perceived successes in other churches. If a church in a different locality did this well two years and succeeded in our eyes, why can’t we? Congregants are just as likely to say yes to something that worked a few years ago at a different church in a different context as they are to say no to something new that reminds them of something from the past in their own context.

In the military, war planners often plan for the future based on the past. You enter a war prepared for how militaries deployed technologies, tactics, and strategies in the last war, not fully appreciating how the technology has changed or how tactics or strategies will change in this new context. Success depends, in part, on dealing with the world as it is now, not as it was in the last war.

The same is true in political battles. Until you are on the field of battle, you do not know what your opposition looks like, what tactics they will deploy, or how voters will respond to the moment. So instead of fretting about what did not work and re-litigating what happened, it’s better to be yourself and fight for what you believe in. 

Know what you stand for-what values matter most to you? What harms are breaking your heart? How can you offer a story of hope that offers a real alternative to your opponents? Are you willing to live and make real your values now? Looking behind will not move us forward. What the world needs is an alternative that is genuine and compellingly different from what is being offered in the moment.

Funny how fallin’ feels like flyin’/For a little while/Funny how fallin’ feels like flyin’/For a little while

You never see it comin’ till its gone/It all happens for a reason /Even when its wrong/Especially when its wrong

We don’t know what the future holds. There is no way to know what good, evil, or change will come from all of this. Yet, just because you think you are flying or someone is soaring, they may actually be falling. Worse yet, they may land on us.

 The biggest problem of the government is that it’s in the harm reduction business. What the federal government does best is reduce the harms of living in a complex society and world. We don’t really appreciate what makes the government great because it’s hard to appreciate the absence of great harm, disaster, or calamity. When diplomats avert a war, when bad actors think twice because of the might of the US military, when social service programs help the marginalized, when the law makes the world a little fairer, we don’t see it. Or we feel entitled to the benefits that stream from the government functioning, not acknowledging the hard work people are putting in to create those benefits. It’s easy to see where we fail as a society. Harder to celebrate that things are not as bad as they could be.

When you blow everything up, we may not see the harms right away. We won’t realize we are missing the benefits of research programs, if started now, that could change the world in ten years. Hard to say when preparing for a disaster will pay off, but when there is a disaster, you will be glad you tried. Soft power makes the world a better place, but it’s not glamorous or glitzy. Easy to attack. We will miss it if we could understand the good it does.

It’s easy to attack complicated systems. You can always identify failure points. Our world on this side of the eschatological divide will never be what we dream it could be. Harm reduction is arduous work. The end result always leaves something to be desired. But it takes a certain level of arrogance to destroy things. Have us metaphorically leap into the unknown. Claim we are flying when we are really falling. I lament what happens after a little while.

It is not wrong to be concerned about the health of others. Wanting to assist people to get vaccines, if they cannot get them on their own, is also not wrong. What makes this program morally comprised, and open to criticisms, are the reasons behind it. If your driving motivation is that General Conference needs to happen in 2022 (as stated by Renfore) and you need delegates to be vaccinated so you can have the General Conference in 2022 (and not have it canceled again)-you are using people and that is wrong. 

Again, it seems absurd this needs to be said, but the ends do not justify the means. It is wrong to treat people as a means to an end. When you offer to vaccinate people only because you need them to achieve your own end of having General Conference-that is wrong. Jesus said, “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31, NRSV). Most of us do not want to be used by others for their own ends. 

Yes, we want resolution in United Methodist church. Living in a liminal space is challenging. Let’s be honest though, General Conference does not need to happen in 2022. The world will still spin. Tides will rise and fall. The church will still proclaim the good news of Jesus and the reign of God. 

It is so easy to get fixated on our own goal, and the potential upsides of it, we cannot see why it is morally and ethically problematic. Good people, with good intentions, can still do things that are morally problematic. We fall into danger when we justify the means by the perceived good of the goal. Let’s be candid though. Most of us are not really that good and we cannot divorce our motivations from our self-interest. Using people to achieve your own ends is wrong, even if you mean well.

Less than two weeks before our session of the annual conference, the trustees of the conference sent us an email with one paragraph announcing that they would propose a resolution to approve the disaffiliation of a church in our annual conference using paragraph 2553 of the Book of Discipline. They sent a new email this week with revisions, but still one paragraph. I found this upsetting.Last year we had churches request disaffiliation. We barely received any information about their requests other than the conference trustees approved their requests. It kind of bothered me, but I did not think too hard about why it bothered me. After seeing what happened in New England last week, I now have a better understanding of why this all bothers me. At the heart of it, we do not know what we are voting on. The disparity in the disaffiliation process and disclosure between our conference and New England is troubling. They knew what they were voting for and why. Members of our conference do not really know what they are voting for in the disaffiliation resolution.

What exactly does the congregation disagree with in terms of the decisions made at the 2019 General Conference? Are their consciences bothered the UMC became more punitive? Is it upsetting to them we strengthened the position we have had since 1972? Does this church in Perry county yearn for a more inclusive future?

Do we know what real property and assets the conference will lose? Did anyone do a missional impact study to see what disaffiliation means for the congregation, the community, and the conference? Did the congregation have a discernment process or is this an excuse, not a matter of conscience, to leave the denomination?

I discovered last week that other conferences are handling disaffiliation differently. A pastor I highly respect in the New England Annual Conference is going through the process of disaffiliation with her congregation and two other churches in Maine. As I was seeing people post on Facebook about it and the controversy in the annual conference session related to the disaffiliation resolutions, I was curious what sort of information they presented to the conference. So I looked at their pre-conference workbook. 

Looking at the Pre-Conference Workbook there is a huge disparity between what we can find in the New England Conference workbook and what the trustees of our conference have given us in terms of documentation. The church she serves submitted:

• a Disaffiliation Agreement
• Community and Constituent input from the church requesting disaffiliation
• A letter from the conference chancellor
• The theological and missional foundations for requesting disaffiliation 
• A discernment report 
• An inventory of tangible property owned by the church
• An impact statement from the Annual Conference leadership

The other churches requesting disaffiliation submitted similar documents. Again, our conference received a paragraph with very few details. I contend we do not know what we are voting on. We do not know if anyone did due diligence. Obviously, the trustees would contend that they did due diligence, but where is the work?

Some might make a case that the documentation for the New England conference is excessive. I believe I could make a stronger case that our process is inadequate and/or lacks transparency. Without documentation, we do not know what we are voting on and that is troubling to me.  

In theory, I think we should bless churches that have discerned that they need to leave the UMC. It is heartbreaking, but we reap what we sow. I appreciate how the New England Conference shows the due diligence and discernment behind the process in their annual conference. I wish the Susquehanna Conference had the same standards and/or level of transparency. When we vote, I do not think I will protest the vote or speak against it, but our approach is problematic. Again, we do not know what we are voting for or against at Annual Conference in terms of disaffiliation of this congregation.  

Where does the Reverend Adam Hamilton argue against the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church? Which centrist is arguing we abandon having doctrinal standards? Until you can prove a centrist is arguing against the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church, then it is pretty safe to assume that they would be the starting place for any conversation about boundaries.

No one, as far as I can tell, is contending for a church where there are no boundaries and consequences for violating the crossing of boundaries. Let us pretend for a moment this is not really about power and that everyone is disagreeing in good faith. The biggest area of contention is the Social Principles of the UMC and, in particular, the human sexuality section. It is not wrong for United Methodists to disagree with a social principle. Every General Conference we change the Social Principles.

Christians may disagree with each other. If you read the New Testament, we see Christians disagreeing with each other. Paul did not write his famous love chapter because some Corinthians were getting married. While Paul had clear opinions about who was right in the debate about what is acceptable to eat in Romans 14, or which day to hold as sacred, Paul encourages them to honor each other and live out their convictions as an expression of their life lived in Jesus.

Paul would not say anything goes (read Galatians). He also believes that strife/anger/quarrels/dissensions/factions are the works of the flesh, not from God (read Galatians). So we have to hold in tension that there are non-negotiable on the one hand, but also that we may disagree with each other too.

As United Methodists, we have our doctrinal standards. While theoretically changeable, they do not change easily or often. Until the Reverend Adam Hamilton or some other prominent centrist starts arguing otherwise, I think it is safe to assume that they are our boundaries. 

The bigger issue might be that the Reverend Stephen Rankin is not a fan of our doctrinal standards. They might not be as “clear and enforceable” as he would like them to be. Perhaps he disagrees with the Book of Disciplines enforcement mechanisms for persons teaching against the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC. The good news is that we may disagree with the Book of Discipline and work to change it. It is disingenuous to argue centrists do not have core doctrines, boundaries, or uncrossable lines.

When I was in policy debate in high school, an opposing team once argued that we should not be talking about a potentially dangerous situation, because the more we talked about it, the more likely it was to occur.  After hearing their contention, I was incensed.  The argument was so generic it could be used against almost any case.  I also wondered how true it was.  Can talk make a situation more likely to happen?

While there are some potentially dangerous situations that are not changed by the frequency of conversation (venomous snakes for example), some dangerous situations arise because they become part of our discourse.  Some problems will never develop unless they are named and made real by words.  In a world of almost infinite possibilities, some possibilities need the catalyst of our words for them to ever be likely.  Words can take a possibility that was on the periphery and make it the focus.  Our words can do this several ways.

First, we find power in naming problems.  Once named, we can then frame the problem.  With a problem properly named and framed, a person can offer a solution.  If you set the parameters for debate and define the issues, then it is much easier to offer a solution.  When you offer your preferred solution with your preferred outcome, you have power.  Without the naming and the framing, people might not have worried about it.  Even if they were concerned, your preferred solution seems better, because of how you named and framed the problem.

Second, naming a problem often hides other problems.  Some say that the problem in the United Methodist Church is that United Methodists are violating the Book of Discipline. These violations are causing stress and harm in the life of the church.  In naming and defining the problem this way, we are ignoring other problems that I would argue are deeper.  Problems such as an absence of love, too little compassion, diminished empathy,  a desire for power, self-righteousness, and/or a lack of self-awareness.  It is easy to name superficial problems, it is harder to deal with the problems we find hidden in our hearts.

Third, the more we talk about the problem, the more we set expectations about the problem.  If we talk about our problem using the language of schism, the harder it is to see a different end result.  When we use the language of winning and losing around the problem, it is hard to imagine a future where there are no winners and losers.  Language has power.  Using the language of “problems” gives us a different mindset than if we are using the language of dancing.

Language and words define our reality.  As we define our reality, our actions follow suit.  Perhaps our biggest issue as a church is the failure of imagination.  I wonder what would be different if the church developed and used a different set of words when talking about our ministry together.  What would church life be like if our language was built on ideas like faith, hope, love, beauty, truth, humility, justice, and creativity?  Instead, we use words rooted in war, conflict, arrogance, and power.

With our failures to imagine a different way, some want the church as it exists now to die.  They think it is beyond redeeming.  I would contend though that if we let schism prevail, we may not actually be solving our real difficulties.  If our problems are rooted deep in our hearts, then breaking up the church will not resolve them.  Those problems will still be there and they will still cause us pain.

Daring to believe that Love can change the world

One of my favorite songs is Aaron Niequist’s “Love Can Change the World.”  In the song, Aaron raises the question, “Oh do we still believe that Love-Love can change the world?”  It is a good question for United Methodists to wrestle with.  Do we believe that love can change the world?

Jesus does not spend a lot of time talking about schism in the Gospels.  He does spend a lot of time talking about love.  Love God.  Love your neighbor.  Let the world know you are his disciples by your love.  Love your enemy.  Love, in some form or another, should propel us to act in the world.

Most United Methodists know Jesus’ teachings on love.  Sunday school teachers teach the children to love.  Preachers preach on love.  Our hymns celebrate God’s love and invite us to love one another.  An outside observer might think we are a bit pollyannaish in the ways we focus on love.

Love though is not pollyannaish.  Loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind can be difficult.  Loving our neighbor proves easier to say than do.  Letting the world know we are followers of Jesus by our love proves ever more daunting.

If we give up on the call to love though, what does that say about Jesus?  Does Jesus’ teachings and ministry matter if we cannot practice the most important invitation – to love?  When we are advocating schism, setting the stage for a church split, disparaging those we disagree with in the church, naming and defining problems in ways that lead disunity, what does that say about Jesus?  Can we claim to be disciples and show so little love?

Schism does not solve our problems related to love.  It just entrenches them.  If we cannot act in love now when things are terribly difficult, how are we going to grow in our capacity for love?  By abandoning the chance to act in love when it is hardest?  Setting a precedent that when things are difficult, it is better to give up?

If the Bible is true, then the mandate to love has to be our highest aspiration.  The only way for the world to know if the Bible is true is by our actions.  How “true the Bible is” depends on how seriously we take it.  The truth of the Bible is most evident in our words, our actions, our silences, and our pauses.  When it is hard to love that is when love is most needed.  The light of Christ shines most brightly in the darkest moments.  If we are to be the light of the world then love is what gives our lives illumination.

Jesus often pointed out to the good religious folk of his day that they were missing God’s highest call to love.  They got so caught up in their understanding of God that they could not see God incarnate in their midst.  When Jesus challenged them to love and expressed love to the least and the lost, they attacked Jesus.  We are not better if love is not our driving motivation.

United Methodists should be able to agree on the importance of love.  It is at the heart of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection.  The church needs more actions of love and less talk of schism.  United Methodists should be to agree that the world needs Jesus, but Jesus will only be known by our love.

“Broken Heart.” ©2010 Copyright Miguelpdl. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

In these fear laden speeches, we were assured that they were all for equality in the life of the church as long as gender means female and male, but we need to worry about the future.  With Facebook, states, and cities recognizing that gender might not be binary, we might regret including constitutional protections related to gender.

Using coded language, dog whistles, and fear, they wanted to scare folks about voting in the affirmative.  Without stating outright their implicit belief that we should have the right to discriminate against some people because of how they understand their gender, they tried to create a sense of anxiety about voting yes instead.  It sounds wrong to state outright what they mean.  The part of the Book of Discipline we were voting to change contends “The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth” (Article IV of the Constitution).  My l’esprit de l’escalier is “what person of sacred worth should we discriminate against?”

Folks who use fear in the life of the church should be ashamed.  Fear is the opposite of faith.  Instead of trusting in God and loving our neighbor, fear turns us inward and creates distrust between neighbors.  Opponents of constitutional amendment two should just say outright what they think, that even though everyone is of sacred worth, they should have the right to discriminate against folks who do not fit into their narrow selection of categories.  Any step towards ending discrimination now would be an infringement of their right to discriminate in the future.  It would be one more step away from some glorious and golden past they wish we could return to.

If as a church, we are going to peddle fear, we might as well just stop being the church.  We are not called to fear, we are called to faith.  Faith in Jesus challenges us not to discriminate, especially against marginalized people.  While the good religious folk of his day spent their time trying to be as pure as possible by avoiding the marginalized, Jesus spent his time with the folks no one else wanted to spend time with.  The same people the good religious folks discriminated against.  People complained about who Jesus spent his time with.  Jesus did not critique the folks on the margins, but the good religious folk who had their priorities in the wrong place.

When we peddle fear in the life of the church – are we being Jesus for the world?  Who exactly would Jesus encourage us to exclude from full participation in the life of the church because their understanding of their own gender was not binary?  If we have to use fear to make our point, perhaps our point is not coming from a place of faith.  If our point is not coming from our faith in Jesus the Christ then we probably should not be making it.  Instead, we should be praying for more faith and less fear.

“Fear.” ©2006 Copyright Loretta Prencipe. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

A week later I received a phone call.  The pastor told me that families should be allowed to ask whoever they want to preside over weddings and funerals.  What the pastor did was not in anyway undermining my ministry.  From the pastor’s perspective, the only issue was not calling me first.

We had very different perspectives on the situation.  It was clear from our phone call that both of us had trouble appreciating the other person’s perspective.  When it was clear that we were coming at it from very different perspectives and we were not going to find common ground, we just ended the call.  I am not sure if the other pastor left the conversation hurt, but I know I did.

Perspective is one of hardest issues we deal with as Christians.  We all can look at situations very differently.  Look no further than the 2016 US Presidential election.  I was eating with some fellow Christians and one raised a concern about the election.  He said that one of the candidates was a pathological liar, and he would let us fill in the blank of who that candidate is.  It became clear that I filled in the blank wrong in my mind as he kept talking. Different people see totally different things in the candidates.  Where one person sees a candidate who could help the country, someone else sees a candidate that could potentially ruin the country.

Our differing perspectives make being a church difficult.  It is very hard to have conversations about controversial issues when the parties involved have very different perspectives on the issue.  People can be faithful disciples of Jesus, earnestly seeking God’s will, and come to different conclusions on issues.

I would argue that at the moment, the United Methodist church lacks enough perspective to make any definitive decisions about the future of the church.  As people prepare for schism, argue over who started the schism, and are really nasty to each other on social media, it would be helpful for us to put things in proper perspective.

Ideally, we want God’s perspective.  When we cannot agree on God’s perspective over a particular issue, then it might be helpful to look at what the Bible says to do when we cannot agree on issues related to our faith.  Time and time again it says love.  We are to be known by our love according to Jesus.  Paul tells a fractious church in Corinth to act in love.

Nowhere does it say fight with each other in a death match.  Unity, not schism, is held up as the ideal.  If we cannot act in love towards each other than how can we love those God calls us to love?  If we cannot ascribe the best motivations to our fellow United Methodists that we disagree with, and see their attempts at faithfulness, then what is the point of being a follower of Jesus?

We are called to love each other.  Love is not an emotion, but how we treat each other.  Instead of seeing our struggles as a crisis that needs to be dealt in hurtful ways, we could see it as an opportunity to put our faith into action.  If we can learn to love each other in the midst of differing and important perspectives, then perhaps we can offer a fractious world a witness to something different.

The problems we have over differing perspectives on wedge issues are not the real problems.  Our real problem is that our perspective is focused on the wrong things.  We should be focused on how we can act in love with each other in the midst of disagreement as a witness to what Jesus told us to do.  Instead our focus seems to be on something less than love.

Having differing perspectives is hurtful.  No matter what we do going forward, people will be hurt.  The issue though is how do we respond to the hurt and pain.  What will our perspective be in the midst of it?  Winning? Self-righteousness? Power?  God’s radical call to love?

“Perspective.” ©2011 Copyright Ludo Rouchy. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Mr. Fritzsche frames an issue in the life of the church as an intractable dichotomy that cannot be resolved.  While acknowledging there might be deeper issues, he focuses on what he calls “sexual ethics and morality.”  In his exploration of this issue, he uses an analogy of marriage.  The question he shapes his argument with is “Can a marriage really survive with two diametrically opposed views on sexual morality?”  I respectfully disagree.  I challenge two aspects of his argument: the first is whether the marriage analogy is appropriate, and second that there are only two sides on the issue of sexual ethics and morality.

First, United Methodists commitments to each other are not the same as the commitments between two married persons.  Any United Methodist can withdraw from the church.  No one is legally obligated to be part of the church.  Persons wanting to leave can inform their pastors or bishops.

Leaving a marriage in the United States is more difficult.  It requires lawyers and the legal system.  If being a member of the United Methodist church is so onerous that dealing with the messiness of the church is too much too bear, the person can leave.  Legally, a person cannot just leave a marriage in the United States.  If we, as individuals, are together as a church, it is because we want to be on some level, not because of some previous commitment that would make leaving legally difficult.

While marriages can have more than two partners, Mr. Fritzsche frames his analogy in terms of a two partner marriage.  Marriage in this context is between two persons.  There are no two analogous persons in the United Methodist church.  The church is a partnership between millions of people around the globe.  We all freely entered it, and we are all free to leave it.

Secondly, there are not two diametrically opposed groups in the United Methodist church.  United Methodist views on any subject are different and fit on a spectrum.  Even on the issue of sexual ethics and morality people’s views in the church are varied and do not fit neatly into two categories.  It would be easier if there were only two groups with perspectives that were unchanging and the same on every issue.

Our varied views, however, are not set in stone.  They may change overtime.  A marriage might not survive if two partners have different understandings of sexual morality and act on those differences, but we are a church of millions of people with potentially millions of different understandings on any given issue.  We can survive and have survived with differing understandings on many things.

Mr. Fritzsche’s slavery example is problematic too.  The split of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844 did not occur because one day a bishop decided he wanted to own slaves.  It is more complicated and nuanced than that.  Just because the Methodist Episcopal Church split over slavery, does not mean that the United Methodist Church has to split over the wedge issue of sexual ethics and morality (or whatever wedge issue might be used).

It is still not clear to me why we are at the point of breakup.  Why is the time now right?  Mr. Fritzsche may not be willing to live with with the messiness of our current situation, but no one is making him.  If it is really that important that he is part of a church that is not messy, then he can leave.  Not all of us want a separation.  There is an alternative to separation, and that is to work through the messiness.

Messiness allows to practice our discipleship.  Praying for our enemies.  Loving those who hurt us.  Depending on the Spirit.  Waiting for God’s time.  Practicing discernment, self-reflection, and repentance.  Remembering and exemplifying what will last in the age to come: faith, love, and hope.  What if our disagreements are not problems to be solved, but tensions to live with that create opportunities to grow and be changed?

This is not easy work.  Being a disciple with other disciples can be challenging.  Human relationships are often messy.  There may be deeper and more intractable issues that Mr. Fritzsche hints at in the first and last paragraphs of his post, but I would contend that the perception of intractability might only be a condition of an unwillingness to live with the blessings and hurts of messiness.

“Chaos in the world brings uneasiness, but it also allows the opportunity for creativity and growth.” ©2010 Copyright Kate Ter Haar. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Salvation in the Bible takes time.  God did not immediately free the slaves in Egypt.  When the people of Israel were being oppressed by their neighbors, God would not instantly give them a judge.  People would often have to live in tension.

God would even sometimes create tension.  I have been leading a Bible study on 1 Samuel during the season of Easter and beyond.  It amazes me that God would anoint two kings.  Two different people were competing for the love and loyalty of the people – both anointed by God.  Saul, David, and the people of Israel would have to live in tension.  It would take many years for the definitive will of God to be made known on what direction God wanted to go.

When we read the Bible, we forget how much time passes between events.  How often people had to live in tension with the problems they faced and the hope that God would save them from those problems.  How long did the Israelites live in Babylon as captives?  God’s will and God’s desires are often only seen clearly overtime.

The United Methodist church is not the first church to have conflict.  Paul writes to the Corinthians about their conflicts over spiritual gifts.  They had real issues on how to use and express their gifts in worship and the life of the community.  The situation was fraught with tension.

Paul did not give them a simple solution.  Instead, he offered them a way through the tension.  Most Christians know 1 Corinthians 13.  It is Paul’s solution for how to navigate the tensions the Corinthians were facing.

What Paul offered the church is the excellent way of being in the world called love.  They might not agree with each other, but they could act in love towards each other.  Instead of telling them what to do, he offered them a way of being.  Would this way solve all their tensions?  No, but it would help them stay in community with each other.

As a church, we do not need more solutions or ideas.  We need to learn the way of love and how to live with tension.  Paul gives the hallmarks of love in 1 Corinthians 13.  He encourages them to act in love because we only see dimly now.  If we do not know everything, and we cannot see everything clearly, then we must humbly act in love.

The things of this age will pass away according to Paul.  Spiritual gifts, victories, and even denominations will come to an end.  What ultimately lasts and what ultimately matters are ways of being in Christ – faith, love, and hope.  General Conference, the bishops, even twitter, cannot offer a solution to solve the tensions we face.  It may take many years for these tensions to be resolved.  What we can do, and must do, if we want to be a church and a witness to our faith in Jesus, is act in love.

“Tensión. ©2009 Copyright Rosalba Tarazona. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

One major situation in the life of the United Methodist church are issues related to human sexuality.  I have been wrestling with is the question is this situation a conflict that needs to be solved, or a tension that we could live with for the foreseeable future?  When we identify a situation as a conflict, it becomes a problem that we need to solve.  Sides are formed and anyone on the wrong side is exasperating the problem.  It is hard to live with a situation where it is seen as a problem.

Framing a situation as a problem is seductive.  Problems need to be solved.  If you can name a problem, people then want to know how you think we should solve the problem.  Naming problems in ways that appeals to others builds support for your solution(s).  If you can make the problem into a crisis you can create real power.  See Professor Thomas Long’s introduction in his 2002 edition of Polity, Practice, and the Mission of the United Methodist Church.

A case could be made that the issues related to human sexuality in the United Methodist church are tensions and not conflicts using Stanley’s questions.  The issues related to human sexuality keep resurfacing.  While there are many sides involved in this tension, there are mature advocates on the different sides.  Stanley’s third question is the hardest to conceptualize in terms of our issues with human sexuality in the UMC.

With many different sides, each might be claiming the same ground and the same values.  The Bible, God’s truth, and God’s grace could be claimed by the many different sides of this situation.  Interdependency then is hard to prove.  In the podcast, Stanley gives tensions such as spending time at work versus spending time with family, or the tension between quality versus stewardship.  Siding with one of the aspects of the tension would ultimately undermine that aspect overtime.  Spend too much time with your family and you lose your job.  If you spend too much time with your job, you ultimately lose your family.

Since there are so many different sides related to the situation of human sexuality in the church it is hard to prove interdependency.  Many of the sides offer various solutions.  The solutions and sides that would try to solve the problem may find that they are undermining their position and side in unexpected ways.  If this is over power (whether we will admit it or not) in the church, will they really have more power if we adopt their solution?  If this is over God’s truth, what truths and ideas will be lost if they achieve what they want?  If this is over God’s grace, will God’s grace be better exemplified by the church siding with their position?

Tensions instead of being solved, need to be managed.  Living with a tension is not an easy job.  We all can get frustrated and upset in the process.  As we wrestle with grace, truth, and power, we will feel like others are wrong in their understanding of grace, truth, and power  Yet, if it is a tension that we agree to live with, we can work to acknowledge the various sides and that their perspectives and concerns are needed.  While we cannot solve the tension, we can work to do the most good while living with it, and reduce the most harm from it.  In the process of living with the tension, we can model love and offer a witness to the world of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

“Tension on Warp. ©2008 Copyright LollyKnit. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

I have been reading David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest.  As I read Halberstam’s understanding of how the United States became involved in Vietnam, one striking theme is the desire by key government officials to stop dissent.  The military and political leaders actively squashed most voices who opposed ever increasing military and political involvement in Vietnam.  People were promoted for saying what the elites wanted to hear, not what needed to be said.

Quashing of dissent led to many negative consequences.  Truth was lost/ignored in the decision making process.  Quality leaders were burned by those in power and their expertise was consequently driven out of public service.  The country became more and more involved in Vietnam without really weighing what that meant.  Politicians and military leaders made decisions and then future conversations/reports/subsequent decisions were made to conform to the direction the previous decision’s desired.

The call for schism (no matter how pleasant we make it sound by using words like amicable separation) is a call to quash dissent.  We are basically saying that we no longer want to be in relationships with those who disagree with us.  Their voices are no longer welcome in our presence.  Homogeneity is our mantra.  Actions that make us pause and discern have become a burden.

Schism when wrapped with a bow and gilded with flowery language might sound good.  There are people in the church who are unhappy with what others are doing in the church.  It is a painful time to be United Methodists.  There are alternatives to schism.

As God’s people we could choose to live in tension.  Wrestle with our differences.  Experience the blessings and hurts similar to what Jacob experienced at Jabbok.  Live with many questions.  Wait until God’s will becomes clear.  Learn to love those we disagree with.  Turn the other cheek when others act in ways that hurt us.

We could also choose schism.  Drive out those who disagree with us.  Live in certainty of our own rightness.  Make the people of God choose sides.  Frame those who oppose us in the most demeaning ways.  Practice instant gratification instead of patiently waiting on God’s timing.

When we drive out the dissenters, when we are surrounded by people who all agree with us (at least initially), will we be closer to the truth of God?  The apostle Paul said that we can only see dimly now.  Paul tells the church that in the midst of conflict we should choose the most excellent way of love as our way of being.  Will we see clearer when no one offers an alternate view?  Is schism choosing love?

Some might argue that choosing schism is an act of love.  They might contend the Spirit would want us to do this.  A call for schism is basically saying some of us are on God’s side, some of us are not, and we no longer want to be in association with those who are on the wrong side.

Who is on the Spirit’s side though?  Is the desire for schism from our sinful nature or from the Spirit at work in our lives?  After reading Galatians 5, can we say it is sin or the Spirit that puts in the heart of some the call for schism?  A call for schism in the life of the church comes from a questionable place.

Will our differences be worked out in the short term?  No.  The truth is that they do not have to be.  We can be the church and disagree with each other.  Anyone who draws a line in the sand has only much power as we give the person.  My suggestion is that embrace disagreement and unity instead of agreement and disunity.

Disagreement and dissension can be positive forces in the life of the church.  If we choose healthy ways to resolve our conflict and practice good communication, we can live in tension.  We can show grace in our hurts.  The United Methodist church could model for the world what it means to act in love even in the midst of disagreement.  With patience, time, and by the grace of God, we might ultimately discern a course of action that we all can agree is from God. In the meantime, we could focus on our love of Christ and our purpose of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

“I Told You To Take Out the Trash!” ©2010 Copyright Jill Clardy. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Invocation – Almighty and everlasting God,

Once again we gather to remember those who have died in our country’s battles.  On this day we are reminded of the high cost of war.  With awe, humility, pain, and pride, we invoke their memories.  O God, we implore you to be with us in this time of remembering.

Help us to not make light of their deaths.  Let us not forget the pain, suffering, and horror of war.  Remind us once again the ultimate price many of our fellow citizens have paid in our nations wars.  Ensure that we do not take their deaths lightly.

As the memories of their sacrifices touch our hearts, Empower us not to take for granted the freedoms we enjoy, keep the cost ever present in our minds.  As we remember those who have died, give us the strength to work for peace.  Help us to work for a future that the prophets envisioned, where swords will be turned into plowshares and war will not be taught any more.   Give the leaders of our country wisdom as they make life and death decisions in using our military forces.  Protect our soldiers all around the world.  Let us not take their willingness to serve and die for our country lightly.  May your blessing be on all those who seek to serve a cause higher then themselves.

We pray all this in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Benediction – 

May we go forth with remembering those who have died defending our country.  May their memory inspire us to serve a cause higher then ourselves.  May we work for peace in this world.  May the blessing of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be with you all now and forever, Amen.

The sermon series was my attempt to wrestle with a subject that is at the heart of what I think is wrong with many United Methodist churches in the United States today.  When I started full time ministry, it was clear that leadership was being lifted up as the solution to our perceived problems as a church.  With books, conferences, speakers all preaching the good news of leadership I got the impression that the leaders in my annual conference saw our perceived problems stemming from a lack of leadership.

Books, conferences, and speakers somehow would give us the solution.  Perhaps if we had the “right knowledge,” or started doing the “right things,” we could reverse the perceived trends of decline.  At first this made sense.  It offered a comforting way of looking at the problems that I perceived existed in the church.  This way of thinking gave me a sense of control and power.  If I know and do the right things, my leadership could save the church.  With so many pastors talking about how they grew local churches and how they turned things around, I had hope.

Overtime though I started to feel uncomfortable with our understanding of leadership in the church.  This narrative of leadership did not seem all that biblical or reality based.  Churches that looked vital when their prized leaders were in power, looked less vital once they had new leaders.  I started to wonder if the problem was more existential.  Instead of worrying about issues of knowing and doing, should we be more worried about being?

I think that our fundamental problem as United Methodists in the United States is that we are not being who God calls us to be.  We too often think of our faith in terms of having the right knowledge or doing the right things.  The early Methodists pursued holiness, we pursue numbers in the guise of discipleship and transforming the world.

Talking about being is hard.  It is philosophical.  We rarely make it the topic of conversation.  For a long time, I struggled with how could I preach on the subject.  How do you make something so abstract, and yet intensely personal, and make it relatable in the context of a sermon?

At church camp this summer, I read Leonard Sweet’s book The Greatest Story Never and an idea for a sermon series started to take shape.  His book gave a framework to explore being that might be understandable in the context of a sermon series.  I decided to use the language and ideas of music and singing to talk about being who God calls us to be.

As I reflect on the sermon series, I am not sure I hit all the right notes.  It is really hard to talk about being without also talking about doing.  In many ways, doing stems from being, but parsing that out is hard.  Whether the sermon series accomplished what I had hoped, I do feel like it would be more helpful to focus on being who God calls us to be as a church than to focus on leadership.

“how can i keep from singing?” ©2006 Copyright Emily Hoyer.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

I immediately asked if he was indeed saying that women are a resource. He responded by saying “of course.  People are our greatest resource for ministry.  More than resources but certainly not less.” I am not so sure.  Before I attack the premise, I do want to say the tweeter means well.  He appears to be an Assembly of God pastor.  I am not sure of the “we” in his original tweet means his denomination or Christians in general.  In his subsequent tweets promoting his blog post (and there have been many), he has framed the issue differently.

Attacking double standards, sexist comments, harassment are endeavors worth undertaking. At the same time, can you defend women in ministry and refer to them as a resource?  If women are a resource then they are being framed as a means to an end.  They are objects to be used in some larger goal.

Isn’t the problem with double standards, sexist comments, and harassment in part due to women being treated as something less than a full person? A means to an end?  The pastor/blogger’s response to my tweet suggests he believes all people are resources and was not trying to be sexist.  I am not so sure that we, people, are resources.

Now in the business world people are resources.  Companies have human resource departments.  Employees are referred to human capital.  As I often note on this blog, church leaders borrow the language and ideas from the secular business/leadership world. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that God created us to be a means to an end.  People are an end.

God created us out of love.  We are invited to love God back.  Now sometimes there is the imagery of God’s people as workers, but to the extent that we join in God’s work in the world are we a means to an end?  Did God create us because God needed us to do God’s work?  I contend that we were created out of love and invited to love back.  If we decide to join God’s work in the world, it is not because God needs us, but because we choose to join in God’s work.  We have free will, by the grace of God, we can choose to join God’s great work of salvation in the world.

I am all for calling out double standards and attacking sexism.  Yet, if we come from the perspective that people are a means to an end, a resource, we in someway undermine whatever good we are trying to accomplish.  The same systems and ways of being that create double standards and demean women also see women as a resource, a means to an end.  We cannot have it both ways.  There might not be a straight line between the two, yet both are products of the same worldview.  A worldview that I would contend is counter to the Gospel, and more in line with the ways of sin and death.  As long as we view people the way the world views people, we will struggle to be fully engaged in God’s redeeming work in the world.

Attacking each other on this UM clergy Facebook group is standard fare.  Facebook seems to catch pastors at their least self-aware, least charitable, least loving, and perhaps most exasperated moments.  When we try to discuss issues, it feels like we are in a small room trying to talk over each other at our best, and yelling at each other at our worst.  This discussion was no exception.

What caught my interest in the conversation were the words “eve of destruction.”  This caught my attention, beyond its hyperbolic nature, for two reasons.  The first is that  “Eve of Destruction” is a Bishop Allen (an indie band) song that I really like.  In the song, the speaker desires to be with the speaker’s friend.  Even if the worst possible things happen, the speaker hopes they will still be together.  I love this beautiful expression of companionship

The second aspect that caught my attentions is once again United Methodists were framing our disagreements in cataclysmic ways.  Why do we keep doing this?  There is no rule written that our disagreements have to lead to schism.  Yet, this was not an isolated incident.  I saw other United Methodists on Facebook and Twitter framing this situation in the same way.

Schism is not a real solution.  We do not have to choose it.  Power is the elephant in the room that we really need to talk about.  I encourage us to frame our disagreements differently.

Instead of seeing our conflicts and disagreements as the end of the world/denomination, we could see them as possibilities to grow in our faith.   We have the perfect opportunity as a church to model what it means to be followers of Christ even when we cannot agree on important issues.  This is not the first time in Christiain history that followers of Jesus have disagreed.  Too often in our power struggles we have chosen division over modeling unity.

This is not an easy path, but Jesus never promised an easy journey.  There will be hurt and pain, but at this point, no matter what happens, we are going to experience hurt and pain.  We’ll have to act in love, even when we do not feel it.  Paul’s famous passage on love is about acting in love, not feeling it.

We will need to surrender our pride. In acting in love, we have to admit we may be wrong.  Choose our words and actions carefully.  Frame our issues and divisions in ways that allow for unity and shared ministry.  Disagreement does not have to mean an end to ministry.

In all this, we need to ask what do we ultimately want as a church?  Do we want to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world or do we want to die on this hill?  Are we willing to sacrifice self-righteousness and certainty for charity and tension?  Until we define what is most important to us and act accordingly, we will continue to tear each other down.  Our ultimate actions will speak volumes about what we actually believe.

The band Bishop Allen has a song entitled “Things Are What You Make of Them.”  Very rarely does a song title capture so much truth.  We need to make hard choices, but they are our choices.  No one is forcing us in one direction or another.  If there is schism, I have no doubt there will be a circular firing squad.  Everyone will blame someone else for our divisions.  For those who call for schism and frame our issues in cataclysmic ways, I hope these words from Bishop Allen, “when you wield the knife, learn to carry the blame,” make us pause and leads to a possible change in our rhetoric.

“Golden Cacoon” ©2010 Copyright Daniel Borman.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

How the story would end was always a mystery.  There were multiple endings.  One never really knew where you would wind up until you arrived at the ending.  Choices pointed you in directions, but each path was different.

As members of the United Methodist church fight superficially over issues of sexuality, and more deeply over issues of power, I think we need to be careful how we talk to each other.  At this point, we do not know how things will end.  It is not clear where our choices will lead us.  We cannot really control what happens in the future.

What we can control though are the choices that we make in terms of talking about the state of the church, each other, and how we will treat each other.  Many of the choices being offered the church seem like false choices.  Choose vindictive punishments or be in a de-facto state of schism.  Choose our understanding of the bible, or face God’s wrath on the day of judgement.  Choose to agree with the United Methodist BOD on this issue, or be a parasite on the church (to be be fair it was a comment on the IRD’s blog).

In order to further the conversation, in what I would argue is a better direction, let me offer a different sent of choices:

Choose Faith – Church conflict is not something new.  When you read the New Testament, we see many examples of church conflict.  Paul’s letters deal with conflict.  In 1 Corinthians Paul writes to a church in conflict over spiritual gifts.  Paul’s famous chapter on love is his suggestion on how to navigate this conflict.

In chapter 13, when Paul writes about what will ultimately matter at the end of the day, he contends that what matters are faith, love, and hope.  While Paul would engage in conflicts in the church, it was over major issues of faith.  If it was a minor issue like what we see in Romans 14, Paul would write “accept those whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters” (14:1, TNIV).  Now on a major issue, like whether one needed to be circumcised to be a follower of Jesus, Paul would fight tooth and nail (read Galatians or Romans).

Issues of human sexuality are not a major issue of faith.  They are not mentioned in the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s creed.  The four gospels do not record Jesus teaching on this issue.  A tiny part of the Bible seems to reference issues related to gender and sexual orientation.

Obviously it is included in the Social Principles, and other parts of the BOD, but this does not inherently make its major faith issue.  Many United Methodist clergy and laity disagree with particular teachings in the BOD.  Some might even act against them.  While we have made it a big deal in some parts of the BOD, this does not inherently make it a major issue that we need to get into all out conflict over.  We can choose to focus on what we agree on, the essentials of our faith, while agreeing that this is a disputable matter of faith.

Choose Love – Paul’s introduction to his writings on love in 1 Corinthians starts with Paul writing “and yet I will show you the most excellent way” (12:31b, TNIV).  Paul then writes about love.  Love for Paul was a way of being in the world.  In the midst of their conflict on spiritual gifts, the Corinthians could choose to act in love.

Love in this chapter is not emotional.  It is not how American’s typically think of it.  Paul is describing love in terms of how we act.  Paul gives hall marks for love (13: 4-7) so that they could know if they were acting in love.

As a church, we can choose to act in love.  In the midst of disagreement our words can be loving.  Our actions towards each other can reflect the way of love Paul describes.  Love could be our way in the world, even in the midst of conflict.

Choose Hope – 1 Corinthians 13 is not the only time Paul writes about faith, love, and hope.  In the first letter of the New Testament, Paul writes in the first chapter, “we remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 1:3, TNIV).  I love the image of “endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Being a follower of Christ is not easy.  Living out our faith in the context of the church is not a cake walk.  Witnessing to our faith in a world shaped by forces that are antithetical to the gospel is often challenging.  Yet, in the midst of difficulty we endure because our hope is in Jesus.

The world does not have the final say.  Our challenges in the present will not last forever.  Sin and death do not get the last word.  Christ will come again.  There will be a new heaven and a new earth.  In turn, we have hope.

Many would want us to choose despair.  Some would suggest that we will not be able to persevere together through this conflict.  Talk of schism is not a hopeful solution.  Obviously we can choose despair, but its not our only option.  We can choose hope.  We can believe Jesus is bigger than our differences.

Choose tension – Decisiveness is often a quality that our society values.  People who can make decisions and stand behind them regardless of the costs are often valued.  We like neat solutions.  Many of our institutions such as our legal system, political elections, or our sports are designed around winning and losing.  It drives us crazy when there is not a clear winner. Obviously there are advantages to having winners and being decisive.

In our current conflict, we could choose paths and courses that require decisions and create winners and losers.  We could also choose an alternate way of being in the world.  One with a different focus.  Instead of looking for winners and losers, we could live with tension.

Our conflict over human sexuality will not go away.  Even if there is schism in the church, it will not go away.  There is no easy way to divide the church over human sexuality.  No matter what happens, there will be tension.  Most churches will not be of one mind on the subject.  As people and our culture continue to change, as new generations enter the church, there will still be tension in a divided church.

So instead of pretending that we could somehow end tension with schism, we could just choose to live with tension.  We do not have to agree on every issue, to act in love.  The United Methodist church has always had diversity and diversity creates tension.  Instead of framing this negatively, we could lift up positives that come from tension and do our best to minimize the negatives.

Choose the fruits of the Spirit – The premise of choose your own adventure books is that choices have consequences.  We are not always sure what the end results of those choices will be.  In the short-term though, we can look at the fruits of our choices.  Are the fruits of our actions in line with the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5: 22-23)?  If they are not, are we making choices pleasing to God?

Choose to avoid the desires of the sinful nature – We can also choose to avoid the desires of the sinful nature (Galatians 5:17-21).  While evaluating fruit, we can also evaluate what desires are driving our actions.  Just because we use the language of faith does not mean our desires are from God.  If the fruits are not in keeping with the Spirit, and the actions are more in line with the acts of the sinful nature, we might be choosing the ways of the world over the ways of God.

Choose humility – As Paul wraps up his conversation on love being the most excellent way, he writes “for now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”  He contends that we cannot see everything clearly now.  A few verses earlier, he wrote “we know in part and we prophecy in part.”  For Paul, we will not fully know until we see Christ face to face.

Since we cannot be fully sure who is right in our conflict (to the extent you want to frame our conflict in terms of being right or wrong), we need to choose humility.  We may be in part or fully wrong in our positions.  Without absolute certainty, we need to tread carefully.  Overtime we may come to a consensus, but in the meantime, we to be open to being wrong.

Choose Unity – One of the hardest choices to make is to stay together.  There is pain throughout the connection.  Good faithful people from many different walks of life and perspectives are struggling.  If we choose unity, there will be more pain, more struggle, more conflicts.  Even if we make choices based on faith, love, hope tension, the fruits of the spirits, avoiding the desires of the sinful nature, humility, we cannot avoid hurting each other.  Complaints will be filed.  Just solutions will not be found.  Trials will occur.

In the midst of our hurt, our brokenness, our pain, we will need to decide how to move forward.  If we choose unity, we will have to work through all this.  What matters more than any particular outcome, is how we choose to treat each other in the midst of it all.  When we have to decide what ultimately matters as a church, will it be unity in Christ, or some other ambition?

Schism is not inevitable.  We do not have to choose it.  The end of this adventure is not set in stone.  Many choices still need to be made.  Choosing to frame our conversation in terms of schism is not an observation on reality, but an option chosen from many.  If we let this wedge issue divide us, it will be because of the choices we have made.  May God give us the grace to choose wisely.

“Choose Your Own Adventure.” ©2011 Copyright Paul Love.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

As United Methodists pray and discern in light of the verdict/sentencing in the Reverend Frank Shaefer’s trial, we need to think about power.  The church has power over all those who trust their faith formation to our local churches.  Children and youth are being shaped by our ministries.  What we say and do has the power to help people grow closer to God and follow Christ more nearly.

Of course there is the flip side to the coin.  We have the power to hurt those who put their trust in local churches for their faith formation.  Shaping children and youth can help them in their faith journeys, but we can also shape them in ways that hurt their relationships with God.  Our actions and words have the power to hurt and repel people from God.

In light of the trial, we have to ask how and why are we using our power?  If the way we are using our power is hurting people are we honoring God?  When people outside the church see us putting on trials, what are we saying about the Christ who was tried by the powers of his day?  Is this really our best way to share the Good News?

Why we are using our power is an even more troubling question.  A person outside the church asked me on Facebook who the Reverend Shaefer hurt.  I am not really sure.  I guess the case is that he hurt the church by disobeying the book of Discipline.  For a church that has as its first general rule “do no harm,” I am not sure the harm to the church is as great as the harm the alternative decisions the Reverend Shaefer could have made could have caused.

Is a wedding the real reason we put someone on trial?  Did an internal power struggle in a local church get wrapped up in a larger power struggle between various groups in the UMC?  We rarely name power struggles as such, we would rather dress struggles in the guise of superficial issues.  It is easier to say that I am defending Biblical Christianity than to say I am fighting for my will to be done in the life of the church.  People will often ascribe demeaning motives to their opponents in this struggle, suggest that they are wrapped up in the ways of the world (implying the ways of sin and death), and that they themselves are merely defending the faith.  They may well be defending the faith, but they are also playing the power game.  Someone defending the faith will show the fruits of the Spirit, but it is hard to read the polemics and not see the desires of the sinful nature at work.

Whenever pastors contend this might lead to schism, they are playing the power game.  When a United Methodist, as a witness for the church, calls for “punishment from a pedagogical standpoint,” the person is playing the power game.  This week’s gospel lesson gives us insight about how the world plays the power game, but what lessons will we draw from it?

“The way we operate now, if you want to receive [communion], you have to come to my church sometime between the hours of 9 and 12 on Sunday morning,” Mr. Langford said. “I don’t think there’s any other institution in our country that can survive on that kind of business model.”

Pastor Langford’s statement is problematic for two major reasons.  The first is that its untrue.  No one says that a church can only offer communion on Sunday morning in their facility.  Churches can worship at other times and other places and have communion as part of their worship.  A church can extend the table to those who were unable to be at the worship service where communion is offered.

The second reason is his language.  He compares the church to a business by saying that no other institution in the country could have that business model.  It should go without saying, but we are not a business.  We do not have a business model.

We do use the language and values of the business world all the time though.  Many of our leadership resources have their origins in the business world.  Our words and values in terms of leadership often come from the world of business.  As the church continues to struggle quantitatively, we start looking more and more to the leadership/business world for answers.

Instead of turning to evangelism, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, a robust theology of discipleship, theology in general, or church history, we look to how the world organizes itself and say that we want in.  Rarely do we ever question though the values and premises these ideas of leadership are built on.  What does it mean to say the church has a business model?  Who are the consumers?  What are we selling?  Are we relying on human agency to survive, let alone thrive?

I attend leadership conferences.  When my annual conference or district offers educational experiences related to leadership I attend.  Many of the books I read pertain to leadership.  Andy Stanley’s leadership podcast is a program I listen to.  Yet, the more I delve into the world of leadership, the more I question if this is really the right language for the church.

Businesses depend on human agency.  Leaders run businesses.  Better leaders are believed to produce better results.  CEOs of major corporations are compensated well because it is believed that even a small difference in leadership, can have huge consequences for the bottom line.  The language and values of leadership are rooted in the individual.

The church though is not about individuals.  Success in the early church, at least in the book of Acts, is not attributed to human agency.  When people join the church God is given credit.  Sure people like the Apostles are highlighted, but they do not take credit for the success of the church.  God is seen working through them and they would give God the credit.

Words shape the way we think.  When we use words they shape how we see and perceive the world.  I question if we can use the language of leadership and not buy into the value systems that created it.  Some might see the use of the words “business model” as a harmless similitude or metaphor, but I see it as the values of the world subversively undermining the underpinnings of our faith.

“Church Business.” ©2007 Copyright Pascal Terjan.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Lately I have been wondering if we are obsessing with Kennedy because of what he represents in terms of the common good.  The ending of his inaugural address is powerful:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.

A mighty plea for the common good.  As individuals, as a country, as a world community, could we sacrifice together for a better world?

An example of JFK working for the common good during his presidency is the Cuban missile crisis.  With JFK’s middle way through the Cuban missile crisis, by the grace of God and obviously the help of the Soviet Union, both sides were able to sacrifice self-interest for the good of the world.  It demonstrated, at least in some way, his call for the common good.  Kennedy was president when many people were struggling for the common good.  Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream Speech” was delivered the same year Kennedy was assassinated.  Lyndon B. Johnson was able to use JFK’s assassination to propel forward civil rights legislation.  Before being sidetracked by Vietnam, LBJ proposed “A Great Society.”

Over the summer and fall I have been reading David McCullough’s Truman.  I have been asking, as a I read, what happened to politicians who are “forward looking” (as Truman might say) who will fight for the common good and a better tomorrow.  Where are politicians who propose  “Square deals, New Deals, Fair Deals, Marshall plans, and paint visions of a better tomorrow by mutual cooperation?

I guess the United States fight over health care has been the closest thing we have to someone calling for us to work together for the common good.  Healthcare has been a problem.  Obama pushed congress to solve it.  Now we have a mess.

Instead of working towards the common good, the opponents attack it without offering alternatives.  In order to pass it and get reelected, the President lied about people being able to keep insurance plans that they currently have.  The argument that upsets me the most in this mess is that it is somehow “generational theft.”  It sounds good at first.  Why should young adults have to subsidize older unhealthier people?  So that all might have healthcare?  We all sacrifice so that all might have the medical care they need in the most trying times in their lives?  So that when a young adult has an expensive illness they can get healthcare, preexisting condition and all?

Without a sense of the common good we are left with the lowest common denominator in terms of our behavior.  Fear, greed, cynicism, and narcissism rule the day.  With no common goal, with no hope in something better, we get stuck in depressingly hopeless environments where we all are fighting for whatever scrap of power or money that is still left.

The common good changes the dynamics of power.  A vision of a better tomorrow can give us something to work towards that bridges differences and self-interest.  At its best, it allows multiple parties to win in the midst of conflict and disagreement.  It can be the glue that holds people together in the midst of strife.

As I read with horror what is happening in the United Methodist church, and then with even more horror at what some think should happen, especially in terms of our debates on human sexuality and relationships, I wish the common good would be more part of our conversation.  If our purpose as a church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then is this not what we should all be striving for?  Will trials with vindictive punishments make disciples for Jesus Christ?  Will calls for schism?  Will interest groups using this as a wedge issue to consolidate their power and raise funds be making disciples when all is said and done?

Nothing is set in stone.  What we do is less important than why we do what we do.  What are we going to prioritize?  Who or what will we lift up at the end of the day?  Are we willing to sacrifice/surrender our desires, our power, our need to be right, our self-righteousness for something larger than ourselves?  Maybe we remember Kennedy because we long for a time when felt like were were working for something larger than our own petty self-interests.  Maybe we can do that again.  It is my prayer that we will.

“Program from John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inauguration.” ©2013 Copyright National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

One of the most popular passages in the book of Galatians is the one on the fruits of the Spirit.  Pastors love to preach sermon series based on it.  Christians love to memorize it.  What is less popular are the verses that immediately precede it.  Before Paul describes the fruits of the Spirit, he describes the “desires” of our “sinful nature”(Gal. 5:16-17, TNIV).  When Christians are trying to discern God’s will, looking at the decision through the lens of Galatians 5 is helpful.  Is the choice more in line with the fruits of the Spirit or the desires of our sinful nature?

Any talk of schism in the United Methodist Church is more aligned with the desires of our sinful nature than the fruits of the Spirit.  There is no “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal 5:22-23, TNIV) in schism.  Depending on how you want to frame schism, the desires of the sinful nature run rampant, but not the fruits of the Spirit.  Schism comes from our sinful nature, not the Spirit’s work in our midst.

There are many ways to talk about schism.  Some would desire to focus on a wedge issue.  Others might talk in terms of pragmatism.  When I think of schism I think of it in terms of power and witness.  At the heart of any push for schism is power.  My most fundamental concern about schism is what it says to the world about our faith.

No issue necessitates schism.  We do not have to agree on every issue to be a church.  Yes, it is painful when we do not agree or see eye to eye.  No one ever said that being followers of Jesus together would be pain free.  As we try to discern God’s will for the church and our lives as individuals, we will hurt each other.  Pain is a part of life.  What we do with the pain is what matters most.

Ideally we would love each other in the midst of our disagreements.  Jesus told his followers that the world would know that they are his disciples by their love for each other.  Love is at the heart of Jesus distillation of the Law.  Paul argues in a world where we cannot see clearly, faith, love, and hope will be what remains at the end and should be our driving forces.  Out of the three, Paul contends love is the most important.

Love is an action, not an emotion.  We can act lovingly towards each other regardless of our emotions.  Love is a fruit of the Spirit.  Acting with love does not require agreement.

If we act in love we can be a church in the midst of disagreements.  With faith, love, and hope we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world by the grace of God.  When we make decisions as a church that lead to pain, sadness, and hurt, what matters most is how we treat each other in the aftermath.

What drives schism is not discernment from the Spirit or the fact that we cannot agree on every issue.  What drives talks of schism is power.  There is no simple way to break down all of the power issues involved in schism.  Many groups and people want to change the United Methodist church.  Wedge issues and talks of schism are ways they try to increase their power and control over the church.  They use all of this to play on the desires of our sinful nature to drive fundraising and push agendas.  If they genuinely believe they are on God’s side of the issue, and are not cynically trying to consolidate power, they are so caught up in their self-righteousness to focus on the core of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

For those caught up in issues of power using wedge issues to push their agendas, it is easy to suggest schism.  It helps with fundraising and is a tactic in their game of power.  If the denomination splits, they believe they will have more power.  If the denomination does not split, it is one more card they can use to further push their desires on the church.  For the rest of us though, schism is deeply problematic.  Flawed as our efforts are, we are trying to discern God’s will.  We do not assume God is on our side, we are looking for God’s desire in the midst of sin and brokenness.  What is God’s preferred will for us?

Schism distracts us from discernment.  If a wedge issue successfully fractures the UMC, local congregations will be in trouble.  Very few congregations are of one mind on any wedge issue.  As a pastor and life long United Methodist, I have discovered that any congregation you might label one way or another, has members who do not fit that label.  Even when a congregation votes to label itself with a term like confessing or reconciling, you will find members who disagree.  We do not have to agree to be the church.

If the denomination breaks up though, churches will have to take sides.  They will not experience the fruits of the Spirit in all this.  Instead they will experience the desires of the sinful nature trickling down from those playing a power game with the rest of us.  Instead of seeking God’s will and working on who God is calling us to be, we will be dealing with the aftermath of the church falling to the temptations of this world.

Not only will schism bring out the worst in us, but what sort of witness does it create?  What will the world think?  What will be teaching future generations about our faith?  Jesus tells us that we are to love one another and we cannot even do that?  What could we possibly gain in schism that will not be severely compromised by deciding to divide?

Our best witness is to love one another, to act in love, even in the midst of severe disagreement.  Just because it is difficult and goes against our nature, does not mean we should not try.  The harder it is, the more difficulty we encounter, the greater witness we bear to God’s transforming work in our lives.  If we could live with the tension of disagreement, console each other in pain, act in love when the tension is strongest, we could show the world what it means to be a followers of Jesus.

We live in a world where people cut and run when things get difficult.  A society so polarized we cannot often work together for the common good or even agree that we should.  As a church, our ability to be in relationship in the midst of disagreement could be a powerful witness.  Instead of just packing up our toys because we have a fight, we could be together in the midst of great hurt and be a witness to the reconciling love of God.

Ultimately, I am a pragmatist.  I do not think schism is ever God’s preferred will.  At the same time, we could get to a point, where the desires of our sinful nature cause us to be too hurtful to each other to be in relationship.  Sometimes the pain becomes too much.  There can come a time when the sin is greater in staying together.  We need to be honest with ourselves if this happens.  It is not inevitable.  Schism is not a  fruit of the Spirit.  Division would come because we have failed one of our most basic obligations as followers of Jesus, to love one another.  Our witness would severely compromised and an opportunity to model a different way destroyed.  All because we surrendered to our worst desires instead of seeking God’s preferred will for our lives.

“Tears of brokenness station” ©2009 Copyright robinsan. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

On Saturday I taught a lay speaking class on Lance Jones and Andy Stanley’s book Communicating for Change.  After I was done walking the class through the book, we watched an Andy Stanley sermon from his sermon series “The Comparison Trap.”  In the sermon “Land of Er,” Stanley contends the author of Ecclesiastes was right when writing “and I saw that all toil and all achievement spring from one person’s envy of another. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind” (Eccl. 4:4, TNIV).  As I was watching the sermon, my mind started to drift towards a conversation from the previous day.

The day before the lay speaking class, I talked with one of my friends in ministry.  We were talking about lay speaking and then our conversation turned to the weekly statistical reporting.  I initially bit my tongue when he solicited my thoughts.  My soapbox on the subject is always close by and I could rant for a long time on why this is all so deeply problematic.  My friend is not a fan of the reporting either.  We both worry that these numbers will be used to label pastors unfairly.  He thinks it might create a class system of pastors.

As I heard Stanley talk about how “better one handful with tranquility than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the wind” (Eccl. 4:5, TNIV), I started to wonder if envy was the ultimate end of statistical reporting.  No one in the churches I serve is happy with our numbers.  They were unhappy before I came and we continue to struggle.  Yet, this unhappiness has not produced significant change, at least in numerical terms.

I had trouble seeing how weekly reporting would help, but in this past week, a bigwig in the conference directed our attention to a tool that allows us to see every church in the conferences reported numbers.  We can see the numbers of any church participating in the program.  At the time I wondered how this would be helpful.  Were they trying to shame churches?

In the sermon, Andy Stanley talks about how we look to the left and the right to see if we are ok.  Are we doing better or worse than those around us?  Envy will drive us to try and be better in relation to people we perceive as ahead of us.  This statistical project now allows churches to look to the left and to the right.  They can see how they are doing compared to the United Methodist church down the road.

Stanley’s point in the sermon is that “there is no win in comparison.”  If envy drives us, we will never be at peace.  It is as the author of Ecclesiastes suggests “chasing after the wind.”  While we should do our best with what God has given us, we need to acknowledge how envy drives us, the damage it causes, and root it out of our lives by the grace of God.

I wonder though if the United Methodist church and my conference are trying to institutionalize envy.  If we are not trying to shame churches and pastors, are we trying to get them to be envious of each other?  Drive them to perform better statically, by making them look to the left and the right.  The more we use the language of leadership and buy into the values of secular society, the more I think it is possible.  When you have the mentality of “whatever it takes” and equate discipleship with numbers, the less you have to hold you back from using any means possible.  Even if that means is institutionalizing in a small way the sin of envy.

“Envy” ©2010 Copyright Stéfan  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

At a recent meeting of clergy, we were told that we will soon be able to submit statistics to the Vital Congregation on a weekly basis.  We were given the impression that we were expected to do this though it would not have to be on a weekly basis.  The presenter said by Easter we should be expecting an e-mail to start the submission process.  He tried to frame it in a positive way.  Later he sent us an e-mail telling us the program was mandatory and part of our clergy covenant.

At the meeting, I got the impression that there had already been blow back from some pastors on this issue.  He was a bit defensive.  The presenter stressed how this is a tool.  It was not going to be used to attack pastors.  Our end of the year reports contain the same information.  If the superintendency wanted to use information against pastors, they could already do it.

I wanted to ask the presenter why are we doing this?  How will this tool help?  At that moment though, I was angry and annoyed and did not think I could ask in a non-hostile way.  I also feared that he would just give the same justification that he used earlier – we measure what is important to us.

I have no fundamental problem with collecting information.  We need information to get a sense of what is going on in both the local and larger church.  Collecting information is at the heart the Methodist movement.  Methodists have always collected information as a way to gauge their ministries.

I also do not have a problem with setting numeric goals in a healthy church situation.  When a church is thriving, I believe that it should set goals.  Goals, involving numbers, in a healthy situation creates accountability.  They can be a tool in evaluating the church’s ministry and discerning what God is calling the church to do or who God is calling the church to be.

What I question though is the motivation behind the tools we are creating to collect information.  Tools and information by themselves are neither good or bad.  It is what we do with tools and information that matters.  Information and tools can be used for good, but they can also be used to hurt and destroy people.

I have been trying to understand how these tools will help a church or a pastor.  What is the advantage of submitting information on a regular basis?  How will this enhance our ministries?  Why do we need more frequent information than a year end report?

I can think of three advantages of frequent reporting.  The first is that if a pastor or church is totally out of touch with their situation, this might create a crisis.  It is theoretically possible that the pastor or the church are blissfully unaware that their situation is deteriorating.  Reporting the numbers, might motivate the pastor or the church to confront the deteriorating situation.

A second reason frequent reporting might be helpful is if this more frequent information helped the leadership of the conference be more aware of the current state of affairs in our churches.  I heard a bishop complain about how the information he was receiving from the statistical reports was too outdated to be useful.  I question why we couldn’t create a better way of collating the year end report information so that the Bishop could have it within a week of being submitted, but there is a case for more immediate information as leaders discern what is best for the conference.

The best case for frequent reporting of numbers is if there was immediate positive response to the numbers.  What I mean by immediate positive response is that the leaders of the conference responded to numbers in a way that is helpful.  For churches reporting numbers that show marked improvement, the conference leadership could congratulate the church and try and learn what is working in that church’s context.  Ask questions to suss out what is going on.

In churches where the numbers indicate the church is struggling, the conference leadership could try and work with the church.  Discover why the church is struggling and work together on a plan to move forward.  Is there a mismatch between the pastor and the congregation?  Are there forces beyond the congregations control?  The leadership of the conference could help  congregation who are struggling discern who God is calling them to be and how to live into that.

If the information is used in ways to help, I am all for the frequent reporting of numbers on a regular basis.  What I fear is that they will not help.  My most mild concern is that this will be a waste of time.  Looking at all the information I will need to collect on a regular basis, it will be a fair amount of time and effort each week to ensure I have accurate numbers.  If the conference does not use this information in a way to help then from my perspective I will be wasting my time.

While I worry about wasting my time, I do have deeper fears  I fear that this is the wrong focus for vitality.  Numbers can be a tool to gauge the healthiness of a church, but only in a limited way.  All the different metrics can do is show you how your ministry is doing in terms of numbers. The numbers give you a sense of the healthiness of the church in a limited way.  They do not address the more fundamental issues.  Numbers will not tell you is why.  Why is the attendance decreasing?

Metrics are a way of looking at the output of the system.  The problem lies in the system.  Vitality is more an issue of being than doing.  What we do and the measurable output are a reflection of who we are.  The healthiest way to change the output is not to focus on what we do.  Instead we need to focus who we are and who we are called to be in Christ.

If we focus on numbers, we miss the point.  Saying our attendance is a problem will not make our attendance better.  If it creates a crisis, in a delusional church, it might help, but most pastors and leaders of churches already have a sense of how their church is doing.  If they are not in crisis mode yet, the numbers are not going to spur a change now.

Wanting better numbers will not increase the numbers.  A thriving church is complicated.  Noticing problematic numbers alone will not solve anything.  It may increase the unhealthiness of the system by abandoning core principles, using short-term gimmicks, creating paper ministries, but a focus on numbers will not help with spiritual healthiness.  Not all growth is good.  Multiplication is not always a boon.  Growth of a tumor is generally bad.  Replicating cancer cells are not helpful.

I also fear that our focus on numbers is the wrong way to frame church vitality.  We are buying into and using language and ideas of the business world and secular leadership.  The presenter at the gathering started his portion of the session by calling United Methodist churches “store fronts” and “outlets.”  I bit my tongue.

Churches are not store fronts or outlets.  A store front is a building.  An outlet sells cheap goods.  We are not a building.  The church does not have a product. As a pastor I am not trying to sell anything.

We are witnesses to the Good News found in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.  The church gathers to be a witness to this Good News and share it.  Our primary task as a disciple is to follow Jesus into the world to love God and love our neighbor.  As we go out, we invite others to follow Jesus too.

The language of faith is different the language of business and secular leadership.  If we focus on the values and priorities of the business world, such as numbers, we can easily miss God’s values and God’s priorities.  I agree with Tom Berlin and Lovett Weem’s book Bearing Fruit: Ministry with Real Results that God intends ministry to be fruitful.  Fruitfulness though cannot always be captured by statistics.  Many prophets in the Bible, who we would say had fruitful ministries, were not  worldly successes.  Only time would show the fruit of their ministry.

Even more problematic is that sometimes what the world views as success is not vitality.  Dan Dick’s book Vital Signs contends that some churches that look successful now are cancerous.  They will not be vital in the long run.  Vitality, thriving, fruitfulness, all need the long view to really be appreciated.

Framing discipleship in terms of attendance is also problematic   Going to church does not make one a disciple.  Professions of faith are important steps on the path of discipleship, but they are not the be all or end all.  We can give money to missions and not honor God.  Christians can become very smart in their small groups, but not grow in their love for God.

We run the risk of having great numbers, but poor discipleship.  I keep hearing that we measure what is important, but what happens if the numbers become most important?  Instead of the hard work of discipleship, we chase after better numbers?  Does God care about our outward metric appearance, or our hearts?  Framing vitality in terms of metrics may not be our best path to thriving in God’s mission and vision for the church.

This push for metrics leaves me with many questions.  Why are we doing this?  How will this lead to vitality?  Why now?  All we have been told is that we have to do this based on our covenant as elders and that it will help.

The presenter assured us this would not be used as a weapon.  If the conference wanted to use this information against us, they could use the year end reports.  I did not find this reassuring.  We were not told specifically why we had to use this tool.  No particular evidence was used to contend this would be helpful.  How can we trust that this tool will be used for good?

Now I am not suggesting that there is some cabal of evil conference leaders planning to use metrics to destroy pastors.  My fear is that we have the wrong focus and are framing vitality in the wrong way.  The harm that may come from our focus on metrics and framing of vitality will be more banal and subversive.  This effort is not malicious, but perhaps more dangerous because the problems are more fundamental and the damages less overt.

When we are not told why we are doing this in a meaningful way, it becomes hard to trust the system and those perpetuating it.  We are in an unhealthy system.  No one has a silver bullet solution to what ails the church.  The more we focus on metrics the harder it will be not to use them to in ways that are not punitive.  It is easier to look at numbers than to understand what is going on in a local church.  Since the conference cannot easily make a local church do anything, the pressure for change falls primarily on the pastor.

Pastors are already stressed out.  Change in a local church is not easy.  Helping a church be who God calls them to be is difficult.  Numbers only add to the dififculty and stress.  Instead of discerning who God calls us to be, the pressure becomes to do what it takes to improve the numbers.  Increasing numbers does not necessarily mean faithfulness to God or increasing discipleship.

Tools are neither inherently good or bad.  They are what we make of them.  We could use the tool of metrics in ways that enhance our ministry.  My concern is that metrics lead us focus on the wrong things and frame vitality in the wrong way.

“Tools.” ©2009 Copyright Tony Hall.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Mr. Tooley raises two good issues.  Is God against drones and how should Christians navigate an imperfect world.  The question about God’s feelings on drones should probably be broken down into two further points of query.  Is God against the existence of drones and is God against our use of drones as a nation?

In trying to discern God’s feelings on the existence of drones there are at least two issues.  Are drones the best use of our environmental resources given that God has entrusted us?  Given the Biblical mandate to love our neighbor as ourself, are drones the best use of our economic resources?

Thoughtful Christians might come to different conclusions on this issue.  Cases can be made for and against God’s feelings on drones depending on what you prioritize in terms of values and how you frame the issue.  Drones might be broken into sub-categories.  Some drones are designed to kill people, others are not.  Surveillance drones might be a better use of our resources and more loving towards our neighbor than using human assets on the ground or in the sky.  If you believe God would want us to use resources for surveillance purposes.

While it might be hard to discern God’s feelings on the existence of drones, I do think God cares about how we use drones.  In my mind, the big issue is whether we are using drones justly.  Most Christians believe God cares about justice.  When I read the prophets, I see that God cares about justice.  As I look at the New Testament, I see that God cares about how we treat each other.

God’s concern about justice goes beyond our actions as individuals.  The other day I heard a preacher preach from the beginning of the 58th chapter of Isaiah.  What struck me about the sermon was the the preacher missed the point of the passage.  God was unhappy with the Israelites religious observance because they were participating and perpetuating unjust systems.  Part of Jesus critique on the religious leaders of his day is that they too were participating and perpetuating unjust systems.

Is the use of drones unjust in God’s eyes?  Does God care if kill people with drones?  While there is a lot we do not know about the American drone program, there are a few things that seem clear.  People are killed without trials.  Americans have been killed without trials.  Some of the people killed probably had no desire to hurt the United States.

While it might be expedient to kill people without a trial, and it may even be better than some other options, I have trouble seeing how a God who cares about justice could approve.  It seems rather unjust to kill people without a trial.  Now I realize we live in a complicated world, but the way we navigate complexity is our priorities.  What we value will guide our actions.  If security at any cost is our highest value, it will guide what we do.  If justice at any cost is our highest value, it will guide what we do.  As Christians what values we use to navigate the complexities of life speaks volumes about our faith and relationship with God.

How should Christians navigate an imperfect world?  I would argue for discernment.  We need to discern what God is calling us to do.  Discernment is dynamic, we are always discerning.  Each situation, requires prayer, meditation on God’s word, holy conversation, and humility.  When Christians find that they are perpetuating and participating in an unjust system, they should try to discern how God would have them act.

We live in a world full of unjust systems.  There is virtually no way to not participate in them.  Still we should not just sit on our thumbs either.  We cannot look at injustice in the world and say well someday God will take care of this mess.  United Methodists believe we participate, by the grace of God, in God’s process of salvation.  We use words like sanctification, Christian perfection, regeneration, Social Principles, and we have a history of naming injustice and standing against it.

The bottom line is that God cares about what we do.  We cannot teach about judgement, sin, and grace and believe otherwise.  Putting worldly values above God’s values cannot be justified in the name of national security or contending that the world is complicated.  Yes, we live in an imperfect unjust world, but we are called to be witnesses to the Good News found in Jesus and the kingdom of God.

“Predator Drone” ©2010 Copyright Doctress Neutopia.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Another pastor brought up the concern about pedophilia and homosexuality.  Normally, I try to stay out of conversations where I can see no win.  If I cannot see a positive outcome for the conversation, I see little reason to add to the negative energy.  Yet, as all sorts of issues were being fused into one, I felt I needed to say something, even if it seemed obvious.  From my perspective there were several issues at play: 1) the United Methodist’s church’s postion on homosexuality, 2) the possible change in the Scout policy, 3) the relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality, and 4) how will our churches react to a change in policy.

I made the point that we did not need to frame these issues in antagonistic ways.  I contended that heterosexuals can be pedophiles and that there is no link between one’s sexual orientation and pedophilia.  From my perspective the church’s position on homosexuality was not really an issue in terms of the Boy Scouts.  People can use the church facility without agreeing with the church’s position on everything.  The church can allow people to use the facility without agreeing with everything the person or group believes in.  We are not going to stop a Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Buddhist from leading a Scout troop. Ultimately, each church will have to decide how to respond if the Scouts change their policy.

The conversation continued to go nowhere.  Finally, another pastor told a joke, which I think was less offensive then the ones they started the meeting with, and we started to leave.  I was flushed and wound up.  These conversations always upset.  Certain people seem to have a mission in this world to upset people, whether they really need to be or not.  Many of our problems are because people frame things in ways that make them problematic and use the ensuing controversy to consolidate power.

I started to leave, but ended up talking to the pastor who was leading the gathering.  The pastor was probably making sure I was not going to leave the meeting and create problems for him.  Just as we finished talking, the pastor who started the whole conversation came up to me and wanted to talk.  He wanted to know “why can’t we talk about these issues?”

Our conversation started in the hallway of a church facility, but as preschool children filed past us, and their adult leaders gave us dirty looks, we moved our conversation out to the parking lot.  We talked in the cold for a long while.  He would bring up a point, I would bring up a counter point.  I was not trying to take any side, but trying to show why an issue like homosexuality is complicated.

My main contention was that reading the Bible is difficult.  It was written thousands of years ago.  In languages that are very different than English.  Our scriptures were “God-breathed” into particular times and places.  They were written in different cultures, with different ideas, and different ways of viewing the world.  None of us can fully understand or appreciate any verse given all of this.  Good God fearing people can disagree on how best to understand the scripture.   We only see dimly now.  None of us fully understand God.

His main contention was that if you have the “Spirit of truth” in you, you’ll read the Bible the right way.  He clearly thought he had the “Spirit of truth” and was reading God’s word the right way.  I suggested that perhaps people who disagree with him, might think that they have the “Spirit of truth” too.  On this issue, he really could not imagine that.

We both had other contentions.  Our conversation just kept going in circles.  At some point I guess he realized he was not going to to convince me his perspective was the only valid one.  He ended the conversation by again asking “why can’t we talk about these issues?”  I think he meant as pastors in the local church.

I thought that it should have seemed self-evident.  We cannot talk, because you do not want to talk.  Conversation is a two way street.  It requires give and take.  You need to listen as well as talk.  To listen to someone, you have to believe they have something to say worth hearing.

One reason we struggle to talk in the church is arrogance.  From my limited perspective, the other pastor was being incredibly arrogant.  He felt he had the “Spirit of truth” on his side, and his opponents did not.  It seemed liked his mission was to show others the error of their ways.  He did not want a conversation, he wanted to win people to his side.

This arrogance then extends to how he frames the issue.  He frames the issue in the most antagonistic way.  The pastor brings it up when no one else is sweating over it.  When everyone else seems uncomfortable, he presses on. His issues are more important than any other considerations, like healthy group dynamics for example.

I wish we could as a church and as a society have fruitful conversations.  It would be wonderful if we all practiced healthy ways of communicating and problem solving.  If we all were humble enough to admit we could be wrong, generous enough to believe others might have a valid perspective, and loving enough to look past our differences, we might be able to talk about these issues.  I pray one day we will be less worried about power and winning, and more concerned about being witnesses to God’s love.  Until that day though, we will have to pray that the Spirit might empower us to live into the truth of God that is most important.

“Veni, Sanctificator” ©2011 Copyright Lawrence OP.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

The problem with innovation is its focus.  We innovate when we can identify a problem and the innovation is the solution.  The United Methodist church has problems galore.  United Methodists have all sorts of innovative ways of trying to deal with the problems.  Maybe if we do this, or do that differently, we’ll find the innovative solution that will some how fix our perceived problems.  If only we could find the silver bullet solution of an idea.

I contend our fundamental existential problem is being, not doing.  Churches, agencies, conferences, everyone, and everything thing in-between are doing things.  Most people in the church are not sitting on their thumbs hoping for some sort of divine intervention.  Our focus needs to turn towards being, not what are we doing.  One way to frame it would be “who are we versus what are we doing.”  Innovation looks toward what we are doing.  We need to change who we are before we change what we do.

Innovation is not going to change who we are.  It might change what we do to some effect, but it does not solve the fundamental problem with many of our churches.  Our congregations are not living into the full potential of who God calls us to be.  We have abandoned our theologies of Christian perfection and sanctification.

By not living into who God calls us to be, we are not different than anyone around us.  We are not being light in the midst of darkness.  Many of our churches are more of a reflection of the larger culture than Christ.  We can innovate all we want, but if we do not change our hearts and our ways, I think our innovation is in vain.

What we need more than anything else, is incubation.  For our churches to be petri dishes incubating an infectious way of following Christ.  Instead of being infected by world, we should be infecting the world with Christ.  Not so much by what we do, but by who we are in Christ.

Churches, pastors, and lay people do not need permission or changes to the Book of Discipline to do this.  What we need is a different way of thinking about our lives, our faith, and our ministry.  If we change our way of being, we will change what we do, but changing what we do, will not inherently change who we are.

I love Bishop Schnase’s book Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations, but I do not like how he frames the book. Instead of calling them practices, I would call them fruits.  A vital congregation produces the fruits of passionate worship and so on.  All of the different practices flow from who we are.  You do not set out to passionately worship and make it happen.  Passionate worship is a fruit of our relationship with God and who God is calling us to be.

Our churches are petri dishes where given the right conditions we can produce an infectious way of following Christ that has the potential jump from the dish and infect our larger culture.  What stops us is not the general conference, the denomination, the judicial council, ineffective clergy, or whatever else we want to blame.  Blame might not even be the right word.  The impediment is our focus.  We are so worried about the future, so concerned with doing the right thing, we forget that the future and our actions should not be our primary concern.

I believe our primary concern is our dynamic relationship with God and who God is calling us to be.  As we peruse Christian Perfection and live out our salvation to the utmost, we might grow into an infectious way of following Christ.  Or we might not.  Faithfulness does not alway produce immediate fruitfulness.  Sometimes the infection goes crazy, sometimes it does not.  We follow Christ, invite others to join us, and leave the rest to God.

“Petri Dish.” ©2010 Copyright Dark Botxy.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

When I hear people arguing interpretations of the United States constitution that rely on the intent of the founding fathers, I want to gag a little.  Why should we try to channel the will or intention of dead people?  Human thought did not reach its apex in the 18th century.  I strongly believe we need to use the inherent built-in flexibility of the United States constitution to keep it relevant in the 21st century.

So I find it a bit strange that I feel a need to stand up for the United Methodist Book of Discipline and particularly our United Methodist constitution.  I do not think either is perfect.  They are works in progress.  Yet the constitution does try to preserve, perhaps in a flawed way, some of our inherent values as a denomination.  The Judicial Council’s job is to make sure we live up to the rules we set for ourselves.  We may not like the rules, but they are what we agreed to.  It is not the Judicial Council’s fault or problem if some now find the rules inconvenient

A veteran lay delegate to General Conference, Joe Whittemore, writes, in the United Methodist Reporter that the Judicial Council needs a change of worldview.  He attacks the Judicial Council’s understanding of the Book of Discipline and constitution.  From his perspective, they are interpreting it from the wrong point of view.

He justifies this contention in several ways.  Mr. Whittemore notes how many people voted for the reforms at General Conference.  He mentions the obscene large amount of money the bishops spent on outside consultants to devise these reforms.  Mr. Whittemore then makes an interesting, though inane, analogy to a recent Supreme Count decision.  Using that analogy he then concludes with the idea that it is the Judicial Council’s role to try and save legislation from unconstitutionality.

I do agree that there needs to be a change in worldview, but the Judicial Council is not the problem.  The problem lies with our focus on leadership.  At the heart of Whittemore’s commentary is expediency, which I believe is the lifeblood of leadership.  Expediency in leadership asks why can’t we just empower the right people to make the expedient difficult choices to shore up the bottom line?

What we need than anything is to ask the question who is God calling us to be?  The “right people” are not going to lead us to the promised land.  There is no salvation in leadership.  Our hope cannot rest on us.

I loved Taylor Burton-Edwards‘ Great Thanksgiving prayer for Christ the King Sunday.  My favorite part is:

Again and again, through prophets and people, through leaders in faith, and in the ordering of common life, you have established your rule as Shepherd, calling, caring, culling, and bidding us to follow.

Again and again, we turned from your way of leading, to establish ourselves as leaders for our own sake, monarch, despots, generals, chief priests, and kings, distorting the gift of community into a commodity to be used for the benefit of those who rule.

I know the people who were contending for the changes passed at General Conference mean well.  Undoubtedly they see themselves as faith leaders.  They want to solve the problems they see.  The problem is that leadership will not solve the church’s woes.  It is possible that might bring some order to the chaos, clean some of the mess of ministry, but it is also possible that their focus on leadership will lead us in the wrong direction.

Our shepherd is Jesus.  We are his followers.  He is our leader.  Leadership should not be our mantra.  I believe we need to focus on discernment.  How are we called to follow Jesus?  How do we best invite others to join us in following?  How are we being called to be the church in our various contexts as a connection?

Instead of blaming the Judicial Council, ineffective pastors, the United Methodist constitution, or whoever or whatever else seems to be standing in the way of vitality, we need to pray, dream, talk, hope, and love.  Now is the time to discern a vision of how we are being called to be the church.  Now is the time for people called United Methodists to share visions, dreams, and ways forward.  Instead of worrying about success, let us be concerned with faithfulness.  Perhaps in the midst of our discernment we might just get a heavenly view that we can live into.

I found myself very agitated after reading it.  Whenever I hear or read that “not being fed” is a reason someone is considering leaving a church, I get annoyed.  For me, it seems to capture succinctly what is wrong with many churches today.

When did the church become about us being fed?  Where in the Bible does Jesus tell his followers that they should seek out a group of believers that is going to meet their needs?  No where in the Bible is the church potrayed about being about us.  I realize with all the “buddy Jesus” language, as one of my pastor friends would say, prevalent in so many of our songs and hymns it is easy to start to think its about us, but the call to follow Christ is not about our wants and desires.  Discipleship is about growing in relationships, not growing in accomplishments or feelings.

Michael Slaughter, the pastor of Ginghamsburg United Methodist Church, breaks American into four world views.  He believes a majority of United Methodists have a soft-secular worldview that is focused on materialism and possessions.  When I heard him talk about this at a bishop’s retreat it resonated with my experience in the church.  So I am not suprised when I hear people talking about leaving the church because they are not being fed, but it still upsets me.

As soft-secular consumers, we view the church in terms of consumption.  What am I getting out of it?  What am I putting into it?  Does the balance come out in my favor?

I know Jesus said feed my sheep to Peter.  Feed them what though?  The idea that the church is about them?  One of the problems in American Christianity is that we’ve made it about us.

I remember attending a trustees meeting where a trustee started complaining about changes made to the worship service.  The chair let the rant go on and pretty soon others were airing similar concerns.  While not relevant to the meeting at hand, I explained why we made the changes.  From my point of view, we were making changes so that the worship service would be more welcoming for those outside the church,

The trustee looked at me and said we need to be more concerned about the people inside the church than outside.  Without insider support, we would not have a church he claimed.  A few months later, the trustee said the same thing in a congregational meeting.

I was horrified both times.  Very rarely are people so blatant or honest about their perspectives, but the church often sends the signal that we care more about ourselves than those outside the church.  Issues about being fed seem narcissistic to me.  Perhaps the complaint is more about the person issuing it than about the church?

My questions for those who are feeling not fed are: What are you doing to love your neighbor?  What are you doing to grow in love with God?  How are you helping the church discern God’s mission and vision?  How are you living into the Reign of God?

 “Feeding the Sheep” ©2007 Copyright Mark Loveridge.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Personally, I find this all very heartening.  From my perspective the council is trying to ensure that we are abiding by the rules we have agreed to live by.  These rules are hierarchal   Some take precedent over others.  It is how we set up the system in 1968.  It reflects our values and aspirations.

I believe it is important to have a fair process in dealing with clergy.  If we are going to hold a pastor or bishop accountable, we need to clearly define what they are being held accountable for.  Accountability though needs to be mutual.  Bishops and cabinets should be held accountable for how they appoint.  Churches need to be held accountable too.

My fear though is that we are not really interested in accountability.  I think the issues of effectiveness are really a cover for expediency.  As a church we have been infected by the values of the business/leadership world.  In the business world, you have a clearly defined CEO/leader.  The leader has the power to fire, often at will.  Need to sure up the bottom line?  Fire the employees, change their compensation, and scare them into submission.

Expediency is often the currency of leadership.  You do what you have to to achieve the results you want.  Need to look good?  Blame someone else for failure, and fire them.  You do what you have to.  Survival of the wiliest.

Trying to eliminate the processes that protect clergy feeds into expediency.  It would be a lot easier for people in positions of power to do what they feel they need to, if they did not have to worry about people.  Some crave the power that expediency brings.  They seem to hate the messiness of ministry.  Things seem so much better on the other side of the fence where leaders have the power to do what they want.

Ineffective pastors are the bogeyman.  If we want to get rid of ineffective pastors, now, we could do it.  Sure it would require communication, clearly defined goals, mutual accountability, and conflict resolution, but it could be done.  The trouble is that we don’t really want to delve into the messiness of ministry.  Churches and people in positions of power really don’t want to confront the real issues of ineffectiveness.  Removing people from appointments without trials would be more expedient and easier for those on top.

Fairness, while not exactly a biblical value, is a currency of relationships.  As a connectional church, we are a series of relationships.  Healthy relationships require trust, communication, boundaries, and fairness.  Relationships get in the way of expediency.

As a church we have to decide ultimately, what do we value?  What currency are we going to use?  I applaud the judicial council for not being infected by the currency of expediency.  It would be easy to buy into the values of our society and disregard the values and rules we have agreed to.  I believe that we would not be better for it though.  I would pick fairness and relationships over expediency any day.

 “S. aureus infection of endothelial cells” ©2010 Copyright TheJCB.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Mr. Jackson frames the conversation as if there are two sides and that this is a debate.  I would contend that both of these are fales premises.  Onto his first point, there are many perspectives on the issues of lesbian and gay ordination and marriage.  Some might be labeled progressive.  We might be able to identify a “traditional” group that stands in opposition to progressives. The trouble is that its not simply two groups, there is a spectrum.  There is not one united group that represents all “progressives.”  Not every supporter of the status quo, supports the status quo for the same reasons.  There are many sides with many perspectives that may or may not align with the two perceived sides Mr. Jackson offers.

Framing this as a debate is also problematic   There are not two sides.  No one has offered a clear premise to debate.  No one has won and no one will win.  Issues related to human sexuality are not for the winning or losing.  The issues raise questions that we live with.  As a denomination we have felt a need to answer these questions every four years, but the questions do not go away.  Our answers given at General Conference are not the last word on the subject.  We will continue to live with the issues, ask questions, and disagree on certain aspects of how best to live with the issues.  Four years later, we will probably try to answer these questions again at General Conference.

What is rarely talked about in terms of these issues is power.  Is the real issue human sexuality or is it power?  Why do we need to frame this as a debate?  Why is this a wedge issue?  Should we be talking about human sexuality or the unhealthy power dynamics at work in the church?  We do not talk about power, but it is at the heart of trying to end of guaranteed appointments, the Call To Action, Vital Congregations, and framing issues over human sexuality as something to debate.

The title of the article invokes the idea of marriage.  As if we are a couple that could break up.  I have not seen in the Bible a metaphor of the church where members of the church are married to each other.  The prevailing metaphor is that the church is married to Christ.  We are not married to each other, we are married to Christ.

What would our partner ask us to do?  As far as I can tell, Jesus does not call for disunity.  Even a cursory reading of the Gospel of John would show that.  Jesus tells his followers “by this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35, TNIV).  Breaking up would not be showing that we love each other.  It would should that we cannot even figure out how to love each other in the midst of disagreement.

Jesus prays that his followers “may be one” (John 17:21, TNIV).  How do we honor Jesus, who prays for our unity, by calling for disunity?  Is the church about us?  I believe that when we start framing issues in ways that fly in the face of Jesus prayer for his followers, we need to step back and prayerfully reflect on the situation.

I realize that there is no one catholic church that all Christians are part of in an institutional sense.  Today is celebrated by some as Reformation day.  Sometimes as brothers and sisters in Christ we have decided to split institutionally (even before the Reformation).  Splits in the institutional church usually involve a mix of power, political, and theological motives.  I acknowledge that sometimes we can no longer be in relationship with each other institutionally for our power, political, and theological reasons.  It has to be acknowledged though that this should not be a first response to problems and leaves a poor witness to Christ’s ideals for his followers.

We say as United Methodists that our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  Talk of “break up” flies in the face of our mission.  I don’t see how spending the energy and time of splitting up the church will make more disciples.  After the heartbreak, the emotional stress, and the energy expended creating new denominations, how will any new denomination be in a healthy place to be a church that disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?

If I was a professor at a seminary, or a pastor in a congregation that stood squarely in the progressive camp, or traditional camp, I might welcome the chance to have a clean split, and end what I construe as an all encompassing issue that has to be decided immediately.  As a pastor of a local church that has members all over the spectrum though, it will not be a clean split.  I have worshipped at churches that would call themselves reconciling.  My home church labeled itself as a confessing church.  In all of these local congregations, different people had different stances on the “debate over progressive views lesiban and gay ordination and marriage.”  In the churches I have served as a pastor, my parishioners were not all on the same page.

Forcing these congregations to wrestle with which of the two or more denominations that form from the division process they would join would be catastrophic.  No one joined these churches hoping they would get to spend their time and energy debating each other about this sort of thing.  Our purpose as congregations is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  We are constantly trying to discern how God is calling us to do this in our context.  There are issues we do not agree on.  Our focus is not on these issues.  If our focus is forced on these issues, I am not sure the congregations I have served could survive the wrestling match.  Many will be hurt and angry.  What was a non-issue will become the overriding issue.

I realize many people are hurt by the status quo.  I do not want to minimize the problems with the status quo.  I do think though that there will be even more hurt, pain, and suffering if we try to divide the denomination.  I do not think any side will win or be al that much better off by the division process.  Part of the problem with the status quo though is how we are framing the issues?  Why do we need to frame the issue in terms of winners and losers?  Why do we frame it in ways that are so decisive and ultimately divisive?  Is it about the “debate over progressive views lesiban and gay ordination and marriage?”  Or are there other forces at work that use this as a wedge issue?

A question I keep wrestling with is “in fifty years will we thank God that we ended the United Methodist Church?”  Our understanding of human sexuality and identity has changed significantly in the last fifty year.  I believe it will continue to change.  Fifty years from now this may be a non-issue.  Will all the pain and hurt from the division process lead to healthier churches fifty years from now?  Or will it exacerbate our present trends of decline?

Church is messy.  We hurt each other.  Often we are torn between conflicting values.  We try to be a witness in the world of God’s love and truth without being shaped by the world, but when you put yourself in a position to shape the world, you always run the risk of being shaped.  As long as we are Christ’s hands and feet in the world, we’re going to get dirty and hurt.

Division in the church is not inevitable.  While there are some who welcome it, we do not have to adopt their framing of the issue.  We are not forced to accept the four options that Jack Jackson offers.  We can prayerfully discern others ways to live with these issues and converse about these issues.  There are other ways to frame the “debate over progressive views lesiban and gay ordination and marriage.”  It is not a debate, there will be no winners.  The pain and hurt we are inflicting on each other is, in part, because of how we are framing the issues.  Ultimately, how do we want the world to know us?

 “The Last Supper” ©2007 Copyright Lawrence OP.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

The danger of doing this though is that “correlation does not imply causation.”  We might be able to show a relationship between the various practices of independent churches and their perceived success, but to say that any one practice (or five) is (are) the sources of that success is deeply problematic.  In an introductory statistics class, the teacher will often use the example of ice cream and drowning to show that “correlation does not imply causation.”  You can show a statistical correlation between eating ice cream and drowning.  Eating ice cream though does not cause people to drown.  The relationship between the two is an increase in ice cream consumption and water related activities that takes place during the summer.

There is no way to say for sure that any of the five points of the blog post are really the reasons for the apparent successes of these independent churches.  When I look at mega-churches such as Northpoint, Willow Creek, or even the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, I would place most of the responsibility for the success of those churches on the shoulders of their founding pastors.  Founding being a key word.

Most pastors are not Andy Stanley, Bill Hybels, or Adam Hamilton.  Not in the same league in terms of gifts, graces, or fruit.  The churches they founded and pastor are not the norm.  They might not even be healthy.  Will the churches be able to survive and thrive without their founding pastors?  Is their ministry sustainable in the long run?

This leads to the larger question of what should be considered success for United Methodists?  If our purpose is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, is the independent mega-church model something we want to emulate?  Is this a model of church that offers us a future with hope.  Will trying to emulate these churches produce the fruits of discipleship that we are looking for?

As United Methodists, I do not think it is in our best interest to copy other churches or even the models of ministry of our mega-churches.  Instead, I believe we need to return to our roots by articulating a powerful driving theology of salvation, creating invitational environments for people to encounter Christ, creating environments for people to choose Jesus, and ultimately create environments where disciples can work on their salvation.

All of this is contextual.  It will look different in every church.  We should use our connection for maximum advantage in developing these environments, by the grace of God, but one size fits all programs will not work.  When a congregation grows, we may not want to continue the mega-church trend of bigger and larger.  Instead of building larger church facilities, we should consider planting new congregations.

Correlation does not imply causation.  Copying what we think works in independent churches will not necessarily produce success.  I contend we need to consider looking to our past and spend time dreaming and discerning.  Remembering our roots and praying for how God might be calling us to be a Wesleyan movement in our current context.  Cherry picking what we like about other churches is appealing at first, but problematic in the long run.

“Global Warming is Caused By Decrease in Pirates.”  ©2011 Copyright John “Pathfinder” Lester.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Priestley was interested in how humans thought and language’s role in thought creation.  I found it utterly fascanating.  His interest in language soon became my interest.  How do words shape and create our thoughts?

I spent a great deal of time pondering this question.  My research on the subject led me to believe that we think metaphorically.  I believe one could possibly parse most, if not all, of our thoughts into underlying metaphors.  We use metaphors all the time without thinking about it.  Metaphors frame our thoughts and in turn shape our actions.

Eventually, I would read George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By.  The book makes a strong case that metaphors influence the way we think and act.  Just as I was getting all excited about how metaphors shape our lives, I was asked to preach a sermon at my home church.  Concerned about the use of violent metaphors in our society, the title of my sermon was “Onward Christian Soldiers?”  It was the last time my home church invited me to preach.

While I no longer spend much time with Joseph Priestley, I do still think about the metaphors we use from time to time.  A few weeks ago I was going through my normal pre-church Sunday morning routine when out of nowhere a partial thought flashed through my mind.  The words “failure or faith” jumped to my attention.

Quickly my mind started making connections with other thoughts in my mind.   Over the last few months, I have been very unhappy with the discourse about the future United Methodist church.  In that moment, I had some new insight into why our conversations about the future have been bothering me to my core.  We are using the wrong metaphors and language to talk about the church.

It occurred to me that the language and metaphors of faith are different than the language and metaphors of leadership.  In the language and metaphors of faith, we do not talk about failure too much.   Faith has other concerns than success like obedience and relationship.  Failure is not the opposite of faith.  Our ultimate concern, in the language of faith, is not success or failure, but faithfulness.

When we use the language and metaphors of faith, its not about us, it is about God.  We are concerned with relationship, discernment, and obedience.  Judgement is related to how we love God and our neighbor.  It is more qualitative than quantitative.

Failure comes from the world of leadership.  The word sits more comfortably with the metaphors used to construct the language of leadership.  While we may be too polite to use the word failure when we talk about church matrixes, ineffective pastors, effective leadership, or church growth, it is the elephant in the room.  You cannot talk about success without the possibility of failure.

In the worldview of leadership, undergirded by the language and metaphors of leadership, the onus is on an individual to lead people from one place to another.  An effective pastor leads a congregation from 100 people to 200.  0 professions of faith to 10 and so on.  The desired outcomes valued most are measured.  Standards are set.  Leaders are judged by the standards.

Some would argue this is Biblical.  They say God calls leaders.  As I have written before, people will lift up the likes of Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah, and so on.  The problem with this contention is that this is not a Biblical perspective.  Moses followed God and encouraged the people of Israel to do the same.  As did Joshua.  Where did Jeremiah lead people exactly?  When did they take his advice?  The Biblical perspective is about following God and God’s way.

Jesus did not call leaders.  He called followers.  What was the criteria he gave?  Our Lord called those whom he wanted (Mark 3:13).  I think Leonard Sweet hits the nail on the head in his book I Am A Follower where he advocated for language of followership over leadership.

In a worldview of faith, the onus is on God.  Leaders do not grow the church.  God grows the church.  When I read the book of Acts, I see the author attributing church growth to God.  Does God use the disciples?  Yes.  I believe God uses the disciples because they were open to God and ultimately obedient to God’s call on their lives. As Rich Mullins, one of my favorite Christian songwriters, once said “we all want to be useful to God. Well, its no big deal. God can use anybody. God used Nebuchadnezzar. God used Judas Iscariot.” Rich ultimately argues it is better to be wanted by God than used by God.  John Wesley captures this spirit in his covenant prayer.

The metaphors of faith do not focus on failure.  They are more concerned about love, obedience, faithfulness, and spiritual fruits.  It is hard to understand how one fails in terms of faith.  What would that even look like?  It is easy to see how fear comes in opposition to faith.  Time and time again when you read the bible you see how idolatry butts heads with faith, but failure is alien concept in the langauge of faith.

Why then do we use the language of leadership as a church?  Do the values and concepts of leadership reflect God’s way?  Did the disciples worry about the key drivers to church growth?  Or were they more concerned with being obedient to God’s call on their lives?

What we say matters.  How we frame things in terms of language and metaphors deeply impacts how we live.  As a church, if we continue to use the langauge of leadership, we run the risk of forgetting what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.  A disciple is not a leader, but a student striving to be like the student’s teacher.  In Jesus day, disciples followed their teachers literally.

When Jesus ascended to heaven, the disciples waited.  They did not set out on their own to create the church.  It was not by their own power that the church grew.  The disciples waited until, by the grace of God, they received the gift of the Spirit.  Empowered and led by the Spirit, they went out to share the Good News throughout the ancient world.

I ultimately question whether the languages of leadership and faith can live side by side.  The language of leadership places the onus on leaders.  Success or failure is judged by worldly standards.  Many of God’s faithful servants in the Bible would have been considered failures by the standards of the world. God own Son was a failure in the eyes of the world as he hung on the cross.  God does not use the language of leadership. Perhaps we need to spend time unpacking why in our time of perceived crisis we look to the language and metaphors of leadership to save us.

Palm Sunday, Somerville MA 2007.

The United Methodist Church is like a major college football program.  We had our glory days.  There are big names that stand out from the past like famous football coaches (Wesley, Asbury).  When we talk about the present or our future, we struggle not to mention the past.  As a church we are very proud of the past and want to have a brighter future.  Fans of major football programs are also proud of their past and always want a brighter tomorrow.

Many in the denomination would like us to somehow recapture our glory days  Some yearn for growth in the United States instead of decline in terms of facts, figures, and finances.  There was a time when people in power cared what we thought or what our position was on an issue.  We’re like a former powerhouse who wants to be taken seriously again.  You’ll hear people say that our best days are ahead of us just like an inspirational coach taking the reigns of a down on their luck college football program.

Our current efforts to return to glory seem to focus on the end result in terms of numbers.  Vitality in congregations is measured statistically.  As if keeping track of statistics, let alone predicting statistics, will somehow help us produce what we claim to want.  Perhaps  the statistics will some how up our game as we suddenly realize we are “losing.”

We want to be winning.  Winning is quantified and we put pressure on pastors and churches to some how achieve statistical success.  It seems like if we focus on the scoreboard long enough, we might get better at scoring touchdowns.  If we could predict better, maybe we would perform better, or so the thinking seems to go.

An alternative would be to focus less on the end result and more on how we get there.  Want better statistics?  Do not focus on statistics.  Instead focus on creating a process of excellence.

What would “The Process” look like in the United Methodist church?  If we stopped worrying about numbers, what would we worry about?  How do we implement a process in the church on all levels (local, annual conference, jurisdictional, and general church) that creates excellence?  Particularly, excellence related to our stated mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?

I believe our focus would be twofold.  First, how do we create an invitational culture in our local congregations where people are invited to come and follow Jesus – become disciples?  Two, how do we create a discipleship process that takes those who accept the invitation to become disciples on a journey to Christian Perfection, by the grace of God, leveraging our connectional system to its maxium advantage?

Instead of worrying about numbers, what if we worried about well we were inviting all of the people in our communities to come and follow Jesus?  The focus would not be on worship attendance, Sunday school attendance, or even money.  We would judge our success on our ability to be invitational on multiple levels to all segments of our community.  The process, not the end results would be our concern.

Inviting people to follow Christ would not be enough.  While the focus on numbers and the end result often ends there, we would then be concerned about what happens to people who accept the invitation.  What do they do next?  A disciple wants to be like her or his teacher.  How are those following the master in the context of the local church actually becoming more Christlike?  How are their lives changing because they accepted the invitation?

“The Process” would need a defined discipleship process.  Multiple opportunities to grow in love with God and our neighbors would need to be established.  Disciples would need to be encouraged in the process and held accountable.  Invitations to the community to follow Jesus will be more authentic and compelling if those inviting are part of the process and showing fruit.

I think the money quote from the article is “‘you have to pay the price for success up front,’ Saban says. ‘Everybody wants to do it. Not everybody is willing to do what they have to do to do it.'”  As a denomination we want success.  We yearn for the glories of our past.  Are we willing to pay the price though for that success on all levels of the church?  Could we stop worrying about stats and start, by the grace of God, discerning an excellent discipleship process that encompasses the whole connection?

We praise you as the ultimate source of all knowledge.  Generation to generation you have shared your truth with your people through the prophets.  King Solomon, the wisest man on earth, found you as the source of his wisdom.

In your great mercy you sent us your Son, Jesus the Christ, to teach us the way to you.  Jesus was often called rabbi, teacher.  He came to teach what a life grounded in you might mean.  In our world clouded by sin, Jesus came as a light to show us your love.

As we praise you for giving us knowledge, truth, and wisdom, we remember that you are a God of new beginnings.  Time and time again, you have called your people to start new endeavors.  Whether it is moving to a new land, or rebuilding a new life after calamity, you do not abandon your people in the midst of change.

This week our children, youth, young adults, and all who are starting a new school year.  We for your blessing on them.  May you be the wellspring of their wisdom.  In this time of new beginnings, may they feel your presence.  Open their hearts and minds to your Spirit.  We pray for their protection: physical, mental, and spiritual.  Help us to be open to how we might be a witness to your love for them.

We pray also for the teachers, the principals, the aids, and all those working with or for the students.  May your protect them as well.  Empower them to work graciously with the students.  Help them to shape and mold our students in ways that are pleasing to you.

We ask this all in our Teacher’s name, Jesus the Christ, Amen.

Mifflinville’s former high school.

Warren seems to suggest that God places a person in her or his ministry situation.  I disagree.  In the United Methodist system there is a discernment process.  All involved are hopefully trying to discern God’s will.  There are many factors are involved though.

Mistakes happen.  Sometimes people are appointed because it was the best the cabinet could do in a difficult situation.  As a United Methodist, I do not believe every appointment is God’s preferred will.  The freewill of churches, district superintendents, bishops, and pastors sometimes leads to decisions that are not God’s preferred will.  God may not have planted a pastor in the situation.

Not every pastor will thrive in every situation.  Ministry is contextual.  Not every pastor’s gifts and graces will work in every ministry context.  You cannot plant a cactus from an arid desert in a rain forest and expect it to thrive.  You cannot plant a yam in Alaska and expect it to grow.  Plants bloom in the contexts that work best for them.  Some have a variety of situations they will thrive in, others do not.  The same is true of pastors.

I am increasingly concerned about what I call the myth of the effective pastor.  In listening to pastors talk about ministry in person and on their podcasts, I sometimes get the sense that some believe an effective pastor will grow a church no matter what.  With all the talk of fruitfulness lately, we get the sense that an effective pastor is fruitful in every situation.

No plant is fruitful in every situation.  I believe no pastor is either.  There may be a spectrum of effectiveness in pastors.  Some on the spectrum will thrive in many contexts.  Others on a different part of the spectrum will have very limited set of contexts where they will thrive.  I contend no pastor will thrive in every context.  There is no such thing is an effective pastor in the sense he or she can thrive in every situation.

We should be concerned with fruitfulness.  Trying to thrive in our current context is important.  No matter how well our ministry is going we should always be discerning where God is calling us to go.  The expression though “bloom where you are planted” is problematic.  It negates free will and creates an unrealistic understanding of effectiveness.

Most people would agree that anyone who abuses a child, youth, or vulnerable adult in anyway should be punished.  I think we could also agree that those who shield, enable, or empower abusers should also be held responsible for their actions.  An institution such as a university has a duty to hold their constituents responsible for their actions.  Our legal system has a duty to hold people responsible when they violate our laws.  Punishment is not the problem.

My concern is that at what point does the punishment deter future transparency?  What will be the lesson of Penn State? One would hope that it would be to stop abuse as soon as it occurs and to take institutional responsibility for the safety of everyone who comes onto the institution’s premises. The problem might be that institutions might take a different lesson.  When the NCAA acts on a report commissioned by Penn State, to punish the institution that has not technically broken NCAA rules, in a manner that is outside the own NCAA’s normal process, in ways that are unprecedented, what will future institutions do when their is a crisis at hand?  Will they collaborate with investigators?  Will they make their people and records available?  Will they commission an independent report?

One person from Penn State has been convicted.  Others will probably be tried.  Some have been fired or put on leave.  Undoubtedly the institution will be sued.  The Department of Education might punish the university for breaking federal law.  All of this seems appropriate and is the normal ways of trying to deal with the horror of child abuse.  No punishment can undo what the abuser did.  Appropriate punishment sends a clear signal that we as a society will not stand for child abuse.  Too much punishment though and I fear that it will hurt future transparency.  Too many people are already afraid of being transparent.

There may be a tipping point in terms of punishment.  Appropriate punishment might encourage institutions to do the right thing.  If the punishment becomes too heavy, institutions might just have more incentive to hide their dirty laundry, to plead the fifth when testifying, to have documents shredded, emails disappear, and victims discredited.  Instead of owning up to problems, the institution might just double down.

Our goal in punishment should not be to feed our baser instincts.  I believe it should be to to create environments and systems where children, youth, and vulnerable adults are not abused.  Where institutions have a vested interest in protecting children, youth, and vulnerable adults.  When abuse does occur to report it.  If systemic abuse occurs, to admit a failure in the institutions’s systems and to be transparent about that failure.  Too much punishment might create perverse incentives not to be transparent.

I understand we need to be concerned about inclusivity.  We need to wrestle with issues of power.  As a church we need to worry about what voices are not being heard on all levels.  If we want to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, we need to be intentional about being a church for all peoples.

As a church I know we are still struggling with the sins of racism, sexism, and others -isms that create a great deal of hurt on all levels of the church.  There is much work to be done to ensure that everyone feels welcomed and valued as a part in the body of Christ.  My guess is that welcoming and valuing all peoples is a never ending struggle that requires constant vigilance.

Attacks on electing Bishop Webb as a white male were hurtful though to me for three reasons.  The first is that inclusivity comes in many forms.  Our annual conference (and the former Central Pennsylvania Conference before that) has not had a clergy person elected bishop since 1972.  For forty years, no one from our conference has been consecrated to serve in that way.  A voice from our annual conference has been missing for forty years on the Council of Bishops.  As a conference we rejoice in Bishop Webb’s election and hope he brings a little bit of perspective from our corner of the world to the larger church.

A second reason attacks on Bishop Webb’s gender and race are hurtful is that they are demeaning.  They demean Bishop Webb as a person.  As if he was only elected because he was white and male.  The attacks demean the those who voted for Bishop Webb. As if they were voting based on fear and not because of discernment.  It ultimately demeans the Holy Spirit.  Was the Spirit not present at Jurisdictional Conference?  Was the Spirit not working in the hearts and minds of those who were present?  Are we so sure the Spirit made a mistake because Mark was white and male?

The third reason this upsets me is that it is a double standard.  Would those who demean Bishop Webb because he is white and male be cool with someone complaining that a bishop is not white and/or male?  I would hope not.  Bishop Webb could not help that he is white and male.  Complaining about a person’s race and gender should not be acceptable under any circumstances.

Now I realize that I am a white male United Methodist pastor.  There is a lot of privilege that comes with being a white male United Methodist pastor.  I am not arguing we should not be concerned about -isms.  What I am saying is that we should not attack people based on their race or gender.  As we struggle with inclusivity, we need to be careful about double standards.

“Diversity Cupcakes.”  ©2008 Copyright Clever Cupcakes.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

To be fair, I am not a fan of labels.  One of my fears is that I will be mislabeled or people will discriminate against me because of a label.  Before I came back to central Pennsylvania, I was afraid that I might be labeled because of where I went to seminary and judged before I even started serving a church.  I wrestle with labels that I have used to describe myself.  Some labels that I have claimed in the past, no longer quite fit.  In turn, labels are something I avoid claiming when possible.

All that said, I started to see the value of labels when I read Roger Olsen’s reflection on why he will not give up the label of evangelical.  Labels have a purpose.  Christian is a label.  United Methodist is a label.  Those are two labels I claim, though I sometimes struggle with what I perceive as baggage attached to the labels.  Unless you are living in a cave, you are going to have to deal with labels.  Now I am sure that Ben was more concerned about labels such as conservative or liberal than Christian or United Methodist.  Often these are the labels that seem to divide us in the church and in society.  I contend though that the labels are not the real problem.  A person claiming to be a conservative or liberal is not a problem as long as that label does not come above the person’s identity in Christ.

The problem is that we as a church (and as a society) struggle with communicating well and conflict resolution.  If we communicated well and had better ways to deal with problems, conservatives and liberals could get along and still claim their respective labels.  Instead, we communicate poorly and frame conflict in ways that exasperate everything.  It is our struggle to communicate well and problem solve well that divides us.

The problems associated with how we communicate are endless.  A few problems in communication that grind my gears are:

• lack of empathy
• lack of fairness
• not listening
• patronizing perspective
• no common goal

These problems with communication exacerbate conflict.  Conflict is not an inherently bad thing.  Change often comes as a result of conlifct.  When conflict leads to positive changes, it can be powerful.  When we communicate poorly though, resolving conflict becomes harder.

Poor communication coupled with poor conflict resolution skills leads to the divisions that hurt the church.  The problems found in the communication become problems in resolving the conflict.  Instead of approaching the conversation/conflict with empathy, active listening, a sense of fairness, respect, and a common goal, too often the conflict boils down to issues of winning and rightness.

The labels themselves are not the problem.  Claiming an identity or set of values is not inherently problematic.  What is problematic is when people claiming different labels find themselves with different perspectives on an issue and it becomes a conflict.  When we communicate well and use conflict resolution skills, the issue becomes an opportunity for growth and relationship building.

My dream for the church is not that we abandon our perspectives or labels that we might claim for ourselves.  I hope that we can agree what our common goal is as a church (might I suggest that it is following Jesus the Christ and inviting others to follow).  In living out that common goals we should value  and relish our different perspectives and identities as long as they do not supersede our ultimate identity and purpose in Christ.  In disagreements we might approach each with discernment while working hard to communicate well and practice conflict resolutions skills.

“labels.”  ©2008 Copyright Jung Moon.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

I started wrestling with it when I was introduced to the concept of the tragedy of the commons.  The tragedy of the commons is that everyone can act in their self-interest and ultimately create a tragedy of epic proportions.  An example is declining fish stocks.  Each fishing boats self-interest is to catch as many fish as possible.  If every fishing expedition acted solely on this self-interest, a sustainable population of a particular fish could be wiped out.  Ultimately everyone suffers if everyone acts out of personal self-interest alone.

Many of the big issues facing the country could be explained in terms issues around the common good and the tragedy of the commons.  Whether it is global warming, entitlement spending, or deficit spending, if we all act on our immediate self-interest, we are creating future problems.  No one inherently wants to change to more expensive energy sources.  Most people do not want to give up entitlements they are benefiting from or think they will benefit from.  Few people want higher taxes.

What makes the tragedy of the common more problematic is we have no sense of the common good.  I was talking to someone who I do not know very well the other day and he told me Obama was a socialist.  I was appalled.  On a scale of economic positions, Obama might be slightly liberal, but he is no where near socialist levels.  Very few people are arguing for the common good economically.  A socialist would, but as a country we sacrificed socialism on the altar of capitalism a long time ago.

Many people will speak eloquently and passionately about liberty.  Who is speaking up for the common good?  If a politician makes a proposal that might cost some, so more might benefit, they are called a socialist and that usually ends the discussion.  Large problems go unsolved, because we cannot work towards realistic and reasonable solutions.

Personal liberty needs to be tempered by the common good.  We have a responsibility to society.  Government at its best protects liberty and looks out for the common good.  A society requires citizens to be responsible to each other.  Even forms of anarchy, require mutual responsibility to really work.

All of us living in the United States benefit from our past efforts related to the common good.  Schools, roads, sewer lines, water lines, power lines, hospitals, higher education, have often been been funded by either the government or private citizens concerned about the common good.  Time and time again, people have identified problems, dreamed solutions, and then worked together so that all might benefit.

Without a sense of the common good acting in our own self-interest hurts everyone.  When Eduardo Saverin renounced his American citizenship, possibly for tax purposes, he acted in his own self-interest.  Unfortunately though, the common good was hurt.  He benefited from the common good all the time he lived and was educated in the United States.  Eduaro apparently feels no obligation to give back as a thankful citizen might.  Using the system when it is in your self-interest, and abandoning it when it is not, might make sense in terms of liberty, but hurts the common good.

I see this in the church all the time.  On paper we might say the church is not about us.  In the United Methodist church, the purpose is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  Our focus should be on those outside the church.  We have Good News to share.  What we do should be based on discerning what God is calling us to do.  Not our personal whim.

Unfortunately, we have bought into the whole notion of personal liberty and self-interest.  Church, then, is not about God or God’s work, but about us.  When I was in college I read a book Shopping for Faith: American Religion in the New Millennium.  The book highlighted how people shopped for faith as if it was a product to be consumed.

This impacts the common good.  A church is at its best when everyone is using their gifts and graces for the work God has given us in our own particular contexts.  Ministry is difficult.  We all experience situations that are less than ideal.  For every mountaintop, there will be long ascents and difficult descents.  Often we will struggle with our co-workers.

When ministry is about the kingdom of God (a theological sense of the common good), we will weather through the storms by the grace of God.  When ministry is about our own self-interest, we leave the church because of a host of reasons not related to God.  We will shop for a church with better goods. Where will we get the better deal in terms of service for efforts rendered?

The excuses are legion.  People complain that they are not fed.  They get envious of greener pastures.  Some churches will ask what can they do for you instead of what can we do together for God.  Anyone can look around at any church and realize there are problems.  Perceived problems are always good excuses for leaving.

Often there is no sense of the common good, or God’s kingdom.  If God is calling you to move to a different place, then you better do it.  Yet, if you are moving because it feeds your ego, or is giving you a better deal, how is that helping the kingdom?  Does that full service church really need one more stat?

If we all act in our self-interest, God’s work gets neglected.  Jesus did not call us to be the church solely for our own benefit.  God’s gift at Pentecost was not to be locked away for personal use.  The farther we move away from the common good as a society, the harder the church will have to work for the kingdom.  God’s way is not selfish self-interest.  Jesus did not say grab the gold and follow me if its convenient.  We ultimately, invite others into discipleship, not for our benefit or glory, but for God’s.

In the public domain.

Now I am all for vital congregations.  One of my highest goals in ministry, next to faithfully discerning God’s call on my life, is to help the congregations I serve thrive in God’s mission and vision for the congregations.  Vitality and thriving are linked in my mind.  You cannot thrive without being vital and vitality requires the church to be thriving.

What I struggle with is how will making goals help the church thrive or be vital?  Saying that average worship attendance will increase by 5 in the next year will not bring in the requisite amounts of people necessary for the average attendance to increase.  Stating a goal does nothing to realize a goal.  Apple does not sell iPhones because it has a goal to sell iPhones.  It sells iPhones by creating and marketing a product people want to buy.

As a pastor, I cannot predict the future.  My seminary did not offer a course on practical divination.  Just as it did not offer a course on mind reading.  Generally speaking, I want the statistics to improve.  I see statistics as a gauge to measure the health of the congregation.  Improved statistics offers evidence that the situation is changing.  Hopefully for the better.

My desire though for improved statistics is not because I care all that much about numbers by themselves.  I hope they come in the context of a larger story of how the congregation is living out God’s mission and vision.   Ideally they would reflect: more people are turning over their lives to God, more people are growing in love with God and their neighbor.  As a result, each day the community reflects God’s kingdom a little more because of our ministry and witness.

Predicting the future by making goals will not accomplish anything.  People will not come to the church because the church has the goal of improving its worship attendance.  Congregants will not change their behavior based on a goal.  I doubt anyone is going to say “Oh we agreed that our worship attendance will improve by a 100, well now I will start inviting my friends to church.  All I needed was a goal.  Thank you Vital Congregations for showing me the way!”  People do not invite people to church because of goals.  They invite people to church for many reasons, but goals are not a strong reason.  Who wants to come to church to fill a quota?

Goals do create the illusion of control.  Leaders in the United Methodist church feel like things are out of control (declining stats, failure to pass restructure, ineffective pastors creating havoc).   Creating goals creates accountability in the sense that pastors, and maybe congregations, could be held responsible for not achieving their goals.  Whether they are being held responsible for something they can control is a whole different issue.

The congregations I serve know they are struggling.  They are stressed and uncertain about the future.  I am not sure how goals will help.  If the goals inspire them to make changes, it might help.  I doubt it will inspire them.  Living into God’s mission and vision might inspire them, but that mission and vision is not goal driven.

If they take the goals seriously, but continue to struggle, the goals might be counterproductive.  It will quantify their perceived failure in worldly terms.   It will add to the stress and the hurt, but will not lead to change.  The congregations might just become entrenched in the worst ways possible.  A scenario that is just as problematic is that we will set goals and then ignore them.  Unless the congregations are held accountable, there is little incentive to take the goals seriously.  I could be held accountable, but that thought will not change how I minister or how the congregation will act.

We have made predictions in the past and so far we have been mostly wrong.  I have no skill in divination.  No one left an urim or a thummin for me on the altar.  If I asked my parishioners for one of their goats, I probably would get reported to the SPCA.  Statistics are a thermometer, not a thermostat.  At the end of the day, I have trouble seeing how this will help.  Part of me feels like we are going to waste time and energy.  A stronger part of me feels like all of this feeds into an already unhealthy system.  Goals related to vital congregations creates unrealistic expectations in terms of predicting the future, creates possible unhealthy power dynamics if people are held accountable for things they cannot control, and most of all makes us practice divination when we should be practicing discernment.

“Project 365: April 28 – Dashboard.”  ©2007 Copyright Allison Meier.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

The larger problem is that the United Methodist church consists of a series of unhealthy systems.  Lack of trust is a symptom of the unhealthiness being lived out in the system.  The General Church is unhealthy.  Many annual conferences in the United States are unhealthy.  Most local churches, even ones who have impressive statistics in the present, are not very healthy.

The issues creating this unhealthiness are manifold.  Some overarching ones are : lack of passion, sustainability, unnecessary complexity, cumbersome polity, unhealthy power dynamics, lack of focus, and a survival mentality.  With so many  overarching issues, let alone localized issues, the systems are stressed in many ways.  While I cannot speak to why others are experiencing symptoms related to trust, I know why I feel like a symptom bearer.

First, the only part of these unhealthy systems that can be controlled easily is pastors.  General Conference cannot enforce mandates on local churches.  Annual conferences are reluctant to use any actual power they might have over a local church, because it opens a can of messiness,  Pastors cannot control local churches.  Our Book of Discipline gives pastors many responsibilities, but little real power.  Pastoral power has to be earned in our system.

Pastors can be controlled.  The different systems can control their employment, their compensation, their benefits, their quality of life, and so on.  Financial problems?  Make the pastors sacrifice.  If they complain, call them entitled brats and remind them that they are servants.  Pastors can be held responsible in ways congregations cannot.  Ineffective pastors can be the boogeyman to scare all pastors into submission.

Problems create opportunities for power.  Perceived problems create opportunities for power as well, ask Harold Hill.  Once a person names a problem, the person often has a solution.  Since the person was “bright” enough to name a problem, the person’s solution is often given credence.  The leaders in our denomination have been adept at naming particular problems.

Many of their solutions have involved controlling pastors.  End guaranteed appointments.  Lower pension obligations.  Use the word missional to make it harder to argue against these changes.  If you oppose our proposed changes, you are obviously opposed to the mission of the church.

The people who want trust are also the people who have the least to lose in all this.  Bishops and most General Conference delegates have little to lose in terms of guaranteed appointments or changes in compensation.  It is easy to ask people to become vulnerable and sacrifice when you have little to lose.  Frame it in terms of mission and you make your opponents look bad.

From my perspective, I find it hard to trust the leaders of our denomination.  I sense little sympathy or understanding for those of us on the front lines doing our best to serve faithfully our call, but are not seeing much fruit (Edgar Moore has an interesting article on the subject).  Further, pastors are  only one unhealthy part of the whole system.  To what extent pastors are creating the unhealthiness or bearing the unhealthiness is debatable.

Trust is only a symptom of much larger problems.  If we want trust, we need to look beyond trust.  Perhaps if we dealt with some of the other issues fairly, trust might be restored.  When I get a sense that we are all sacrificing and all being held responsible in a fair way, I might start trusting again.  Until then I reserve my trust for God alone in our system.

I have often heard congregations blame their pastors for their current situation.  The conference sent them “bad” pastors.  Things were going great with Pastor A, but then the conference moved Pastor A.  Pastor A’s replacement, Pastor B, was no Pastor A.  Pastor B might have been a good person, but Pastor B “killed” the church.

Pastor B has a different perspective.  Congregation Z would not support Pastor B’s ministry.  The pastor tried to move them in a healthier directions, but the congregation fought Pastor B at every turn.  There might be a few good eggs in Congregation Z, but their goodness is outweighed by the caustic nature of others and systemic unhealth.

When I only hear one side of the story, I generally take the side of the person whose side I hear first.  I vicariously feel their hurt and pain.  How could the conference send the congregation Pastor B?  Or if I am talking to Pastor B, why did they send you there?

Time and time again though, when I hear both sides of a shared experience, I wonder how there could be such different perspectives.  I have come to a few tentative conclusions:

• A “bad” pastor can ruin any congregation
• A thriving congregation can make a mediocre pastor look good
• Congregations that have a series of “bad” pastors should look at the common denominator in those experiences
• Ministry is contextual

The contextual nature of ministry is difficult to deal with.  It is a scary thought that ministry has to be contextualized.  Ministry would be much easier if there was a rubric of how to lead a church to vitality that worked in every situation.  Even worse, the context changes over time.

Every community is different.  The history of every congregation is different.  Each church has a different spirit or personality.  Gifts and graces are different in each congregation.  We live in a rapidly changing world.

No pastor will be effective in every context.  No church will be able to benefit from the gifts and graces of every pastor.  A pastor or congregation’s effectiveness might diminish overtime if they are not able to adapt to their ever changing context.  What works today may not work tomorrow.

Given the contextual nature of ministry, I would contend that the United Methodist Church needs to find better ways of matching gifts and graces of pastors and congregations.  From my limited perspective, it often seems haphazard.  The way I hear discussion about effectiveness framed, I get the impression we don’t appreciate the contextual nature of ministry.  An effective pastor will be an effective pastor.  Congregations are often discussed in binary terms.

Instead, we need to take seriously that an effective pastor will be most effective in the right context.  Congregations will not thrive if they do not have the pastoral ministry they need to be effective in their contexts.  More analysis and testing of the gifts and graces of pastors needs to be done.  Congregations need guidance in really discerning their gifts, graces, needs, opportunities, passions, and possibilities.

More than once, I have heard a district superintendent dismiss something a congregation put on their profile, because it seemed trivial to the DS.  It was important to the congregation, but no one took time to figure out what they were trying to say in a way that would make sense to the DS.  Perhaps more guidace with creating congregational profiles could be a start.

Before an appointment is made though, I think an assessment of a congregation must be made.  Do they have a defined mission/purpose?  If not, does the defined purpose of the United Methodist Church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world resonate?  Once a defined mission/purpose is put forth, do they have a vision of how to live that out?  Do they have goals to hold themselves accountable to the mission and vision?

If a congregation could name their mission/purpose, vision, and goals, the DS could then work with the congregation to find a pastor who could help them live out their vision and goals.  Expectations of both the pastor and the congregation could be named.  A strategy could be formed.  Ultimately effectiveness could be evaluated in this context.  Did the pastor live up to the agreed upon expectations?  Did the congregation?  When the context changed, how did the pastor and the congregation respond?

Discussing effectiveness without considering context is deeply problematic.  Pastors are not interchangeable cogs in some great machine.  Every congregation has flaws, but also strengths.  Effectiveness in ministry is a partnership between God, the congregation, and the leaders of the congregation (including pastoral leadership).  If the church discerns God’s will and is growing in her relationship with God, I believe God will always work with the church.  The issue is how do we create contextually appropriate partnerships between pastors and congregations?  Taking context seriously is a first step.

On the other hand, it scares me that General Conference could go to the trouble of ending guaranteed appointments and fail to do it.  Superficially the Conference raised the stress levels of already unhealthy pastors unnecessarily.  More problematic is what I perceive as the lack of intentionality and discernment.  How important was ending guaranteed appointments if no one bothered to ensure all the language in the Book of Discipline was changed?  If the General Conference had allowed holy conferencing on this topic, would someone have brought to light the fact that the legislation was insufficient?

The lack of intentionality pervades our church.  It reminded me of an incident at my Annual Conference.  We had a new proposed structure up for discussion.  Our vision task force for the conference presented their recommendation.  A polity professor suggested we should amend the first part of the recommendation to make it inline with the Book of Discipline.  Another pastor asked for a declatory decesion by the bishop so that the Judicial Council could weigh in (although by changing our structure this will probably have to happen anyways).  A vision team member suggested the recommendation was in two parts: a report and a resolution.  He suggested only the resolution mattered.  The vision team member basically dismissed all the conversation related to the report.

After an unplanned recess to sort the matter out, we finally approved the vision.  Not enough time had been planned for the discussion though.  So for the rest of conference we were rushed. While I found the incident deeply problematic on several levels, what bothers me the most is I felt like we were not intentional in presenting the best legislation possible.  If the vision was important, we would want to make sure all aspects were right given our limitations.  We would have scheduled enough time to discuss it.  The report that the resolutions depended on would have been fair game to amend.  Instead, I felt like we just wanted to pass it and move on to the next agenda item.

Local churches lack intentionality too.  We rarely define what we expect or want.  The United Methodist Church tells us our mission statement is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  In my experience though, we rarely define what we mean by disciple.  In turn, we do not have good metrics for discipleship or even define a discipleship process.  By default then, we focus on the easy: facts, figures, and finances.

I believe we need to be intentional if we want to be followers of Jesus.  We are called to follow, but we need to be intentional in our response.  Methodists were very intentional once.  We had classes, meetings, societies, accountability, and goals.  The early Methodists strived for Christian perfection and to flee the wrath to come.  At their best, they were intentional about their discipleship.

Hopefully when the dust settles, we will rethink how we do General Conference.  This scare might invite us to be more intentional on all levels of the church.  Perhaps we will spend more time discerning and less time rushing.  If it is important, we should want to invest time into it. If it is not worth the time, it is probably not important and would be best left alone.

“duck life.” ©2009 Copyright katdaned. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

At the heart of the sermon was the idea that if we claim the Holy Spirit, we could have power.  Our perceived lack of power in the present is because we are not claiming the Holy Spirit.  The congregation seemed to love the sermon.  The idea of having power sounds appealing.  Who wouldn’t want life changing power in her or his ministry?

The prooftext scripture lesson was Acts 1: 6-9.  What I found most problematic is that I have a totally different understanding of the events surrounding Pentecost.  Now I would not disagree that when the disciples received the Holy Spirit they received power.  Jesus promises power in the scripture lesson and they receive it.  My emphasis though would be on the idea of the Holy Spirit being a gift to be received.

They did not claim the Holy Spirit.  Peter did not raise a sword up like He-Man and say “I have the power” and then magically have power.  Jesus followers did not say some magic incantation and unleash the Holy Spirit.  John did not go on a vision question.  Andrew did not perform some Herculean task to earn the Holy Spirit.  We really are not sure what they were doing when they did received the Holy Spirit.  The author of Luke/Acts did not think it was important to record that detail.

When Jesus was preparing for his crucifixion, the disciples did not ask for the Holy Spirit.  Jesus promised them the Holy Spirit unsolicited.  After the ascension and before Pentecost, the disciples prayed, worshiped, discerned a new apostle, and spent time together in fellowship.  They were told to wait and they did.

Jesus earliest followers did not claim the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit claimed them.  This claim appeared to come unexpectedly.  As they were likely celebrating the gift of the law, God gave them a new gift.

The Holy Spirit’s power was not requested, it was promised.  They did not claim it, they received it.  It was not earned.  All the disciples did was to make themselves available to God and wait.

We often think about power in the church.  I sometimes think we envy the world’s power.  Part of the pastor’s obsession with leadership as seen manifested in the business world, I contend, is the hope that the pastor might mine something from the powers of this world that could be used in ministry.  Business leaders appear to have power, we want power, what is the secret?

God’s power though is unexpected, unsolicited, and strange to the world.  I do not think we can claim the Holy Spirit.  We make ourselves available to the Spirit through spiritual disciplines and discernment.  Our prayer should not be God give us power, but Lord make me an instrument of your will.

“Holy Spirit Stained Glass.” ©2007 Copyright hickory hardscrabble. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

***

I first started to think about the differences between churches and societies when I read an early version of  “The Systems That are Congregations” by the Reverend Taylor Burton-Edwards.  What really jumped out at me in the essay was how churches over time moved away from disciple-making.  It should be noted that Burton-Edwards uses the word congregation instead of church.  When I used the word church in my first post, I meant a local church.    He uses the word congregation for the local church.  The word church for Burton-Edwards is sum of local congregations and other groups.

Originally local congregations were the nexus of disciple-making according to Burton-Edwards.  When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, the core functions of a congregation changed over time.  Monastic communities became centers of disciple-making.  Local congregations shifted focus to other concerns.

One reason the focus shifted is accountability.  Discipleship requires accountability.  The early church was a closed group.  To join you had to go through a catechetical process.  Someone joining the church risked persecution and possibly death.  Members of the church had high expectations placed on them.

When Christianity became the state religion the nature of the church changed.  The requirements and expectations for joining the church changed.  At some point the assumption was that everyone was a Christian.  Nominally most people were.  The Reverend Taylor Burton-Edwards has a good explanation of the whole process.

Once discipleship was no longer the focus of the local congregation there were still avenues for serious discipleship formation: monasticism and ordination.  Over time other avenues would develop.  Groups outside the local congregation would take up the charge of disciple-making.  One such group would be the early Methodist societies.  They did not replace the local congregations.  Instead they were vehicles for deeper discipleship.

A local congregation struggles with holding people accountable.  A Methodist society could hold people accountable as disciples.  They agreed on the ultimate end of discipleship –  Christian Perfection.  The early Methodists has a common Wesleyan theological language to understand their journey.  These Methodists had rules to help guide their journey.  If they strayed from the rules, they could be held accountable.

Local congregations, especially in the United Methodist church, struggle to hold members accountable.  Theoretically we could hold members accountable to their membership vows.  In practice we do not.  The Book of Discipline makes the process onerous.

Some even find the idea repellent.  When the former Central Pennsylvania Conference joined with the Pennsylvania churches of the former Wyoming Conference to form the Susquehanna Conference we had to decide on a new Shares of Ministry/Apportionment formula.  The Central Pennsylvania Conference had used church membership as part of their formula.  Churches had a financial incentive to purge their membership roles of people who were not living out their membership vows.  The Wyoming Conference did not.

At one point, a former Wyoming Conference pastor was explaining the situation to us.  He noted that the Wyoming Conference churches had large membership roles.  The pastor than made a snide comment about purging church membership roles.  As if it was a heartless and graceless act.  I concede it might seem crass to tie financial incentives to keeping your membership roles accurate, but accountability requires accountability.

As United Methodists today, we are churches, not societies.  We have adopted the priorities of churches.  Our focus is not on real discipleship.  In many ways we have shed our disciple-making capabilities.  On one level we might yearn for our understanding of a golden age of discipleship from our early history, but the reality is that we are far removed from that time.

We say we want to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  Yet, most of our focus is on facts, figures, and finances.  Instead of defining what a disciple is and how to make one, we spend our energy trying to save our institutional church.  While more people in the pews does not inherently mean more disciples, we do not spend a whole lot of time worrying about the distinction.

If we want to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, we need to start by acknowledging that we do not make disciples.  Our Triune God makes disciples.  At best, we create environments and systems where God’s disciple-making grace can work.  If we want to, by the grace of God, work on creating these environments and systems we need to first define what we mean by disciple.  It would help to also define to what end.  Do we have an ultimate end in mind towards discipleship?  We would then need to discern what disciple-making systems and environments look like.  Is there a process that can be contextualized?

The genius of the early Methodist societies was that they were able to do this.  I do not believe that a modern United Methodist local church can do this easily.  A local church will not hold people accountable.  Most members of the congregation will struggle with the demands and challenges of discipleship.  Our obsession with facts, figures, and finances put pressure on leaders to not move in directions that would jeopardize short-term statistics for long-term spiritual health.

My proposal would be that we start by defining what do we mean by disciple.  Literally a disciple is one who follows Jesus.  In our context we could say that a disciple is one who is growing in with God, growing in his or her love for neighbor, and is living out the the membership vows of the United Methodist church.  We might want to incorporate some understanding of fleeing the wrath to come or sin into our definition.  The ultimate end of discipleship might be Christian Perfection – the idea that we are so full of love for God, love for our neighbor, that there is no room for sin in our lives.

If the local church will not be the center of disciple-making, it could be the starting point.  Local churches could continue to be a witness to God’s way in the world.  Preach with their words and actions the Good News of Jesus Christ and God’s Reign.  People would be invited to come to church and ultimately answer Jesus command to come and follow me.

Local churches would then invite people to take the next step in discipleship.  Two ways I envision are neo-monastic communities and Wesleyan covenant disciple groups.  Neo-monastic communities would be places where people interested in intense spiritual formation would gather.  They would live out the vision of the Acts 2 church and be extremely focused on discipleship.  These communities would experiment and innovate with how best to create environments where God’s disciple-making grace can be experienced.

Neo-monastic communities are not for everyone.  In fact, most Americans would find the concept repellent.  As the community subversively lives God’s Reign, it would butt heads against the powers and principalities of this world.  Sharing, communalism, and working towards the Common Good are not ideals lifted up at the moment in American life.  A second vehicle for discipleship would be Wesleyan covenant groups.

Churches, clusters, and districts would form and encourage Wesleyan covenant groups.  The groups would gather to hold each other accountable.  Gifted facilitators, both lay and clergy, would iterate between these different groups to teach, exhort, challenge, and hold these groups accountable.  A modern version of the old Methodist societies and circuits.

Comparing the past to the present is not overly helpful when done simplistically.  To not acknowledge the difference between the early Methodist societies and modern United Methodist churches when bringing up the past does not help anyone.  Our history is not as golden as we imagine.  The present is probably not as bad as we fear.  As we try to discern how God is calling us to live into the future, the past might illumine.  We need to start by acknowledging that there are major differences between our start and where we are now.

“Jerusalem Cross and Chain.” ©2009 Copyright mtsofan. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Each time someone references it, he or she uses some sort of example from the book to make a point of contrast.  In Asbury’s time it was like a, now it is like z.  The point of contrast is not to highlight the differences between our time and Asbury’s, but to make a point of how the speaker thinks we should be now.  Asbury would do a, why are we doing z?  I understand the temptation. I plan to preach a sermon series on the lost language of Wesleyan theology this summer.  The initial inspiration came to me while reading the first part of the book and then thinking about our current theological language or lack there of.

People often do this with John Wesley too.  We perceive John Wesley and his time as some golden age of Methodism.  If we could some how distill his essence or resurrect him a little earlier than the great and glorious day of the Lord, perhaps we could return to this perceived golden age.  WWJD becomes what would John do?  For those of us unhappy with some element of the modern church, we try to use John or Francis as part of our contention of how to fix that particular element.

This fits in with a larger trend in our society and church about the “good old days.”  We idealize the past.  Our founding fathers were at the pinnacle of human thought and we must somehow channel them if we want to govern well today.  The church was so much better in the past, what is wrong with people today?   In our society and in our churches these ways of thinking take many forms.

I do not think the past is inherently better than the present.  As a student of history I love learning about the past.  There are many persons from the past I find inspirational.  We need to be careful though about how we talk about the past when making points about the present.  At best we can only gloss the past.  Our presentation of some glorious and golden past is by nature limited in scope and prejudiced with current biases.

One reason we need to be careful when using the past to talk about the present is that we smooth out the differences between the present and the past.  For example, when we talk about itinerancy in the United Methodist church today, it is different than it was in Wesley’s day.  Methodist preachers in Wesley’s days would be sent on large circuits comprising hundreds of societies.  Today United Methodist pastors are appointed to a much smaller circuit by way of comparison.  A Methodist preacher primarily preached, a United Methodist pastor today has more on her or his plate.

This gets me to my larger concern about churches versus societies.  When people bring John Welsey or Francis Asbury up to talk about the past in comparison to the present, we rarely talk about the differences between their situations and ours.  Today we have the church, in Wesley’s day they had societies.  In America, Asbury oversaw the transition between societies and churches.  Before making comparisons between the past and the present, the differences need to be acknowledged.  I’ll look at some differences in part two tomorrow.

“Ranger with a Cape” ©2010 Copyright M.V. Jantzen. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Invocation – Almighty God,

We come together once again to remember all those who have died in the service to our country.  As we remember and honor the fallen, we beseech you to be with us.  Instill in us humble spirits as we invoke sacred memory.  Open our hearts to the significance of the sacrifice of those who paid the ultimate price.  May our words today be a small token of our appreciation that cannot capture or repay the great debt of gratitude we owe.

Help us this hour to remember that all around the globe we still have women and men risking their lives in service to our country.  Let us not forget that many have sacrificed their health and well being and are still struggling.  Convict our hearts to not take their sacrifices lightly or in vain.  Empower us to honor with our lives those who have lost life or limb.

When we leave this place, embolden us to to take our memories and appreciation with us.  Encourage us to live lives worthy of their sacrifices.  May we work together to make our country continue to be worthy of their sacrifices.  Let us not forget the deep cost of conflict.  Protect us from unnecessary war.  Guide us in the midst of turmoil.  If conflict is necessary, embolden us by the examples of the brave men and women we honor and remember today.

We pray these things in your loving name.  Amen.

Benediction – Let us go forth today with humble humble hearts.  Let us live lives worthy of their sacrifices.  May we remember the ultimate price so many were willing to pay on our behalf.  May we be thankful.  And the blessing of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be with you now and always, Amen.

“Survival of the (Fittest) Faithful”

For someone who is contending to make a “theological audit” about inclusivism and starts by attacking post-modernism, I am surprised he would allude to Darwinism.  Where is faith ever compared to the fittest in the Bible?  Is that what Jesus really meant when he said blessed are the meek?  Yes, the Bible uses athletic imagery, but my reading of those passages are that its more about completion than say being the best.  Finish the race more than beat the competition by miles.  The paper starts with a theologically dubious premise.  It fits with his conclusion to let the marketplace of ideas judge and his modernist belief that truth will win out in the end, but what if truth is paradoxical?  What if Abraham is on one side of truth and an inclusivist (who ever that might be) is on the other?

“Necessarily, inclusivism requires the naming of victims and oppressors.”

Why does inclusivism have to start with naming of victims and oppressors?  Some constructs might, but does every construct on inclusivism start here?  Abraham talks generally and so its hard to pinpoint specifics.  I do not think someone arguing for inclusivism as an important value has to start here.

What if we started with the kingdom/reign of God/kindom of God?  What does God’s reign look like?  Who is God’s grace available to?  If God’s grace is open to everyone and our purpose as a church is based on the Great Commission to all nations, we might start with this end in mind.

What is the end to all that we do as a church?  Are we working for God’s reign to whittle away the hours?  Do we believe someday God’s reign will be realized?  What does that line in our Great Thanksgiving mean “By your Spirit make us one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world, until Christ comes in final victory, and we feast at his heavenly banquet.”  What does that heavenly banquet look like and who is around the table?

I strongly believed that we are called to share the Good News to all nations.  I envision a heavenly banquet with peoples of all nations.  If this is our end, the question becomes how do we work towards that end now?  If we look around the churches in our denomination and we see that our communion tables look significantly more homogenous than the heavenly banquet, we might not have arrived at the Wesylean idea of Christian perfection.  We are not fully living out God’s reign.  We still have work to do.  Inclusivism might start with this end in mind (all nations around the heavenly banquet) and say how do we work towards that?  How do we ensure that we are living out the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and not just people like us?

“The core of inclusivism is a normative thesis: the oppressed must be confronted and the captives must be set free.”

While this statement from my perspective sounds biblical and theologically sound, inclusivism does not inherently have to take this approach.  Inclusivism might look at the end of making disciples of all nations, embrace the idea that God’s grace is available to all, and then work towards that end.  While I would not personally argue for inclusivism to be an end in and of itself, it might be a framework to help us ensure we are living out our purpose as disciples and as a church.

“This theme, of course, is also the heartbeat of Liberation theology.”

So what?  We all have a heremuntical approach to theology and the Bible.  More over, why drag liberation theology into your audit?  I guess when you create a framework and construct to demonize inclusivism, using the tactic of guilt by association works towards your end, but the two are separate issues.  Of course if Abraham hadn’t started with the problematic assertion that there is only one way to understand the core of inclusivism, he might not have confused to two.

One though might argue that the similarities are another of his constructs.  When you define your opponents, it is amazing how coherent your thoughts seem.  Now if he let these so called inclusivists and liberation theologians to speak for themselves, there might not be one inherent core.  Liberation theologians might not agree with each other let alone these so called inclusivists.

“Only those who are self-deceived, or who are caught in the grip of morally corrupt forms of reasoning, would dare to oppose the call to inclusivism.”

You do not have to be self-deceived or caught in the grip of a morally corrupt form of reason to oppose inclusivism.  My problem with Abraham’s audit is not that he challenges inclusivism.  When inclusivism becomes an end in and of itself and not a means to an end then I would argue it is problematic.  If the intended end that uses inclusivism as a means hurts people a case could be made against it.  The problem with Abraham’s audit is the broad strokes he paints and the uncharitable nature of his reasoning.

“Consider the following observation. It is a marked feature of our life together that people watch very carefully what they say and how they say it.”

What is wrong with that?  Words have the power to heal and hurt.  Careless words have unintended consequences.  Jesus warned his followers about how they use their mouths and what words they said right?  I remember a time I made a joke about burning down the church facility to solve some structural issues next to a person who had survived a fire in her home.  My words were stupid on so many levels and hurtful in unintended ways.  Words are the way we communicate.  Unless our intention is to hurt people, we need to be careful what we say or we will not communicate what we want.

“It is clear that certain phrases and words are simply not usable: “Father”, “Son”, “Lord”, “King”, “Master”, “Kingdom”, “He”, “Old Testament”, and “Jesus” are shunned.”

I understand the concern about language.  I wrestle with it often.  Words have power.  Every time I say kingdom or use a masculine pronoun for God, I know I have friends who would be frowning if they heard me.  I think cases can be made for both sides.  Inclusive language is not inherently good or bad.  For me the real issue is why are we using it?  Being aware of the words we use, what they mean, and how they might impact others is a good thing if we want to be effective witnesses to God’s reign in the world.

“What began as an effort to include excluded minorities and women becomes over time an instrument of exclusion silencing those who want to raise fundamental questions about crucial moral, educational, and theological proposals in the church.”

Any philosophy, theology, or system of thought is problematic if it becomes a weapon.  It is possible that in some circumstances some people might use the language of inclusivism as a weapon against others in a power struggle.  People use all sorts of constructs to attack each other.  It is what people do.  Is there any evidence that people use the language of inclusivism more often as a weapon than the language of other philosophies, theologies, or systems of thought?  If I used the language of leadership to attack someone who wanted to critique leadership with the language of discipleship does that mean the construct of leadership is at fault?

“The march to progress becomes relentless, systematic, blind, pharisaical, self-righteous, and manipulative.”

Yes, it often does.  Its amazing how one’s opponents are usually so.  If only they saw the world the way we did, they could see the error of their ways, fall on their knees, grab the sack cloth and ashes, and repent.  The problem must obviously be with them.

“Inclusivism is indeed a matter of power.”

Most things in life are a matter of power.  We live in a complicated web of relationships.  There is usually power dynamics between parities in a relationship.  Any theology, philosophy, or system of thought could be used as part of the power dynamics in relationships.  Someone with a fundamentalist hermeneutic of the Bible could tell their child to obey the parent because of the Ten Commandments.  A person using the language of inclusivism might argue that an action of the church might disrupt the power dynamics between two parities.  A writer might make big generlizations and employ simplistic reasoning to change the reader’s perspective on an issue.  It is a matter of power.

“When we worship together now in mainline corporate settings, the first question before us is not whether God is present but whether the right range of diversity is present.”

I am not sure that is true.  I have never been to a mainline church were there was a quota system in place for worship.  No pastor or worship leader took a demographical census before the service and decided we did not have the appropriate diversity to worship God.  In fact, I think we should be concerned about who is in the service and who is not, but we should also be concerned about God’s presence.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

“What has happened overall is that a virulent form of moralism has poisoned the church.”

Moralism can take many forms.  Is inclusivism inherently moralistic?  Perhaps in Abraham’s construct, but I don’t think it has to be.  Anything that becomes an end in and of itself can be moralistic.  I am not convinced that inclusivism has to be an end.

“Nor will we be able to make appeal to the academy, say, in terms of objective scholarship, analysis, or evaluation, as a way forward. The whole idea of critical, objective, scholarship, of the fostering of intellectual virtue, of the elimination of intellectual vice, all these will be reconfigured as bids for dominion and power.”

The reason you cannot make an appeal to objectivity is because there is no such thing as a person being objective.  The apostle Paul says that we only see dimly now.  We never have a grasp on the whole truth.  Often truth is paradoxical and it is too easy for us to embrace one side of the truth without seeing the other side.  Objectivism is a relic of a different time and age.  Perhaps your ideas will not be popular, but that is always the risk you run when you stand up for your best understanding of the truth.

“I recommend this medicine realizing that proponents of unconstrained inclusivism will be deeply upset by my analysis.”

I am not a proponent of unconstrained inclusivism.  Abraham critiquing inclusivism is not the issue.  It is more his method that is problematic.  If Abraham was more specific and less general, he might have valid points.  Inclusivism is not always an end.  Sometimes it is one of several means to an appropriate theologically sound end.

“Until we agree that it is crucial to rid the church of racism and patriarchy.”

At least we agree on something.  Regardless of where one stands on inclusivism, racism and patriarchy are detrimental in the life of the church and we should all work towards removing them from the life of the church.

“Thus the ordinary believer should be patient, recognizing that righting past wrongs is painful and difficult. We simply have to bear the sins of the fathers as best we can; beyond that we must in mercy bind up the wounds of the fathers with sensitivity.”

As long as we recognize the problems are not simply in the past, this is not too unreasonable.

“Second, it will not help to invite those who have ‘benefited’ from inclusivism to move us beyond inclusivism.”

Who exactly has benefited?  Is Abraham referring to individuals or groups of people?  In what exact ways have they benefited?

“When arrogant elites impose their pyrrhic, political victories on others, those imposed upon vote with their money and their feet. When inclusivism elbows out the great mercy of God and usurps the place of the cross in the gospel, ordinary believers readily slip away and find food for their souls elsewhere.”

If inclusivism becomes an end in and of itself then it is problematic.  When anything takes the place of God and God’s work there is a problem.  If inclusivism is a means to an end that is God’s preferred will, it does not have to replace God and might even bear fruit for God.  Almost anything taken to an extreme is a problem.

“If contemporary inclusivists cannot speak robustly in terms of the gospel, there is no reason the rest of us should follow their lead.”

Who exactly are the inclusivists again?  The only lead we should be follow is Jesus’.  As disciples, Jesus is the one we are called to follow.  If anyone is calling us to worship inclusivism that call should be ignored.  I am not sure anyone is calling for that kind of worship.  If we could identify who an inclusivist is exactly, we might find they may have made mistakes.  We all do, it is part of the human condition.  At best, we see dimly now.

There is a certain level of irony at work here.  On the one hand Abraham agrees patriarchy and racism are bad.  They are systems of thought that make blanket judgements about groups of people.  Abraham then creates a group of people and makes blanket judgments.  This is not to say he might not have valid points if he were to talk about specific instances.  I wrestle with issues of inclusivity too.  Making blanket judgements and lumping peoples together to attack them though kind of shows why we need inclusivism as a means to the end of God’s reign.  Instead of trying to bring people together to work for God, he separates people from the faithful and condemns what they do as inherently wrong.

“In other arenas, say, in the election of bishops, we can argue that criteria of effectiveness and faithfulness are every bit as important as inclusivism; so success in elections cannot simply be reduced to skin color or to the presence or absence of certain biological organs.”

Is there an example of a bishop who was appointed simply because of the person’s skin color or biological organs?  I would love for Abraham to name one.  Which bishop candidate was not elected and God’s preferred will thus thwarted because the person was of the wrong race or gender?  When was an unfaithful ineffective person elected bishop merely because the person was needed to fill a quota?

“It is the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, which alone can save us from our corruption and idolatry.”

I agree.  Especially when we unpack what the gospel (Good News) means.  It is only by God’s grace that we are saved.  To be fair though, I have never heard anyone argue that if we had the right inclusive language that would save us.  I do not know of anyone who is putting their faith and hope in inclusivism instead of our triune God.  Inclusivism at its best is one of many means we have to work towards God’s reign and share the Good News of Jesus Christ.

As I was writing this I thought about so many instances in the history of United Methodism where not everyone was included.  Would we have had an AME splinter if we had valued everyone equally as sisters and brothers in Christ?  If the English methodists had embraced their German speaking friends, would we have needed  Evangelical or United Brethren churches.  Most of us still shudder at the thought of the Central Jurisdiction. As we wrestle with the reality of being a global church, questions about who gets to sit at the table matter.  If we want our church to be a reflection of God’s reign, we need to make sure we are actively working towards everyone being invited to the table.  The values of inclusivism can be a means to a beautiful end and help us live out our purpose as a church.

“Embraced By Grace” ©2007 Copyright Lawrence OP. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Focus – One problem with our church is a lack of focus.  We have a mission statement, two kinds of holiness, three simple rules, and four areas of focus.  Additionally, we have other programs and agencies focused on ministry.  Annual conference has their own programs, agencies, and ministries competing for our time, energy, and attention.  My hope is that we can work towards a more focused approach towards ministry.  I suggest taking our mission statement and using that as the starting point.

Discipleship – If we were to make our mission statement our focus as a denomination, it might be helpful to define what we mean by disciple.  Literally a disciple is one how follows.  What does that mean as a United Methodist living in the 21st century?  Having a definition might help us focus on how to live out our mission statement.  We might say that a disciple is a person growing in love with God, growing in love with their neighbor, and who lives out the membership vows of the United Methodist Church.  Each local congregation might contextualize it.

It might be also helpful as a denomination to envision a discipleship process.  How do we as a denomination create environments where people, by the grace of God, become disciples and, by the grace of God, grow in their discipleship?  If Jesus is the one who invites us to be disciples, if it is God who provides the grace, then what can we do to be part of the process?

Local churches will need to contextualize it for what it means in the local congregation.  At the same time, the denomination might be able to contextualize old ways of discipleship as well.  Could we start neo-monastic movements that help us make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the World?  Are there ways we could recreate circuits of bands and classes where gifted facilitators might iterate between?

Simplicity – Once we have focused on our main purpose as United Methodists and defined what we mean, my hope is that we might work on making our United Methodist connection simpler.  I would hope we would take an honest and hard look at: all that we do, all of our agencies, all of our ministries, all of our rules, and try to separate what will be fruitful to our primary purpose from what will not be.

The four focuses we currently have are important, but do they distract us from our primary purpose?  The agencies of the church offer nice services and ministries, but to what extent are they making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?  Are they doing ministry or are they empowering, enabling, and equipping local congregations to live out our mission statement?

If the agencies are doing ministry that helps local congregations make disciples of Jesus Christ then let us as a denomination focus on those ministries.  We could find ways to use those ministries to help empower, equip, and enable congregations to do the work God has called them to do.  Ministries that are not empowering, equipping, or enabling should be spun-off or shuttered.  With so many agencies, with so many agendas, with so many possible avenues for ministry, we lose the power of effective ministries if we don’t winnow away what is nice but not vital to our primary purpose.  The more complex our structure the harder it is to focus on what is necessary.  Congregations get pulled in many directions and lose focus.  My hope is we work towards a simpler structure and system that helps us better live out our primary purpose.

Vision – Before the 2012 United Methodist General Conference, I tried hard to see how the various plans for restructure would make a real difference.  Beyond the technical details, all I saw were some vague promises that these changes would make a difference.  I watched the Reverend Adam Hamilton’s presentation during conference.  While the presentation was nice and the visuals were great, ultimately, I still was not sure what the vision was beyond vague promises of small steps towards vitality.

I guess what I was hoping for was a sweeping vision of how any one of the plans would make a difference to the local congregation beyond finances.  Sure we need summaries and technical proposals, but we also need vision. How do we feel that God is calling us to be the church?  What does that look like?  Can we some how articulate a vision that starts with the GC and works its way down to the local congregation?

Any of the proposals would have had more of an impact if they could have presented a vision of how the changes they are proposing would help the United Methodist church, by the grace of God, make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  My own annual conference, the Susquehanna Conference, has a vision team that has worked hard for the last few years trying to discern how God is calling us to be an annual conference.  In 2010, the Pennsylvania churches of the Wyoming Conference and the Central Pennsylvania Conference formed a new conference.  Leaders from both conferences have worked hard to discern how God is calling us to be a new conference.

This year at annual conference, the Vision Team has proposed some radical restructuring of the conference.  The recommendation before the annual conference tries to paint a vision of what the new structure would look like.  While it is not perfect, it does give me a vision of how God might be calling us to equip, empower, and enable local churches.  It might be helpful for anyone proposing restructure to go beyond technical details and vague promises of vitality.  Paint a vivid picture of why you believe God is calling us to structure ourselves in the way you are proposing.

I have read and heard a fair amount of people lamenting that General Conference cannot really do anything anyways.  Revival in the United Methodist Church will start on the local level.  While I strongly agree that the local congregation is at the heart of our future, I think the General Conference can set the tone, point the way, and set up the denomination to empower, equip, and enable local congregations for our mission as a church.

Empower the local church – I do not think that the General Conference or the annual conferences are responsible for the decline in vitality many congregations are experiencing.  Sure if either had done things differently in the past, things might be different now, but who is to say in what ways, what extent, and to what end?  Local congregations are struggling for a variety of reasons.  Larger cultural forces are at work.  Theological and spiritual issues are part of the problem.  Ask ten different pastors about why we are declining in vitality and you would probably get ten slightly different answers.

My hope though is that we can continue to shape the General Conference and annual conferences to empower, equip, and enable local congregations.  We should try hard to ensure that we focus our money, time, energy, and resources on local congregations.  Local congregations, by the grace of God, are where disciples are made and the real power to transform the world can be found.  Any ministry, agenda, or line item that is not equipping, empowering, and enabling the local congregation, in some reasonable way, is distracting us and ultimately taking away from the local congregation.

Summary – While very general, these are my hopes for the United Methodist church.  As we continue to envision, dream, and talk, it is my hope that we work on focusing on our primary purpose as a church.  We will hopefully define what we mean by discipleship and think about how we can as a connection better able to create environments where disciples are made and people grow in discipleship by the grace of God.  Our church and structure is way too complicated and I hope we can work towards simplicity.  I hope any proposals for restructure brought to General Conference in 2016 has an accompanying vision.  If we believe our primary purpose is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world then we need to empower, equip, and enable the local congregation.

“…Hope…” ©2009 Copyright Darren Tunniclif. Licensed Under Creative Commons

One of the problems in the church and in our society is that we always think we need one more thing to be happy or to thrive.  Reading tweets and blog posts related to General Conference I got the impression, at times, it seemed like some felt if we could find the one more thing, we could set things right.   Perhaps one more change to the Book of Discipline.  A dollar more for this program.  Some new power for bishops.  The fact that most of the one more things did not get passed put a damper on the whole affair.

Rich Mullins in his song “My One Thing” sings “everybody I know says they need just one thing and what they really mean is that they need just one thing more.”  It seems like as a church we are always searching for that one thing that will set us right.  One more program, one more administrative change, one more event, and so on.  Rich in the chorus seems to come to the conclusion “you’re my one thing” as he sings to God.

As a church, we have all that we need.  Jesus has promised to be with us to the end of the age.  Pentecost reminds us that we are not orphans, but we have the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Our hope should not be built on the polity of our church, but standing on Christ our solid rock.

Rich Mullins.  In the public domain.

***

06/06/2012 – Edit:  Originally I had the wrong title for “My One Thing.”

Wesley’s Covenant Prayer – Several people in their tweets and blog posts referenced Wesley’s Covenant Prayer when discussing the end of Guaranteed Appointments.  The line that was continually used was “let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee.”  What I find weird is that people are using a prayer to God to talk about Guaranteed Appointments.  Most pastors I know would buy whole heartily into the Covenant Prayer.  We want to be employed by God or laid aside if that is God’s preferred will.

It seems painfully obvious, but it needs to be said: bishops and district superintendents are not God.  I have no doubt that in the appointment process the bishop and the cabinet are trying hard to discern God’s will.  Sometimes though, I imagine, they make mistakes.  As United Methodists, we are not Calvinists.  We believe we can make decisions against God’s preferred will.  It is the downside of free will.  It is possible that some appointments are not God’s will.  Some decisions by the bishop and the cabinet are possibly not God’s preferred will. Using the Covenant Prayer when talking about appointments blurs the two.

Itinerancy – One thing peculiar about the United Methodist system is itinerancy.  Pastors are appointed to a church on a yearly basis.  Each year, a pastor could be appointed to a new church.  The bishop and the cabinet can send the pastor, at least theoretically, to any place in the conference based on their discernment.  A pastor could be sent to a healthy congregation, a struggling congregation, a dead an decaying congregation, a “clergy killer” congregation, and the pastor often only has limited say in the situation.  Too often, the bishop and the district superintendent only have a vague understanding of what is really going on in the life of the church.  Pastors are often sent into contexts that are not going to produce immediate fruit.

When we had guaranteed appointments, this arrangement seemed fair.  We can send you anywhere, but we will have your back.  You might be sent into a difficult situation, but that will not hurt your future employability.  Now it seems less fair.  We can send you anywhere, even a context that does not match your gifts and graces.  After a period of time, we might decide that you are ineffective and not give you an appointment.  Or we see that you are not producing fruit.  We then realize we  have too many elders.  So for missional reasons we will not appoint you.  Yes, there are checks and balances.  Still, will someone stand up for you if you appeal?  Will people be afraid to stand up and risk that they might be the next person not to be appointed for missional reasons?  Who wants to appoint a gad fly?

Theology – I have been reading the book Bad Religion and was surprised to read that the Roman Catholic church came to a point in the 20th century when they would not release priests from their ordination vows.  It seemed interesting that once a person was ordained, they were expected to keep the gift of ordination their whole lives.  The gift could not be returned.  It raises the question what does it mean to be ordained?  Does ordination require mutual responsibility?

Now I realize that ordination is a sacrament in the Roman Catholic church, but is not one in the United Methodist Church.  I also realize that we are really bad at theology in the United Methodist Church.  I believe we do not articulate our theology a whole lot any more in the life of the church.  Too often we let competing theologies into our hymnal, our worship supplements (I am looking at you Worship and Song), our Sunday school lessons, and small groups.  I cannot tell you how many times I saw people get United Methodist theology wrong on Twitter (I realize Twitter might not be the church at its best).  One person said something like “I did not realize that prevenient grace has become preventing grace.”  It was in the context of a debate where the person thought grace was being lost.  I wanted to ask the person on Twitter, have you read Wesley?  He did not use the term prevenient grace, it was preventing grace.  I know what the person meant, but it was painful to read.  People talked about social holiness as if it was social justice.  For the record it is not.  Wesley’s understanding of social holiness is different than our modern understanding of social justice.

As a church we need a better theology about ordination.  What does it mean to get ordained?  How does it relate to the larger church?  Why can a non-ordianed person preside over the sacraments?  If deacons are ordained, why are they excluded from presiding over the sacraments?  If the church affirms that a person is set apart for ordained ministry, what does it mean that we can exit them from the ministry for reasons beyond ineffectiveness (if we believe there is some mutual responsibility in ordination)?

Recruiting – Eliminating Guaranteed Appointments may have unintended consequences.  We say we want young clergy.  One way we get young clergy is for pastors to be prayerfully looking out for children and youth with the gifts and graces for ministry.  I have heard many call stories of pastors.  Most of them involve a pastor inviting a person to think about how God might be calling the person into ordained ministry.  As pastors lose job security by the loss of guaranteed appointments, I know I will have second thoughts about inviting children and youth to think about ministry in the United Methodist system.  A life of itinerancy seems fair when coupled with guaranteed appointments.  If you give the system your best, the system will not abandon you.  The BOD had a way to deal with ineffective pastors.  A system where people communicated well and resolved conflicts would not have ineffective pastors.  How can I ask in good conscious a person to devote their life to a system that might chew them up and then spit them out when that is what is expedient?  How we live into this new reality of life without guaranteed appointments might have unintended consequences in terms of pastors recruiting the next generation of pastors.

When do we hit rock bottom? – Every time we cut the pastors compensation, I wonder where is rock bottom?  Since I have started ministry (it has only been five years), we have increased the pastors contributions to our health insurance plan twice.  Our conference has downgraded the quality of our health insurance plan.  General Conference just decreased our future pension benefits (and to be fair they could have voted for more of a decrease).

Now I realize churches are struggling.  The charge I serve is severely struggling.  I realize that most employees are being asked to sacrifice more and more.  We all do what we have to do.  Yet, with the loss of job security, on top of the trend of ever declining overall compensation, at what point does it no longer make sense to be involved in ordained ministry in the UMC?  Each pastor will have a different answer.  Ordained ministry in the UMC is not the only way to live out one’s call to ministry in the world.

How disposable are pastors? – One trend in the business world that really bothers me is how disposable employees are.  If a business wants to sure up profits in the short-term, employees are often seen as disposable.  I remember reading in my senior year of high school Rethinking America.  Part of the author’s premise was that we should think about our employees differently in America.  We should invest in them in the long term and stand by them in difficult times.  The author lifted up Geremany and Japan as models.  Now no one is currently lifting up Japan as a model for anything, but I think he was right about employees.

Here in the United States we are ever increasingly externalizing the costs of everything by making employees pick up the extra burden so that consumers do not have to.  It seems like we are doing that in the church as we race to the bottom in terms of compensation.  Now with the loss of guaranteed appointments, we are externalizing the problems and responsibilities of ministry onto the pastors.  What I mean is that if there are too many elders and not enough appointments, we will now withhold appointment for missional reasons.  Does it matter what the pastor has done for us in the past?  Not inherently.  Does it matter that the person has sacrificed to serve the church?  Not really.  Does it matter that God has called them into ministry and the church has affirmed that call by ordaining them?  Apparently not.

There are always multiple ways to deal with problems.  By making pastors bear the full brunt of these problems, we are treating pastors like they are disposable.  We are adopting the worst practices of the business world.  Pastors are becoming just one more cog in a machine bent on the perpetuation of the status quo.  If the cog no longer is needed, we dispose of it.

Some are talking about all of this in terms of the church’s needs versus pastors needs.  As if pastors are just parasites and that the whole system is designed around the needs of the pastors.  Hence all this talk about missional appointments.  We are framing it so that if you argue for guaranteed appointments you are putting the needs of the pastor above the congregations.  It is all more complicated than that.  Arguing for a fair system that treats pastors like they have some value and are not disposable, is not saying that the needs of the pastor come above the church.  Our system of appointments is not perfect.  As a church we have not arrived at perfection.  There is a strong possibility that for a variety of reasons beyond ineffectiveness, pastors who could be effective in the right context, will be exited from ministry.  I just pray that we are not treated like we are disposable.  I hope we are treated as children of God who have felt God’s call on their lives and are trying, by the grace of God, to live out that call.

In the public domain.

]]> https://highnoonblog.com/guaranteed-appointments/feed/ 0 175 https://highnoonblog.com/power/ https://highnoonblog.com/power/#respond Thu, 03 May 2012 10:00:35 +0000 http://highnoonblog.com/?p=168 After reading Tom Berlin’s blog post about Guaranteed Appointments, I am glad he feels great about the loss of guaranteed appointments.  Undoubtedly he is feeling better that he now knows the conference wants him and is not merely putting up with him.  It was nice of him to acknowledge, a bit, that he was not in the most vulnerable of positions.  After all as a popular clergy person (he is a delegate to GC from his AC) serving a large membership church, he probably does not have much to fear from this sudden loss of job security.

An aside: I realize my snakiness is a little mean.  I really like The Rev. Dr. Berlin.  He came to speak at an ordination retreat I attended.  Out of all the pastors I have heard speak, who lead large membership churches, his words on change make the most sense.  Still, his post was rather blasé. He retweeted it at least four times as of last night.  In his blasé style, I think he ignores what makes the removal of guaranteed appointments potentially problematic.

What troubles me most about his post is that he does not talk about the uneven power dynamics or power at all.  The loss of guaranteed appointments changes the power dynamics between the bishop and clergy of an annual conference.  Maybe for the better.  Perhaps for the worst.  More likely somewhere in-between.

After the 2004 General Conference I talked to a delegate about the people who had openly suggested schism as a way to deal with our conflicts related to homosexuality.  As an outside observer it seemed to me the conflict was all about homosexuality.  The delegate suggested that it was really all about power.  Different sides using the issue of homosexuality as an issue to try and  shape the church to their liking.  Sure the surface issue of homosexuality was part of the conflict, but below the surface were power struggles.  Only talking about it in terms of homosexuality ignored the larger power struggle.

As I mentioned in my post on Accountability, there is more to the loss of guaranteed appointments than the issue of ineffective pastors.  While most would like to focus on the easier issue of ineffectiveness (who wants ineffective pastors?), the other issue is that there appears to be too many pastors wanting full time appointments at a time when full time appointments are disappearing.

This is obviously a problem.  It needs to be dealt with.  Hopefully, the safe guards in the General Conference’s legislation on the issue will help us move towards vitality in healthy ways.  I think though it has to be acknowledged that issues of power are at work here too.

I keep reading about the need for bold action.  The need for accountability and leadership.  Ultimately, some have a vision for the church where leaders with the right amount of power will steer us towards vitality.  People unhappy with the current structure are also unhappy with the current power arrangements.  Its not simply about leadership, it is also about power.

Any change to the structure is a change to the power.  Some will benefit from the changes in power, others will not.  Power is neither a good or bad thing, it all depends on how it is used.  When we don’t talk about issues of power as part of the discussion and we only discuss part of the problem, we are not being honest with ourselves or each other.

What troubles me the most is that the majority of the people at General Conference making these decisions (Young Clergy?) are the ones who have the least skin in the game.  On the elder end of things, most are popular, many are established in ministries that are fruitful, they are not in vulnerable positions.  For the laity and deacons, they have nothing to lose and it is easy to blame elders for the problems of the church than taking collective responsibility.

This change in power is one sided.  We weaken the position of the pastor, but we do not make congregations or the superintendency weaker or more accountable.  As we strengthen, at least in some ways, the congregations and the superintendency at the cost of pastors, we have to ask will stripping the pastors of more power lead to vitality?

I would contend that pastors have too little power as it is.  We have a lot of mandated responsibility in the BOD, but where do we have the power to live out those responsibilities?  Congregations do not inherently kowtow to the pastor.  In fact, in my experience, they do not.

I contend that if we want vitality, we must empower both pastors and congregations.  Congregations, pastors, and the superintendency must all be held accountable.  We must define what want, what we see as fruit, what we expect from pastors, what we expect from congregations, and what we expect from the superintendency.  Healthy power dynamics need definition.

As a church we need to talk about power and how we use it.  We must be aware of how our changes in power will empower and marginalize.  When we make changes that are necessary, but will lead to harm we need to acknowledge it.  One example is for pastors not being appointed for missional reasons, but who could be effective clergy in the right context.  In our new system it could happen.  In an annual conference with too few appointments and too many clergy, it maybe necessary.  Not every clergy person will be effective in every context.  This does not make the pastor inherently ineffective.  We should work to mitigate the harm and acknowledge the sadness of the situation.

We also have to ask, to what end are we using our power?  Are we at cross-purposes?  If we say we want young clergy in one breath, and than use our power to weaken the position of young clergy in the next, will our words or our actions speak louder?  How do we judge our use of power?  I think Dan Dick explores this better than me, so I refer you to his posts: “Safety in Numbness” and “Value-Addled.”

“Fist.” ©2006 Copyright Randen Pederson.  Licensed Under Creative Commons

In one of my introductory classes at Albright on American history, the professor (who I greatly respect) spent a fair amount of time defending the value of concentrating in history.  One of his arguments was Santayana’s aphorism.  At the time it sounded appealing.

On the surface it seems to make sense.  When you use the right hermeneutical lens, smooth out the rough places, and overlook the contradictions, you might be able to point to a situation that looks similar to a different situation and say that history repeated itself.

In a religious studies class (I did a full concentration in religious studies as well) I mentioned the aphorism.  The professor looked at me incredulously and challenged me on how that could possibly be true.  I thought about it for a good while and I was stumped.  When I was honest with myself I could not think of a good example.

History does not repeat itself.  There will never be another Waterloo.  Julius Caesar will not have to experiance another Ides of March. Joan of Arc will not be challenging the parochial powers anytime soon.  Even if you believe Gandhi will be reincarnated, India is already free.  Unfortunately there will never be another “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech/sermon.  As much as some people would want another Ronald Reagan, “the Gipper” will not be ascending/descending from Republican hell/heaven anytime soon.  Not knowing about people, places, or events does not inherently mean that the person or event will repeat itself.  It cannot inherently.

This is not to say that the study of the history of is a worthless pursuit.  Memory is important.  We can derive lessons from history.  Understanding the past helps shape our understanding of the present.  Knowing what has happened might help us make better decisions in the present.

The problem with the aphorism is that it is a power game.  We often use it as leverage.  It sounds true.  The person using it sounds like an authority.  People with some apparent knowledge wield it against people who are afraid they might not know enough.

We live in a world where we wish for the “Good Old Days.”  Many people believe the past was better than the present.  Our culture loves the notion of the original.  Somehow the first or the genesis was the peak and everything has been downhill from there.  Whether it is the Supreme Court’s strict constructionists or the Tea Party movement, we some how think there was this time in history that was the paragon of human thought (or at least their understanding of that time) and any deviation from that understanding is folly.

History then becomes a weapon.  Things were great back then.  If we could just go back to those basic principles then we could return to the “Good Old Days.”  We use our understanding of history as a weapon against our opponents.  Santayana’s aphorism or the flawed thinking behind it exacerbates this.

In the church we do this too.  If we could just go back to Wesley, the early church, or Jesus, all will be well.  When we do not like the church’s current direction, we use history as a weapon.  Our current problem is history repeating itself.  If we could just go back to the Garden of Eden.

In the debate about church vitality we talk about numbers and statistics.  We often use the past as a way of justifying our position.  People say things like “Wesley and the early Methodists kept statistics” and “they did not tolerate ineffectiveness.”  We cherry pick what we like about the past, use if to justify current actions, and smooth over the differences in time, culture, and systems.  History is not only a weapon we can use to defend our position, but a magic incantation.  If we just perform the right ritual from the past, we can recreate perceived successes from the past.

As a church we should look at history.  We have a rich and deep history.  There are times to remember when the church carried out the Great Commission in ways that were Good News for all nations.  Church history also has periods though when we need to confess that we were not what God has called us to be.  Lessons can be derived from the good and the bad.  History though will not repeat itself.

We should not put our trust and hope in history.  Our trust and hope is in God.  One of my favorite parts of the United Methodist Great Thanksgiving is when the celebrant prays, “when the Lord Jesus ascended, he promised to be with us always, in the power of your Word and Holy Spirit.  We do not need history to find Jesus.  Jesus is with us in the power of God’s Word and in the person of the Holy Spirit.  We have what all that we need.

History does not repeat itself.  At its most innocent, the aporishm is silly.  The aphorism becomes devious though when history is used as a weapon.  Simplistic understandings of the past will not help us much in the present.  Better understanding our complex history might help us make better decisions in the present, but it will not save us from the past, present, or the future.

George Santayana. Image is in the public domain.

My struggle with accountability is: what do we hold people accountable for?  Should a teacher be held accountable for the students standardized test scores?  How much of the blame or praise should the teacher be assigned?  In most cases, the teacher did not share their genes with the student or nurture the student.  A student usually has several teachers.  The teacher is not responsible for the larger web of systems that the student lives in.  Does the teacher play a role in the education of the student?  Yes.  Should the teacher be accountable for the role the teacher plays in the life of the student?  Yes.  The hard part though is clearly delineating what the teacher should be held responsible for and what is beyond the teachers control.

It appears that General Conference has voted to remove “Guaranteed Appointments” from the BOD.  The idea that if you were an elder in good standing, you were guaranteed an appointment.  This is being lifted up as a major step towards accountability and vitality.  Ineffective pastors could be held accountable.  (Let us ignore for the moment that the Book of Discipline already had a means and a method to remove ineffective pastors and some bishops have used that means quite effectively.)  We all  pray this will lead our churches to vitality.

I have no inherent problem with the removal of guaranteed appointments.  Accountability in the proper context is incredibly appropriate.  What I have a problem with is that it is not clear to me that pastors will be held accountable for things they can control.  Our ministry takes place in a complex web of systems.  Many of those systems are unhealthy.  There are things the pastor controls and there are many more things the pastor does not.  The unhealthiness of our church as a whole and in local congregations is not all the fault of pastors.

If the issue is really about ineffective pastors, why are the current safeguards in our Book of Discipline not enough?  Is it because we do not communicate well as a church, or have problems resolving conflicts?  If bishops and District Superintendents have ineffective clergy, why not have the conversations needed now?  If you read Bishop Willimon’s new book or read one of his print interviews, you get the impression he had little problem having conversations with ineffective pastors and exiting them from the conference.

My guess is that we struggle with honest communication and conflict resolution.  We also struggle with being honest when we frame issues.  All those who only want to talk about this in terms of ineffective clergy are playing a slight of hand trick.  Bishop Schnase in a question and answer article before General Conference suggested that the end of guarenteed is not really about ineffective pastors.  He seems to suggest the problem is that there are too many pastors for too few appointments.  If this is the real problem, we will have to do what we have to do as a church, but let us be honest about it.

It would be helpful to define the terms we are talking about.  What does a  “missional appointment” mean?  What does it mean to be “effective?”  Are we talking about church growth or discipleship?  When we talk about fruits of ministry are we talking about numbers or spiritual maturity?  If it is a “both/and” which one takes priority?

Will only the pastors serving local churches be held accountable?  Will bishops and district superintendents be held accountable for the appointments they make?  What about local churches?   Will they be held accountable?  If the pastors are the only ones being held accountable in the system will we have the church vitality we pray for?

Accountability is great when people are held accountable for things they can control.  If a person is given a clearly defined job, with the appropriate power, resources, and responsibility to accomplish the job, accountability is powerful.  Most of time though, pastors are not given a clearly defined job, they are given a lot of responsibility, but little power.  Resources are often lacking.

I think we need a system where we define what we expect.  We need to define what we mean exactly when we say the mission statement of the UMC.  It would be helpful if we are going to hold pastors accountable, we hold congregations accountable as well.  If bishops and district superintends are the ones who are going to hold pastors and congregations accountable, then they should at least ensure that they define what they expect from the pastors and congregations. If we are going to make missional appointments, please define what all this entails.

“Sword” ©2006 Copyright Adam Rose.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Bishop Jones’ tweet that “My view – three most important factors in renewing the UMC: leadership, leadership, and leadership” sums up the problem with the whole tenor of General Conference and the work leading up to it from my perspective.  The controversial Call to Action is epitome of the cult of leadership.  Some seem to believe that if we just empower the leaders of our churches and lead in the right ways, “leadership, leadership, and leadership” will renew our church.

The problem is that leadership is not the answer.  People will not come to United Methodist churches because of leaders.  When someone is “church shopping” the person is not going to go online and look at the official statistics to see who is leading best.  A first time visitor to a church is not going to grill the pastor to see if they have read a book by Borden, Heifetz, Stanely, or whatever business or church leader is the newest savior.  Visitors are not concerned with leadership.  Unchurched people are not hoping that the churches suddenly have an influx of leaders.

Our purpose as United Methodists is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  Leaders do not make disciples.  God makes disciples.  A disciple is one who follows.  The initial invitation to follow comes from Jesus, not a leader.  The grace to understand and accept the invitation to follow comes from the Triune God, not a leader.  Churches can and should be part of God’s work, but churches need to remember it is God’s work.  We follow Jesus, we invite others to follow Jesus, and we support each other by the grace of God on the journey.

Leonard Sweet best captures this in his book I Am a Follower.  As followers of Jesus, we might be a first follower, one who accepts Jesus call to follow and then invites others to follow as well.  Leadership might play a role in following and inviting others to follow, but the heart of the matter is following, not leadership.  We do not lead, we follow and invite others to do the same.

I often hear people use Biblical leaders as justification for the importance of leadership.  At a retreat I attended earlier in the year, a pastor who I greatly admire, used Jeremiah as an example of a leader.  My question though is “who exactly did Jeremiah lead?”  When I look at the Bible, I do not see leaders.  I see followers who invited others to follow along.  When Moses followed God and invited others to follow, great things happened.  The reason Moses did not enter the Promised Land was not because he followed, its was because he tried to lead apart from following God.  Joshua is often lifted up as a great leader, but the reality is that he followed God.  Look at what happened at Ai when he tried to lead and not follow.  David might have been a king after God’s own heart, but how well did David do when he tried to lead in terms of a census?

Time and time again, the best examples of faith in the Bible are seen in followers, not leaders.  Ruth was a follower.  The prophets followed where God’s call on their lives led them.   How often though did the people follow their leadership?  Why we remember them today, why their words are God-breathed as the author of 2 Timothy might say, is that they faithfully followed God.  Often the people of faith we admire the most, are the people least respected by the leaders of their day.  No one would have accused most of the prophets of being a leader of the people.  Too often they were trying to invite the people to turn away from their leaders and turn back to God.

One reason we keep holding up leaders as the solution is that we fall into the fallacy that correlation equals causation.  People look at “successful churches” and they often identify a leader.  The success of that church, after the nominal nod to God, is then attributed to the leadership of the individual identified.  The thinking goes something like this: we have a leader, we have a successful church, one must have caused the other.  This is not inherently true.

When I look at pastors who have helped churches thrive, I would not attribute it to leadership.  Most of those pastors are passionate followers of Jesus who have invited others to follow.  The congregations are full of passionate followers of Jesus who are inviting others to follow.  What appears to be leadership is a successful partnership between the the followers and God.  Jesus invites, the Triune God empowers and equips, the people accept the invitation to follow, and then go out and invite others to follow.

Is leadership inherently bad?  No.  Can leadership be part of followership?  Yes.  My primary concern is how we are framing our conversation in the church today.  We keep using words like accountability.  Accountability is an important part of following Jesus, but in the wrong context it becomes deeply problematic.  Holding people accountable for what they cannot control is flawed, but at the heart of how our society practices leadership.  Accountability in the context of following Jesus is the genius of monasticism and the early Methodist movement.  How we frame our conversation matters.  The language of leadership should not be our default.

If our focus is on leadership, we are going to fail.  If our focus is on how Jesus is calling us to follow, by the grace of God we might thrive once more.  General conference cannot mandate health.  We cannot make people, congregations, or pastors follow Jesus.  At the heart of following Jesus is prayer, repentance, and discernment.  As a church and as followers, this has to be our starting place.

General Conference could help shape our life together as a church in ways that encourage us to pray, repent, and discern.  We might envision ways of being the church that help us better follow Jesus and invite others to follow as well.  As a church we do not have to reinvent the wheel.  The Bible is full of models of how to follow Jesus and invite others to follow.  Our history as United Methodists and as Christians, is full examples of how the church could be shaped to better follow Jesus and invite others to follow.  The focus though must be on followship, not leadership.

Palm Sunday 2007 in Somerville MA.

]]> https://highnoonblog.com/leadership/feed/ 0 130 https://highnoonblog.com/young-clergy/ https://highnoonblog.com/young-clergy/#respond Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:14:15 +0000 http://highnoonblog.com/?p=121 As the 2012 United Methodist General Conference approaches, I have been trying to bite my tongue and not get too worked up about things that have not yet come to pass.  With the possibility of radical changes to the church structure and the end of guaranteed appointments there have been many things that have gotten my dander up.

For as long as I have been in full time ministry, I have heard the leaders in my conference talk about the need for young clergy.  To their credit, they have actively worked to recruit and support young clergy.  At the same time though, I have noticed that with declining attendance and giving, we have also actively been making the compensation end of pastoral ministry less appealing to people pursuing ministry.

Teachers with only bachelors degrees often have better benefits and compensation starting out than a pastor starting in ministry.  One works nine months a year with a set schedule, the other has a graduate degree, is on call 24 hours a day, works 6 days a week for 11 months of the year.  As an aside, this is not to say that teachers do not deserve their compensation.  I get upset when we as a society argue for the lowest common denominator.  I think we should compensate our teachers well. As young people are trying to discern how God is calling them to be in ministry in the world (as United Methodists we believe we are all called to ministry) compensation will be part of that discernment process.

Pastors feel a call to ministry and we are willing to sacrifice for the mission of the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.  I struggle though when our compensation is changing for the worse, whether we are being called to sacrifice to make disciples of Jesus Christ, or for the perseverance of the current system which is failing and cannot continue.

Yesterday I read this article about how some would like to change our current pension system.  I was upset.  Then I read this commentary and thought about how in the name of saving churches and making disciples, we will probably make changes to the pension system that will make ministry less appealing.  I started to wonder how this will impact the decision of young people about whether they want to pursue ordained ministry or stay in ordained ministry.  Could these decisions have an impact on the life of the church for generations in ways we are not counting upon in terms of young clergy?

What really gets me going is the power dynamic at play.  The people making the decisions are, on a whole, the ones who have the least skin in the game.  They are in positions of power and have the most protection from these decisions.  Young clergy (for the most part) are not at the table and will feel the sting the most.

I think the Reverend Becca Clark summed it up best in her twitter post:

I am thankful she has a voice at the table.

Ultimately though, we do not make disciples.  God makes disciples.  At best, we create environments where God can work through us.  God does not need the United Methodist Church to make disciples.  Young adults do not need the United Methodist church to be part of God’s disciple making process.

If the church decides to end guaranteed appointments and keep the itinerancy system, if the church asks young clergy to sacrifice future security in relation to pensions, while asking the clergy who perpetuated our current troubles to not sacrifice, why should young people feeling called to ordained ministry want to be United Methodist clergy? Do we as a church want young clergy?

“Money” ©2007 Copyright Thomas Hawk.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

Using formulas to visually represent the information might be helpful.  Undoubtedly someone seeped in math or science would find this deeply problematic, but I think it might be helpful in conveying information and creating a common language.  Two formulas I have been playing with are:

• Rootedness + Mission + Vision + Accountability + Passion = Thriving Church
• Happenstance + Reputation + Opportunities + Invitation = Visitors

I worry formulas might seem inaccurate, crass, or too simplistic, and yet, the churches I serve need a common language and a way to think about our ministry.

“Einstein’s Lecture notes.” ©2012 Copyright Martin Lopatka.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

I was surprised, I had no idea the church had a grocery store card program.  So I made a comment noting my surprise.  One of my parishioners said something jokingly like “shame on you!”  I asked how was I to know about it when this was the first I heard of it?

I learned in divinity school “you don’t know what you don’t know” after scheduling classes for the first semester and then learning the United Methodist church and my conference had required courses.  It caused logistical problems for my remaining semesters.  In hindsight it seems obvious, but I had no idea.

One problem in churches is that we assume people know.  We take for grated that people know where something is, where to sign-up for something, or that a program even exists.  Yet, too often, we fail to communicate what seems obvious and in doing so we lose out.  If I had known the church had a grocery store card program, I might have shopped at the grocery store and used the card.  What I find really amusing is that even after I said I didn’t know about it, did anyone show me how to enroll?  No.

“Socrates.” ©2003 Copyright Sebastià Giralt.  Licensed Under Creative Commons.

I have almost finished my work on the MonGorille.com websites.  My next project is Joseph Priestley Online.  I will then move to the Burd-Harris websites.  Eventually I will start working on HarrisCentral.com.