We place too much emphasis on gifts, skills, and abilities, and not enough on faith, surrender, and a heart for God. We act as if the church depends on us.

While we are the body of Christ—the hands and feet of Jesus—the truth is, we can accomplish nothing by ourselves. Jesus said, “Without me, you can’t do anything” (John 15.5, CEB). Unless God works through us, our gifts, skills, and abilities accomplish nothing of eternal significance.

We must never forget that building the church is Jesus’ job. Jesus said, “I’ll build my church on this rock. The gates of the underworld won’t be able to stand against it” (Matthew 16.18, CEB).

As a pastor, my job is not to fix the church, or even to build it. My job is to make myself available to God, follow Jesus, and stay in tune with the Holy Spirit, so that God can use me to accomplish his will!

Get a thorough knowledge of your subject: understand your text in all its connection and bearings, and then go into the pulpit depending on the Spirit of God to give you power to explain and illustrate to the people those general and particular views which you have already taken of your subject, and which you conscientiously believe to be correct and according to the word of God. But get nothing by heart to speak there, else even your memory will contribute to keep you in perpetual bondage. No man was ever a successful preacher who did not discuss his subject from his own judgment and experience. The reciters of sermons may be popular; but God scarcely ever employs them to convert sinners, or build up saints in their most holy faith. I do not recommend in this case a blind reliance upon God; taking a text which you do not know how to handle, and depending upon God to give you something to say. He will not be thus employed. Go into the pulpit with your understanding full of light, and your heart full of God; and his Spirit will help you, and then you will find a wonderful assemblage of ideas coming in to your assistance; and you will feel the benefit of the doctrine of association, of which the reciters and memory men can make no use. The finest, the best, and the most impressive thoughts are obtained in the pulpit when the preacher enters it with the preparation mentioned above.

I’m also reading American Saint: Francis Asbury and the Methodists by John Wigger. In discussing one of the early Methodist preachers in America, Wigger writes …

Like all Methodist preachers, Watters preached extemporaneously, without notes (70).

My sense is that not only did early Methodist preachers preach without notes, they had a disdain for notes. Clarke calls those who use notes, or a manuscript, “reciters of sermons.”

During my preaching journey, I’ve moved toward using fewer and fewer notes. A couple of years ago, I wrote about this part of my journey. Right now, my sermon notes (usually) fit on a single 3×3 post-it note. But I’m still trying to get to the point where I use no notes!

While I’m not militant about the use of notes, I do think it’s important. I once heard John Maxwell talk about the difference between “speakers” and “communicators.” Speakers focus on the content. Communicators focus on the audience. The purpose of notes (especially manuscripts) is to cover all of the content. The objective in preaching without notes is to make a point and give a call to action, not cover all of your material.

If I understand Clarke correctly, he advises preachers to internalize the text (“your understanding full of light”) and be fully prepared, spiritually (“your heart full of God”). What’s not clear to me, though, is whether Clarke simply advises preaching without notes or if he’s saying that the message itself should be formed as it is being preached. In other words, how much of the sermon is formulated ahead of time?

He does talk about ideas and words coming together while preaching, but he doesn’t say whether or not he goes to preach with an outline or map in mind.

Clarke also appears to speak poorly of “memory men.” Clarke argues, “your memory will contribute to keep you in perpetual bondage.” He adds, “The reciters of sermons may be popular; but God scarcely ever employs them to convert sinners, or build up saints in their most holy faith.”

Those may be fighting words for those who rely on notes or manuscripts when they preach!

What do you think?

• The Circle Maker” 1.0
• The Circle Maker” 2.0
• The Circle Maker” 3.0
• The Circle Maker” 4.0
• Spiritual Priming and Shaping Culture
• Prayer Idiosyncrasies

In this final post, I thought I’d share some takeaways from the book, practices that have developed as I’ve read the book, or thoughts that I want to keep going forward.

1. “Stop, drop, and pray!”
This is a good reminder to pray in the moment. Especially when I encounter difficulty, my first response should be to pray!

2. “Fasting is a form of praying hard!”
I like what Batterson says about fasting (see 3.0). I especially like this statement. Fasting can be challenging; it helps to know that it is a form of praying hard!

3. “Change our prayer approach from as soon as possible to as long as it takes.”
This is a good reminder to keep praying. Oftentimes, the answer doesn’t come quickly; we must be persistent!

4. Pray 7 Laps.
As I mentioned in my post on Prayer Idiosyncrasies, I developed the practice of praying seven laps around the church’s worship area while I was reading the book (though the idea didn’t specifically come out of the book). This is a meaningful way for me to engage in prayer while I’m at the church.

5. Pray in chalk circles.
In the afterword of The Circle Maker, Batterson relates a story a friend told him after he had finished writing the book. Robert “Gypsy” Smith, a British evangelist born in 1860, was asked by a group of people how God could use them just as he used Gypsy. Smith said …

Go home. Lock yourself in your room. Kneel down in the middle of the floor, and with a piece of chalk draw a circle around yourself. There, on your knees, pray fervently and brokenly that God would start a revival within that prayer circle. (179)

One day, I drew a circle around myself in the back yard and prayed that revival would begin within the circle. I found it helpful to write my requests with key words or phrases. I plan to continue this practice from time to time. The first time, I involved Ethan and Sarah, who enjoyed the sidewalk chalk!

This is a book I’ll want to review from time to time. As I do, I’m sure there will be other takeaways along the way!

United Methodist New Service: General Conference wrap-up (Richard Peck)

A General Conference Postlude (Rev. Tom Berlin)

A view of General Conference, from the ‘muddled middle’ (Elaine Robinson)

Our stubborn system: A reflection on GC2012 (Ben Boruff)

GC reflections (Amy Lippoldt)

Reflections on General Conference 2012 (Rev. Mike Slaughter)

Some thoughts following General Conference (Bishop John Schol)

Bishop Davis Reflects on General Conference 2012 (Bishop Lindsey Davis)

Run Aground at Tampa Bay: A Reflection on the 2012 General Conference (Bishop Timothy Whitaker)

Several by Bishop Michael Coyner: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right, No Guarantees, Finding Their Voice, It Was Never About Structure, and Good Results from General Conference.

All of these wrap-ups and reflections were written by people who attended General Conference 2012. I wasn’t there, but followed it as closely as I could from a distance. So, while I’m rounding up some articles, here are links to my General Conference-related posts …

Episcopal Address: Resurrection Revolution

Employed for Thee or Laid Aside for Thee

Church in Need of Bold Action Chooses No Action!

I Don’t Have to Survive!

General Conference and the Transformation of The United Methodist Church

“The Recovery of a Contagious Methodist Movement”

Transformation of The United Methodist Church

4 Strategies to Transform The United Methodist Church

John Wesley’s Fear for the Future of Methodism

If you’ve come across a good General Conference wrap-up/reflection, please leave a comment!

… those of us who study the writings and practices of John Wesley can’t help but be reminded of those prophetic words near the end of his life: ‘I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.’ (‘Thoughts Upon Methodism,’ 1786.) Have we, the United Methodist Church, officially become Wesley’s Church of England? Or is it the UMC in the United States that is fulfilling Wesley’s prophetic concern, worrying endlessly about the form of our religion, while neglecting the power of Grace? Have we, indeed, let loose of the doctrine, spirit, and discipline of our tradition?

I searched this blog for Wesley’s quote I was sure I had mentioned before. Interestingly, I found the quote in a post called, What The United Methodist Church Needs. I wrote the post thirteen months ago after attending the United Methodist Leadership Summit where leaders presented the Call to Action to leaders from around the world via satellite. The words still seem to fit post-General Conference.

Wesley’s words remind us the death of the UMC isn’t the worst thing that can happen; the worst thing that can happen is to lose our vitality, “having the form of religion without the power.”

In recent days, I’ve written a lot about the needed transformation in the UMC, going from institutional to (what George Hunter calls) movemental. Yesterday, I suggested some possible strategies for the transformation, which are closely tied to Wesley’s theology and practice.

Wesley’s words are a sober reminder and challenge to “hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which (we) first set out”!

1. Engage in prayer and fasting.
Nothing is more important, and necessary, than prayer and fasting. Transformation begins in prayer, prayer that is broken and fervent. As Mark Batterson says in his great book on prayer, The Circle Maker, we must pray “as long as it takes”!

Specifically for General Conference (as well as other conference gatherings), I love what Elaine Robinson suggests in her General Conference reflection …

In the early annual conferences of the Methodist movement (well before any such gargantuan as General Conference emerged), they began the conference “after some time spent in prayer.” … I wonder what might happen … if we spent the first 24 hours gathered in prayer, silent prayer especially, and listening for God? No politicking or maneuvering allowed! Can we expect holy conferencing to be holy if we haven’t quieted ourselves to listen for God?

Without prayer and fasting, we will never experience widespread transformation in the UMC!

2. Recover Wesleyan theology.
In his book, The Recovery of a Contagious Methodist Movement, which I wrote about recently, George Hunter includes Wesleyan theology as one of the things Methodists must recover in order to become a missional movement again.

It’s impossible to understand Wesley’s vision and the Methodist way without understanding Wesley’s theology. A good, readable book about Wesleyan theology is This We Believe by Bishop William Willimon, which I’ve written about.

3. Redevelop Wesleyan small groups.
George Hunter mentions small groups as one of the Wesleyan practices that we need to recover. Kevin Watson also calls for the recovery of small groups, or what early Methodists called “class meetings” (see vitalpiety.com as well as Kevin’s book, A Blueprint for Discipleship). It’s hard to imagine the UMC being distinctively Wesleyan without an emphasis on small groups for discipleship and “watching over one another in love.”

4. Practice transformational leadership.
A fourth way that will transform the UMC is transformational leadership. Hunter lists “lay ministry” and “missional Christianity” as practices that must be recovered. Transformational leaders equip (lay) people for the work of ministry (i.e., missional Christianity).

Yesterday, while reflecting on General Conference, I reread my post from two years ago, reviewing The Future of The United Methodist Church, the book that came out of the Council of Bishops. My post includes some great quotes from the book, including strong statements about leadership.

Transformational leaders are especially needed in a declining institution, but leadership in such a context is challenging. Institutions naturally guard against leaders.

Much has been said in the wake of General Conference about lack of trust (see this quote by Adam Hamilton). Included in our lack of trust is fear of leadership. In fact, a lot of our structure is designed to protect the organization from leadership, which is part of the reason the current Book of Discipline includes 4,835 “shalls” (requirements), according to Bishop Schnase.

So, as difficult as it was to swallow the Judicial Council’s ruling of “Plan UMC” as unconstitutional, Bishop Timothy Whitaker asks, “Could it be that the Spirit is leading us to confront the lack of trust that exists among us …?”

Bishop Coyner also looks for the positive in the Judicial Council’s ruling, stating …

The Judicial Council … restored the sense of Bishops as ‘General Superintendents’ who supervise the church. Our UMC is an Episcopal system, and we bishops are the only ones elected and set aside for the specific purpose of leading the denomination.

In organizations that need turning around, leaders must be pot-stirrers (see this post, too); they challenge the process.

Transformation takes time; it doesn’t happen overnight. Transformational leaders must be patient and persistent. Transformational leaders plant seeds, cultivate the environment, and shape the culture. Over time, God brings about transformation.

I believe transformation of the UMC is possible. Ultimately, transformation is God’s work. But we must cooperate with what is doing!

In the aftermath of GC2012, I’ve been thinking a lot about the transformation of the UMC (see General Conference and the Transformation of The United Methodist Church and “The Recovery of a Contagious Methodist Movement”). I find myself thinking less about structure, partly because the next General Conference is four years away, but also because restructuring alone will not transform the UMC!

Today, Bishop Mike Coyner (whom I’ve been quoting a lot lately), wrote, It Was Never About Structure. Bishop Coyner suggests it was a good thing the Judicial Council ruled out the hastily developed “Plan UMC.”

Bishop John Schol, in his post-General Conference reflection, cites the problem of “using structure to fix adaptive spiritual challenges.” Streamlining structure is necessary, but it alone is not going to lead to the transformation of the UMC!

Ultimately, transformation is God’s work (God simply chooses to use us). One of the challenges proponents of restructuring faced at General Conference was convincing delegates from the Central Conferences (especially in Africa and Asia where the church is growing, dramatically) of the need for restructuring. The structure doesn’t seem to be hindering the growth and vitality in Africa and Asia, which should lead us to believe that our hope is not in the structure but in the power of God!

Yes, the structure is less than perfect and it may get in the way, but God is not limited by our structure. If we believe God is limited by our structure, we have bigger problems than bloated, archaic structure!

I have read some of Hunter’s books, including Church for the Unchurched, Radical Outreach, and The Celtic Way of Evangelism. And I recently finished reading his latest book, The Recovery of a Contagious Methodist Movement.

The book is based on the premise that Methodism, which “was once a great contagious movement in North America” but now finds itself in a “mess,” can have a greater future if it makes the right choices. The problem is that Methodism, which “started out as a missional alternative to establishment Christianity … has now become the establishment Christianity that it once critiqued.”

The first step toward becoming a contagious Methodist movement is to recover Wesleyan theology. Wesley’s “magnificent obsession was simply to recover the gospel, the theology, the vision, the mission, and the contagion of early Apostolic Christianity.”

Hunter agrees with Scott Kisker’s assessment that our becoming “much less Methodist and much more mainline was a profound and tragic mistake.” Scott Kisker wrote Mainline or Methodist?, which I’ve written about before. I agree with both Kisker and Hunter.

At the end of the book, Hunter critiques three different strategies for renewing the church, including the Call to Action (which recently died at General Conference). But the heart of the book is Hunter’s proposal of “at least three bold directions in ministry, in addition to Wesley’s theological vision”: lay ministries, small groups, and missional Christianity.

Hunter notes that early Methodism was largely a lay movement. Hunter notes, “In the last two centuries, we have experienced no greater shift than in our assumption about who does most of the ministry.”

In discussing small groups, Hunter shares conversations with Korean pastors from a visit to South Korea. One pastor asked, “Can there be real Methodism without class meetings?” Another pastor stated, “If our people were not shepherding each other in their class meetings, the pastors would have to shepherd everyone.”

These comments caught my attention because of our two adoption-related visits to South Korea in recent years. During our visits, we learned that the success of the Methodist church in Korea was attributed to prayer and small groups.

In my last post, General Conference and the Transformation of The United Methodist Church, I stated, “The way forward always begins by returning—to God, to our theological roots, and to a passion and commitment to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world!” That fits with Hunter’s call to a recovery of Wesleyan theology, as well as a recommitment to essential practices like small groups and the ministry of all Jesus followers.

Finally, I love Hunter’s description of early Methodists …

Early Methodists understood that they were an ecclesia—the called out people of God; and they were also an apostolate—the sent out people of God.

May God help us be both an ecclesia and an apostolate. May God help us recover a contagious Methodist movement so that our future will be greater than our past!

Bishop Scott Jones tweeted a summary of General Conference: “death throes of a dying 1970′s establishment church, birth pangs of a missional global 21st century church. It is messy.”

Bishop Mike Coyner described GC2012 as the “do nothing” General Conference. He tweeted that General Conference “tinkered with structure, Discipline same on most subjects, same $603 m proposed budget” (and that was before the Judicial Council ruled the restructuring plan unconstitutional, eliminating most of the “tinkering” that was done, in the first place).

After Plan UMC was ruled out, general conference delegates scrambled to reduce the size of the boards of the general agencies. But that doesn’t address the real problems and needs related to focus and alignment.

While I did not see the Call to Action as the whole answer to the transformation of the UMC, I believed it (or some perfected version of it) would be a good way for the general conference to take bold action. I knew renewal and transformation wasn’t likely to happen top/down, but I thought General Conference could, at least, help the process along. Now, I am less convinced that General Conference will do much to help the renewal and transformation of the UMC!

I realize that sounds a little despairing, but it may actually be a good thing. My commitment to being part of the renewal/transformational process at the grassroots level has gone up in the process. If there’s going to be widespread transformation in the UMC, it’s going to happen at the grassroots level, not at General Conference!

Bishop Jones blogged yesterday about General Conference as Revival. He stated …

I have supported the Call to Action. At every point, the leaders of that effort have been clear. General Conference’s actions can help us focus on our resources on increasing the number of vital congregations. But the most important steps we can take for this effort are not legislative. They are changed behaviors by bishops, District Superintendents, pastors, lay leaders and individual United Methodists. Thus, the revival aspect of General Conference will change hearts and minds and further our progress to the church we need to be in the future.

While Bishop Jones is specifically referring to the revival experience of worship at general conference, the point is, our legislation and our mission must be shaped by revival (wherever it happens)!

I enjoyed following General Conference via the internet and Twitter. However, one of the challenges with the increased connectivity is the messiness of “holy conferencing” becomes more visible. But that’s a good thing because it stirs passion among those who participate in the renewal and transformation of the UMC!

Where do we go from here?

I hope we can find a way forward to streamline the structure and bring greater missional focus and alignment in 2016. However, while streamlining will help the denomination be more effective, it won’t ultimately bring transformation and renewal. The way forward always begins by returning—to God, to our theological roots, and to a passion and commitment to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world!

That’s more likely to happen at the grassroots level than at General Conference!

Guaranteed appointments for ordained pastors began more than fifty years ago to protect the appointments of women and minority pastors. Today, the concern about guaranteed appointments is that it limits denominational leaders’ ability to deal with ineffective clergy.

The loss of guaranteed appointment doesn’t seem like much of a loss for us, personally. Joleen and I have been United Methodist pastors for 14 years. But since we were only ordained last year, the first 13 of those years were without a guarantee.

As guaranteed appointments for ordained pastors comes to an end, I am reminded of a chapter I read in the early 1990s in a motivational book by John Maxwell, Be All You Can Be (reprinted in 2007). The title of the chapter is, “I don’t have to survive!”

Of course, as Maxwell notes, survival is a strong, natural desire for all of us. If we’re not careful, the drive to survive can keep us from taking risks. Removing the safety net adds a certain amount of risk. But with the risk, why not have the attitude, “I don’t have to survive!”?

A guaranteed appointment provided ordained pastors with a sense of security. Maxwell discusses the “security problem” (page numbers are from the 1987 printing) …

Insecure people are survivors; they are not willing to take risks. … The person who doesn’t have to survive says, ‘Here I stand; I can do nothing else. It’s God and nothing else.’ (158)

“I don’t have to survive!” is an attitude. Maxwell describes people with this attitude in four ways …

1. They have faith in God, not in themselves.
2. They change people, nations, and generations.
3. They are willing to stand alone.
4. They possess unusual powers (i.e., spiritual power).

A few days ago on Twitter, Interpreter magazine asked, “Will threat of guaranteed appointment loss for elders dampen prophetic preaching?” I don’t think it’ll be much of an issue for people whose attitude is, “I don’t have to survive!”

People who don’t have to survive don’t “play the game.” One of the most impacting phrases from my D.Min. program at Asbury came during a class on the Transformation of the Church, taught by Drs. Jim and Molly Scott: “Don’t play the game!” There’s always a temptation to play the game—to live safely, stay out of trouble, and climb the ladder. Without a safety net, the temptation to play the game could be even stronger. But “playing the game” is what people who are interested in security do. People with the attitude, “I don’t have to survive!” don’t play the game!

Now, job security is nice, of course. But I hope my commitment to God is stronger than my need for security.

Maxwell concludes his chapter on willingness to die for what you believe in. He tells the story of Joan of Arc. Just before she was burned at the stake at the age of 19, she was given the chance to recant. Instead, she said …

Every man gives his life for what he believes, and every woman gives her life for what she believes. Sometimes people believe in little or nothing. One life is all we have; we live it and it’s gone. But … to live without belief is more terrible than dying, even more terrible than dying young.

Ending guaranteed appointment for ordained pastors removes the safety net and forces pastors to choose between security and risk. Let’s choose to be risk-takers. Let’s not play the game. Now, more than ever, the church needs courageous leaders. Let’s live with the attitude, “I don’t have to survive!”