A Pastor By Any Other Name - Revisited

I wrote a blog with the same title a couple of years ago - and after hearing from both the "Excellence in Ministry" event in Colorado and hearing Elaine Heath preach yesterday on the dearth of spirituality in the seminary/academy, I was both encouraged and provoked to reflect more on the subject.

I have often said that the United Methodist Church has no theology of ordination - and I am ready to modify that a little bit to say that the UMC is not PRACTICING a consistent or historical theology of ordination. Methodism no doubt has one of the most interesting histories of ordination, but the one developed versus what it has morphed into are at variance with each other. What we had when Methodism was birthed was an understanding of how the Holy Spirit gifted, enabled, and set apart some servants to preach and provide for the sacraments to be celebrated. What we have now is a tangled mess of clericalism and the antithesis of what Wesley feared (with thanks to Randy Maddox's reminder):

0. What is the end of all ecclesiastical order? Is it not to bring souls from the power of Satan to God, and to build them up in his fear and love? Order, then, is so far valuable as it answers these ends: and if it answers them not, it is nothing worth. - John Wesley, Letter to John Smith, June 25, 1746. 
   

We currently have over twenty classifications for clergy in the United Methodist Church. What I have found is that such is nearly impossible to explain to most laity (and some clergy), as well as to explain to those of other communions and fellowships. And, when examined, is it unsupportable in a Wesleyan ethos to function so.

To complicate the matter more - and to further be at odds with Wesley's intentions - is how we have handled clergy education. One of Wesley's warnings was that in our quest to educate clergy that we exercise prudence in not "professionalizing" them as was often the case with law and medicine, thus "elevating" them from the class of those whom they would be seek to serve. (So it might behoove us to be a little careful about the doctor/medical school, pastor/divinity school comparisons!) It is also important to note that historically, a Divinity degree was not required of Methodist clergy until 1956 (and then, it was a Bachelor of Divinity, not a Master of Divinity). Before then, a course of study was the usual route Methodist pastors took, and college and seminary were alternatives.

The reason I write of this is because of several cruxes we have reached in the UMC (and, I suspect, we are not the only denomination so affected):

• Student debt. Student debt is mounting - at steep rates. That, mixed with tuition that has gone up disproportionately with the cost of living, creates a perfect storm for both the UMC and for UM seminaries: ministerial candidates have debt that is nearly impossible to eradicate, seminaries are stuck between deferring admission to a student because of the undergraduate debt and the need to have enough enrollment to make ends meet, and Boards of Ministry have to wrestle with deferring a candidate who has too much student debt, yet accrued it getting the minimum standard of education required. Of course, some debt counseling would go a long way with students. But with scholarships and fellowships declining, students are forced to go to school part-time to stay out of debt - which delays one's entry into ministry. The unintended consequence of requiring the M.Div is the reality that, now and in the near future, only upper-middle class and upper class folks will be able to afford the education necessary to fulfill the standards of the UMC... a denomination founded on ministering to the least, the last, and the lost in society, with practical divinity at the heart of ministry. (A good resource is the Auburn Theological Seminary report on seminary student debt, found here.)
• Flaws and holes in seminary education. To be honest, our UM seminaries (and many others) are more like schools of theology, not seminaries in the truest definition of the word. While some would argue semantics between academics and praxis, it is fair to say that until recently, our seminaries did very little, if anything, with spirituality and ministerial practice; indeed, spirituality was often a dirty word in the theological academy, not seen as a "credible" discipline worthy of time and study (thankfully, this is changing). When I asked this question once at an alumni advisory committee meeting, I was told by several, "You get that after seminary. There's too much theology, history, and biblical study to cover - you can't expect seminary to do that too. That's not our/their job." My story is not unique.
• Discontinuity of History, Theology, and Practice of Pastoral Ministry. Contrary to popular belief, we ordained local pastors (referred to as local elders) until very recently (1968), which is at variance with our sister AME, AMEZ, and CME denominations, who still ordain their local (i.e., non-itinerating) pastors. One third of our pastors in the UMC are local pastors, who we used to ordain, but not "license" to celebrate the sacraments - with no theological defense of such a practice. I pray that we soon regain the delineation between ordination and conference membership. Ordination/ordo does not "belong" to the individual - it belongs to the Church to use in the course of mission and ministry. To quote Gordon Lathrop: 

The leadership of the liturgy is part of the liturgy. Ordination is intended to include persons in the schedule and pattern whereby the Christian assembly enacts the meaning of the Christian faith. Indeed, the order to which one is ordained is, finally, simply a list of persons who take their place and turn in the leadership of the structure of the ordo. - Gordon Lathrop, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology, Fortress Press, 1993, p. 190. 

While I was not there, I am encouraged to hear the missional concerns that Prof. Randy Maddox and others raised last week at the Mid-Quadrennial training event in Colorado for Boards of Ministry regarding our present state of affairs in the UMC. I hope our own denomination's Study on Ministry takes note and heeds our own history and theology of our founding and genius of Methodism. As a district superintendent, I can attest that at present:

• a master of divinity degree is no indicator (or insurer) of pastoral effectiveness, nor do I think it should be the "minimum" standard for ordination (and note that I do NOT equate ordination and conference membership/itineration)
• combining churches/charges together are no longer the solution they once were to creating salary packages large enough to pay a full-time salary
• clericalism often inhibits shared lay/clergy leadership
• we need more, not less, flexibility in educational requirements for those seeking ordination that considers situation and context
• seminaries need (and I believe would be willing) to work with us on these frustrations and help us find solutions for local churches and the denomination without "dumbing down" ministerial education. We must be willing to shift our thinking and be willing to ditch outmoded pedagogy

What gives me hope are things like our own Paducah and Paris District's Generative Leadership Academy, and other leadership and missional initiatives across our Connection. I've been blessed to watch leadership skills and spiritual gifts identified and discerned. I've gotten to see the "aha" moments when someone "gets it" in regarding discipleship and mission. And I believe that Methodism's best days are still before us - we just have to be willing to shift our ways to cultivate ordained and lay leadership. 

New wineskins for new wine.

Pax,
Sky+

Rerun: "Nurture and Cultivate Spiritual Disciplines and Patterns of Holiness"

Originally posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010


"Nurture and cultivate spiritual disciplines and patterns of holiness..." That's not from The Rule of St. Benedict. Nor is it from an objective of a spiritual growth retreat. It is ¶304.1 (b) of the Book of Discipline, the United Methodist's canon law, under the heading "Qualifications for Ordination."

In midst of the numerical decline of much of Protestantism, it seems that we are putting a great deal of emphasis on hospitality, worship, church programming, and communications - and we should be, because those are certainly areas that need shoring up. But when you talk to pastors about spirituality, spiritual direction, spiritual disciplines, etc., you often get a stare in return. I've even heard some say, "That's just too personal." I even heard this one once: "It's all about Jesus, preaching the Word, and getting into the Bible. That spirituality stuff is too Catholic." The smart ass in me considered quoting Scripture to this learned colleague about Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, but I resisted. So I simply asked him, "If it's all about Jesus (and it is!), but we can't teach people to pray and be Christologically grouded and formed, who will?" His response was classic: "Well, people should get that at home."

The problem is, I heard that EXACT same thing said when I served on an advisory committee at the seminary I graduated from - by a colleague who should have known better. I had voiced my concern that while we were giving a good theological and historical education, we were doing very little, if any, spiritual formation. To which I was told, "That's not the job of the seminary. Pastors get that on their own." I was much younger at the time and so I kept my young mouth shut. Now I wish I had opened it a little.

But do seminaries engage their students in a conversation about the gravity of choices that they will face or prepare them to make those choices? Does the larger shape of theological education draw their attention to the formative character of the questions asked and answered by its professors? Does the shape of their preparation help them to grasp the difference between a vocation that demands a certain kind of performance from them and the vocation into which they have been called, which requires them to be the kind of people who are possessed by that "basic sense" of what is being asked of them? Are their professors prepared to shape souls as well as intellects? When they graduate, do students have the sense that they have already embarked on that vocation?

As a product of, and participant in, theological education for over three decades, I am inclined to think that the answer to these and other questions is, more often than not, "no." - Frederick W. Schmidt, "What Is Being Asked of You? Canonical Theism and Theological Education", from Canonical Theism, 2008, pp. 273-4.

Schmidt goes on to say that the blame can be place into three areas:

• The quest for credibility from the larger academic community - which preferred historical discussions over faith and spiritual experience.
• The adoption of the university model for graduate education - which drove professors to be more specialized in a few disciplines and led to religious vocational amnesia
• The issues of praxis which diverted the theological task away from spiritual formation towards the importance of leadership, administrative prowness, psychological therapist, and social prophecy

In short, we're teaching pastors a lot about church administration, biblical form criticism, systematic theology (the Barth & Tillich show), social psychology (the Freud and Jung show), and philosophy of religion (the Schleiermacher and Schopenhauer show). I learned these things - and they are certainly important things.

But what about lectio divina? Patristics (the Early Church Fathers)? Prayer offices? Spiritual disciplines? Spiritual discernment? Incarnational theology? Pneumatology (study of the Holy Spirit)? Sacramental theology? Discipleship and disciple-ing? Sanctification? I was very blessed by Don Saliers and Ted Hackett, mentors of mine, to develop an interest and passion for these things. But it was self-directed - it was not a mandatory part of the seminary curriculum for United Methodists (or any other Protestants), and to my knowledge it still is not. That leads me to believe we need to quit calling them "seminaries" and start calling them "schools of theology." Good information, but no anchor or undergirding of where these things fit in a life lived with Christ.

If we clergy cannot locate ourselves in our Christian quest and pilgrimage, we certainly cannot lead our churches to see where they are located in the Kingdom of God. We cannot lead with any sense of spiritual or theological authority (only that which is granted by the Book of Discipline!). We cannot tell the Christian story from a standpoint of faith - just from the standpoint as recorded by history.

Schmidt says, most importantly, those who teach present and future clergy must "remember that it is not enough to learn what it is that clergy do. They need to be in touch with what it is that clergy are meant to become. Their own relationship with God, their growth in faith, and the practice of spiritual disciplines are keys to that becoming and to the knowing that accompanies it. In turn, those same experiences are indispensable to the seminarians' own ability to make disciples of others." (p. 285)

If we pastors are mandated to "nurture and cultivate spiritual disciplines and patters of holiness" for our congregations (and we are), then we had better learn them ourselves. According to the Book of Discipline, it's not just "Catholic" - it's Methodist, too. I'm convinced it's Christian to the core.

Sounds like we better get on this. Soon.

Pax,
Sky+

"Nurture and Cultivate Spiritual Disciplines and Patterns of Holiness"

"Nurture and cultivate spiritual disciplines and patterns of holiness..." That's not from The Rule of St. Benedict. Nor is it from an objective of a spiritual growth retreat. It is ¶304.1 (b) of the Book of Discipline, the United Methodist's canon law, under the heading "Qualifications for Ordination."

In midst of the numerical decline of much of Protestantism, it seems that we are putting a great deal of emphasis on hospitality, worship, church programming, and communications - and we should be, because those are certainly areas that need shoring up. But when you talk to pastors about spirituality, spiritual direction, spiritual disciplines, etc., you often get a stare in return. I've even heard some say, "That's just too personal." I even heard this one once: "It's all about Jesus, preaching the Word, and getting into the Bible. That spirituality stuff is too Catholic." The smart ass in me considered quoting Scripture to this learned colleague about Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, but I resisted. So I simply asked him, "If it's all about Jesus (and it is!), but we can't teach people to pray and be Christologically grouded and formed, who will?" His response was classic: "Well, people should get that at home."

The problem is, I heard that EXACT same thing said when I served on an advisory committee at the seminary I graduated from - by a colleague who should have known better. I had voiced my concern that while we were giving a good theological and historical education, we were doing very little, if any, spiritual formation. To which I was told, "That's not the job of the seminary. Pastors get that on their own." I was much younger at the time and so I kept my young mouth shut. Now I wish I had opened it a little.

But do seminaries engage their students in a conversation about the gravity of choices that they will face or prepare them to make those choices? Does the larger shape of theological education draw their attention to the formative character of the questions asked and answered by its professors? Does the shape of their preparation help them to grasp the difference between a vocation that demands a certain kind of performance from them and the vocation into which they have been called, which requires them to be the kind of people who are possessed by that "basic sense" of what is being asked of them? Are their professors prepared to shape souls as well as intellects? When they graduate, do students have the sense that they have already embarked on that vocation?

As a product of, and participant in, theological education for over three decades, I am inclined to think that the answer to these and other questions is, more often than not, "no." - Frederick W. Schmidt, "What Is Being Asked of You? Canonical Theism and Theological Education", from Canonical Theism, 2008, pp. 273-4.

Schmidt goes on to say that the blame can be place into three areas:

• The quest for credibility from the larger academic community - which preferred historical discussions over faith and spiritual experience.
• The adoption of the university model for graduate education - which drove professors to be more specialized in a few disciplines and led to religious vocational amnesia
• The issues of praxis which diverted the theological task away from spiritual formation towards the importance of leadership, administrative prowness, psychological therapist, and social prophecy

In short, we're teaching pastors a lot about church administration, biblical form criticism, systematic theology (the Barth & Tillich show), social psychology (the Freud and Jung show), and philosophy of religion (the Schleiermacher and Schopenhauer show). I learned these things - and they are certainly important things.

But what about lectio divina? Patristics (the Early Church Fathers)? Prayer offices? Spiritual disciplines? Spiritual discernment? Incarnational theology? Pneumatology (study of the Holy Spirit)? Sacramental theology? Discipleship and disciple-ing? Sanctification? I was very blessed by Don Saliers and Ted Hackett, mentors of mine, to develop an interest and passion for these things. But it was self-directed - it was not a mandatory part of the seminary curriculum for United Methodists (or any other Protestants), and to my knowledge it still is not. That leads me to believe we need to quit calling them "seminaries" and start calling them "schools of theology." Good information, but no anchor or undergirding of where these things fit in a life lived with Christ.

If we clergy cannot locate ourselves in our Christian quest and pilgrimage, we certainly cannot lead our churches to see where they are located in the Kingdom of God. We cannot lead with any sense of spiritual or theological authority (only that which is granted by the Book of Discipline!). We cannot tell the Christian story from a standpoint of faith - just from the standpoint as recorded by history.

Schmidt says, most importantly, those who teach present and future clergy must "remember that it is not enough to learn what it is that clergy do. They need to be in touch with what it is that clergy are meant to become. Their own relationship with God, their growth in faith, and the practice of spiritual disciplines are keys to that becoming and to the knowing that accompanies it. In turn, those same experiences are indispensable to the seminarians' own ability to make disciples of others." (p. 285)

If we pastors are mandated to "nurture and cultivate spiritual disciplines and patters of holiness" for our congregations (and we are), then we had better learn them ourselves. According to the Book of Discipline, it's not just "Catholic" - it's Methodist, too. I'm convinced it's Christian to the core.

Sounds like we better get on this. Soon.

Pax,
Sky+

Guaranteed Pastoral Appointments - A Luxury We Can Afford Anymore? Revisited.

The Commission to Study Ministry will be recommending to the General Conference in 2012 to do away with guaranteed pastoral appointments. I wrote about this last year in this blog.

One statement confirms what I always thought - the clergy shortage was a myth. Yes, a lot of clergy are retiring, but the general membership of the church is declining as well. We desperately need leadership borne out of passion, not entitlement.

My only caution is that we not see this as a "fix all." One commission member noted: "Guaranteeing clergy jobs produces 'a culture of mediocrity. It allows people to coast rather than to continue to strive and to grow,' said Seattle Area Bishop Grant Hagiya, a commission member. 'What we need is the flexibility to maximize our leadership to those who are going to make a difference.'"

Maybe. But Southern Baptists are losing members too, and they certainly can't blame guaranteed appointments for their demise. Leadership, an understanding of discipleship, and a willingness to be spiritual guides and models seem to be needed now more than ever.

John Meunier, a fellow blogger and bi-vocational local pastor, writes a very good blog about this and what doing away with guaranteed jobs in the UMC might mean. An exerpt:

I think radical changes in the rules for ministry must go hand-in-hand with a renewal of a shared sense of our Wesleyan roots. It is from our shared identity as a people called Methodist that we need to define what we mean by effective ministry and the nature of the mission of the church.

Such a move also places much more importance on the role and quality of conference leadership. Do we select bishops and district superintendents to be the leaders with an clear eye for ministerial effectiveness and the skills and gifts to nurture and support mission-oriented churches and clergy?

Will our church structure and rules need significant rewriting to free clergy to do what they would be expected to do?

Does the denomination need to take on itself more of the expense of the educating of new pastors?

I look forward to the conversation.

So do I. Of course... does it have a chance of passing?

Pax,
Sky+

Is It About the Kingdom, or the Institution?

Bishop Will Willimon posted Ten Theses About The Future of Ministry on his blogsite this morning. They are a gutsy and rare prophetic voice from one of our bishops (Bishop Tim Whitaker also comes to mind as one of those voices). I'll comment on a few of these as a 45 year old pastor in between the generations that the Bishop speaks about.

• The pastoral ministry in mainline Protestantism will continue to experience numerical decline as well as be pushed to the margins of this culture. The mainline is old-line that is becoming sidelined.

Hard to argue with. The numbers and diminishing resources back this up.

• The pastoral ministry in mainline Protestantism will need to lead the church in redefining itself in the light of the spiritual needs and aspirations of people under 35 or else will continue to decline because it has limited itself to the spiritual affairs of one generation.

Yes again. We pastors have failed to culture leadership and legacy among the "one generation" to leave the church better than they found it. We haven't passed the mantle - it's been held on to for far too long.

• The pastoral ministry in mainline Protestantism will need to find a theological way through the intellectual death of theological liberalism (“Progressive Christianity”) and the cultural compromises of traditional evangelicalism (the IRD and evangelical Protestantism’s alliance with the political right).

The gutsiest statement yet. Theological liberalism was a theology found wanting - and sometimes, seemed to delight in the shock value of turning Christian doctrines at the heart of Christianity into a cafeteria Christianity. The IRD and ilk like them would have us be in bed with the correct politics... which resembles spiritual prostitution in being "of" the world rather than "in" the world. I would say that progressive Christianity has done the same thing where American politics are concerned.

• The pastoral ministry must be supple, adaptable, and willing to experiment on the basis of biblically supported leadership styles.

Another true and hard statement. Cut-and-paste ministry doesn't work. Leadership is blessed but hard work. It isn't all about preaching good sermons anymore (although it's not a bad start). How are we making disciples? What is our plan to do so? How do we BOTH (1) grow disciples in maturity, and (2) increase the flock?

• The mission of the church will take precedence over internal maintenance, real estate, fellowship, therapy, pastoral care and other factors that have driven the church in recent decades and have contributed to our decline.

The Great Commission was this: "Go, make disciples, baptizing and teaching them in my name." The Book of Discipline gets bigger and bigger (and more largely ignored and irrelevent), the number of Judicial Council decisions increases as does the docket, and yet the church membership continues to decline. As much of a baseball fan that I am, it simply isn't true that "if you build it, they will come." We must be willing to make disciples, and to do that, we must be willing to build relationships. We have done what the medical community has done - become specialists while forgetting our general health and wholeness.

• Methodists will either become engaged in the mysterious, relentless growth of the Kingdom of God or they will continue to decline. Growth is our most needed focus.

One does not have to be an actuarial expert to know that the denomination will financially and administratively collapse within 12 years. God isn't dead, but it is possible that we are realizing Wesley's worst fear (and I know, we all know the quote... but are we listening?):

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. - J. Wesley

As a Lutheran friend once told me, "Methodists have lost their method."

• The pastoral ministry will recover the oddness and the excitement of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Seems like I remember being taught that Christians are to be counter-cultural. "Oddness" is probably a good word. Why would anyone in society who is cynical and distrustful of secular institutions want to be part of a Church that simply resembles another institution with a cross slapped up on the side of the building?

• The pastoral ministry will either find a way to attract and empower a new generation of pastor’s critique and reconstruct pastoral ministry or we will pass away with this generation.

Again, numbers don't lie.

This OUGHT to be a ripe opportunity for the UMC: We are connected. We have a framework for the deployment of ministry and a catechetical process for making Christians and disciples. In theory, we have a framework and discipline to deploy pastors and match gifts to churches. But in practice, we are failing. Miserably. Our connection is serving little purpose and laity have finally woken up and asked, "Is our apportionment money being used to increase the Kingdom or support a dying structure? Are we getting our money's worth?"

The itinerancy and appointment process has become a pastoral tenure system that is self-serving to clergy but not really helping the Church much. As far as catechesis... a lot of folks don't even know what that word means. Or words like catechism. Discipleship. Or disciple. I mean, have you asked anyone lately to define what a disciple is? It took a group in my church several weeks to arrive at a definition - not because they aren't good or faithful people, but they simply inherited a faith tradition that didn't hand that understanding down to them! We failed to teach and equip - hence, the present problem.

Nothing is beyond redemption, and if we are indeed a faithful people, then we are a hope-filled people. I am one with such hope. After a lot of prayer (more listening, less talking), I am convinced that some very faithful, hopeful, and risk-taking folks are going to have to rise to the challenge and call to extreme leadership. We need bishops not elected out of entitlement or pedigree, but out of spiritual and prophetic depth. We need risk takers. We need superintendents who lead pastors spiritually and boldly, not folks who got there because of a salary sheet or gender, or because it was "their turn." We need folks who can with muster and gumption do some hard work: some churches need to close. Some pastors need to be encouraged to leave pastoral ministry because they are ineffective at it. We need folks to take thou authority. We have to quit playing slot machine with pastoral appointments. And in the case of bishops and superintendents, we need some folks who are willing to do these things with the knowledge they might not get a guaranteed paycheck... since our system is presently collapsing to the point where conferences and episcopal funds won't be financed in a few years. That will call for creativeness and a willingness to think beyond present institutional practices.

I know I paint a bleak scene - but it is hard not to be concerned given the present realities. Lyle Schaller wrote a few years ago that to avoid financial and institutional collapse, we should have taken action at the 2008 General Conference on many of these things. Perhaps he is right.

God can redeem anything - but just like grace, we must be willing to receive it instead of push it away. Is God giving us the signs that we need to change? I don't see how we could interpret them any other way.

Instead of a dead sect, I sure would like the UMC to take the lead. We certainly have all the ingredients.

Pax,
Sky+

Are We Thinking Ahead? Who's Job Is It?

In the past few weeks, our bishop and cabinet sent out a letter: "Making the System Work." You can find a copy of the letter here.

The letter has rubbed some clergy the wrong way. Some see it as a threat. Others see it as void of anything pastoral. I see it as a retelling of what is already in the Book of Discipline. The problem is, we really haven't followed the spirit or the letter of the Discipline when it comes to the itinerancy. We are "selectively itinerant" these days, in my opinion, because we have been allowed to be. From the letter:

1. The mission of the local church comes first. As ministers, we are called to serve, not to be served. Our primary effort will be to place the best qualified minister, according to the needs of the church. Churches involved in mission and ministry for Jesus Christ and supportive of the connection will be given first consideration.
2. The appointment process deserves our honesty, a view for the good of the whole connection. Ministers are members of the Annual Conference and open to appointment in any part of the Conference.

We all know that while this is the theory, it has not been the practice. Some clergy have been truly itinerant, serving in varying appointments (and often across state lines, as our conference includes Western Tennessee and the Purchase Area of Kentucky). Some have requested that they not be appointed outside of a metropolitan area or across a state line. Some have citied educational needs for children, vocational needs for spouses, and consideration for those with aging parents - the list of variables is long and convoluted, and not without merit or concern.

But to complicate matters, we started selling off parsonages a few years ago. When this issue was raised a few years ago, someone found a realtor who spoke on the floor of the annual conference and said that one could "break even" on buying a house and selling it within 6 years (the length of a district superintendent tenure). I suppose that would be possible in a FEW places in the U.S... but nowhere close to where I live! As a result, we have added another variable to the itinerancy: the buying and selling of a house. Of course this is not a new phenomenon to most professions, but in our annual conference, clergy often move at the drop of a hat, and even in a "good" conference year pastoral appointments are rarely close to "done" until a month before a move happens. Four weeks is a very short window to (1) list a house for sale, (2) pack to move, (3) say farewell to a congregation, (4) move into a house that (5) hopefully you've bought (and been able to sell the other one), and (6) begin work at your new church/parish.

I think all of these more recent "convolutions" for the itinerancy makes it very difficult for our bishop and cabinet to try and "Make the System Work," because our ideas and practices about the itinerancy have strayed so far away from the ideal. When bishops and cabinets send us such statements, they sound harsh because we've been casual about being truly itinerant. But all of us who were ordained elders agreed to be appointed "without reservation." If we weren't comfortable with that, we had the option of being a local pastor, appointed year to year, but without a guaranteed appointment.

If we look at all of this from the standpoint of our laity, however, we begin to see another side. They can very easily and accurately say, "We have been faithful to what we've been asked to do." They have provided parsonages (or housing allowances), paid salaries, pensions, and insurance. They want the best pastor for their church, because that is what the church promises to provide for them. It is very hard to defend against the claim of some of our laity that our leadership has failed them. We have. And that's a corporate "we" - that's the nature of the covenant and the Connection.


Problem? The same institution that says: "The mission of the local church comes first. As ministers, we are called to serve, not to be served," also allowed parsonages to be sold off and allowed clergy to be selectively itinerant. Can we blame this bishop and cabinet? Not fully. But we clergy ultimately do have to take responsibility for our failure of leadership. That's the nature of the Order of Elder - we are in COVENANT with each other to serve the church.

Are we thinking ahead? One thing I learned from my mentor Don Saliers many years ago was this: The Holy Spirit rarely rejects good planning. In these difficult times, I think the Spirit demands it. It's our job to lead our congregations - and to serve, not to be served. That requires a lot of prayer, planning, and sacrifice, all with a Gospel bent.

Pax,
Sky+

Do We Need to Reconsider Seminary-Trained Clergy?

I learned the other day that a candidate for the ordained ministry in another annual conference was deferred ordination not because he didn't measure up to doctrinal or psychological issues or didn't have the gifts for preaching or teaching; he had too much educational debt (for those of you not United Methodist, ordination candidates are asked, "Are you presently in debt as to embarrass you in your ministry?").

After doing some checking, I discovered that the average student gets out of undergraduate school at a public university with about $21k of debt, a 108% increase from 10 years ago (God only knows what the average debt is from a private school). In looking around at United Methodist related seminaries (the encouraged education of UM clergy), the average seminary debt (3 years of graduate school) is presently running around $30k. That's really not that bad, considering a year's tuition and at Duke Divinity runs $21,640, a year at Emory runs $15,500, a year at Asbury $14,400, and a year at Garrett-Evangelical $15,600 (I didn't include yearly living expenses, which estimates run $11k to $18k a year).

So let's say an ordination candidate gets the minimum education required and comes out of undergraduate and graduate school with "average" educational debt. That will be $51k. The problem is that the minimum salary for seminary graduates ranges from $25k (Rio Grand) to $47k (Western New York). In other words, the debt load (at least from a financial institution's viewpoint) is unacceptable given the income of the individual.

My education has served me well: I have diplomas from the University of Tennessee and Emory University hanging on the wall of my office. My educational debt? $0. I got 1/2 of my undergraduate tuition covered since my father was UT faculty, and I was able to work to pay the other half. I received a fellowship for seminary that paid my tuition and served as a student pastor for a place to live and living expenses. My situation was not - and is not - the norm, I fear.

Are we pricing ourselves out of ministry? One blogger suggests so ("Can We Afford Seminary?"). And more to the point, does the M.Div really serve the Church well? Has it contributed to the life of the Church or exacerbated clericalism? Do we see the role of clergy as "keepers of the faith" or do we see clergy leadership and preaching as part of what the Church does as a whole body?

I am convinced that God doesn't need our M.Div degrees, but I am equally convinced that God does not need our ignorance either. However, we might be better served going back of the very traditional model of local seminaries and apprenticeships as opposed to a professional degree. For one, it's much, much cheaper. For another, the last 50-70 years when M.Div's have become the norm have not seen a marked increase in the number of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. - in fact, we have gotten smaller.

Perhaps we would be served much better by a work-study type of program, night classes, online study, and the like. Some say this is dumbing down - but the reality is, especially in the United Methodist Church where the "average" church is less than 150 folks, that we probably need fewer M.Div graduates and more folks who are spiritually formed and called. It certainly worked for 1900 years.

The other alternatives are not viable ones: higher clergy salaries are not realistic. Raising church apportionments to cover the total costs of seminary graduates is unrealistic as well. And as a seminary education necessarily takes place in a private university, private education is not cheap. I am just wondering how long this present model will work: we can't require folks to get an education to be qualified and then tell them they are carrying too much educational debt so we won't ordain them.

I think are kidding ourselves if we think this problem will simply go away. If I were 44 years old with a family and felt the call to preach, I don't think I could do it in the United Methodist Church: I couldn't afford it unless a rich uncle paid my way... and I am fairly sure I don't have any rich uncles.

Perhaps a model the General Board of Ministry should consider is a localized seminary option (it worked in the Early Church for a long long time). Maybe we've bought into American consumerism too much and just tried to "buy" what we need instead of doing the hard work ourselves.

Pax,
Sky+

Guaranteed Pastoral Appointments - A Luxury We Can Afford Anymore?

In United Methodism, all full-connection elders, provisional elders, and associate clergy members are guaranteed an appointment. While I don't have a 2008 Book of Discipline yet, the 2004 version states it this way: : “Every effective elder in full connection who is in good standing shall be continued under appointment by the bishop...” (¶334.1). The history of the guaranteed appointment goes back to 1956, when there were fears that women clergy would not be treated fairly and that pastors might not be able to freely preach the Gospel for fear of being fired. The Discipline then read, “Every traveling preacher, unless retired, supernumerary, on sabbatical leave, or under arrest of character, must receive an appointment.” (¶149, 1956).

I've always worried a little about what this could mean ever since I became the chair of our conference's commission on equitable compensation. By church law, the cabinet, conference, and commission all bear the responsibility of insuring that all full-connection and provisional elders are compensated at the minimum salary level as set by each annual conference. So, what happens if there are more people than appointments? Who pays the compensation (which each elder has a claim upon) if there is no place to appoint them?

Before you say, "No way this can happen," the Western North Carolina conference is facing this very issue. A portion of Bishop Goodpaster's letter to the WNC Conference reads as follows (emphasis mine):

We entered our work together aware of the anxiety and turmoil that fill our society and many of our churches during this time. We knew there would be challenges. Eighteen of our churches decided to eliminate an Associate Pastor position; others, because of the economy, had notified us that the compensation package of the pastor would be lower in July, many at substantial cuts. We have a dozen of elders who will be returning from either Extension Ministry appointments or various Leaves. With the downturn in the value of the pension funds, fewer of our clergy opted to retire this year. And, in response to the continuing call of God, we have a number of Western North Carolina students graduating from seminary and returning to serve Christ in their home conference.

We are not yet ready to notify any person or church about a projected appointment for the coming year. The reality: after working for more than four days, we arrived at an unprecedented moment. Having tentatively “filled” every open and available charge with a clergyperson, there were still more than two dozen clergy (most either full connected ordained elders or provisional elders) without a placement. That, of course, is unacceptable, and contrary to the principle of the itinerancy system that is part of our Wesleyan heritage.

We have now returned to our homes and offices to continue our work, committed to prayer and fasting, and to consultations with clergy and churches as we seek a way forward together. We will gather again during the week after Easter to continue and complete our work. We anticipate being able to share appointment information with you following that April meeting. We ask for your patience, prayers, and understanding. We are living in extraordinary times with never-before-experienced circumstances. We are absolutely confident that God will continue to bless our conference, and will provide a way. - Bishop Larry Goodpaster, 3/20/09 (the whole letter can be read here).

When you have (a) a decrease in the number of pastoral appointments, (b) seminarians who are finishing school ready to serve, and (c) some pastors who have previously served in extension ministries that now are coming back into the pastorate (and guaranteed an appointment), pitted against (1) the situation of churches who have to scale back salaries and drop staff positions, (2) folks who have to work longer and retire at a later age, and (3) a denomination that is losing members... well, the math just doesn't work. Something has got to change.
Options?

• Do away with the guaranteed appointment. Bishops and cabinets are often frustrated by having to appoint ineffective clergy year after year. And now, conference budgets can no longer afford to supplement pastor salaries for the sake of making appointments.
• Lower the conference minimum salary. While that's certainly not a popular notion, you could solve some of the problem of trying to appoint pastors who have a claim on minimum salary by lowering it.
• Limit the number of candidates approved by boards of ministry to the number of elders retiring. That's certainly not a popular notion, though, nor good for raising the next generation of clergy.

I don't have a good solution, and I will be praying for Bishop Goodpaster and his cabinet. But I know the problem will be one not just for Western North Carolina, but for many conferences in the Connection.

That is, unless we start to grow the Church again. That would be the best option.

Your ideas?

Pax,
Sky+

Ordained Ministry in the UMC - Part II

Someone asked me when I was going to write a book about my thoughts about the UMC. I told him in light of my last post, writing such a book would fall under Category Three of the Magliozzi's theory: "Reinvent Everything." Plus, if I did write a book and got it published, someone might get the idea that I was considering a run at the episcopacy. Yikes.

There are way too many good things already written that need to be heeded. Related to ordained ministry, a document that REALLY needs to be read, studied, and implemented is "Becoming a Pastor: Reflections on the Transition into Ministry." You can download it by clicking here. The Alban Institute did the work, and the Lilly Endowment funded it. That's enough authority for me.

The report looked at 800 beginning pastors in their first call or appointment in parish ministry, a collective endeavor that was named Transition into Ministry. It shows, with damning evidence, the wide disconnects between beginning pastors, seminary education, and denominational judicatories (in the UMC, that would be our Cabinets and Conference Boards of Ministry). The bottom line is that the transition into ministry is an increasingly complex and lonely process which is not just undermining clergy effectiveness, but starving churches of leadership and spiritual direction.

Seminary doesn't always help. The report quoted a book that a Lutheran pastor had written several years ago about his first church (Richard Lischer's Open Secrets: A Spiritual Journey through a Country Church). Years of theological and ministerial preparation, along with a Ph.D, had not adequately prepared him for the average church in Southern Illinois (just a hop, skip, and a jump from where I presently live). He made it through, but came to a very shocking discovery. In his words:

Eight years of theological education had rendered us [Lischer and his seminary classmates] uncertain of our identity and, like our professors, unemployable in the real world. After years of grooming, we were no longer sure what it meant to be a pastor or if we wanted to be one. (Open Secrets, p. 40, and "Becoming a Pastor", p. 9)

It is quite possible that we have approached arrogance in our model of educating and training clergy. A cookie-cutter process, psychological evaluations, and theological evaluation of clergy candidates may have their place, but it is not contributing to the essentials that are evidently not being taught: being the local spiritual leader in a community, being able to work collaboratively with a parish that has a broad range of viewpoints and inviting shared vision to church ministry and mission. Seminaries tend to reward folks with self-initiative. Congregations need leaders who can work with people. Before we knock seminaries too hard, most seminary professors are folks steeped in academia, not ecclesia. And in all honesty, at least in United Methodism, our seminaries are really not seminaries - they are schools of divinity/theology.

While I don't want to knock academia, it is possible that we have made it the focus of the learning experience for those called to pastoral ministry. That seems misplaced to me, and I agree with the report: the congregation should be the focus of the learning experience for training clergy. We have probably gotten too academic for our own good. I think we should co-opt the model used for the training of medical physicians: academia AND residency. The report says it better:

Only when both domains of pastoral formation - the seminary and the congregation - recognize and resource one another can the full range of formation be accomplished. (p. 20)

We need to look at ways to approach addressing the inadequacies. And if anyone says that we don't need to do this, ask yourself: are we making disciples for Jesus Christ? So far, the United Methodist Church, since its birth in 1968 from the merger of two denominations, hasn't gained in membership - it's only lost membership. While it might not ALL be due to pastoral ineffectiveness, leadership DOES play a big part.

Pax,

Sky+

Ordained Ministry in the United Methodist Church

Can you say, "What a mess?"


Twenty-some years ago, I went thru the "process" to become ordained in the UMC. I have since served as a supervising elder (which later was renamed "clergy mentor") for those who were exploring candidates for ministry, those who were certified candidates, those ordained deacons and then on probation (but now we don't ordain folks deacons before becoming elders, and they aren't on probation anymore, they are considered "provisional"). Folks who wanted to be ordained were at first ordained deacons 1/2 way thru seminary, then could be ordained and elder after two years of completing seminary, then it was three years, but now you aren't ordained a deacon (unless you want to be a Permanent Deacon), and then it became two years, and now it can be two or three years depending on your annual conference. In the past few years, I've been on the district and conference board of ministry, and just last week got "re-certified" as a clergy mentor. We have ANOTHER new book. And new procedures and policies. The wheel has been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-reinvented. And it still looks square.

In the UMC, only the ordained can preside over Word and Sacrament. Unless you are a local pastor. Or a provisional pastor. But then your authority to baptize or preside at Eucharist is limited to the parish that you are appointed to. And if you've been a local pastor in the past but aren't currently serving a church, then you are just a lay person. So when your visiting Baptist or Catholic friend asks you, "I heard your pastor wasn't ordained. How does s/he do their job, then?" you can say, "Well, they are appointed, just not ordained." And then you'll get a blank look.

The mess isn't confined to local pastors. The Book of Discipline covers extensively the rules and regulations of ordained ministry, and you find very quickly that the UMC covers the authority of ordained ministry very well. But there is one thing that is greatly lacking: theology. We have no theology of ordination. None. Nada. Zippo. It goes against the basic understanding of ministry and discipleship in general: we have to know WHY we do what we do. It seems like when it comes to the ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church, we will try and do just about anything.

The problem is, when we ordain someone, we have no idea what we're doing.

During the recent ice storm, i had some time in the evenings to catch up on "light" reading. One treasure of a book was a book by Tom & Ray Magliozzi (yes, Click and Clack of NPR's "Car Talk"), entitled In Our Humble Opinion. Being a shade-tree mechanic, I loved reading it. But these guys aren't just car greasers - they are geniuses about life.

One chapter was entitled, "Blatant Ergonomic Blunders." They talked about how cars have gone from being simple and functional to being so technologically advanced as to be useless. Tom noted that his 1963 Dodge Dart took three knobs to work and adjust the heater control; since one is driving a car, one doesn't need to be taking their eyes off the road to adjust such things as heat and air. He recently drove a car that had 14 buttons to adjust the car's heat and air - with all of the buttons the same in size and shape, indistinguishable by touch, which meant you had to squint and read the miniature icons on each button to determine its function.

It led Tom to believe that as "advanced" as we have gotten, we are making more blunders than we are advances. After driving 100's of cars, he categorized all of these blunders into these seven (7) categories:

1. Use a technology not because it's appropriate, but because it's there.
2. Be different at any cost.
3. Reinvent everything.
4. Copy nothing; not even great ideas. It's embarrassing to admit that you didn't think of it yourself.
5. Just plain stupidity (noting that baseball great Ted Williams once told a teammate, "If you don't think too good, try not to think too much.")
6. Too many cooks.
7. Oops! Where the hell are we gonna put this?

After reading those, I thought: MAN. THESE GUYS HAVE THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH PEGGED. Not just where ordained ministry is concerned, but in general!

More thoughts coming...

Sky+

Peculiar Prophet? Heck, He's Nuts... But He's Right.

I was a Southeastern Jurisdictional Delegate in 2004, and I wanted to elect, for sure, three persons to the episcopacy: Hope Morgan Ward from North Carolina, Jonathan Holston from North Georgia, and Will Willimon from South Carolina. Hope was elected first, hands down - everyone knew she was right for the job. Jonathan was what the UMC needed, I thought: someone who was enabling present leadership and equipping them to be effective in the present and future. Although a district superintendent with a proven track record, some said he was too young, some said "We already elected a black man," others said, "We need to elect another woman," and, to make a VERY long story short, he wasn't elected.


But we did elect Will (excuse me, Bishop Willimon). Will can come across as arrogant. However, I have always had a very hard time countering many things he's written and said. I hope my present bishop won't be offended, but Bishop Willimon was my first pick as the bishop to bring home from Jurisdictional Conference. Of course, he was the first pick of many annual conferences. He went to North Alabama (his blog can be found here).

I'm at the point now where I could care less how someone comes across in church leadership. This is what I want to know: can this person lead, are they effective, and are they prophetic? The Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, our denomination is dying, and I'm no longer in a mood to pacify causes, caucuses, Good News, the Confessing Movement, MFSA, and any other of the special interests groups of the Church. We have so many interests that it seems we've forgotten the Main Interest.

So it was with a lot of interest, and a few amens, that I read what a layperson, Kim Edwards of San Diego, CA., had written recently in the United Methodist Reporter in a question & answer session with Bishop Will Willimon (the whole article can be read here).

Let’s change gears, to General Conference. Any concerns in particular you’ve got your eye on?

Not one single thing. I think two weeks is too long to be in a church meeting, and it’s too much money. I will have to be convinced that it is important.

It costs millions to meet. We spent $300,000 last year on coffee! I just don’t know any Methodists who think they’re giving for that purpose. This is just me. I don’t have a voice. I don’t get to vote. I get to sound off through you.

Any issues you want to see discussed at GC?

I’m not being cute when I say that General Conference is distracting. The real stuff for our church is your local church. It’s what happens on Sunday morning and Monday morning at your local church.

And I just think where we’re failing is in this grassroots level. We’re going to have an address from youth at GC this year. OK, but the backdrop is that we have been killing youth. We’ve got something like 20 percent of the youth we had 15 years ago. Are we doing something wrong?

I wonder where we’ll be in 10 years. Of course, I know where I’ll be in 10 years—in the home!

What’s your advice for bringing church back to the grassroots level?

The best work Jesus does is local. It’s congregational. We are failing dramatically. The decline is huge. And I think none of you lay people would put up with this in your own business or your own life to say, “I made 25 percent less than I did last year. I wonder if I’m doing something wrong?”

We have to do the very Methodist thing of worrying who is not here this morning.

"Two weeks is too long for a meeting... The real stuff for our church is your local church... The best work Jesus does is local. It's congregational. We are failing dramatically.... None of you lay people would put up with this in your own business or life..."

A bishop who "gets" it. Imagine that. But he's going "in the home" in 10 years. Will we pick up the ball?

I'll come visit you in the home, Bishop. I suspect we'll still need you.

Pax,
Sky+

Take Thou Authority

"Take thou authority as a deacon in the Church...Take authority as an elder in the Church to preach the Word of God, and to administer the Holy Sacraments..."

With those words, I was ordained a deacon and elder, respectively, in June 1990 and June 1993. I was licensed as a local pastor in 1987. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. (The pic is fellow blogger Andrew Thompson's ordination, not mine)

I've been privileged to serve in several leadership capacities since then, and been blessed to represent our denomination at both jurisdictional and general conferences. In the process, I think I have witnessed the demise of leadership into a state of crisis. Vision and direction are lacking. As I read a paper Richard Heitzenrater wrote, it confirmed my sinking feeling about leadership:

Within the church, in an age when shared governance, mutual ministry, lay rights, and making people feel good have taken center stage, the concept of strong leadership brings to some minds the image of oppressive, hierarchical structures with glass ceilings and procedures that implement repressive policies, The very word "authority" is tainted in some minds by the most pejorative meanings of its derivative "authoritarian." Leadership positions can be lonely positions-it is much easier to be just one of the guys or gals. Clergy are increasingly prone to abdicate leadership responsibilities in an ecclesiastical culture that emphasizes the role of the laity and highlights the concept of "general ministry."...

Wesley was usually able to relate to people where they were-if not on their level or from their perspective, at least aware of where they stood, Nonetheless, he was never hesitant to speak strongly, howbeit in love, against any position that he felt was wrong or inadequate. The current situation would present him with a real challenge, however. These days, no one wants to hurt anyone's feelings; everyone wants to be liked and accepted; many feel immediately victimized by any words of criticism. And the assumption is that the strong exercise of authority in positions of leadership is likely to jeopardize the comfort level in some lives, a situation that must be avoided at all costs. John and Charles Wesley would have had difficulty with such an approach to leadership. - Richard P. Heitzenrater, "Take Thou Authority": Ministerial Leadership in the Wesleyan Heritage, from Pulpit and Pew Research on Pastoral Leadership, Duke University. This paper was prepared for the United Methodist Council of Bishops' Task Force on Theological Education and Leadership Formation.

That certainly is harsh. It's also true, I believe.

We have to be very careful and realize who gives us our power for leadership. A bishop may ordain us, but the source of that authority is God. And in all of the questions ordinands are asked, they boil down to this: are we (1) spiritual, (2) talented, and (3) effective? And do we look at those who are being ordained, and are ordained, in these terms? Or do we select leadership based on people who won't hurt other's feelings and won't let authority "go to their heads?" I think as a rule, we Americans have dumbed down leadership... and the church has been no exception. We get exactly what we expect... and, I fear, deserve.

It is amazing to me how much energy we have put into some things, while nearly abandoning others. Do I think sexual and professional ethics for clergy are important? Absolutely. Clergy do not need to be predators nor abusers.

Do I think that Safe Sanctuary policies for children's ministries are important? Absolutely. Our children need to be safe and have the assurance of safety. A lot of time, work, and money has been expended to develop and implement these types of programs.

But somewhere, we missed the mark. Badly. If we were aiming at the bull's eye, we didn't even hit the outer ring when we shot.

Inadvertently, I think we became the sex police instead. We dumbed down expectations of leadership... and may have created the very problems that we are now trying to solve. All in the name of "shared governance" and "everyone having a place at the table." We act as if God told us to bring the Kingdom in by mob rule. Just a biblical observation: when Pilate asked the crowd about who to let go and who to crucify, they yelled, "Free Barabbas!" When he asked them about Jesus of Nazareth, they yelled, "Crucify!"

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have ethical and moral standards. And a lot of money, time, and effort went into developing these policies. But when we become the sex police yet say little or nothing when it comes to pastoral ineffectiveness and leadership voids, I'd say we are missing the mark... and worse, we are causing the very problems we are seeking solutions for by not insisting on leadership standards. When we dumb down expectations of leaders, we get the leaders we ask for and deserve.

We certainly don't rank sins. But to continually deal with the sexual misconduct of some of our clergy while IGNORING clear leadership voids and ineffectiveness among ALL clergy seems to be akin to spending our time writing speeding tickets while ignoring murders, rapes, and burglaries. Before you are too critical about that analogy, consider that churches are dying and closing and congregations continue to pay higher salaries and clergy benefits and are getting incompetent and ineffective leadership in return.

Everyone is NOT supposed to get a say. Leadership, especially strong leadership, requires that we speak the truth in love, even if it is critical, hurts people's feelings, or makes someone -as Heitzenrater says - "feel victimized by any words of criticism."

Am I being mean? Have I turned into "the man"? Am I marginalizing those who don't have power? And are some of my seminary professors going to be disappointed in me now?

Off and on for the last 24 years, I have officiated baseball and basketball, from youth league to the college level. I love being close to the game, love being around young people, and love the challenge. One of the things I absolutely hate doing in basketball is assessing a technical foul to a player or coach. I like being part of the game, but I prefer it to be in an accompanying role. The best parts of the game are when a kid threads a needle on a pass, or a player blocks a shot, someone nails a 3-pointer at a clutch moment, or a coach sits a team down to execute a beautiful play for a score. People don't come to a game to watch a player or coach get "T'd up." (OK... I'm sure someone does, in a I-watch-NASCAR-because-I-like-to-see-car-crashes sort of way)

Technical fouls immediately set folks off. It gets the crowd hostile. It creates an adversarial environment between the official and coach or official and player. Communications become strained. But at the same time, an official isn't on the floor to make people happy. He or she is paid to officiate and adjudicate the game. You use a balance of knowledge of the rules, discretion on the use of power, experience of management of the game, and common sense to make good decisions and proper actions. While coaches want a floor that is slanted toward them, the official's job is to keep the floor on an even keel - and that means doing what is right, regardless of criticism or who it will offend or whose feelings will be hurt.

I can only imagine what would happen if officials were advised to be liked and accepted by everyone, and not jeopardize the comfort levels of those around them. Would that be an effective approach to officiating?

I don't think it's an effective approach to leadership either. Even in the Church. Perhaps, even especially in the Church. Isn't the Kingdom and the salvation of our brothers and sisters at stake?

As Heitzenrater reminded us, both of the Wesley brothers firmly believed that preachers should have minds and abilities capable of understanding the faithful witness of Christ and have the ability to clearly communicate biblical truths to the people. Charles Wesley, it was noted, did not hesitate to expel preachers for incompetence. Here were his words about a Michael Fenwick, whom John said was "a tolerable preacher.":

I went to the room, that I might hear with my own ears one, of whom many strange things had been told me. But such a Preacher have I never heard, and hope I never shall again. It was beyond description. I cannot say he preached false doctrine, or true, or any doctrine at all, but pure, unmixed nonsense. Not one sentence did he utter that could do the least good to any one soul. Now and then a text of Scripture, or a verse quotation, was dragged in by head and shoulders. I could scarce refrain from stopping him. He set my blood a galloping, and threw me into such a sweat, that I expected the fever to follow. Some begged me to step into the desk, and speak a few words to tile poor dissatisfied hearers. I did so, taking no notice of Michael Fenwick.

I talked closely with him, utterly averse to working, and told him plainly he should either labour wish his hands, or preach no more. He hardly complied, though he confessed it was his ruin, his having been taken off his business. I answered I would repair the supposed injury, by setting him up again in his shop. - Charles Wesley, Journal, August 5th, 1751

You think someone's feelings got hurt?

I don't think there is any contradiction between strong leadership and a strong theology of grace. Above all, the Wesleys called all of us, clergy and lay alike, to be imitators of Christ. What that means is this: when we meet the woman at the well, we are honest in what we say, even challenging. At the same time, we are full of grace and have the love of God in our hearts that allows for transformation. That is the true and Godly use of power. It may initially offend, but it transforms offense into redemption and salvation.

Boards of Ministry... General and Jurisdictional delegates - remember this when you approve candidates for ministry, and when you elect bishops. Don't listen to caucuses and factions. Don't see which quotas have been fulfilled or not. Insist on these questions being asked and answered: Who is competent? Who will be effective? Who is knowledgeable? Who is willing to serve? Who has vision? Who will give us direction... even if we don't initially like what they may say?

Who will lead us in the power and presence of God?

Pax,
Sky+