Revisiting an Old Blog in Light of Call to Action

I wrote the blog below almost six years ago, partly in retrospect to being a jurisdictional delegate in years past, and I quoted Russ Richey and Tom Frank quite a bit in the years since then in my posts about bishops (click here to read more of them).

This past Sunday I met with two churches in the district I serve about right sizing in light of their pastor moving and some challenges regarding resources. I have their permission to "brag" on them about this - and it's a story worth telling.

It started out as a typical meeting between DS and PPR committees, with questions such as: what are you looking for in a new pastor, what kind of remuneration package can we set, what are your challenges, what preferences do you have - you get the idea. Finally, one member asked, "Look - we need to cut to the chase. Do we need to stay open? Do we need to close? Does the conference have a plan? What is the denomination doing?" He met my questions with much better questions. I (stupidly) said,"Well, we need to work together and find a good solution." That was met with, "Preacher, do you think any church would vote to close itself? If we need to close, you're our leader and you're gonna have to tell us." That provoked a lively discussion: are our leaders leading? These folks were saying, "No." And so I am leading them in finding a solution. These two churches are working wonderfully together; not to keep the churches open, but to actively make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. They are trusting me to lead them through this, and to make the final call. Part of me shakes to have that much responsibility. The other part reminds me that I am a vessel, a shepherd, a servant doing the will of the Master. I have to get over the false self of fear, and move on to discerning and living the truth. Some won't like it. Some will. Either of those things, however, are irrelevant, as this isn't an election: it's Kingdom work.

This conversation always gets me into trouble! The way we're supposed to "run" the church isn't according to a democracy: we're part of a Kingdom! And in our United Methodist tradition, we have bishops. Sort of (see the below discussion on episkopé and episkopoi).

I'm convinced that we Americans aren't very good at "take thou authority" because we see it as pushy, arrogant, or autocratic - the antithesis of one person/one vote. As a result, we have watered down leadership to the point where it is at best generic: it won't offend anyone, because nothing will be said or done. In trying to do no harm, I suspect we have caused great harm through our neglect of local churches and in the basics of our faith: making disciples.

I've heard every argument in the world for and against regarding the Call to Action for United Methodism. What I find ironic is that after lots of critique (and much of it merited) and complaints about our bishops NOT leading, they (and others) dared to cast a vision in an effort to help us go forward... and some folks are dead-set on sending it down in flames. I am sure some dismiss it BECAUSE it comes from the Council. Some say it is theologically weak, yet many of the arguments I've heard sound more like political rhetoric than honest critique (I guess it's the season we're in!). Some say it wasn't spiritually formed... which suggests that those who helped design it weren't (?). And some say there needs to be more strategy fleshed out, but I find myself wondering if ANY plan, super-documented and full of action plans, would have a prayer for these simple reasons: it's a change. We don't trust others. It's an unknown.

And so I repost an old blog so that we might support our present bishops and support those who might be elected bishops in the months to come. I am certainly prejudiced as a superintendent, being a representative of the office of bishop. But I also love the United Methodist Church, and believe she is of God. In praying for our leaders, let us pray about leadership itself, and how we might embody it!

---

Thursday, July 06, 2006

The Future of Episcopacy in the UMC – Part 0.5

I say Part 0.5… because this should have preceded my May 26th blog entry.

It strikes me as problematic that The Book of Discipline talks a lot about the praxis of the episcopacy yet says ZERO about the theological foundations of episcopacy. Worse, there are been virtually NO discussions in any medium regarding the ecclesiology of bishops. All of this became painfully obvious to me when I was a jurisdictional delegate in 2004.

Electing six bishops in the Southeastern Jurisdiction in 2004 was no easy task…as the record number of ballots to elect six certainly testified! My take on it was that we live in a Church and world so desperately crying out for leadership that we want to make the right decision. So, it appeared to me, we elected folks based (1) on “pedigree,” and (2) by racial and gender makeup. While we desperately need good leadership in a denomination living in such interesting times, I think we continue to expect a lot of our bishops without empowering them to the task.

Scholar Raymond E. Brown wrote about the distinction between episkopé and episkopoi. Episkopé has to do with oversight and function in the Church. Episkopoi is the actual office/person of a bishop. We say that our bishops have “general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church,” (¶45, Book of Discipline). But in actuality, if you read the Discipline and see how General Agencies and the General Conference works, most of the oversight (and certainly agents of change) occurs there rather than by the bishops. Unlike Catholicism, the General Conference - not the episcopacy - is the magisterium in United Methodism. And if you’ve ever been to General Conference, you realize quickly that caucuses and lobbies often help influence and carry the vote. In short, the UMC is a democratic body… hopefully led by the Spirit, but democratic nonetheless. Our episkopé, it seems, is the General Conference and General Agencies. The episkopoi that we elect are relegated to be administrative heads and executive officers.

Is it fair, then, to expect them to be agents of change when we don’t even give them a vote? Make no mistake, the power to appoint pastors is no small thing, but even when a bishop ordains ministerial candidates, they have absolutely no say about who they ordain: that’s the conference Board of Ministry’s job. The list goes on and on. Should we really be nominating and electing our best leaders and prophets, or elect our best administrators and organizers instead? We’ve elected some really talented folks, but I think the episcopal office as present in the UMC stifles the very gifts that got them nominated and elected in the first place.

It’s really not surprising in United Methodism that we don’t give bishops more authority; the UMC is mostly an American church, and America loves its individualism and democracy. America also likes to have someone “in charge” to blame. Is it possible that we set bishops up just as we do CEO’s of corporations? If we're doing well and succeeding, great: we’ll keep paying you and giving you your status. But if things are going wrong, it’s your fault – and we can point our collective finger at you and blame you; after all, you’re our leader. We may not give you enough authority and power to do anything, but hey, that’s why you get the big bucks.

To quote one excellent source: “Bishops have no program and propose no legislation. They do not appoint heads of administrative agencies and have limited powers of nomination. They have few sanctions at their disposal, and certainly no right to fire the people they work with. [They have no] legislative or judicial authority.” (Richey and Frank, Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition, p. 96).

Why in the heck would you want this job? Do elected bishops know what’s in front of them before they are consecrated? And do we as a Church have any idea what we’re doing (or not doing) when we lay hands on someone and consecrate them to the office?

It’s possible that we’ve given our bishops an impossible task. We live in a time when the Church is crying out for leadership… but are we giving our bishops the tools to do it?

Sometime, I’ll post another blog with some strategies and proposals.

Pax,
Sky+


We should all be indebted to Russell Richey and Thomas Frank for their book, Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition – Perspectives and Proposals. I hope the Church appreciates and ponders their gift to us, and hope that Dean Richey and Tom will forgive me if I confused my own thoughts with theirs and didn’t footnote properly (yes, I’m still scared of my former seminary professors).

How Much Do We Love? Sacrifice? Give? Or Is It Just Leftovers...

I am preparing to lead a spiritual formation time in the midst of a difficult season. Like most district superintendents, I am in the midst of projecting pastoral appointments for the next conference year. I find myself in more prayer and introspection than at any other time in my life. I think this is a good thing. It is also frustrating.

I read the book Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God (Francis Chan) a few months ago, and found myself convicted and rebuked of things I thought I had grasped: sacrifice, agape love, surrender, taking risks. The reality is, we are always on the journey to master these, and usually come up short. We Wesleyans love to talk about the process of sanctification, and going on to Christian perfection (lessening or abolishing our bent to sin), but more often than not it results in resignation that we can't do it, instead of adopting prayerful mindsets and disciplines that might actually help us attain such. I am as guilty as anyone.

Chan asked some very direct and harsh questions in his book: Do you grasp the beauty and deep joy of walking in genuine intimacy with God, our holy Father and Friend? Do you want to see God more than you desire security? Do we have enough faith to do what others might see as crazy but God would see as faithful? Are we willing to do things that might cost us in this life but worth it for the Kingdom? Are we willing to give, being motivated by nothing except love? Are we willing to 'downsize' so that others might 'upgrade?'

I bought a very modest house last year - something that I can pay off fairly quickly. All of my vehicles are paid for. Yesterday, on a day when I really needed to be able to work in quiet and peace, I was having work done on a chimney that needed repair. It was loud; a mortar-mixer was running, old brick was being knocked out. I was perturbed that my quiet, safe sanctuary of a home was loud and overrun with people everywhere. This morning, I now find myself ashamed, because I am complaining about a little noise and having repairs that I can afford being done to a house that more than meets my comfort needs. Because I make more than $4,000 a month, I make one hundred times more than the average person in this world. I have a roof over my head. Running water. Climate control. High def television. As Chan points out, the sin is not in making that money - it is in not realizing how rich I really am. Rich in money, rich in comfort, rich in gifts and grace.

In dealing with pastors, I've wrestled with how to deal with our bent to sin. If a pastor is projected for a move, they want to know how much their salary will be. Can I continue to live in my house? Do you think the church could maybe pay a little more? Why am I getting a cut? (a downright sinful response from those who agreed to itinerate, and in a denomination that is in rapid decline). Rarely a question about a church's ministry and needs. Rarely does a pastor ask, "What do you think the church's main needs will be?" We sound like agents trying to negotiate the best salary and perks for a new job, instead of those availing themselves to serve. We find ourselves in competition with other pastors rather than in competition with Evil. It makes me want to ask the question: "Would you be a pastor if you got paid next to nothing? Would your heart still burn to preach the Gospel, to serve the Church in Word, Sacrament, and Order?" I think the answer to that question tells us loads about our call.

Dealing with churches is no less frustrating. They want to know, can we get a younger pastor, with a family? What did we do wrong to get this pastor? Do we have to pay our apportionments? Or the newest one: "We don't want to be part of a charge or a parish - we want to be on our own!" And when a pastor is asked to be moved, a litany of complaints follows. But when I ask, "Have you prayed with and for your pastor? Did you talk to him/her about these concerns?", I usually get silence. Pastors are expected to be spiritual leaders, but they are often treated like hirelings.

Of course everyone has frustrations - we are human beings, flawed and imperfect! But I wonder how often we examine our frustrations to see if they are founded in truth or founded in sin and self-absorption. Sometimes, there is reason to overturn the tables in the Temple. But many times, there is more reason to get on our knees and confess and repent of our thoughts and attitudes.

It seems like we only give God our best when it comes to lament and complaint! I wonder: do we really love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength - or just part of it? The First Commandment often becomes more like the First Impediment. As Chan remarks, "We give Jesus a section of our time, money, and thoughts, but He isn't allowed to control our lives." Our love of Jesus is at best conditional, comes with strings attached, and very selective.

United Methodist pastors vowed to itinerate regardless of income. We vowed to serve the church above our own comfort and to make sacrifices. Church members vowed to serve the church with their prayers, presence, gifts, and services. We all said that we would put Christ first, and minister to the least and the lost. I think it may be time to quit giving God leftovers and start giving our best. A little sacrifice and contriteness wouldn't hurt us a bit.

I am glad our God is a forgiving God, full of grace. We can be a hard-headed bunch.

Pax,
Sky+

REVISITED: Things That Have To Be Revisited

I wrote this not quite a year ago... thought it was worth a repost... (Originally posted May 26, 2011)

"After living with their dysfunctional behavior for so many years (a sunk cost if ever there was one), people become invested in defending their dysfunctions rather than changing them." — Marshall Goldsmith, from Mojo: How to Get It, How to Keep It, and How to Get It Back If You Lose It

Some lessons learned very quickly as a new district superintendent...

If you want to get United Methodist clergy bent out of shape, mention some of these things:

• salaries/remuneration
• guaranteed appointment
• parsonage/housing allowance

If you want to get United Methodist churches bent out of shape, mention some of these things:

• rising apportionments yet little accountability from general agencies
• being sent ineffective clergy
• being "sold" on the idea that a housing allowance will be cheaper than maintaining a parsonage

This highly unscientific survey is one that many superintendents encounter all over the Connection. And the recent Call to Action reordering to the United Methodist Church has folks from everywhere bent out of shape about change, rules being broken, and the going against principles previously held dear.

Has anyone ever given any thought to the fact that maybe, just maybe, some of those things we have held dear just might be part of the problem?

Guaranteed pastoral appointments sounded like a great idea: women and minorities would be assured of a place in the pulpit instead of prejudices dictating church leadership. The unintended consequence? Exiting someone who is an elder in the church yet ineffective in ministry is a tough row to hoe, and regardless of how well the letter of the law is followed and how much documentation you have, it is an even bet that you'll be sued (or at least threatened with such) as an annual conference.

Most pastors want/expect/require a raise in salary and a larger church whenever they receive a new pastoral appointment. Problem? In a denomination with shrinking resources and membership, this is becoming less and less of a possibility. It is becoming more common in pastoral moves that there is little or any "raise", and sometimes it is even to a smaller church or a church that pays a lower salary. In most cases, it's not punishment, but a simple reality of availability and congregational need.

Apportionments sound like a great idea too - doing more with a dollar in mission nationally and globally than you would ever be able to do as a single church. However, in some cases general agencies morphed from being missional agencies working for the local church into entities to themselves, often with agendas that run tangent to the very congregations that support them (as well as sometimes playing footloose with the Book of Discipline, making it hard on superintendents like me to defend paying some apportionments).

Giving housing allowances in lieu of parsonages also sounded like a great idea: church and conference trustees could get out of the housing maintenance business, pastors could build equity not previously had. But it soon led to making it more difficult for pastors to itinerate. Churches started doing the math and realized it wasn't always cheaper to sell off their parsonages and pay housing allowances after all, and some now face the real possibility of not being able to afford to pay a housing allowance OR buy a parsonage. Some preachers found out that selling their house or recovering their investment wasn't as easy as the realty experts told us.

All of these things were done by committee. All done with good intentions. Problems? Lack of vision. No long-range planning or direction. Unwillingness to adjust and say, "That was a good idea at the time, but no longer works well."

These are just a few of the things we have to revisit as a Church and denomination - not because of what we did before was bad, but simply because it no longer works or is effective.

The good news is that Jesus Christ is still Savior, and still very much alive - and can redeem anything. There are a lot of churches and people who are doing marvelous work and walking by faith!

So what do we need to be willing to change? What no longer works? And how do we muster up the courage to change? I invite your responses.

Pax,
Sky+

Good blog on Call to Action

10 Things to Know About the Call to Action

By Bishop John L. Hopkins*

Look! I’m doing a new thing: now it sprouts up; don’t you recognize it?
I’m making a way in the desert, paths in the wilderness. Isaiah 43:19, CEB

God is doing a new thing in The United Methodist Church. There is a new church emerging in our very midst. It is happening at the grass roots level around the world. Bishop Robert Schnase describes it like a heat map of ministry.

There are many signs of hope. Picture in your mind a heat map, where clusters of fruitful ministry activity are lighted against a dark background with the most fruitful and vital ministries shining brightest. The heat map of The United Methodist Church would allow us to see bright spots in unexpected places, concentrations of vital ministry and congregations that are thriving. Some would be in urban areas, some in the suburbs and some in the most isolated of rural counties. Africa would be aglow with congregational vitality and mission partnerships, but also the map would draw our attention to an exceptional campus ministry in one area and to a courageous witness for the homeless in another. A flourishing traditional church would light up near a dynamic merger. Some conferences and seminaries and foundations and agencies would glow brighter as they risk genuine innovation to realign with the mission. Lights here and there, bright spots appear in places we never expected. (“Five Practices” Blog 10/5/11)

Vital congregations introduce people to Jesus Christ and invite them to participate in the redemption of the world. The Call to Action is a sustained effort at aligning the church with these “bright spots” of ministry, where the Holy Spirit is at work.

This call is for every member, local church, annual conference and general agency “to redirect the flow of attention, energy and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” (Source: Call to Action Steering Team Report)

You can read more about this church wide initiative in the new “Call to Action Study Guide” available online at http://www.umccalltoaction.org/resources or athttp://www.cokesbury.com.

Let me share some things you will want to know about the Call to Action.

10. The Call to Action is NOT being voted on at General Conference!

It has already begun! The Connectional Table and Council of Bishops affirmed the Call to Action in the fall of 2010. Since its launch on January 1, 2011, the Call to Action has led to: the Vital Congregations Project(http://umccalltoaction.org), the Vital Signs Project(http://vitalsignsumc.org), efforts to recruit younger clergy, reform in the Council of Bishops, the downsizing of agency boards, and many annual conference and local church initiatives. The General Conference has the opportunity to align our 42-year-old denominational structures to support the increase of vital congregations that will transform the world.

9. The Call to Action is NOT a “top-down” initiative!

The Book of Discipline (¶120) is clear: “Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs.” Our Constitution (¶33) is equally clear: “The annual conference is the basic body in the Church.” The annual conference is the main vehicle for creating and sustaining vital congregations. The most important changes will not result from legislative action but instead will require different actions and patterns of leadership by each one of us.

8. The Call to Action is NOT about restructuring general agencies!

Denominations that think restructuring at the top will change the direction of churches out in the field are behind the times. Our “bright spots” for the future are in local congregations that are spiritually transforming people and engaging them in ministry. The general church is being asked to catch up with the re-focusing that is already going on in annual conferences and local churches. The proposed legislation to put most of the program general agencies on one board will align resources, unify staff work and provide holistic strategic planning to support a sustained focus on vital congregations.

7. The Call to Action is NOT about giving more power to the Council of Bishops!

It is about giving more freedom and responsibility to annual conferences for the basic work of the church. The annual conference, with a resident bishop and key lay and clergy leaders, is ultimately responsible for strategies to increase the number of vital congregations. That is why the Constitution gives the Council of Bishops “spiritual and temporal oversight” of the church. With fewer governance boards, resident bishops will have more time to work and be accountable for the fruits of the congregations in their annual conferences.

6. The Call to Action is NOT from a small “rump group”!

By our Discipline, only the General Conference, the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table are given “general oversight” responsibilities for The United Methodist Church. They are ultimately responsible for representing the whole and not just the parts of our church. General Conference delegates represent their fellow annual conference constituents. Bishops represent the whole church, their region, and their respective annual conference. The Connectional Table, with well-balanced diversity, represents every region, agency, racial/ethnic caucus and age-level.

From 2005-2008, work was completed to define our identity and mission. During this quadrennium, 2009-2012, the emphasis is on aligning resources for the future of our church. While bishops and conference leaders are responsible for the alignment of most resources in our church, the General Conference is responsible for alignment at the general church level.

5. The Call to Action is NOT just about churches in the United States!

A unified general program board will provide easier access to agency services for every annual conference around the world. This plan frees up money now used for governance to enable more money for mission, especially in those areas that need it most. The decline in the number of vital congregations in the United States is a concern to the whole church, but the 5 jurisdictions in the United States are only a portion of The United Methodist Church, which also includes 7 central conferences around the world.

Conferences in Africa and the Philippines are leading the way in increasing the number of vital congregations. The Call to Action proposes that $5 million be used for theological education in the central conferences, where the need for new pastors is growing rapidly.

4. The Call to Action is NOT to save money!

We are not a church driven by scarcity. Welive in God’s abundance. The recommended budget total of $603 million is actually only a 3.46% decrease (-.87% per year) from what has been apportioned this quadrennium. The Call to Action is recommending a $60 million (10%) shift of general church funds to support the annual conferences and local churches as they focus on vital congregations. However, placing the program general agencies under one board will undoubtedly lead to cost-savings and synergy in the coming years.

Although General Conference is responsible for the entire church, it actually makes decisions for less than 2% of our financial resources. Most of our resources are at the local church level. However, annual conferences send to the general church an average of 26% of what they apportioned to local churches. In addition, fewer than 23% of annual conferences paid 100% of general church apportionments in 2010. Unless we make some bold changes to focus resources on more vital congregations, we will soon face hard choices. (see Dr. Lovett H. Weems, Jr.’s projection of the coming “Death Tsunami” athttp://umccalltoaction.org/the-challenge.

3. The Call to Action will NOT reduce diversity within The United Methodist Church!

The world is becoming more diverse and so should our church. We cannot continue to lump people into large ethnic categories and ignore their particular identity and heritage. The Call to Action recommends that we have fewer people involved in governance and more in ministry without reducing our commitment to diversity and inclusiveness. The fruits of a more aligned general church will result in more diversity at the grass roots level.

We should be encouraged that more than half of the new churches started in this quadrennium across the United States have been racial/ethnic and multi-cultural congregations. Our strategy for diversity everywhere must be to increase the number of congregations that are reaching younger and more diverse people.

2. The Call to Action does NOT replace our mission and Four Areas of Focus!

Our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world is embedded in our United Methodist way of life. The same is true of our focus on developing leaders, starting new congregations, engaging in ministry with the poor and improving global health.

1. The Call to Action is NOT about changing someone else!

It is about changing us. The Call to Action was begun in confession that we have not done everything we could do to strengthen God’s church. The Council of Bishops is already changing to make way for more accountability of resident bishops. The Connectional Table and its staff are willing to step aside to make way for God’s new thing. If we are going to increase the number of vital congregations, we need everyone to take responsibility. What can you do? Be a “bright spot” for Jesus Christ and his Church today.

The recommendations going to General Conference to support the Call to Action are to:

1) Give more freedom for annual conferences to organize for their particular context

2) Revise guaranteed appointments

3) Create one program board and an oversight council

4) Select an Executive General Secretary to guide program staff

5) Revise role of Council of Bishops’ president

6) Reallocate up to $60 million from World Service and General Administration for focusing on vital congregations.

*Bishop John L. Hopkins is the resident bishop of the East Ohio Conference of The United Methodist Church and the chairperson of The Connectional Table.

What Is Needed?

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” - Luke 10:38-42, NRSV

My freshman year as a district superintendent in the Southeastern Jurisdiction came to a close last week as I attended the Cabinet Consultation at Epworth by the Sea in St. Simon's Island, Georgia. Along with meeting episcopal candidates for this year's jurisdictional conference, we were able to hear from Gil Rendle. His presentations, along with the resulting discussions, have fermented in me ever since.

As I have written before, we are living out the Chinese curse of "living in interesting times." And as I prepare to be involved in another round of pastoral appointment-making, I think some very hard realizations are going to hit us as a denomination. If we are going to make the shift to be about making disciples instead of making church members, there are people who are not going to be happy. In discipleship mode, neither clergy nor congregations are"cared for" - we become resources. Maybe even expendable resources.

Think about it: if we are truly going to ask people to vote against their self-interests and instead to devote themselves to a bigger purpose beyond themselves, we ARE saying that we are expendable. That our best interests ARE secondary (or even tertiary) to the interests of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In short, as Rendle challenged some of us last week, do we want an encounter with Christ, do we want to experience His grace, and do we want to transform the world more than propel our self-interests?

Some church members and clergy may say, "I didn't sign up for this gig." And, in all honesty, it hasn't always been the gig that was presented.

What is needed from our clergy? I think we have to retool, renew, and be willing to be transformed - not into what we want to be, but into what God wants us to be. Some of that may not be what we thought ministry ought to be, or that it's "not me" or "against my nature." The reality is, while all of us have gifts differing according to what God gives us, we are also called to be generalists.

In baseball, we call such players "utility" players; St. Louis Cardinals' coach Jose Oquendo comes to mind. I remember my father and I watching the Cardinals play the Braves in a 19 inning marathon when Oquendo pitched 3 innings - and held the Braves scoreless! - before giving up two runs in the 19th inning. Oquendo played every position on the diamond, has coached, and managed a year in the minor leagues. Now, one certainly can't excel in all things - but I think we pastors have to be willing to do more than just those things we think we "excel" at. We have to be generalists. We are servants. We are expendable resources. As we venture out into the wilderness, there are some harsh realities to face. Guaranteed appointments and defined-benefit pensions may be endangered species. "Moving up" every time we make a pastoral move may no longer be a given. We will experience loss in many shapes and forms.

Laity are no less immune. Restructuring church, changing the focus from membership to discipleship, emphasizing mission over maintenance - this may mean more than just giving up our favorite pew to sit in. We might lose our church office positions. We might be called to put more money in the plate yet have less say about how we want things. If legacy and transforming the world in the name of Jesus is the most important thing, we will pass the mantle of leadership in our churches into the hands of those who might not do church the way we would do it. We will experience loss in many shapes and forms.

Yet in all of this, once again the bigger question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we willing to give up our self-interests toward the bigger purpose of making disciples of Jesus Christ? Can we take up the cross? Can we pay the price? Can we choose the better part? Are we willing to examine ourselves?

Those are things worth praying about.

Pax,
Sky+

Call to Action: Don't Trash It Yet

Pastors, even bishops, have written against it. Church caucuses are against it. Pushback is present among laity and clergy alike. "It can't work... It won't work... It's marketing/corporate language... The statistics are flawed... The death tsunami is a myth... Clergy and churches shouldn't be judged by numbers; there are better ways to measure churches..." You can probably add a few more. Before we can even implement it, some folks want Call to Action and Vital Congregations rescinded. Some have gone so far to say that it's dead on arrival.

No one can argue that the UMC is hurting in every way measurable and in some ways immeasurable. Our membership continues to fall even though our population continues to rise. Resources are starting to dwindle. Reassessment and realignment of denominational boards and agencies is causing distress and frustration. An upcoming General Conference and proposed legislation and resolutions are causing angst. It is very easy to give in to a climate of fear and go into panic or survival mode.

It may be helpful to be reminded of Wesley's vision for the Methodist movement: to renew the Anglican Church, to bring scriptural holiness to the lands, and to "flee from the wrath to come," (words said first by John the Baptist, not John Wesley). At best, he hoped that we'd do a 180° - but I fear that we have done a 360°... coming full circle back to a church that just about resembled what Wesley was trying to reform. Even Wesley himself caved a little, taking matters in hand and ordaining Francis Coke a superintendent so that America could have some clergymen. Coke ordained Asbury, and before you know it we had bishops AND a church. Many historians and theologians lament over this move, as this fledgling but highly successful missional movement morphed into a Church and churches.

Like many things, what we evolved into could have been avoidable. Many outside of Methodism have told me how wonderful the Method of Methodism is, but how we have given the Method away - and I have to agree. Methodists should be teaching others in Christendom about mission, discipleship, holiness, and piety, for those were the things that we were founded upon and took on as our vision for ministry. And like so many things, success bred comfort. We were, for a while, able to build churches, universities, and mission societies to fulfill our mission to make disciples for Christ. Now, we realize we cannot do as much as we once did; indeed, we are in danger of not being to support what we already have.

It seems that in the conversations I read and am a part of, there is a sense that the church is not built to be successful but to be faithful. In part I agree - faithfulness definitely is our call and priority. But when the very structures we built (physical or otherwise) begin to falter, we are not being the trustees that we vowed to be when these structures were begun. Someone will say "New wineskins for new wine." I would say absolutely! And if the General Conference were to agree next year that we need to not be a denomination/communion of churches and revert to being a missional movement, I will abide. That would mean that we no longer believe that the local church is the best conduit to fulfill the mission of our Church... and I believe THAT is the conversation that we need to have, and quickly. Otherwise, given all appearances, we will continue in slow decline until, by default, we will cease to be by attrition.

Can the local church be the best expression of Jesus Christ, the hope of the world? I think it can, but not in present form. My experience is leading me to believe that many - if not most - clergy and laity are comfortable with (and prefer) a chaplain-approach to ministry. It has worked for a long time. But the law of entropy is kicking in: the ice cube is beginning to melt. I believe our failure to make disciples has caught up with us in every way possible.

It seems to me that the Call to Action and Vital Congregations projects are needed to help us with some baseline indicators and accountability - for pastors AND churches. But we cannot stop there; in tandem, we need to be encouraging and equipping pastors and congregations to enhance their discipleship and mission. Doing a critical analysis of our local churches and pastors may help us realize that the very things we once thought were primarily about making disciples turned out to really be more about paying the bills or ministries that are "just for us church members." How much of our ministry in the local church is geared toward discipleship? Do we vision and set goals with our communities in mind? Do local churches see themselves as parishes? Those are questions we need to be asking ourselves.

This is risky business, I know. But if our growth is going to be mission and discipleship-based, we're going to have to be bold, innovative, and ever-faithful. I think Call to Action and Vital Congregations can help us do that, but not by themselves - otherwise, they'll just be another program. At their best, they can be tools to prop up discipleship and mission for Kingdom work: to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Let us try to use them as such.

Pax,
Sky+