Making Disciples - Not Members

As I shared in the district clergy meeting on Tuesday, keeping up with metrics in Vital Congregations is not antithetical to making disciples of Jesus Christ: metrics are an important tool. It’s taking the pulse of your congregation. It gives you a baseline to see where you are and where you might/might not be going. In the task of making disciples, however, we have got to move from our current understanding of membership toward a biblical and spiritual model of discipleship. In United Methodist circles, this means (to borrow from Gil Rendle):

If we're about institutional survival, we probably deserve to die. But if we believe making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world is our mission - and that this is the most sacred thing we can do - we'll be all about that! And we certainly need to keep asking ourselves how we might measure discipleship and making disciples. How do we measure the difference made as a person moves toward becoming a disciple? Asking that question will help us get toward the task at hand!

So with that being said, I'm going to rip off Joey Reed's blog, "I'm Done 'Growing the Church,'" as this gets to the heart of the matter.

Enjoy. Or be irritated. Or both. Just be forewarned that while some people might not like this message, others are desperate to hear it.

Sky+

I’m Done “Growing the Church”

Pews. Stop filling them. (Photo credit: boxchain)

Yes, you read that right. I’m done.

No more outreach strategies to fill the pews. No more ideas to draw young people. No more switching out the hard stuff for lighter fare in hopes that we will appeal to a larger audience.

No more “growing the church.”

It seems that every time I sit down to think of ways to lead people to Jesus, I find a new way to “align a program” or “bring focus to an issue” — or worse, I find good people who mistakenly think that my job is to be a chaplain, or just their “professional visitor.” Gotta get those visitors to close the deal and join up.

Too many people think that mission of the Church is to swell the ranks and fill the pews. Too many people think that this task is my job. Too many people find me a failure for not getting this done.

So. No more just “growing the church.”

Unless. Unless you mean something different when you say, “Grow, Church.”

Perhaps you mean, “Growing in Grace.” Perhaps the church is learning to become more mature about forgiveness. Maybe that would mean that the churches in the USA would be more willing to reach across boundaries of age, race, gender, and politics (yeah, I said it) in order to develop real relationships.

I would love to grow that church.

Maybe you mean, “Growing in Love.” That could mean that the church is learning to become more selfless. That could turn into giving our time and our money to help people who are in a bad way — even people we don’t think really deserve it.

I could see myself growing a cool church like that.

Maybe you mean “Growing in Depth.” Would that mean that people were learning to accept their flaws without glossing them over? Would that mean an outbreak of patience and kindness that only comes from realizing that we are all screwed up in one way or another, and God loves us anyway? Would that mean that folks realized that they are unqualified to do ministry – just like the minister – and would commit to doing ministry anyway? Would that mean that you realized the value of what you have in Christ is too valuable to not give it away?

I would give my right arm to grow that church.

What do you mean when you say, “Grow the church?” Because if you are looking for growth strategies that capitalize on market demographics and creative sales pitches, I’m probably busy that day you want to talk.

What do you mean when you say, “Grow the church?” Because if you are trying to find ways to impress kids, add some flash to your worship, and pray that they will give enough to pay for the brand new $2.3 million, 2500 seat worship center, I’ve got another appointment to keep.

But if you mean that you are interested in growing disciples into deeply committed Christians, let me invite you to pull up a chair, stop pulling out your hair, give up on pulling up your own bootstraps, and let’s get down to brass tacks.

- Posted on February 7, 2013 by Joey Reed

Pastoral Pride and Leadership

One Lent a few years ago, I publicly confessed to the sin of pride. Someone afterwards told me, "You just said that to get conversation started. You aren't prideful at all." And while I don't color my hair (or beard), drive older cars, and am not very materialistic, I nonetheless have often been guilty of pride. In my case, clergy pride.

A few months ago, something pinched one of my right fingers. Hard. It was my seminary class ring, and it was cracked. It took a lot of soap and tugging to get it off my finger. The jeweler called it a "cracked ring shank," and it is not uncommon among arthritis sufferers like myself whose joints and extremities often swell and contract several times a day.

Getting the ring replaced or fixed is not a big deal; it has a lifetime warranty. And it ought to: it cost a pretty penny when I got it (around $450 in 1990), and it was my birthday/graduation/Christmas present one year from my wife. I stared at it for a long time after I got it off my finger, and realized that I have been rather prideful about my education and ordination. That beautiful ring with my seminary's crest told the world that I had a theological education from a fairly prestigious school. Maybe I was wearing it for the wrong reasons.

So for the time being, my ring is still cracked and at home on my dresser. My diplomas from Tennessee and Emory are framed and in a closet. And while I am not ashamed of my ordination as a deacon and an elder (yes United Methodists, I am that old to have been ordained both), I have to remember that my ordination to ministry began at my baptism. They are gifts from God and the Church. I have NOT arrived - even if I am a district superintendent. God expects me to use these gifts, but He's not impressed.

I've been a district superintendent long enough to realize that the divide between clergy and laity is way too wide - and worse, the divides among clergy are just as wide. United Methodists have 26 types of "conference relationships" - distinctions that mean something to the Board of Pensions, Board of Ordained Ministry, and insurance companies - but mean very little to people in the pews (or, for that matter, those outside the pews). A friend of mine has continually noted that our "tiered" clergy system is nothing short of classist and perpetuates an evil just as bad as racism. Anyone appointed to the work of what elders and deacons traditionally does by the power of the Holy Spirit should be ordained and be given God-given (not institution-given) authority to do their work, regardless of their education. All the implications of itineration, insurance, conference relationship, etc. are matters for the institution to figure out. I'm not slamming the institution - heck, I AM a big part of it - but let's put it in its place.

(Just a historical note: Methodists used to ordain local pastors as "local elders" who did not itinerate and whose ministerial function, just like local pastors, was limited to the parish they were appointed to. And then we quit ordaining folks who weren't full connection. And then we started consecrating communion elements over the phone. And then we licensed local pastors to have local sacramental authority. And yes... we are stupid, inconsistent, and guilty of clericalism on this issue).

Those of us clergy who are "full connection" members aren't better than others because of our status; quite the contrary, we are supposed to be mentoring, leading, and guiding those pastors who for various reasons are not "full connection." To those who have been given much, much is required!

We also have to realize that, practically and ecclesially, local pastors and supply pastors are the elder-in-practice for their local church and parish. Our benefit of seminary education is a tool, but not an end-all. It is certainly no indicator of effectiveness or qualification - if it were, the UMC would be bursting at the seams instead of in decline.

Leadership has to be shared. Leadership has to be encultured. Laity are called no less than clergy toward ministry in the Church, and indeed may do it even better than clergy. A very wise pastor once told me that being the pastor and spiritual leader of a church meant that sometimes, a lot of education and leadership is needed at a church and one has to be proactive in guiding a church toward vitality. At other times, a church might have very gifted leaders and spiritual depth among its laity, and you have to be secure and big enough to get out of their way. Both require maturity, humility, and spiritual discernment to know the difference. We clergy, too often, sometimes think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think.

Our district recently had our first "Generative Leadership Academy." Around 160 laity and clergy met to begin to talk about and dig into what it means to be a leader and how to "reproduce" leadership and discipleship in our churches and communities. We have begun the work to see that God is asking lay and clergy to partner together in leadership. That's the direction we need to be headed.

Our theology of ordination can be rather fuzzy, and our understanding of clerical function can be fuzzier still. But our theology of baptism is extremely clear: every baptized Christian is a minister, an ambassador of Jesus Christ, doing priestly work in His name. Being baptized is being set apart from the world to be disciples, and make disciples, of Jesus Christ. For this season, especially for us ordained clergy, that may need to be our emphasis instead of our ordination and educational credentials. They are tools for ministry, but not the end all. "Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." (James 5:16)

More to come where baptism, church membership, and making disciples are concerned. Today, I confess clergy pride - and God forgive me for such.

Pax,
Sky+

Missional Strategy and Mindset

In an earlier blog (click here) I wrote about the changing role of District Superintendent in United Methodism. It is certainly requiring all of us cabinet members to adapt and adjust from the "old ways" of superintending.

But in a larger picture, whether intended or not, it is preparing all of us for a major shift change in how we "do" church. As I learned from Gil Rendle last week, we church folks are in the midst of a shift that goes beyond even the most radical ideas we had in earlier times. Simply put: the organized church in America is no longer an established entity anymore. People aren't just going to come to church because it's what good people do - "good people" can and do get along without a church home. The world got bigger overnight, the word "community" got redefined overnight, and the institutional church didn't adapt. While the church is driving a 1957 Chevy, the world is driving a 2013 Honda Accord. The '57 Chevy is certainly cool-looking, nostalgic, and if you're a car enthusiast like me it's AWESOME. But if you're going on a long journey, would you rather drive it or the Honda Accord?

I think that's where we're at, Church.

I have no illusions that what is ahead is an easy task. In order to transform the church and our past way of thinking means a HUGE shift in just about everything we do. The transforming power of Jesus Christ and His message to us hasn't changed, but we have no adapted to the tools and methods of evangelism we need for today. The mission field changed. Our cultural mores and milieu have changed. There is as much community found on Facebook and other virtual gatherings than in person. We are a multi-ethnic and far less homogeneous culture than ever before. If we don't embrace change - DEEP change - we will slowly fade into an esoteric society.

It has to start with us: laity and clergy alike - the baptized. We have to live out the fact that God has claimed us and called us to be disciples. We have to quit teaching and preaching the means of grace, the simple rules left to us by church fathers and mothers, the tried and true disciplines of prayer and fasting - and start DOING them. Bishops and cabinets will have to be less tied to "salary sheets" and tenure when making pastoral appointments and see ALL appointments as MISSIONAL - putting gifts and abilities above tenure. As Gil Rendle has warned us, our "clients" are no longer churches and pastors - the MISSION FIELD is our client. If we're truly going to be missional, our clergy can no longer expect to be served by our congregations and our laity can no longer expect their clergy to simply keep them happy. Indeed, if clergy and laity are to lead together, both will find that we will be meddling in each others' lives and the lives of others. Being disciples means living a higher standard and expecting greater things. It also means that we adopt the shift toward making disciples rather than making "members." Membership in the Church doesn't have its privileges; it has responsibilities.

EVERYTHING we do must be geared toward mission, and should be - not just for institutional survival and relevance, but to fulfill our Great Commission, which is missional and not institutional: Make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The institution is a TOOL, but it's not the end-all.

It means some really rough and tough work is ahead. We are going to have to ask some churches if they aren't willing to be missional outposts who cultivate and make disciples, what then is your role? We are going to have to ask some clergy if they aren't willing to be missionaries and spiritual leaders, what then is your calling? Both are going to have to sort out the difference between purpose and preference. The institution is going to have to wrestle with trust and regain it by living with integrity and purpose while doing so in the midst of tough and radical shifts in purpose, functioning, and action. I know as a district superintendent/chief missional strategist, I have to lead and be faithful and not count the costs. So much for the thought of being a D.S. means "I have arrived..." I feel like Elisha; part of me honored to have the mantle placed upon me. However, the other part of me says, "That's it?!?! Just an old blanket?!?!? What the...."

Bishop Will Willimon says that there is no better job in the world than to be an elder in the United Methodist Church. I'd go further: there is no better job in the world than being a disciple of Jesus Christ. By our baptism, we are ordained for ministry in this world, given all the gifts we need by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Can we let go of what was to be what God wants us to be - not for ourselves, but for others? Can we give up what we used to think of as sacred and holy to go out into the mission field to do what is essential and faithful? We can only if we believe that Jesus Christ is our source of hope, and instead of panic we embrace maturity, non-anxiety, and calm. What we are about to embark on will be disruptive - transforming churches and congregations is the most difficult thing we will ever do, and embracing the mindset that we do not exist for our members but for the world is going to be a hard task indeed. But we can no longer remain cloistered, huddled together out of fear of change. If we want to have a faithful presence in the world, and indeed dare to transform it, worship on Sunday morning just won't get it.

If we'll think about it being about relationships instead of membership - I think that will get us on the right path.

We can do this, Church.

Pax,
Sky+

Citizenship, Politics, and Christianity - A Repeat

(Note - my writing muse of late has been nonexistent - so has my memory, and I had forgotten I wrote this a couple of years ago. Enjoy... or critique).

My fellow blogger and U.M. pastor Allen Bevere writes some great blogs. I want to highlight one he wrote at the end of 2009. Here is an excerpt:

Small town journalism is among the best reporting in the country, unlike the national media which continues to be a disgrace. Most journalists in the mainstream media think the square root of pi is coconut cream.

Local politicians are usually better behaved than national ones, probably because they are more accountable to their constituencies (there are, of course, exceptions to this).

Nowhere is the lack of serious and deep thinking more present than in Washington DC.

I do not understand why liberals say they are progressive. There is nothing progressive about wanting more government control over individual lives. There is nothing progressive about believing that government is the answer to most things. FDR believed that and enacted the era of big government. Today's liberals are not forward-looking, but rather nostalgic for earlier times. If 1935 ever returns the Democratic Party is ready.

By the same token, what is so conservative about Republicans? They are big spenders and have become foreign policy activists. There is nothing conservative in that philosophy. And it also appears that they have run out of ideas with no one standing out to lead the party. So much of late that comes out of Republican mouths is embarrassing. When 2012 arrives, the Republican Party will not be ready.

There were those in 2009 talking about the coming evangelical collapse. I disagree. Evangelicalism will not collapse, but it is in the process of being reformed. That is a good thing.

Theological liberalism is in large part repetitive and uninteresting.

Theological fundamentalism is in large part repetitive and uninteresting.

Fundamentalism and liberalism are simply two sides of the same coin.

-from Allen Bevere's, "Brief and Random Thoughts at the End of 2009," 30-Dec-09

Ever since I read Allen's above post, it has provoked a myriad of thoughts. One is that I fear our country will embrace rugged individualism to the point where, "I can do whatever I want," and everyone else be damned. Before you think that's far fetched, consider American Christianity, where you can pretty much believe whatever you
damned darned well please.

I really have to do some soul searching occasionally and remember where my allegiances are, and to know that being a good citizen does not negate being a good Christian... and vice versa. I was officiating at a basketball game a few weeks ago at a private high school, and we began with a prayer followed by the singing of the national anthem. Those are really not incompatible things - prayer is our communication with God, and the national anthem is our respect and love for the country in which we live. The test comes in what we do with what God communicates to us, and how we live our out love for our country.

If Christianity is experiencing loss of it's spiritual depth in America, I fear that patriotism is equally experiencing loss. Our continued fervor for partisan politics above a politic/policy for the common good is killing America (at least, the America that was founded many years ago). And no - I am not talking about health care. I am talking about politic. Πολιτικά. The affairs of the state. To be honest, I'm tired of what is passing for politics today. My language is atrocious enough without saying what I think today's politics resembles, so I'll stick to a safer and more polite term: self-gratification. We're all about ourselves.

Ultimately, if we are a country that (at least claims to be) Christian, we believe this: God has the last word in all things. We ARE our brother's and sister's keeper. Jesus redeems all things, and that includes justice, peace, and eternal life. It doesn't mean we have to be pacifists, but it certainly means we should at least have the goal of beating swords into plowshares. It doesn't mean we have to adopt Marxist socialistic ways about health care (which don't work anyway), but it doesn't mean we can avoid dealing with those less fortunate than ourselves, either. It doesn't mean that it's wrong to make money - as long as we remember the Source from whom all things come, and that to those who have much given, much is expected. The bottom line: do we trust God? If we don't, we will have a hard time living out the politics of being Christian.

"I Vow to Thee My Country" is a British hymn - and some critics say that it shouldn't even qualify as a hymn - but I think the words are poignant and can fit America as well as Britain. The words are below:

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

- Words: Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, 1908

Music: Gustav Holst, 1921

If we're American, and we're Christian, we should have no trouble singing either verse. The politics of Jesus and the costs of discipleship require our vow and and our sacrifice. But we do so as a community of faith, not individuals. Love doesn't insist on it's way, but insists on the truth.

Pax,
Sky+

No One to Imitate – We Have to Trust Each Other

Make no mistake about it – I miss officiating basketball. I miss being on the court, I miss having the best seat in the house to watch a game, I miss watching the strategy and ingenuity of coaches in smaller schools getting the most out of the players from their very shallow talent pool. Kentucky remains “open division” – and the smallest high schools often have to play the largest ones. I still keep up with the latest in basketball, and a friend directed me to this article today. 

What does John Calipari have to say that’s relevant to United Methodist ministry? Plenty in this season. D.S.’s are no longer managers, but extensions of the episcopal office and (as of January 1) the chief missional strategist for the district they are appointed to. So to adapt Calipari’s article, we are a denomination that, in many ways, has to adapt to a new way of doing ministry – what we have been doing isn’t working. As such, we don’t have anyone to imitate or mimic anymore, no upperclassmen to show us the ropes – we have to become the very best version of ourselves, and then - in true Methodist form - become a covenant community in which we just don’t tolerate each other, but we NEED each other.

My role is to help us get there – and I do so knowing that I am going to be struggling in some areas, but also see the writing on the wall: the facts about our wonderful denomination do not lie, and we need to be proactive and adaptive NOW to be effective at doing Kingdom work. So with apologies to Coach Cal, here’s how I see my role:

1.     Instead of beginning with pastors to build around, we have to start by quickly evaluating what each pastor and church needs, their skill set and how you have to deal with them as individuals. Every one of these pastors and churches needs me in different ways.

2.     I will have to convince them how hard they have to work consistently. That means task to task, day to day, week to week – not when they feel like it.

3.    I must get through to the pastors and churches that my job as superintendent and missional strategist is to care about each one of them and love them. Their job is to care about each other and love each other.

It’s more than just challenging churches and pastors – it’s about our spiritual health and evangelical effectiveness. If we are to be the ones who make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, we have to start adapting and conditioning ourselves to do so. I’m convinced that there is nothing wrong with doing so in a Methodist ethos. But how that looks in the 21^st century has to be different than what we did in the 20^th… because it didn’t work.

Results won’t happen overnight – it’s going to take time. But it will never start until we are willing to submit to it. Isn’t the Kingdom worth it?

Pax,

Sky+

A Pastor By Any Other Name

Earlier today, I entered a status update on Facebook: "[Attending] Paducah District Part-Time Local Pastor's Breakfast — at Massac United Methodist Church." And I ask the forgiveness of all for such an update.

A friend of mine sent me a message, "Doesn't it bother you to participate in an institutional caste system, which segregates people into laity, clergy, part-time local pastors, probationers ... yada, yada, yada?.. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus washed his disciples feet and said the last shall be first."

He's absolutely correct. How horrible of me to call some of the most faithful pastors in the world, "part-time, local pastors." I apologize.

The United Methodist Church has one of the strangest theologies (or lack of theology) where ordination and clergy are concerned. We have various levels/classifications of clergy that confuse everyone and confound any kind of theology of ordination. We have elders who are ordained to Word, Table, Service, and Order; and deacons, who are ordained to Word and service. But then we have provisional members who are commissioned (but not ordained). And then we have local pastors who are licensed (but not ordained). And then we have associate members who itinerate and have security of appointment (but are not ordained). And then we have supply pastors who are NOT licensed (nor are they ordained). In short - there are (at least) 26 different kinds of designations for clergy in the UMC. There isn't a denomination or communion in Christianity that comes anywhere close to that.

An Episcopalian priest, who is an acquaintance of mine, once asked me about all this. "How does someone who's not ordained preside at the sacraments and baptisms and weddings?" After I tried to explain it, I just got a stare and a "Huh?"
Amidst all these distinctions, however, I've found that the congregations they serve usually just call them "pastor." And congregations could care less about all the designations, which really have to do more with insurance, education levels, and denominational status and less about pastoral leadership, ability, and function. In fact, the church in the district I serve that has had more professions of faith than any other church in the district is a small church in a very rural area (NOT experiencing population growth). It is served by a part-time supply pastor who's been appointed there for several years and works a secular job during the week. When I asked him what he could ascribe his church's growth to, he said, "My wife and I got frustrated and wondered what God wanted us to do. So we fasted and prayed. I guess we got God's attention."

Amen.

The UMC has got to get a better theology of ordination. All of the distinctions we draw for elders, local pastors, commissioned pastors, supply pastors - they have nothing to do with theology, they have to do with secular distinctions of status. Anyone who pastors a church should be ordained, and before you say, "we've never done it that way," in fact we have: we used to ordain non-itinerating pastors (the ones we presently called "local pastors") as "local elders." In my opinion, it is very poor theology to allow pastors to preside over the sacraments without the benefit of ordination, and negligence to appoint someone to a church who cannot fulfill all of the functions a congregation needs of a pastor (by the way...theologically, what is a "license?"). After being a D.S. for two years, I've found it is just logistically impossible to have an elder present at all the churches for communion at any given time, and to ask churches to come to worship at another time is unrealistic and beyond inconvenient.

God certainly wants our best. But God also blesses our faithfulness - and our ordination to ministry doesn't start with a bishop's hand on our head - it starts at our baptism, which is for lay and clergy alike. My friend is right: the ground is level at the foot of the cross.

Pax,
Sky+

Firewalled Into Ineffectiveness and Impotence

I have been "on holiday" (as the Irish say) for the past week, but as I've begun to transition back to reality here in O'Hare airport I've gotten several emails and text messages regarding more work by the United Methodist Church's Judicial Council. First, the ruling that the General Conference's work regarding the reforming of the guaranteed pastoral appointment is now null and void; and more recently, the involuntary resignation of Bishop Bledsoe, decided upon by the South Central Jurisdiction based on their evaluation of his ineffectiveness, is also now "null and void." Both are citing church law and a lack of proper due process.

I am not enough of a jurist to say one thing or another about church law, and I am sure that the Judicial Council is acting within their purview and the letter of the law in their rulings. So blaming the judicial council for our woes is probably misplaced. However, their role in these recent events is making one thing abundantly clear: as a denomination, we have firewalled ourselves into impotency regarding transformation. It will be hard to live out our United Methodist mission of "making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world" when we cannot even transform ourselves. In short: we have painted ourselves into an ecclesial organizational corner!

Reinhold Niebuhr made the following observation about organizations: after a period of time, people become less passionate about their original mission and become more self-serving and self-protective. Self-preservation then kicks in and replaces the original purpose and mission.

Sound familiar? Methodism - a reform movement - needs reformed. We're right back where Wesley started. Father John wanted to do a 180°, but instead we have completed a 360°.

Of late and in particular, we have worked so hard to guarantee the protection of a free pulpit in United Methodism that we have made it virtually impossible to exit a pastor or a bishop. While there may have been good reasons in the past to have enacted this, can we defend it now, in light in diminishing resources and evaluative tools? It seems clear - and now with legal precedent - that once elders are ordained and received into full connection, they are virtually "firewalled" and untouchable, regardless of their effectiveness. While I don't know (or need to know) the specific reasons why Bishop Bledsoe was found ineffective, I seriously doubt it was a decision arrived at lightly and without cause. If a jurisdictional episcopacy committee cannot exit an ineffective bishop, I doubt that any other body will be able to exit a pastor. We have firewalled the system so it cannot be changed, and furthermore have now have established legal precedent for such in the eyes of our Judicial Council.

I fear this hastens certain disaster for the United Methodist Church unless change comes quickly. Continuing to have a judicial council rule against needed (and agreed upon) changes in structure will only frustrate everyone and waste precious time and resources that are now at a premium. Why is it so hard to admit that what we have is not working nor is adaptable for use in the 21st century? Are we so willing to preserve what we have at the cost of becoming a dead, lifeless sect? Before anyone says, "This is the way we've always done it," think again - a judicial council is a rather new innovation to Methodism, created by the ME South in 1934, because we wanted to be less "episcopal" and more "democratic" and remove questions of legality from our bishops (where did Jesus ever model democracy?!). If Father John Wesley or Bishop Asbury wanted to make a change, they just made it. We Americans aren't very good at absolute authority, but we presently have the opposite of it in the UMC - we have an episcopacy shackled to lead, but convenient to blame. It's a great system to play armchair quarterback in, but it doesn't make disciples. We're the Pharisees all over again - law is taking the place of faith.

There are some very hard decisions coming for the people called United Methodists, and they involve more than just pensions, health plans, and guaranteed appointments. Are clergy willing to sacrifice knowing that promises formerly made by some in the Church (many who are now dead) may not be able to be kept? Is the Gospel worth that? Are laity willing to step up and become partners in disciple-making, not employing their preacher to do it for them but rather being empowered by their baptism and faith? Will clergy and laity partner together to do ministry as a whole, rather than at variance with each other in role and deed? Will we be able to come together as a denomination, dissolve the present unworkable structure and adopt a new wineskin for a new wine? Or will we go the way of the Lutherans and Presbyterians and split into smaller factions? Will such smaller factions be able to sustain themselves? What would that mean for our brothers and sisters across the world (we are not just an American church)? I am certainly not trying to limit these questions to either/or - the problem is much more multi-faceted than that. But of this I am quite sure: the system will NOT self-correct!

A few years ago Lyle Schaller noted that we may need to do a denominational restart: dissolve the Constitution, the present Book of Discipline, and start from scratch. I think he's right. It will be painful. It will involve compromise and faithfulness. It will only be done in an atmosphere of prayer and trust. But I fear the alternative is to be a loose association of churches where only the strong in numbers and resources will survive. While that seems to be the antithesis of Methodism's method, it is a reality: at present, the UMC needs our larger churches and conferences more than they need the UMC. Unless we find a better way to govern ourselves, we will continue to get what the system is designed to produce - and it's not disciples.

A Lutheran friend of mine once told me: the main problem with you Methodists is that you've lost your Method. I fear he was right: we have a church that is faithful to a dying system rather than one that exists for the purpose of making disciples of Jesus Christ. Some say it's not about numbers - but to the one who has come to know Jesus and wants to make him known, those numbers mean a lot.

I know my blogs often sound like downers and criticisms. But I am convinced until we are brought face to face with the realities of our denomination, we can't lead with any sense of authority or urgency - and these are urgent times. We have to change - and change often means loss of power, loss of security, and loss of identity. However, those are all things that at our baptisms we said we would be willing to give up for the sake of Jesus Christ.

I don't know any greater joy than to be faithful to our Lord. I pray we can be less faithful to a failed system and more faithful to our Lord - whatever the price.

Pax,
Sky+