by Steve | Dec 6, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Frank Decker
One day, while teaching a class of aspiring pastors in Africa I asked, “What would you do if someone in your church asks you a question to which you do not know the answer?” I expected a response such as “I’d say, ‘I don’t know, but let’s find out together,’” or something like that. Instead, the consensus of the class was that you should make up an answer because, I suppose, it would be shameful for someone in authority to be seen as lacking knowledge. After all, missions is about Jesus, the answer. So, doesn’t it follow that those in mission should have, or at least appear to have, all of the answers?
I don’t think so. In fact, there is a sense in which missionaries who appear to “have it all together” may actually be less effective than those whose lives are transparent and exhibit continual growth. Or, as Dr. Craddock once said in my homiletics class, “Preaching is not the preparation of a sermon and delivering that, but the preparation of the preacher and delivering that.”
A transparency in one’s life that reflects enduring transformation, even in mature missionaries, can serve as a catalyst that enables a breakthrough in one’s ministry. One worker in eastern Europe had recently gone through a period of discouragement and feelings of being overwhelmed with her ministry of compassion among children-at-risk. “Finally, after a few weeks of struggling,” she said, “I received what seemed to be a pretty clear answer from the Lord about something He was unmistakably doing in my own life.” The message she sensed had to do with the need for repentance in her own life as well as in the local Christian community. When she asked the Lord how she should respond, “that’s when I felt Him lead me to seek a deeper level of repentance in my own life. By finally confessing some of the sin I’d been carrying around, it gave God room to move deeper, also bringing about some healing in our community in a manner that I had not been expecting.”
The very nature of the missional message is transformation in Christ. So it follows that the bearers of that message should be experiencing that transformation as well. Ruth Burgner, senior director of communications at The Mission Society, has said that this may be the very reason why God allows us to be involved in missions. “Why does the Lord recruit us to do his work while he could do it himself? It’s because of how he forms us in the ways that we can be formed only by doing these things.”
A missionary in South America relates how a quantum leap in his own family’s spiritual growth subsequently became manifested in their ministry. After a few years of a fruitless, frustrating search for an effective way to share the Bible with their hosts, these missionaries discovered an inductive approach to Bible study. “As we began to work through the Bible in this way, it brought insight and transformation to our own lives, opening the Word to us in ways that we had always felt existed but had never experienced before. We began to share this way of exploring God’s Word with others, and it began to have an impact in their lives, bringing change and joy to them as they experienced a new way of life in Jesus. The ministry that started in this way five years ago has now grown to over 4000 participants and is continuing to grow.” It is apparent that this breakthrough would not have occurred if these missionaries had gone to their field of service without a commitment to their own continued personal growth as they ministered to others.
The apostle Paul, who had been known by others as neither very good looking nor a naturally gifted speaker, understood that our continuous transformation as bearers of the message is essential. We are “earthen vessels,” who have the privilege of revealing “the surpassing greatness of the power of God,” which is “not from ourselves.”
A missionary couple who serve as foster parents in the former Soviet Union face a particular struggle in light of the popularity of the “prosperity gospel” and the disillusionment that can accompany it. “On one certain day when the kids were exhibiting normal teenage rebellion, our friend Sasha was visiting,” the missionary recalled. “A particular comment made me feel very unwanted as a mom and very offended. At my wits end, I announced (in English and then in Russian, so everyone in the room would hear), ‘I am ready to go back to America right now. This is driving me nuts!’ Then I asked for prayer. Sasha prayed, and we all started singing a praise song in Russian. The mood immediately got better—something about the sacrifice of praise. Later Sasha told us that he was so thankful to see us when things are not always so rosy and how we handle that. It showed a greater depth of our Christian witness that goes beyond the superficiality of the prosperity gospel.”
Transparency that reflects ongoing transformation in the life of the witness is an essential tool in enabling Christ-centered change in the lives of others. It’s a timeless lesson, one that is easy to forget and even cover up with our facades and titles. But the degree to which we “get real” with those whom we serve is the degree to which they will be impacted by Jesus rather than impressed by us.
by Steve | Dec 6, 2011 | Magazine Articles
Making choices
The article on heaven and hell by William Reeves in the September/October 2011 issue of Good News was informational and helpful to me as a Christian. I have always believed that a Christian could make choices that were either right or wrong, and then doing so, would pay the consequences. I did not have the scriptures to back my theology up, except for those fiercely contested by the Calvinistic church of my youth.
As a retired public school principal, I have seen this happen several times to students, especially after entering college. I always respected their right to do as they pleased, but was glad when they made the right choices in their lives (according to biblical teaching).
I hope this article will help others to think, and that even Christians need theological guidance. Good News is not afraid to point this out.
Bruce Tonkinson
McCook, Nebraska
Responsible churches
I don’t understand why the retired bishops want us to have homosexual pastors. Don’t they realize that this might split the church? Even if there is a split, I for one, would take my membership out, and I think there would be many other who would do the same.
I think the reason United Methodism has been losing membership for many years is because our church has not followed the Bible’s restriction on having homosexual pastors. God only honors and blesses churches who follow his laws. Look how the Bible churches are increasing in membership. They are not afraid to read the Scriptures from the Bible which speak to this issue.
God blesses those who hold the church responsible. Thanks for all you have done.
Opal C. Huettner
Hales Corners, Wisconsin
Face boys
I find it interesting that Rob Renfroe would use the example of Jesse Owens and the context of Nazi Germany to call on United Methodist Bishops to be “face boys” in confronting what he calls “the most controversial issue facing the church.” The Nazis cultivated a growing nationalistic fervor aimed at saving their struggling country by choosing certain people groups, labeling them as the villainous root of all the nation’s problems and then directing their energy into banding together in their hate for these people. They, of course, accomplished this by becoming masters of propaganda.
Today, the UM Church is facing the culmination of decades of decline, and people throughout the denomination are trying to find those persons or people groups on whom the blame can be placed. Good News claims to be a voice and vehicle for renewal in the denomination and could call on the leadership (both clergy and lay) of the denomination to embrace renewal through commitment to the person, character, words and actions of Jesus Christ. Sadly, instead of being the brave “face boys” who confront the true issues directly, Good News has become little more than an anti-homosexual propaganda rag.
As I peruse my issue month by month, I find very little “good news.” The staff instead uses the magazine to “stir the pot” of a nasty debate which all too often reflects nothing of the character and spirit of Christ. Those who disagree with the prevailing opinion of the Good News staff of writers are seldom written about in a loving, respectful way. Instead, they are portrayed as an active force determined to divide the Church. The truth is, the majority of people who disagree with Good News and their stance on homosexuality are people who want to see the church simply live out the call to love God and love neighbor.
When are we going to stop demonizing homosexuals and blaming them and their supposed “agenda” for ruining the church? The growing irrelevancy of the UM Church cannot be attributed to the sexual lifestyle of a certain group of people, or even to growing secularism or the loss of morality in the church. Instead, the church has become irrelevant because it has not been faithful in actively loving God and others in the model and spirit of Jesus Christ. You claim to be centered in the written Word of God, but what about being centered in the character of the living Word of God? Perhaps we will all see renewal in the UM Church when we are active in such a pursuit and when we stop trying to cultivate religious fervor founded upon the hate, discrimination, scapegoating and demonizing of a segment of the population.
Josh Bizzell
Inglewood United Methodist Church
Macon, Georgia
Aldersgate
First and foremost I would like to thank you for the article in the September/October Issue on the Aldersgate Renewal Ministries conference that took place this July in Dayton, Ohio. My wife our three children (ages 10, 7, and 8) four members of our congregation and myself attended this amazing conference. As a local United Methodist pastor, I went to this conference with a dry and weary spirit. One could say that spiritually I was running on empty due to day to day demands of being a pastor.
Yet what I experienced during the conference simply transformed me from the inside out, God though the Holy Spirit did an amazing work on me. Like I said I went there dry but I came home saturated and dripping with the Holy Spirit. Every person that came with us was touched and changed in ways that words cannot start to describe. Especially our children, they learned more and experienced God in ways in the four days that they spent at the Aldersgate Conference than they will in one year of Sunday school.
The thing that amazes me about all of this is that the people of The United Methodist Church are crying out for our church to change so that it will be restored and the cries are the same from the laity as it is from the clergy. Those in the leadership within our districts and conferences are telling us to attend various workshops so that we can transform the local church. However, the conference that we need is the Aldersgate National Conference on the Holy Spirit.
After returning from the conference we have shared our experience with many people in the local church, I have told many of my pastor friends about it too. After we tell them about the great presence of the Holy Spirit and the manifestation of the gifts and the fruits of the Spirit the very first thing out of their mouth is, “This is a United Methodist event?”
The UM Church needs to return to the book of Acts and be the church that was birthed on the day of Pentecost. The hope of restoration and revival of The United Methodist Church can only be found in the Holy Spirit. Our denomination needs to return to Holy Spirit and be the church that Jesus has called us to be. We will be returning to the 2012 Aldersgate National Conference in West Virginia, and I pray that many more will be there too and experience the living Spirit of God who is the only true hope for the restoration of The United Methodist Church.
Mark A. Kuhlman
Wayne United Methodist Church
Wayne, Ohio
by Steve | Dec 6, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By B.J. Funk
After I was grown and out on my own, my daddy suffered a stroke. His keen mind was taken. The left side of his body became useless. Until he died seven years later, he was dependent on someone to take care of all personal needs. I often drove the 50 mile trip to see him in the familiar home in which I used to live. But, I could not find familiar again. I could not find daddy again. I looked at the man who looked like him, but was not him. I left still looking for daddy.
Mother was a champion. Somewhere in the course of those long months, she moved from denial to acceptance. Sometimes she longed for just a few hours of what used to be normal. What is that quote many are saying? “Look for the new normal?” It never became new, and it never became normal.
If you’ve lived any amount of time on this earth, you too have struggled with learning how to live when sadness invades your life. There is a big hole in your heart where peace used to rest. You spend a long time in shock and denial, never finding the key that will unlock your prison of pain and lead you to a new victory. You read your Bible and hear Paul say in Philippians 4:11 “…for I have learned to be content, whatever the circumstances,” and you fall apart thinking there is just no way you will ever feel as Paul did.
One morning a king went into his garden and found that everything was dying. He asked the oak, “What is the problem?” and the oak told him he wanted to die because he was not as tall and beautiful as the pine. The pine had given up because he could not bear grapes, like the vine. The vine was giving up because he could not stand erect and produce large fruit like the peach tree. The geranium fretted because it was not tall and fragrant like the lilac. The garden died because those living there could not be content with the life they had.
Unless we accept our circumstances, no matter how difficult, we will never live in peace. We will fret away our days, angry over the changes that have come to us. Paul’s words pull us into sharp reality as he continues his wisdom in Philippians: “I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through Him who gives me strength.”
We would be much more at home with Paul’s words if he had written, “I can’t believe this! Here I am, working in the Lord’s army, and this is the thanks I get? Why me? How can I spread the gospel if I am in this smelly prison?” Yet, Paul’s words move past any hint of pity and focus on a life’s lesson. “Grumbling produces grumps. Contentment produces comfort. We are the only one who can decide if we smile or frown.”
Paul’s secret was that he drew on Christ’s power for every circumstance in his life. But, you say, Paul was a giant in the Christian faith; we cannot be like him! Actually, he was a sinner, plucked and saved out of his sinful life. After uniting with Christ and giving up his old life, he was forever humbled. He even says in I Timothy 15 that he had been the worst of sinners. In II Timothy 2, he tells us why he could endure the chains of prison: God’s Word has not changed. That was his secret. Paul was content because he believed God’s Word more than he believed the circumstances in his life, and he knew how to draw on that power.
Streams in the Desert gives us these words: “Through the leaves of every trial, there are chinks of light to shine through. Thorns do not prick you unless you lean against them. The words that hurt you, the letter which gave you pain, the cruel wound of your dearest friend, shortness of money—are all known to Him, who sympathizes as none else can and watches to see if, through it all, you will dare to trust Him wholly.”
I think back to those days before daddy died. The reality of daddy’s helplessness haunted me. Could I ever be content with him this way? Finally, I stopped leaning into the thorns of this situation. I accepted the truth. This is the way it would always be. And, in accepting the truth, I found my daddy again.
by Steve | Dec 6, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Donald Haynes
Readers misunderstand my role as a columnist for The United Methodist Reporter often enough to deserve an explanation of where I fit into our denomination’s connection.
I’m an elder who has served his church wherever he was sent in various capacities from 1954-1999, and since retirement, I have served five times as interim pastor. Currently, I’m pastor of a small rural church.
It is from this vantage point that I read the latest report of the Connectional Table to the Call to Action Committee, which will make rather dramatic proposals for change as the 2012 General Conference convenes. Like the folk philosopher of the 1930s, Will Rogers, “all I know is what I read in the paper.” But I hope that passing on their recommendations to you in the local church and in positions of connectional influence might enhance the dialogue.
According to these recommendations, the so-called “bureaucracy” of the church would be reduced sharply, both in numbers and in payroll. We would fold most boards and agencies into five offices: Congregational Vitality, Leadership Excellence, Missional Engagement, Justice and Reconciliation, and Shared Services.
But with what bottom line effect? What will the trickle-down impact be?
The new name recommended for the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, the “Office of Leadership Excellence,” has a good ring to it. In the fall, I began teaching a seminary class of the “recently called.” What do I say to them? Do we need those whom God is calling? If Lovett Weems and other prognosticators are accurate, and I think they are, our impending “death tsunami” of loyal laity will reduce many of our parishes to a critical mass unable to support a pastor. Is it excellence or excising for which we are preparing?
The underlying assumption seems to be that we are preparing the way for the demise of guaranteed appointment and more quick and compassionate exit procedures for clergy who have mediocre measurable performance. On a practical level, it might well mean more part-time local pastors who—like those in our Pentecostal and Baptist sister communions—have to supplement their income from secular employment, retirement benefits or spouse income. Part-time local pastors or retired pastors will be more effective than the very uncreative resort to old circuit patterns.
Lopsided emphasis?
My first surprise in reading the recommendations is that the present General Board of Global Ministries and General Board of Church and Society would anchor two of the new agencies, when the majority of observers have for a long time felt that the Board of Global Ministries has a philosophy and an agenda.
We have a sharply diminished number of traditional “missionaries” in the field. Since the days of the early-1930s debate between Hendrik Kraemer and William Hocking, the Methodist philosophy of missions has had more emphasis on socioeconomic and political agendas than on evangelizing. Our board adopted the theological position of Professor Hocking from Harvard, who called for the affirmation of indigenous religions. We moved overwhelmingly toward educational, medical, agricultural and socioeconomic-political emphases. We rejected the position of Kraemer who wrote a book on the uniqueness of Christianity.
In the developing nations since the end of colonial empires, the Board of Global Ministries abroad has reflected a philosophical ethos identical to that of the Board of Church and Society in American culture. How much connectional structure do we need for social justice advocacy? Do we not need stronger local churches who will “stir up the gift of God” to provide more foot soldiers “to serve this present age”? Do we need the Global Ministries and Church and Society boards and their respective advocacy agencies to occupy a full half of our connectional leadership and half of our fiscal support for board and agency costs? Would it not be more equitable to place these two giant boards and the agencies reflecting their philosophy under one umbrella? I do not write this as a cheap shot, but as a reality check.
My second surprise is that we are placing most of the praxis ministries of the local church in one “office”—Congregational Vitality. This means evangelism, nurture, worship and stewardship will all be in one board while missional engagement and social justice/reconciliation has two! How can we assume this to be a move toward effective general church resourcing for the local church? Already local churches are “doing their own thing” with literature, worship and ministry paradigms. The vertical connectionalism from the local church to Nashville or New York or Washington is only a shadow of what it was a generation ago.
Effect on local church
If the new paradigm is to be helpful, congregational vitality must be our focus. Elton Trueblood, the great Quaker, repeatedly insisted in his writings that every church must have a base and a field. The congregational base must be strong enough numerically, spiritually and financially to support “field ministries” in the culture or overseas. If our local churches become too weak to develop leaders and provide monetary support for missional engagement and social justice/reconciliation ministries, those cultural impact ministries will gradually die from asphyxiation. Whom are we kidding to think we can continue to “make a statement” in the marketplace if the muscle of our local churches is feeble and weak?
Let’s get real. We have literally thousands of local churches, some of them historically strong and large, that will not have a giving base alive and in attendance 10 years from now if we cannot bring people to Christ and into the mainstream of Christian discipleship. Who will sing in the choir, teach the Sunday school classes, deliver Meals on Wheels, go on mission building teams, or support with their money the outreach ministries of the church? Indeed, unless they have endowments, how many of our churches will reach a point when they cannot paint the columns and repoint the Gothic mortar and replace the fallen slate from the roof?
If we are to grow again, we must plant more new congregations, but we must rethink the cost of this endeavor. There will be less and less “conference and district” money to buy land, support a pastor for up to five years, and subsidize the building of a first unit. In the planting of congregations, we need a paradigm shift. Almost every American town, even in areas of population decline, has seen a rise in independent and fundamentalist churches and the decline of older mainline, theologically moderate churches. This is not because these independent churches have a superior theology. No one has a more theologically and emotionally healthy theology than the grace theology of United Methodism. Why then do they grow while we shrivel?
Regaining passion
Each of the independent churches’ new congregations is an entrepreneurial experiment—“root hog or die.” There is not a paternalistic hand to feed them. Secondly, they have a passion for evangelistic methodology. Their people brag on their preachers and churches. They have lively music, usually a band their first month of opening. Every week they have members bringing friends and neighbors. They use social networking like Facebook and Twitter. Their sermons are often shallow but delivered with “fire in the belly.” The preacher speaks the language of contemporary culture—illustrations, idiomatic expressions, current events, and dealing with “our demons.” Are we preaching from heart to viscera? Does our message on Sunday morning sound like it came from the Internet or from our experience this week with God and humankind?
We tend to stereotype and stigmatize those churches, and disparage them with political imagery, but they look disturbingly like the early Methodists, United Brethren and Evangelicals in the days when we were growing while the older Congregationalists and Anglicans were slipping. We were stereotyped and caricatured but our circuit riders and class meeting leaders were connecting with common people and caring for the wounded.
If our new structure of connectionalism is to help us recover our declining numbers and influence in the culture of “our towns,” our clergy must be re-tooled in “shoe leather connecting.” We have a message: God is love, inculcates a proactive, seeking love, fills us with a “blessed assurance of forgiving grace,” and disciples a faith community for supporting each other on our journey. Let every “call to action” keep the vitality of the local church in ministry as its focus.
Church-ianity has less and less appeal; the cookies aren’t that good and the committees make us weary in well-doing. The hope of our future is an infusion of “Christ-ianity.” Or, as Len Sweet puts it, “a Jesus manifesto” to rescue the perishing.
“Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter, feelings lie buried that grace can restore. Touched by a loving heart, wakened by kindness, chords that were broken can vibrate once more.” How can our denomination infuse that new blood into our corroded arteries?
Donald Haynes is a retired member of the Western North Carolina Conference and a columnist for The United Methodist Reporter. This article is reprinted by permission of The United Methodist Reporter. Dr. Haynes is also the author of On the Threshold of Grace: Methodist Fundamentals.
by Steve | Dec 6, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Thomas A. Lambrecht
Much of the attention leading up to the 2012 General Conference has focused on the Call to Action report and the implementation of their recommendations and principles. The report calls for radical and far-reaching changes to United Methodism’s culture and structure that will affect every United Methodist, from the smallest local church to the largest general agency.
The Council of Bishops and Connectional Table constituted the Call to Action process in May 2009, which extensively studied the state of our church and proposed some restructuring principles (www.umc.org/calltoaction):
• Make the building of vital congregations “job one” for at least the next ten years
• Reform the way we develop, deploy, and evaluate clergy
• Use statistical information on church vitality to measure progress and adjust strategies
• Make the bishops more accountable to lead the church toward growth and vitality, while creating a culture of accountability in the annual conferences
• Restructure the General Church agencies to align their work with the church’s four priorities and to support our commitment to build vital congregations. This restructuring will include smaller, competency based boards; eliminating diffused and redundant activity; and reducing expenses caused by multiple independent structures.
The Call to Action Task Force then turned these principles over to an Interim Operations Team (IOT), which was instructed to come up with proposals to implement these principles legislatively and programmatically through the General Conference, Council of Bishops, Connectional Table, and General Church agencies. The IOT essentially came up with a business plan for a turnaround of the denomination (www.umc.org/calltoaction) that includes the following elements:
1. More rigorous evaluation of clergy, appointments based on proven performance, and elimination of the guaranteed appointment to allow moving ineffective clergy out of the profession.
2. Annually evaluate bishops on their effectiveness in spiritual leadership and temporal oversight of the church.
3. Elect a non-residential bishop (not responsible for an annual conference) to lead the Council of Bishops and support the work of bishops in building vital congregations.
4. Institute a study process with UM seminaries to adapt the curriculum to 21st century needs and create accountability for meeting expectations in pastoral training.
5. Free annual conferences to structure themselves in the way they believe would be most effective in building vital congregations by making all annual conference boards and agencies optional.
6. Combine nine of our General Church agencies into one super-agency, called the “Center for Connectional Mission and Ministry.” The Center would consist of five “offices” that would align the various current agencies into workgroups. (See diagrams).
The Center would be governed by a 45-member General Council for Strategy and Oversight (meeting annually) and a 15-member Board of Directors elected by the Council. The work would be overseen by one Executive General Secretary for the Center, along with heads of each of the Offices and other staff as needed. Current agency staff would be rolled into the new Center and realigned according to needed functions, with the possibility of future staff reductions, as tasks are defined and duplication is eliminated.
United Methodist Women and United Methodist Men would become independent organizations whose place within the structure has yet to be determined.
UM Publishing House and the Board of Pensions and Health Benefits would remain as stand-alone boards that are self-funding. These two agencies’ structures would be studied and adapted for greatest effectiveness.
Additionally, $60 million of our General Church apportionments for 2012-2016 would be set aside for special allocation by the General Council for Strategy and Oversight, with $5 million going to young people’s lay leadership development and $5 million going to Central Conference theological education. The rest would go toward funding seminary education for ministerial students under age 35 and to annual conferences for building vital congregations.
A new task force on funding would study our apportionment and funding systems, looking for ways to reduce costs and increase effectiveness. They propose a more equitable and effective apportionment system across all annual conferences for 2016.
Our Perspective
Many of the structural proposals coming from the IOT move in the right direction. Focusing on local church vitality really should be the most important priority of the denomination. Neglecting local church health is one reason we have experienced decline. Holding bishops, pastors, and congregations accountable to pursue the “drivers” that lead to more vital congregations is also a welcome move. The denomination exists to support and extend the ministry of the local church, but too often, denominational leaders have viewed the local church as there to support the denominational structure. This proposal helps get back to the right ordering of priorities.
It is also very positive to move toward combining and streamlining our General Church agencies. Boards should be based more on competency and skills in order to have the best people providing leadership and ideas. Placing most of the agencies under one board of directors and one general secretary ought to help unify and coordinate the work of the agencies, avoiding duplication and “turf warfare.” It will be helpful to have one head person and one board to hold accountable for results and effectiveness, rather than nine. Freeing annual conferences to adapt their structure to local needs may also enable more effective organization for ministry at the annual conference level.
We have some concerns, however, about how the General Council and the Board of Directors will function. First, the Central Conferences are underrepresented on the General Council. While the Central Conferences make up over 36 percent of the church membership, they have only 25 percent of the representation on the Council. Part of being a global church is to reflect fully our global membership and give a representative voice to our brothers and sisters in the Central Conferences. We should treat them as full partners in the work of governing our church.
At the same time, while preserving a sensitivity to representation by gender, ethnicity, geography, and clergy/laity, the members of the Council must be united in their commitment to United Methodist theology and doctrine, as reflected in our Book of Discipline (particularly doctrinal standards). Only through such unity of commitment will the Council be able to give clear direction to the overall mission and program of the church.
A second concern is how effectively a board of 15 people will be able to oversee the work of hundreds of employees that used to make up ten different agencies. They would need to put in 10-20 hours a week and meet monthly in order to keep abreast of what the various Offices are doing and give adequate oversight. These 15 board members and the 45 on the General Council will replace some 560 current board members overseeing the various General Church agencies! Alternatively, the Board of Directors may only be able to set policy and evaluate the effectiveness of the work in general and the Executive General Secretary in particular. If so, why could the more representative General Council not do that job, eliminating a layer of redundancy and ensuring that there are enough people “at the table” to adequately represent the concerns of worldwide Methodism?
A third concern is the dominant role of bishops in the governing process under the new structure. The Council of Bishops (COB) will have an equal voice with the General Council in setting long-term strategies. The COB will have a role in electing the first Center Board of Directors. There will be five bishops on the 45-member General Council, and one bishop will chair that Council, which gives the COB strong influence on the overall direction of programming, as well as the hiring and firing of staff. Bishops already have a leading role in the nominating process of persons to be elected by the jurisdictions to serve on General Church agencies, and the Jurisdictional College of Bishops is empowered to fill any vacancies that may occur during the quadrennium. The COB will have an equal voice with the General Council in approving churchwide financial appeals. The COB is to be consulted in any reallocation of funds within World Service and General Administration budgets during the quadrennium. The COB is also to be consulted on all funding considerations to be set before General Conference, which would include apportionments, budgets, and the amount of the Episcopal Fund.
This extensive involvement of the bishops in the governing of the General Church could prove to be a distraction from the primary responsibility of building vital congregational ministry in annual conferences. One of the greatest complaints heard about bishops is that they are gone from the annual conference too much on General Church business. With the new level of accountability being placed on bishops to lead and motivate clergy and congregations to increase vital local ministry, would it be wise to increase the attention bishops must pay to the budgets and programming of the General Church?
Finally, there are concerns about eliminating the guaranteed appointment for clergy. There is no question that greater flexibility is needed for bishops and superintendents in appointing clergy and removing ineffective clergy. However, we have seen a significant number of cases where bishops or superintendents misuse the power of appointment to intimidate clergy who disagree with them or who hold to a more evangelical theology, even though those pastors may be having an effective ministry. If that kind of abuse of power is happening when clergy have a guaranteed appointment, what will happen when there is no guarantee? The proposed legislation sets up a category for “transitional leave,” but it fails to set up a process that protects clergy from unfairly or arbitrarily being denied an appointment.
The IOT calls for “a just, reasonable, and compassionate process that provides for the transition of low performing clergy from the itinerancy.” However, the legislation proposed by the Study of Ministry Commission establishes a category without creating such a process. Pastors could be out of a job with as little as 90 days’ notice, with no recourse, no opportunity to improve effectiveness, and no support. Clergy surrender a lot of power by agreeing to the itinerant system (going wherever the bishop sends). In exchange, they have been given the security of knowing they would always have a job. If that security is taken away, then should clergy be given more power to accept or reject a proposed appointment? And if guaranteed appointment for clergy is being eliminated, should we not also look at the lifetime election and appointment of bishops, who are also clergy?
All of these issues of structure are complex, and the IOT proposals are welcome, in that they restore the priority of local church vitality, advocate a new culture of accountability, and unify and streamline the structures of the General Church. We need to give careful consideration to these ideas and tweak them to make the best structure our church can have going forward. Surely there will be evolution of the structure, as well, as we try out these new ideas in practice and learn how to operate in a new system. But we must remember that structure is only part of the solution, just as the skeleton is only part of the body. The flesh and blood are the people who will populate the new structure. The best structure in the world will be undermined if the people chosen prove to be ineffective. And finally, the Spirit of God must fill our church once again, in order for it to live and fulfill God’s purpose for us, just as the Spirit needed to bring to life those old, dry bones in Ezekiel’s valley. By the grace and power of God, The United Methodist Church can be vital and growing once again!
Thomas A. Lambrecht is the vice president and general manager of Good News. As a member of the Wisconsin Annual Conference, he served 29 years in pastoral ministry before joining Good News. Rev. Lambrecht has worked on renewal efforts at five General Conferences.
