I've heard it said that over time a church takes on the personality of the pastor. It makes sense. It's also one of the problems with short term pastorates.
If a pastor stays for 3-4 years and takes on the personality of the pastor, then a different pastor with a different personality comes and stays 3-4 years, then another and so on, the church doesn't know what its personality is supposed to be. It gets the institutional version of multiple personality disorder. Who are we? Where are we going? How do we function? Just as a church is getting used to the pastor's personality, that pastor gets yanked for another one.
One partial solution is for pastors to be more patient. When the relationship between pastor and church gets rocky, it may not really be because of the pastor or the church. It may just be the multiple personality disorder kicking in. If instead of looking for a "promotion" or an "escape" the pastor is willing to stick with the church through the crisis then perhaps the church will move into a more consistent understanding of itself. If instead a pastor moves at the first hint of problems the cycle just continues for the next pastor and the next pastor and on down the line.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What a Wonderful Person
A few weeks ago we were privileged to have George Mitrovich preach at our church. What a wonderful man! I usually schedule guest preachers for when I'll be out of town, but this scheduling didn't coincide with a time for me to get away. I was definitely blessed to hear his words. He preached 2 morning services, taught Sunday School, gave a lecture on James Arminius in the afternoon, then preached (a different sermon) at 5:00. He did great each time.
One of the things about George that I really respect is his ability to work with people from across the typical theological and political divides. Over the course of the day I heard countless stories about all sorts of people, many famous and a few that were not. What stood out most to me was not any of the stories, but rather a phrase that I heard over and over again. Almost every time George spoke about a person that he had met he would begin describing the person by saying, "He was a wonderful man" or "She is a great woman."
I've met a lot of people in my life, but I don't think I ever start describing someone by saying they are "wonderful" or "great". I start by describing what they do or what they look like. Maybe I'll eventually get around to saying they're great, if I actually think they are. I'm pretty sure that I describe my perceived negatives of someone at least as often as their positives. I'm as likely to talk about how I disagree with a person or differ from a person than I am how we are similar or what issues we agree on. I haven't even been aware of this until I heard George keep talking about how many wonderful people he's met in his life.
I imagine that if I start by thinking of the positives about a person, I will probably treat them more civilly. After all, there's no reason to think I'm any more wonderful than the next person who walks into my office.
One of the things about George that I really respect is his ability to work with people from across the typical theological and political divides. Over the course of the day I heard countless stories about all sorts of people, many famous and a few that were not. What stood out most to me was not any of the stories, but rather a phrase that I heard over and over again. Almost every time George spoke about a person that he had met he would begin describing the person by saying, "He was a wonderful man" or "She is a great woman."
I've met a lot of people in my life, but I don't think I ever start describing someone by saying they are "wonderful" or "great". I start by describing what they do or what they look like. Maybe I'll eventually get around to saying they're great, if I actually think they are. I'm pretty sure that I describe my perceived negatives of someone at least as often as their positives. I'm as likely to talk about how I disagree with a person or differ from a person than I am how we are similar or what issues we agree on. I haven't even been aware of this until I heard George keep talking about how many wonderful people he's met in his life.
I imagine that if I start by thinking of the positives about a person, I will probably treat them more civilly. After all, there's no reason to think I'm any more wonderful than the next person who walks into my office.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Why Conservative Christians Bug Me
OK, so not all conservative Christians bug me. Not even most of them. Actually, most of my friends would call me a conservative Christian. So really I'm talking about a select group of conservative United Methodist Christians who are particularly outspoken in matters of church politics.
I was reminded of this in the September/October issue of Good News magazine. Rev. Riley Case wrote an article called "The Church Will Live Another Day". It's a summary of 3 proposed constiutional amendments (one on inclusiveness, the world-wide nature of the church amendments, and local pastor voting rights). At the conclusion of each section he says, "So,...the church will live for another day." I don't intend to argue for the amendments in this post. But I'm bothered by the implication that if we don't grant local pastors rights that they have never had somehow the church will not live another day. Or that if we did restructure the church we would not live another day. Can't you just make your point without sensationalizing?
But that's what the Good News/Confessing Movement wing of the church does. Every four years we find out that the UMC is once again on the verge of heresy because of the impending change in our position on homosexuality. If we don't act now (and send in lots of money), the church won't live another day. The fact that the church's position has remained virtually unchanged since 1972 apparently has no relevance to the urgency of the vote. My biggest disappointment with the constiutional amendments is that by even being proposed we don't get even one year of peace this quadrenium.
Earlier in the same magazine Rob Renfroe writes on "Speaking the Truth in Love". He reminds us that Jesus tells us "we need the truth to be 'set free' of the lies and misconceptions and the sins that entangle us." But it seems as if the real truth is that the real motivator too often is politics, not seeking God's will. I mean really, it's not hard to figure this out. The Worldwide Nature of the Church amendments would take away the vote of the generally conservative Central Conferences in some matters. Clearly not in the most important and controversial matters. We want the conservative votes, so we'll pull out the homosexuality card and put that amendment to bed. We want the votes. Local pastors generally vote more conservatively. So in this case, it's an easy decision to say that the Discipline should be reformed.
To be clear, the reverse is true too. Liberal Methodists generally were in favor of the Worldwide Nature amendments. My rant is to those on the right because they spend more, are more outspoken, and are more blatant in their exageration of reality.
If you think I'm off base here let me know. I'd be glad to take back my words if I'm missing something.
I was reminded of this in the September/October issue of Good News magazine. Rev. Riley Case wrote an article called "The Church Will Live Another Day". It's a summary of 3 proposed constiutional amendments (one on inclusiveness, the world-wide nature of the church amendments, and local pastor voting rights). At the conclusion of each section he says, "So,...the church will live for another day." I don't intend to argue for the amendments in this post. But I'm bothered by the implication that if we don't grant local pastors rights that they have never had somehow the church will not live another day. Or that if we did restructure the church we would not live another day. Can't you just make your point without sensationalizing?
But that's what the Good News/Confessing Movement wing of the church does. Every four years we find out that the UMC is once again on the verge of heresy because of the impending change in our position on homosexuality. If we don't act now (and send in lots of money), the church won't live another day. The fact that the church's position has remained virtually unchanged since 1972 apparently has no relevance to the urgency of the vote. My biggest disappointment with the constiutional amendments is that by even being proposed we don't get even one year of peace this quadrenium.
Earlier in the same magazine Rob Renfroe writes on "Speaking the Truth in Love". He reminds us that Jesus tells us "we need the truth to be 'set free' of the lies and misconceptions and the sins that entangle us." But it seems as if the real truth is that the real motivator too often is politics, not seeking God's will. I mean really, it's not hard to figure this out. The Worldwide Nature of the Church amendments would take away the vote of the generally conservative Central Conferences in some matters. Clearly not in the most important and controversial matters. We want the conservative votes, so we'll pull out the homosexuality card and put that amendment to bed. We want the votes. Local pastors generally vote more conservatively. So in this case, it's an easy decision to say that the Discipline should be reformed.
To be clear, the reverse is true too. Liberal Methodists generally were in favor of the Worldwide Nature amendments. My rant is to those on the right because they spend more, are more outspoken, and are more blatant in their exageration of reality.
If you think I'm off base here let me know. I'd be glad to take back my words if I'm missing something.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
"Technology teaching" and Preaching
In the September issue of U.S. News and World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman (I love that name!) had an interesting column on technology and education. Contending that the number one factor affecting the quality of education is the quality of the indivdual teacher, Zuckerman says technology could be the number one solution through what he calls "technology teaching."
He says, "We could escape geography by using the technology to have the best teachers appear in hundreds of thousands of disparate classrooms. This is a force multiplier. The classrooms would be equipped with a large, flat-screen monitor with whiteboards on either side; the monitor would be connected to a school server that contains virtually all of the lessons for every subject taught in the school, from kindergarten through 12th grade. The contents would use animation, video, dramatization, and presentation options to deliver complete lessons, to convey ideas in unique ways that are now unavailable in conventional classrooms..."
The church I serve is about 90 minutes away from Church of the Resurrection, by attendance the largest United Methodist Chuch in the country. When I first came to Burlington I met with committee chairs and other key leaders one-on-one to find out more about the church, it's strengths, and places were growth was needed. When I asked, "What one change do you believe would make the biggest impact on our church" one person responded "Have Adam Hamilton (pastor at COR) as our pastor!" Not the best way to make a first impression on the new pastor! But we live in an age now when well known pastors are ... well known. And while I consider myself to be a pretty decent preacher, I'll never be Adam Hamilton. So how does the pastor fulfill the preaching responsibility in a church when so many of our people have seen Adam Hamilton or Rick Warren or (name your favorite preacher here)? I think there's two possibilities. One is to be very deliberate in contextualizing the preaching for your church. Those preachers may be phenomenal, but none of them know Burlington, Kansas. Another solution in some cases may be the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach, which the same technology that Zuckerman talked about.
What if primary preaching at a church took place from the senior pastor of another church? If the local pastor were given a preview of what the sermon was going to address, then the pastor could take on the role of "local expert" to help address questions that the preaching pastor never would have time to get to. Zuckerman says "technology teaching" could give classroom teachers the extra time to help students with particular needs or to focus more in depth in particular areas. If you are a pastor, what would your schedule look like if you didn't have to prepare a sermon every week? What if you spent, say, half that time doing research so you could go deeper into the subject that was going to be preached on and spent the other half helping address the particular needs of your location?
This is certainly not the answer for all churches. Probably not the solution for most churches. But some of our churches, especially those with pastors who understand caring as a greater skill than preaching, could be greatly served in this way.
He says, "We could escape geography by using the technology to have the best teachers appear in hundreds of thousands of disparate classrooms. This is a force multiplier. The classrooms would be equipped with a large, flat-screen monitor with whiteboards on either side; the monitor would be connected to a school server that contains virtually all of the lessons for every subject taught in the school, from kindergarten through 12th grade. The contents would use animation, video, dramatization, and presentation options to deliver complete lessons, to convey ideas in unique ways that are now unavailable in conventional classrooms..."
The church I serve is about 90 minutes away from Church of the Resurrection, by attendance the largest United Methodist Chuch in the country. When I first came to Burlington I met with committee chairs and other key leaders one-on-one to find out more about the church, it's strengths, and places were growth was needed. When I asked, "What one change do you believe would make the biggest impact on our church" one person responded "Have Adam Hamilton (pastor at COR) as our pastor!" Not the best way to make a first impression on the new pastor! But we live in an age now when well known pastors are ... well known. And while I consider myself to be a pretty decent preacher, I'll never be Adam Hamilton. So how does the pastor fulfill the preaching responsibility in a church when so many of our people have seen Adam Hamilton or Rick Warren or (name your favorite preacher here)? I think there's two possibilities. One is to be very deliberate in contextualizing the preaching for your church. Those preachers may be phenomenal, but none of them know Burlington, Kansas. Another solution in some cases may be the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach, which the same technology that Zuckerman talked about.
What if primary preaching at a church took place from the senior pastor of another church? If the local pastor were given a preview of what the sermon was going to address, then the pastor could take on the role of "local expert" to help address questions that the preaching pastor never would have time to get to. Zuckerman says "technology teaching" could give classroom teachers the extra time to help students with particular needs or to focus more in depth in particular areas. If you are a pastor, what would your schedule look like if you didn't have to prepare a sermon every week? What if you spent, say, half that time doing research so you could go deeper into the subject that was going to be preached on and spent the other half helping address the particular needs of your location?
This is certainly not the answer for all churches. Probably not the solution for most churches. But some of our churches, especially those with pastors who understand caring as a greater skill than preaching, could be greatly served in this way.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Apporionment Reform
I was at a District clergy meeting yesterday where we talked about the new Kansas East Conference system of tithe-based apportionments. Basically, we're moving to a system where apportionments to the Conference will be 10% of weekly giving to the general budget of the church. I had reservations about this idea at first - too radical of a change in system in uncertain finacial times. Just the conservative in me coming out. But I've warmed up to it and now totally support it.
You can see where this idea is coming from Biblically. Since I see the tithe as an Old Testament concept that Jesus supplanted with a "give me your whole life" approach I'm not sold on that reason. To me it's just practical. Year after year we budget based on what we want to spend, not based on what we have the income to spend. This is like what our federal government has been doing, except the Church can't print more money or borrow from another country to make up the shortfall. So instead we have to cut budgets and/or staff to make up the difference each year. The new system reverses that. The churches tell the Conference how much to spend based on church income. While there may come a time when the Conference has to make painful choices in what to do and what not to do, the budget will never get totally out of whack with giving to the local church.
Compare that to the General UMC. According to our Conference Treasurer yesterday, 39% of our Conference budget will go to General/Jursidicional apportionments. 39%! I know that the General Church does many things very well. I served for 8 years on a General Board and I've been to 2 General Conferences and have had a chance to see much good done at the General Church level. But I also know that if we had that money to spend at the Conference level instead there would be a lot of good done too! I believe we need a new General Church budgeting/apportionment formula. Something like this:
1) GCFA sets a 4-year budget based on a 10% tithe from every Conference. This is set based on giving the year before General Conference and may be adjusted upwards by GCFA based on projected cost of living/inflation projections for the next four years.
2) General Conference has the authority to add projects to this budget of as much as 10% (in other words, the total could rise to 11% of total giving)
3) Any motion to add beyond this total would have to either include a provision to reduce the budget by the same amount in another area OR be passed by a 2/3 vote.
As our Conference is doing, I'd move towards this gradually. Maybe over as long as 12 years (the projection for our Conference is that it will take 6 years). It would probably be too painful to do at once. But if other Conferences are giving similar percentages as Kansas East is, then we are simply much too top heavy. How can we move towards this change in 2012?
You can see where this idea is coming from Biblically. Since I see the tithe as an Old Testament concept that Jesus supplanted with a "give me your whole life" approach I'm not sold on that reason. To me it's just practical. Year after year we budget based on what we want to spend, not based on what we have the income to spend. This is like what our federal government has been doing, except the Church can't print more money or borrow from another country to make up the shortfall. So instead we have to cut budgets and/or staff to make up the difference each year. The new system reverses that. The churches tell the Conference how much to spend based on church income. While there may come a time when the Conference has to make painful choices in what to do and what not to do, the budget will never get totally out of whack with giving to the local church.
Compare that to the General UMC. According to our Conference Treasurer yesterday, 39% of our Conference budget will go to General/Jursidicional apportionments. 39%! I know that the General Church does many things very well. I served for 8 years on a General Board and I've been to 2 General Conferences and have had a chance to see much good done at the General Church level. But I also know that if we had that money to spend at the Conference level instead there would be a lot of good done too! I believe we need a new General Church budgeting/apportionment formula. Something like this:
1) GCFA sets a 4-year budget based on a 10% tithe from every Conference. This is set based on giving the year before General Conference and may be adjusted upwards by GCFA based on projected cost of living/inflation projections for the next four years.
2) General Conference has the authority to add projects to this budget of as much as 10% (in other words, the total could rise to 11% of total giving)
3) Any motion to add beyond this total would have to either include a provision to reduce the budget by the same amount in another area OR be passed by a 2/3 vote.
As our Conference is doing, I'd move towards this gradually. Maybe over as long as 12 years (the projection for our Conference is that it will take 6 years). It would probably be too painful to do at once. But if other Conferences are giving similar percentages as Kansas East is, then we are simply much too top heavy. How can we move towards this change in 2012?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Where in the World Do We Go from Here
Not all the votes have been counted, but it is now clear that most of the proposed Constitutional Amendments for the UMC are going down to defeat. In some cases I think this is a good thing. In the case of the Worldwide Nature of the Church amendments, I think it's very unfortunate. I made several replies about the most common arguments against the amendments that you can read here. But for those grateful for the result I have a challenge.
In his YouTube video arguing against the petitions, Maxie Dunnam said, "Let's hear from the task force, then adapt our Constitution to fit what we believe is going to be best in advancing the kingdom." That's a reasonable argument. In fact, that's the argument that almost made me vote against the amendments. So here's my challenge for Rev. Dunnam and those who agree with him - be true to your word. Let's hear from the task force in 2012 and then consider making changes to the Constitution to reflect what we believe will be best in advancing the kingdom.
The task force will most likely come back with proposals that make it clear that the U.S. regional conference would only act on issues that are truly U.S. based. I think it's difficult to argue, for example, that the worldwide church needs to show support for Resolution 201 (2004 BOR) to "Ask the US Attorney General to Investigate Violations of Sherman Anti-Trust Act in Order to Protect Family Farms." (I'm not sure the US part of the church needs to address that particular issue either, but that's beside the point.) If the task force recommends that a U.S. region is able to act only on "changes and adaptations of the Book of Discipline as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require," a power granted to the Central Conferences in paragraph 543.7, then I can't imagine what the problem would be.
Some people believe that the amendments were offered as part of an agenda to "liberalize" the U.S. church. Some people think the opposition was a "conservative" overreaction based more on politics than substantive issues. In 2012 both groups get to prove whether those skeptics are right or if "liberals" and "conservatives" can work together to really forge a structure that makes sense. Or we can just keep doing what we're doing. That seems to be working pretty well.
In his YouTube video arguing against the petitions, Maxie Dunnam said, "Let's hear from the task force, then adapt our Constitution to fit what we believe is going to be best in advancing the kingdom." That's a reasonable argument. In fact, that's the argument that almost made me vote against the amendments. So here's my challenge for Rev. Dunnam and those who agree with him - be true to your word. Let's hear from the task force in 2012 and then consider making changes to the Constitution to reflect what we believe will be best in advancing the kingdom.
The task force will most likely come back with proposals that make it clear that the U.S. regional conference would only act on issues that are truly U.S. based. I think it's difficult to argue, for example, that the worldwide church needs to show support for Resolution 201 (2004 BOR) to "Ask the US Attorney General to Investigate Violations of Sherman Anti-Trust Act in Order to Protect Family Farms." (I'm not sure the US part of the church needs to address that particular issue either, but that's beside the point.) If the task force recommends that a U.S. region is able to act only on "changes and adaptations of the Book of Discipline as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require," a power granted to the Central Conferences in paragraph 543.7, then I can't imagine what the problem would be.
Some people believe that the amendments were offered as part of an agenda to "liberalize" the U.S. church. Some people think the opposition was a "conservative" overreaction based more on politics than substantive issues. In 2012 both groups get to prove whether those skeptics are right or if "liberals" and "conservatives" can work together to really forge a structure that makes sense. Or we can just keep doing what we're doing. That seems to be working pretty well.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Young Clergy vs. Experienced Clergy
I've enjoyed following and contributing to the 6 Questions for the United Methodist Church. It's a great attempt at helping us focus the conversation on what is truly most important for the Church. As I understand it, the initiative began with a group of young clergy. The tone of the questions makes it sound like the majority of questions (certainly not all) are from young clergy. I've just aged-out of being really considered young clergy, but that's still the grouping I most affiliate myself with.
Every two weeks a new topic for questions is added, based on popular vote. Three categories have now been added: Clergy age 35 and under, Young Adult Ministry, and Campus Ministry. It looks like the next top vote getters are Seminaries, Campus Ministers (not sure that these questions would be different than Campus Ministry), and Camp and Retreat Ministries. The next topic, that would be #7 overall by popular vote, is Clergy within 10 years of retirement. Now if I'm right that this is driven primarily by younger clergy it makes sense that the topics of most concern would be around younger people. And I certainly agree with the assessment that the UMC must find ways to attract younger people if we are to survive as a Church. However, having served as a full-time pastor now for 9 years and part-time for 2 years prior to that one thing that I know is that there's a lot I don't know. While we need to encourage our young pastors and reach new young people, there is wisdom to be gained from those with years of experience.
It is possible that we have entered such a revolutionary time that the more experienced among us really have nothing to contribute. Maybe the world has changed so much that to do anything like it has been done before will just lead to failure. If that's the case I'm probably going to be a pretty lousy pastor for the next few decades. It seems more likely to me that today's young clergy have as much or more to learn from the older clergy than the old do from the young. So for any young clergy reading this, remember that you stand on the shoulders of giants. They still have something to contribute to the churches they serve and they have wisdom that we can learn from as fellow clergy. For any older clergy out there, thank you for your years of service and for the insights you have passed on to me and so many others.
Every two weeks a new topic for questions is added, based on popular vote. Three categories have now been added: Clergy age 35 and under, Young Adult Ministry, and Campus Ministry. It looks like the next top vote getters are Seminaries, Campus Ministers (not sure that these questions would be different than Campus Ministry), and Camp and Retreat Ministries. The next topic, that would be #7 overall by popular vote, is Clergy within 10 years of retirement. Now if I'm right that this is driven primarily by younger clergy it makes sense that the topics of most concern would be around younger people. And I certainly agree with the assessment that the UMC must find ways to attract younger people if we are to survive as a Church. However, having served as a full-time pastor now for 9 years and part-time for 2 years prior to that one thing that I know is that there's a lot I don't know. While we need to encourage our young pastors and reach new young people, there is wisdom to be gained from those with years of experience.
It is possible that we have entered such a revolutionary time that the more experienced among us really have nothing to contribute. Maybe the world has changed so much that to do anything like it has been done before will just lead to failure. If that's the case I'm probably going to be a pretty lousy pastor for the next few decades. It seems more likely to me that today's young clergy have as much or more to learn from the older clergy than the old do from the young. So for any young clergy reading this, remember that you stand on the shoulders of giants. They still have something to contribute to the churches they serve and they have wisdom that we can learn from as fellow clergy. For any older clergy out there, thank you for your years of service and for the insights you have passed on to me and so many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
