Merry X-Mas!

A couple weeks ago I wrote about my dislike of the "Holiday Tree". Since then I've seen lots of people upset with the use of "X-mas" instead of "Christmas." I'm OK with the X. In fact I use the abbreviation all the time. I couldn't stand the abbreviation at all until I went to seminary. In the middle of class one day a proffesor abbreviated "Christian" as "Xian" and suddenly it all made sense to me. So if you don't know the origin of "X-mas", here it is:

The Greek word for Christ is Christos. If you were to write the word out it would look something like "Xpristos" (I don't know how to do Greek letters on an English keyboard, so this just approximate). The Greek r looks like an English p and the Greek "ch" looks like an English x. So X can simply be an abbreviation for Christ. Xian is Christian and Xmas is Christmas. So Merry Xmas and a happy new year!

Initial Thoughts on a Special Session of General Conference

The big news yesterday is that the General Council on Finance and Administration is asking the Council of Bishops for a special session of General Conference. I could be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment this seems like an expensive waste at best and a colossal mistake for the future of the denomination at worst. Fortunately, I don't think a special session is actually likely to be called.

The biggest problem is the timing. The called session would discuss two issues: pension plans in the United States and recommendations from the Call to Action Task Force of the Council of Bishops. The Task Force is scheduled to make their recomendations in the fall of 2010. Unless the timeframe for their work is moved up, that means a special session could take place no earlier than the spring of 2011, roughly 12 months before General Conference is already scheduled to meet. Additionally, meeting that soon after the proposals from the task force are announced would minimize the amount of time for conversation and debate. For some matters a few months is plenty of time, but the scope of this task force is tremendous. There are only two tasks - reconsidering guaranteed appointments for elders and restrucuring the church (including the frequency and size of General Conference and the number, kind, and size of general boards and agencies) - but those are two of the biggest tasks we face as a denomination.

Changing guarateed appointments will generate tremendous debate. Personally, I've gone back and forth a dozen times on whether this would be good or not. The reccomendation to change the church strucuture is even more important. This is the kind of decision that we have to get right. We don't get a second chance. It definitely needs to happen. Anybody who has been to General Conference knows that it is broken. The world has changed so much since the formation of the UMC that all of our strucutres need to be reconsidered and reformed. But it must be done carefully and it must be done correctly. It is not a decision that can be rushed.

My opinion is not as informed about pensions. The Conference I am in is not struggling at all in meeting pension obligations. Perhaps we need a special session just to deal with this. If we do, I hope that the question will be broadened to include pensions of clergy from countries outside the United States. I am sure that many of them would feel fortunate to have the pension funding crisis that some of our conferences have. A partially funded pension is much more than most of them get.

A new era for Christmas?

I was "playing" Farmville last week on Facebook (if you haven't experienced it, I'm not sure you really play Farmville. I'm also not really sure why I spend any time with it except that it's the only place where you can grow a great harvest of fresh strawberries in only 4 hours). When I logged on I found that I had been given a "holiday tree." Apparently a holiday tree is like a Christmas tree except it's politically correct. I don't know what makes a Christmas tree politically incorrect. The holiday has been tamed enough (see a great blog on this subject here) that a Christmas tree seems pretty inoffensive. It made me think about

I'm not going to pull out my Christian history books to look up all the details, but I think it's pretty well known that before December 25th was chosen as the day to celebrate the birth of Jesus it was a pagan holiday. The story goes that Christians knew the day would always be a feast day for most people so they coopted it and made it a great Christian holiday. This makes great sense as a public relations move and fits right in with the Imperial Christianity era that begins with Constantine in the 4th century. December 25 rolls around and Christians have a great opportunity to witness to their faith with a celebration at the same time that others are celebrating for a different reason.

Fast forward 1600 years or so and we see the exact reverse happening. Very few humanists and atheists suggest that we eliminate Christmas as a holiday. Instead, they are trying to redefine it. December 25th is to engrained in our minds and our common experience as a celebration for it to simply go away. Instead, it is being changed by the dominant culture into a non-religious, non-threatening holiday. Christmas will remain, but devoid of any of it's Christian meaning in the same way that the pagan celebration day remained a celebration day but devoid of its original meaning.

It seems to me that as Christians we have a couple choices. One option is to actively resist this movement. Vocally tell people to leave Christmas alone and keep it a Christian holiday. In a country that values separation of church and state this might mean there are no school "holiday" parties, much less Christmas parties. Maybe there's not even a "winter" or "Christmas" break. Instead of opposing what we perceive as radical atheists trying to take God out of the schools and government, we might support those decisions so that we can leave God in the holidays that we cherish. Perhaps we should be cheering the ACLU and others on - yes, the Nativity scenes do have religious meaning. Yes, the Christmas tree does represent a relgious holiday.

A second option is to let them have it. Surrender Christmas to the non-Christians. There's at least as much evidence for a summer or fall date of Jesus' birth than a winter date. Why not pick another date for the celebration? Or perhaps as many early Christians did we should reemphasize Epiphany

So we face a new era for the holiday celebrated on December 25: First was the pagan celebration, then the Christian celebration of Christmas, and now something else - either a reinvigorated Christian celebration or a completely vapid secular celebration. I think we have some choice in what this new era will be like.

Church Multiple Personality Disorder

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

You're an Interim Pastor - You Just Don't Know It

I just began my fourth year at the church I serve. I am very happy to be returning. It's a great place to be. The pastor before me was an intentional interim. He was sent here for about 18 months after the church hit a really rough stretch. Shortly before my appointment was made I was at a clergy event where he talked to us about his role as an interim pastor. One of the things that struck me is that much of what he was doing as an interim were things that I would do even if I weren't an interim. - Helping the lay people become more responsible for ministry and take "ownership" of the church, casting vision for what God wants the church to be, helping people to understand their past and why they are who they are. He may have emphasized some areas more than I would or been especially intentional about some rather than others, but I honestly couldn't see too much of a difference. The big difference is that my predecessor was an intentional interim pastor and I am an unintentional interim pastor. If you are a pastor, you're probably an unintentional interim pastor too.

Interim means temporary and unless you are the pastor at a church when it closes or when Jesus comes back, you are temporary. There will be another pastor who comes after you. If this is true then along with a responsibility to God and the congregation, pastors also have a responsibility to prepare the congregation for whoever will come next, whether that is one month, one year, one decade or longer. So how do you prepare for the next pastor when you don't know when that will be? Here's a few thoughts - share yours and tell me where mine are wrong:

- Don't stop being the current pastor. Don't live in the future too much, wondering where you will be next or who will follow you. Do the best you can for Christ in the place where you currently serve.

- Remind the people regularly that you are human. It's good to be liked as the pastor, but if people have unrealistic expectations of who you are that will set up the next pastor to fail (and maybe set you up too).

- Help Create a Shared Vision. Even if you have the perfect vision of what God wants for the church if the people of the church don't adopt it for themselves it will leave with you and the next pastor starts over again. How great would it be to walk into a church as the possible next pastor and have the Staff Parish Committee or equivalent say to you, "Here's who we are as a church. Here's what we believe God has called us to be. If you believe this is who God calls us to be and your vision of church is consistent with ours we would love for you to be the pastor that helps us take the next step in that future."?

- Bring in some guest preachers. It's probably good for you to take a break every once in a while and it's good for your congregation to hear some different voices and perspectives. My first year in Burlington I took my four weeks vacation and had guest preachers those weeks but no more. This year I'm planning on vacation plus three guest preachers. Those three weeks that I'm working but not preaching will help me get other things done and remind the congregation that my voice is one of many.

- Work with the congregation to create shared ministries. The pastor doesn't need to do all of the pastoral care, attend all of the meetings, and be at every event.

What would you add or delete?

Even Deeper Issues of United Methodist Renewal

In the latest issues of Good News Rob Renfroe wrote a good article called The Deeper Issues of United Methodist Renewal. Renfroe lists 4 topics that he says divide the UMC and claims that conservatives and liberals take opposite positions on these views. John Muiner wrote a great response, but I wanted to add my own thoughts.


I think Renfroe is on to something. I think for too long the UMC has ignored the real issues that divide us, (the deeper issues instead of just the presenting issues as Renfroe says). I also think that Renfroe correctly identified four significant issues that divide us. However Renfroe also set up a false dichotomy and still didn't get to the issue that I believe is at the core of our problems as a church. Let me explain:


Issue 1: The Nature of Moral Truth. "Is moral truth determined by the unchanging character of God? Or is it determined by the ever chaging experiences of human beings?" Conservatives say God, liberals say humans. I'd say the answer is both. True moral truth is determined by God. There are divine principles behind every true moral. However our society operates under a system of morals (right and wrong for all time) and mores (loosely defined as what current society believes is right and wrong). Most of the debates that we have around morals is a question of whether a particular issue is truly a moral or a more. Hopefully we would all agree today that slavery is 18th century mores taught that slavery was OK. Biblically, I think part of Jesus "you've heard it said... but I say to you..." statements in the Sermon on the Mount were morals vs. mores. Renfroe is right that the debate around homosexuality (and many other issues) is about the nature of moral truth. A deeper question, though, is "which issues that we wrestle with are eternal morals and which are mores for today's society." It's not an either or question.


Issue 2: The Authority of Scripture. "Do they speak the truth to all people in all cultures at all times? Or were they...hopelessly out of date for persons enlightened by the truth contained in the latest sociological surveys?" I think the phrasing of the question reveals Renfroe's view. I believe in the truth of Scripture. I also believe that Scripture is always interpreted and well intentioned people have always disagreed about the proper interpretation of Scripture. I believe that the Psalm 137 accurately reflects the desire of the writer for Edomite babies to be killed. That is a truth in Scripture. I also believe it is hopelessly out of date for us to desire the same thing. The issue of the Authority of Scripture is a real issue, but it's deeper than agreeing or disagreeing with "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." That's Bumper Sticker Christianity, which is not the United Methodist Way. The deeper question is "how do we faithfully interpret Scripture in today's context?"

Issue 3: The Revelatory Work of the Holy Spirit: "Is it always in accordance with the Scriptures? Or can it amend and even contradict the Scriptures?" This is not a real issue. Renfroe toes on to say that we all agree that Scripture is interpretted and that the Holy Spirit aids in the interpretation. The only argument he gives is that "radical liberals" believe that Scripture can be amended and contradicted. Renfroe says "this is where the battle will be fought in the coming years," but the last person I'm aware of who seriously wanted to change the contents of the Bible was Martin Luther. The deeper question is "how do we know when the Spirit is leading us to a new understanding of Scripture?"

Issue 4: Uniqueness of Christ. "Do we confess him as the only-begotten Son of God, the unique Savior of the world...? Or can he be ... trivialized into just one of many ways to God?" Yes. Christians must claim Jesus is the unique Savior of the world. That's central to our faith. Christianity is a unique faith, and we must claim its uniqueness. But that does not exclude the possibility that God is active in other religions and in other ways throughout the world. We believe that the Old Testament is part of God's Word. This is still true whether it is read by a Christian pastor or a Jewish rabbi. There is truth in the Jewish faith. Islam also shares many of the same stories as Christianity and Judaism. There is truth in Islam. Complete truth? No. But some truth? Certainly. God nudges us towards truth in many different ways, first among them Christianity and Jesus Christ. The deeper question is "what are the ways that we can affirm God's presence in other faiths while maintaining the distinct and unique place of Christianity among world religions?"

So here's the deepest issue that we need to ask as United Methodists: Who are we and how will we be defined? Will Rob Renfroe and other "conservatives" define United Methodism? Will MFSA and other "liberals" define United Methodism? Or will we instead identify ourselves as a strong family of faith which, like any family, has moments of strong arguments and differences of opinion but is ultimately held together by a common love for one another and a unity that in John 17 Jesus says will help the world "...know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

6 Questions for the United Methodist Church

Young UMC clergy have started a new project called 6 Questions for the United Methodist Church. You can see it here. The site (using Google Moderator) breaks down the UMC into categories (members of local churches, pastors, Bishops, various general agencies, etc.) and asks people to pose questions to each group. The plan as I understand it is to take the top 6 questions in each category around the end of September and find ways to start asking these questions of the whole church.

I think it's a great idea. I've contributed some questions and I hope you will consider doing so also. As all the stats show, we're still floundering some as a denomination. Maybe part of the problem is that we aren't asking the right questions. We just do what we've always done instead of making sure that we're dealing with the issues inside and outside the church that are most relevant. Some of my favorite questions so far are "How are you equipping the members of the church to live more faithfully, integrating their faith into their daily lives and work?" (for pastors) and "How are you being the church outside of your church's building?" (for church members). What questions do you think we should be asking?

I just finished a pretty good book called Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor. Pretty good book, but more about the need for transparency than about how to create it in your culture. The best thing I took away from the book was from an experiment on collaberation mentioned in the last of the 3 essays.

In the experiment, the subjects were each given a set of 6 marbles. 5 were unique to each subect and 1 was common to all subjects. The goal was for the subjects to all determine which marble they shared in common. The subjects were then organized in one of three different ways, simulating communication in either a top-down heircachy or a more collegial arrangement. (There was a third arrangement as well that I confess I couldn't really understand.) Here's what the experiment found: when the problem was simple (like all the marbles were a solid color and one could simply say "here's my colors") then the top-down structure worked best. When the problem was complex (like marbles that had multiple colors or patterns) the collegial system worked best.

For me, here's the takeaway: no one system of decision making works best, but we live in a time when working collaberatively generally makes more sense than working top-down because of the complexity of virtually every system on the planet. It's not that top-down is wrong, it's just a way of doing things that worked better at a different time than we're now living in. Three other possible lessons for the church:

1. At the local church level, this understanding may be a little counter intuitive. Following the model of the experiment, top-down leadership may make sense in a smaller church with simpler systems. The larger and more complex the church becomes, the more decentralized church leadership needs to become. I've pastored or been on staff of churches with average attendance in the 30's, 50's, 150's, 180's 300's and 500's. My experience has been that the larger the church the more decisions the pastor and staff want to make. This may be exactly wrong.

2. I'd theorize that the more institutional and less movement-like an organization/organism becomes the more complicated it gets and the more necessary it is for decision-making to become collaberative. Take the United Methodist Church's ever expanding Book of Discipline, for example. At the same time, the more institutionalized we become, the more top-down we tend to become. Maybe we need some radical rethinking of how we're organized and even the contents of the Book of Discipline to make the UMC more agile and flexible.

3. Bennis suggests that we may have reached a point of complexity where "leadership may come to be seen as a role that moves from one able individual in an organization to another as projects come and go." This apparently is already the case at Google. In this context do Bishops for life make sense? At the local church level, what does this say about the need for strong lay leadership? Perhaps more important that the question of whether we have pastors who are strong leaders is whether we have pastors who can equip the laity to be strong leaders.

Kansas East Annual Conference

I'm wrapping up a long week and ready for two weeks of vacation. First, some thoughts about the Kansas East Annual Conference that ended yesterday:

Positives
- Adam Hamilton's plenary sessions were fantastic. What was even better was the Conference embracing Adam as a leader within the Conference and the UMC. After years of jealousy and irrational concerns (it was just 5 years ago that Adam was slighted in General Conference delegation elections even though Resurrection was the sole reason we had the number of delegates we had that year) Adam was warmly welcomed and deeply appreciated. I believe 50 years from now when people speak of the revival of Methodism in the first half of this century Adam will figure very prominently.

- Young lay and clergy were among the most active voices. I am concerned that we need more collaberation between younger and older members, especially clergy, but I am excited by the participation of younger people who have energy and good ideas.

- Adoption of a tithe model of apportionments. This isn't THE Biblical model of giving as advertised by the CFA chair. I think he oversold it some, actually. But I think it is a very postive step forward, both as a way of controlling spending and budgeting and as a way of helping us to explain to our churches why we pay apportionments. I spent a few minutes at the beginning of worship today talking about a few things that happened at Conference and when I mentioned this one there were lots of nodding heads like "that makes sense. Now I understand."

Negative signs -

- I felt like there was still too much top-down leadership. CFA seemed to recomend that we not read the budget, just the summary of it. (every time I preach on me I try to remind people that we are very open with our finances and everyone is welcome to see how we spend money). Even though I like the new apporionment system there should have been more conversation about it before Conference. We were given a copy of a staffing plan for unfunded positions but I'm not sure it's a good plan and there was no chance for debate of it (thanks to Neal Gately though the plan may be changed next year)

- There was more discussion about the location of AC next year than the Constitutional Amendments. What's our real priority?


Reasons for Hope for the future
- Bishop Jones gave us clear priorities for our future as churches in the Conference. We really need these objectives to shoot for. Thanks Bishop!
- There was a hopeful, energetic, and cooperative spirit.
- There was a strong willingness to change (apportionments, location, and amendment conversations all showed this spirit.)

I left Conference feeling very positive about the future of Methodism in Kansas. I hope those of you reading this who were there felt the same. Let me know what you thought.

Good reading

Just a link today to an excellent post by Dan Dick on "messin' with the system". Dan always writes good stuff.

Developing Young Clergy with Grace

I just received information about the first meeting of the 2009-10 Lewis Fellows, which I was accepted to be a part of a couple months ago. It's a group of about 20 "young clergy" that will meet 4 times over the course of a year. I wasn't sure I would be accepted, both becuase it is a select group and also because at 35 I'm getting pretty old for young clergy. But I'm excited to meet, interact with, and learn from clergy younger than me. I know I have a lot to learn.

It had me thinking back about 10 years to my student appointment in seminary. I was an associate pastor at a large church (by Kansas standards). I was assissting a recently retired associate pastor with a funeral with the senior pastor in attendance. the retired pastor introduced me as a person whom the deceased often called "that nice young pastor." After the funeral the senior pastor took me aside and said, "You know David, one of these days you're not going to be able to get by as 'that nice young pastor.' You're going to have to be 'that good pastor.'

Now as I look back I can acknowledge what at the time I couldn't - I wasn't a very good pastor. I've grown a lot since then but still have a lot of growing to do. And I wonder as I sit on the Board of Ordained Ministry would I have approved of myself as (in today's language) a provisional member? As an elder? I appreciate the movement towards holding higher levels of excellence in ministry but I wonder how we both hold high expectations and allow "nice young pastors" to become "good pastors".

UM Constitutional Amendments

Maxie Dunam and others are trying very hard to defeat several Constitutional Amendments that will be coming before the Annual Conferences of the United Methodist Church this summer. He makes several arguements against the amendments that are either misleading or inadequate reasons to vote against. Here are his arguements and my responses:

1. The voice of UM's outside the U.S. will be reduced
- Yes, in the same way that the voice of U.S. UM's is reduced in other parts of the world. The Discipline already allows for central conferences to "make such changes and adaptataions of the Book of Discipline as the special conditions and the mission of the church in the area require..." (2008 BOD, paragraph 543.7). The current church structure assumes that the U.S. way of doing things is "normal" and non-U.S. ways of doing things are "special conditions". This is clearly a U.S.-centric approach to the world that is no longer true. My guess is the reason this clause is in the BOD is that we recognized that a U.S. majority at General Conference may make decisions that aren't in the best interest of the non-U.S. minority. If the U.S. is about to become the minority at General Conference (not in 2012, but possibly in 2016) then wouldn't it simply make sense to put the same provision in place for the U.S. churches?

2. Nobody knows what issues will be handled by the new regional confernces and we won't know until 2012.
- This is misleading. Nobody knows precisely, but 1) we have been told by members of the task force what kinds of things they are looking at 2) there is every reason to believe the issues that regional conferences will be able to address are the same as those in paragraph 543.7 and 3) the final decision will be made in 2012 by the same people that Rev. Dunam wants to empower. The combination of the Central Conference delegates and Rev. Dunam and his allies will certainly be a majority in 2012. They will be able to put this in whatever final form they desire.

Additionally, one of the problems of the institution of the UMC is that we are sooooo slow to move forward. If these amendments, approved by General Conference in 2008, fail, then they would have to be approved again in 2012 and approved by Annual Conferences in 2013 before they would take affect in 2014. Why not expedite the process now sine we'll still need a majority at the 2012 General Conference to even actually approve the creation of new regional conferences?

3. Regional Conferences will require more funding and bureaucracy
- Perhaps, but arguably not that much. Because much of what is currently done at General Conference would now be done at the regional conference level, General Conference would be shorter and less expensive. The most likely scenario for a U.S. regional conference would be a meeting immediately prior to General Conference to deal with U.S. issues followed by a shorter General Conference. The total length of time might be slightly longer than the current General Conference, but the overall expense would probably be less. There is no plan that I'm aware of for any structured bureaucracy at the regional conference level.

4. It's moving toward the "Anglican model" with different places adopting different practices
- Actually, we are already following this model somewhat with the provision in the BOD that allows central conference to adapt the BOD as they choose. The theological debates that are rocking the Anglican church are the same ones that are rocking the UMC, but there is nothing in the proposals that would allow regional conferences to make independent decisions on those issues. This is a scare tactic with no basis in reality.

5. We must not make changes "for" the churches of the developing world, but "with" them, which this does not do.
- I agree with the principle of making decisions with UMs from all over the world. This is what General Conference does and will continue to do. But on matters particular to the region of the world that a particular church is in, there should be freedom for differences. This is why we give Annual Conferences freedom to make decisions unless the BOD speaks specifically to it. Local churches have the same freedom. We should extend this freedom at the regional level.

The worldwide nature of the church amendments recognize our church as a global church, gives proper representation and power to all regional bodies across the world, and keeps matters of doctrine at the General Conference level where they belong. If you will be voting at Annual Conference this year I hope you will strongly consider voting in favor of them.

The Future of the UMC

A few weeks ago Adam Hamilton posted a blog suggesting that based on current trends the United Methodist Church would not exist in 44 years. He wasn't saying this was a forgone conclusion. He actually gives several good reasons why this won't happen. I agree with all of them, and I wonder if our "future with hope" is actually coming soon. I'll compare it to the current state of the economy.

Economists talk about leading indicators and lagging indicators. Leading indicators are events that precede a change in the economy (the stock market generally goes up before the end of a recession, so a higher stock market will be a leading indicator that we are headed out of the recession). Lagging indicators are events that come after a change in the economy (jobs generally don't recover until after a recession so if the stock market goes up and a few months later jobs go up that's confirmation that the recession is likely over). So what are the leading and lagging indicators that the UMC is turning things around? Let me suggest one of each.

Leading indicator: The true purpose of the church is to make and grow disciples of Jesus Christ (the United Methodist Church adds "... for the transformation of the world". If we are going to reclaim our signficance and be the Church God wants us to be, first we must reclaim our purpose. Reclaiming our purpose is a leading indicator of recovery in the Church. So are we doing this? In starts and fits, yes. Our Bishops are acting with more purpose than in the past. General Conference in 2008 clearly had a spirit of purpose. Pastors, particuarly younger pastors, seem to be recapturing the importance of the wholistic Gospel. I don't know of any stats to back this assertion, but it seems to me like the seeds of renewal are being planted deeply and are ready to sprout.

Lagging indicator: Church attendance and membership. Church attendance and membership will continue to decline for some time. We have too many churches and pastors that still have not (and may never) remember what we're here for. It will take years if not decades for those churches to (again in economic terms) "bottom out". But don't mistake a church with declining numbers with a church in decline. The turn around of the church will begin before the numbers themselves turn around. I would argue the turn around has already begun in local churches throughout the country.

I think it's an exciting time to be a United Methodist! What could be more exhilierating than to be a participant in a great movement of God that is about to begin moving again? We do have a future of hope!

Final note: All UM's should remember that when we talk about decline we are talking solely about the UM experience in the United States. Overseas, the United Methodist Church is growing exponentially, starting churches every day, and making a huge difference in people's lives. Those of us in the U.S. could probably learn a great deal from our UM brothers and sisters in other countries.

House Church

I follow Andrew Conard's blog. He posted thoughts on the possibility of a new house church network in Kansas. This is something I've thought about for some time and think we really need to do. What are your thoughts?

Tony Jones in Missouri

I'm not from Missouri, but I was pointed toward a blog entry by Tony Jones about a day he spent there speaking to United Methodist pastors. Since I wasn't there I don't know what was really said, but I found the blog entry and especially the comments really interesting. Some thoughts from the conversation:

1. I'm not sure it was a good idea for Tony to tell the pastors not to do something that the Bishop has told them to do. It seems to me that one of the "emergent" values is to allow people to be different from each other and think differently from each other. Different ecclesiologies and practices are fine. So in the UMC, if we want to have Bishops who give us instructions then let them give us instructions and we'll follow.

2. Like Bishop Schnase, I'm a "numbers guy". Like many commenters, though, I wonder whether we're getting the right numbers. Before we start collecting data we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the data is. Why do we need to measure attendance? I think there are some good reasons. Why do we need to divide out on form 3 giving to the church from pledgers, identified givers who weren't pledgers, and unidentified givers? This one I can't figure out a good reason for.

3. The bottom line question should be what do we need to measure to determine if we are fulfilling the purpose of the Church, defined by the UMC as to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world? I think things like attendance start pointing that direction, but I think we desperately need a new metric for determining whether we are successful.

Inaguration Day

I just watched online as Barack Obama was inaugurated. Very cool. I've been wondering in the days leading up to today about how much hype there normally is before an inauguration. I don't remember this much excitement when previous Presidents took office. But then again both of George W. Bush's elections and at least Clinton's second election left the country divided. Obama's election doesn't feel that way. Even most people who voted for McCain are at least willing to give Obama a good shot.

Here's the amazing thing to me, though. Bush and Obama are so very different from each other in style and substance. Yet they had breakfast with each other this morning, say nothing nasty about each other, and we have a completely peaceful transition of power. I like what I heard Tony Campolo say a couple years ago. As he spoke about U.S. foreign policy he referred to us, and the rest of the world, as Babylon. We're in exile in Babylon. When he was questioned about calling the U.S. "Babylon" and not being thankful for all the good things our country does, Campolo said something like "don't get me wrong - if I have to live in Babylon America is the Babylon I want to live in." I like that. Our country, our world, is full of problems, sin, and evil. As Christians, we're called in part to be a light pointing to a different way of living. But if we've got to live in Babylon, I'm grateful to be in this one.

May God grant President Obama and all of us wisdom and discernment for the days ahead.