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?