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.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)