Five-Finger Reflections part 2

Last week I shared some observations about the five-finger vote in Kansas and Nebraska to gauge support for becoming one conference. A common question asked was "how will becoming one conference result in the changes that you say will happen?" That is the single most important question that we should be asking. Moving from three conferences to one conference is a big deal. It will take a lot of effort. I'm sure every person in the area, myself included, will find at least one change that they will disagree with. We will miss some of what we have right now. If transitioning to one annual conference doesn't help produce some signficant results it's not worth doing. And, unfortunately, simply merging annual conference won't produce a signficant result.

A structural change cannot, by itself, produce a missional change. All three conferences have undergone changes in structure over the years, and yet here we are again. To use language familiar to many of you, the question of how we structure can be a simple technical question. We have X number of moving parts, X dollars to manage, etc., so how do we refine our structure to be more efficient with what we have? When we deal with technical questions, we produce surface answers. It would be a waste of time to delve more deeply. The truism that "a system produces what it is designed to produce" remains in effect and we get more of the same thing. If it's a good thing, then more of it is good.

The question of structure can also be phrased as an adaptive question: "Given our mission, how should we be structured?" The root question here is what is our mission, not how should we be structured. Asking the question of mission again, and committing to a structure that makes us responsive to that mission, encourages us to take a step back to do some much more intentional, deep thinking.

In Exodus 18 Moses visits with his father-in-law Jethro. Moses is getting worn out from all the work he was doing judging between the people, but he knew this was something that had to be done. What could be done? If he was the only person wise enough for the task, he would have no choice. There was no "fix" for the problem. But Jethro was able to take the birds-eye view. Moses' technical question was "how can I judge the people?" Jethro's adaptive question was "How can the people be fairly judged?" The answer was for Moses to train up others to judge most cases saving only the hardest ones for Moses himself. Moses could never have come to this solution because he was asking the wrong question.

I believe that we are asking the wrong questions. "How will (fill in the conference group of your choice) work in one large conference?" is the wrong question. "How can (the group) help make disciples of Christ?" is a better question. "How can we find a place large enough for us to hold Annual Conference?" is the wrong question. "How does holding an Annual Conference help us make disciples?" is a better question.

Structural change in and of itself is not enough to bring missional change. But it is a prerequisite for missional change. A system produces what it is designed to produce. If we are not producing what God wants us to produce then the system must change. This is why the language of creating one new annual conference, rather than merging existing conferences, is so important. Merging three strucutures into one is not the solution - it's a bigger problem. Creating one new structure, a new system, from as close to scratch as we can get while still being United Methodists, gives us the ability to ask questions that we otherwise would not be able to ask. It will be as freeing for us as Moses giving away the right to judge everybody was for him.

We don't exactly have a Jethro to give us the right answer. Gil Rendle has been a great consultant to work with. We have examples of other conferences, most notably Indiana, who have done some things very well, but ultimately we have to find our own way. That's why the transition team doesn't have as many answers as most people would like us to have. If we had all the details figured out already the answers would be wrong. We're looking at creating 5 dream teams this summer or fall that will be able to explore specific adaptive questions more fully, giving them the time and attention that each question deserves.

We are still early on in the process. The whole experience has, for me, been terrifying and exhilerating at the same time. Terrifying because one way or another there will be a real, tangible effect from the work that we are doing. Exhilerating because I believe that the effect has the real possibility of being transformative for the states of Kansas and Nebraska. Please continue to hold the transition team and all of those who will be working on the transition in your prayers.

Five-Finger Reflections, part 1

I'm grateful for the overwhelming support that the Kansas East, Kansas West, and Nebraska Annual Conferences gave in moving forward with plans to create one new annual conference. It was also clear from the comments received that we have a lot of work to do. I was on a mission trip during the latest Transition Team meeting so I don't know all the ground that was covered there, but I want to share here a couple of my own personal reflections after the "five-finger vote". These are my observations, not the opinion of the transition team as a whole.

1. In his excellent book Journey in the Wilderness Gil Rendle says, "As in all difficult moments, the starting point of change is finally to name the tension or conflict between expressed values and actual behavior." I think this is the crux of the problem we face. We state that we value the mission of the church, but in reality we value the institution of the church. We know what we should value, but our actual practices don't back this up. For example, who would not support risk taking for the sake of the mission? But how often have clergy second-guessed an appointment of another pastor as one that doesn't fit in the system or privately criticized a pastor when the church struggles after the appointment (a natural pattern if the pastor is really trying to change things)? How many times have laity challenged a significant change in direction from their church rather than embracing the risk?

Many of the comments that came back to us ask for answers to questions like where will annual conference be held? Where will the episcopal office be? How will pensions and health insurance be affected? What committees will go away? These are all critical questions that we need to answer for the sake of the institution. Beginning in August I'll be part of a smaller group that will begin to seek how to find answers to some of these questions. They do need to be answered. I want answers to them also. But they are almost irrevelant to the mission of the church. Our annual meeting accounts for 4 out of every 365 days. As currently formulated, we hear reports from instiutional committees and take votes on institutuinal matters. The most important missional component of Annual Conference is worship, which is also the lightest attended part of Conference. In a world with more efficient travel and technology, the location of the conference office and bishop's residence will have very little affect on the bishop's performance. Pensions and health insurance are important to our clergy now, but with the exception of the burden of the cost of health insurance to the local churches the changes we make now will hardly be remembered 20 years from now.

Again, these are important questions that need to be answered - we are an instiution, after all. But the instiution needs to help us fulfill the mission. Our focus needs to continue to be raising questions that move our mission forward. Questions like "how can we make sure that the right pastor is appointed to the right church? How can the bishop and cabinet best support our local churches? How can we raise up our laity as spiritual leaders inside and outside the church? How can smaller churches make a bigger impact in their communities? How can a new generation of United Methodists build and improve on the heritage that we leave behind?" These are the questions that will lead us towards renewal. They are much harder to answer than the technical questions, but when we look back 50 or 100 years from now our answers to these questions will matter much more.

2. Several people said that we are moving too fast. I expected that. But many others said we are moving too slow. They say that we need bold, radical change now and the transition team is holding back too much. This also speaks to the tension that we face. Very few people believe that we don't need to change. A large majority seem to believe that we need significant change. But how much change is needed how soon is where the debate lies. My own bias: knowing that all of us tend to push against change more than we should I'm in favor of the most change that we can make.

One other comment was very common - "You make some good points and I agree we need to change, but how will becoming one conference result in the change we need?" I'll address this next week in part 2.

OBL is dead. God is Great.

That was a post I saw last night after the death of Osama bin Laden.

My first thought after reading it was, "well, God was already good. bin Laden doesn't have any control over that."

My second thought was that translated into Arabic, that would read "Allah Akbar," the same phrase that the 9/11 hijackers said as their planes were crashing into the world trade towers. (It's not only a Muslim phrase, by the way. Arab speaking Chrisitans call God Allah also.)

The world is probably a safer place today than it was 24 hours ago, but I don't think it is a better place. Bin Laden deserved to die, but as long as we equate death with success we will still fall short of God's hopes for humanity.

In-between Two New Years

All of you know that New Year's Day is January 1st. Many of you know that the Christian calendar begins with the first Sunday of Advent, which this year was November 28. So from November 28 until January 1st we are in-between new years. It makes me think that while we know Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25 that there is not a more appropriate time of the year to celebrate the birth of the Messiah.

The Apostle Paul teaches us that the coming of Jesus marks the birth of a new age. We live between the now and the not-yet. We live in the midst of the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. We see glimpses of a new age, a new community, a new kingdom, while we cope with the realities of the hardship and disappointment that come in this world. It makes sense that the Christian calendar and the standard Gregorian calendar don't line up. Jesus' birth gives us hope that, in Augustine's words, the City of Man will give way to the City of God.

May these final days of 2010 bring us closer to the end of the "now" while the first days of the new Christian year bring us closer to the "not yet." May we live as though a new year, a new age, has already begun!

Kindergarten and the Spirit

August 17th is a day I will always remember. At 12:40 Tracy and I drove Sophia to her first day of Kindergarten. We took a picture at home, walking down the hall of the school, next to a directional sign pointing the way for the “KinderDAWGS” to go, and two more when she was in her classroom. We watched from a distance outside the room while she started to look at her new classmates and listened to her new teacher, Mrs. Smith. Then with a couple of goodbye waves, another minute of watching, and a final wave, we left our daughter and went home.

Going to kindergarten isn’t really that remarkable of a feat. Almost every five or six year old does it. But even knowing that in and of itself this is not an extraordinary accomplishment I still felt like an incredibly proud parent for my daughter to now be in kindergarten. Thinking about it some more, I think the pride comes not so much from seeing her there in the classroom but in seeing her grow from birth until this day. That day was the culmination of five years of growth, change, development, and learning. Tracy and I were not rigorous about having a growth plan for Sophia in the first five years of her life to prepare her for kindergarten, but we were intentional about reading to her when she wanted to be read to and showing her how to do math in everyday situations. We tried to help her know the sound that each letter makes. In short, we wanted her to be ready to take the next step in her development by sending her off to kindergarten. After all, our intellect is always growing isn’t it? Our knowledge is always increasing.

I wonder if what is true for our intellectual development is the same for our spiritual development? I wonder if we read the Bible with our children sometimes when they want to read. I wonder if we help them learn to pray in everyday situations just like we help them learn math. I wonder if help our children become ready for the next step in their spiritual development, whatever that step might be. I also wonder if we prepare ourselves. Do you know what the next step is for your spiritual life? Are you ready to take it?

Guaranteed Appointments

The United Methodist Commission to Study the Ministry is proposing an end to guaranteed appointments to the 2012 General Conference. If you're not familiar with this, the practice of the United Methodist Church for the last several decades has been to guarantee every ordained elder that they will have a church to serve. In theory, this makes some sense. We have always understood that a person's call to ordained ministry is confirmed by the Church. If it appears that the church made a mistake or that a person's call has changed, then the Church could respond by not giving that pastor an appointment. Having said that, there are a number of issues that I hope are seriously considered before the proposal comes to a vote.

1. In conversations that I've been a part of, the guarantee of appointment for bishops has never come up. Bishops are elders. They do not have a separate ordination. But bishops are consecrated as bishops for life. They are guaranteed to be bishop for life. If guaranteed appointments are removed, then we need to seriously consider going to a term episcopacy so that Bishops also do not have a guaranteed appointment. Just as guaranteed appointments for pastors in local churches could cause complacency, so too could a guaranteed appointment for a bishop.

2. The UMC also guarantees that every United Methodist church will have a pastor. As a friend pointed out to me recently, if we aren't going to promise pastors a church why do we promise churches a pastor? There are churches who have effectively ceased being United Methodist in theology and practice. There are many churches that have abandoned the mission of making Disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Why should we not hold the churches to a higher standard at the same time we hold clergy to a higher standard?

3. One reason that the guaranteed appointment began was as a protection for clergy that churches may not want because of sexism, racism, etc. I suppose the thought is we've moved far enough along now that this protection is no longer necessary. I could be swayed either way on this. I also wonder, though, if there needs to be protection for theology. Clearly the theological diversity within Methodism is a blessing and a curse. I treasure it, but I also understand that it makes conveying who we are and rallying around a common identity much more difficult. Could a particularly conservative bishop choose to appoint a marginally competent conservative pastor at the expense of a slightly more competent liberal pastor (or vice-versa)?

My hunch is that the denomination will move so slowly that the recommendation to eliminate guaranteed appointments won't pass in 2012. It is a topic that deserves deep discussion. I hope these three points will be part of the discussion

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.