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 Or were they...hopelessly out of date for persons enlightened by the truth contained in the latest sociological surveys?"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."
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
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 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?
Monday, June 22, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Good reading
Just a link today to an excellent post by Dan Dick on "messin' with the system". Dan always writes good stuff.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
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".
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".
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
