Ministry Matters: Blogs

Members in Digital Ministry

Tue, 15 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Member participation is absolutely crucial for effective digital ministry, and yet there is very little guidance out there for people in our congregations. Most of the advice focuses on the role of professional ministry leaders.

Member engagement helps puts the "social" in social media by extending the community, amplifying the Gospel message, and helping move away from a one-person one-message model of broadcast media.

Here are five ways members can participate in and extend the digital ministry of their congregations:

1. Be a Graceful Presence

You don't need a Facebook account or smart phone to do this. We all belong to a range social networks, both face-to-face and digital. Whatever social networks you belong to, seek to be a graceful presence. Celebrate milestones. Communicate blessing and prayerful support when appropriate. The language doesn't always have to be overtly religious. A caring, compassionate presence goes a long way, and over time will point to the source of that grace - God.

2. Friend and Follow Fellow Members

Help build a stronger congregational community by connecting with other members online. The more connections and interactions we have, the stronger our communities will become. Social networking can give us insights into one another's lives and interests that might not normally surface in church conversations or meetings, providing avenues for discovering commonality and deepening relationship. Engage with each other. All those small encounters have a cumulative effect and help build community.

3. Check-In

One of the easiest and most effective ways to recommend your congregation is to check-in when you come to church. This check-in automatically appears to your friends in Facebook - or, if you use Foursquare, to both your Facebook friends and Twitter followers. Without saying anything or sharing any particular content, you can let people know about your church. If the congregation has linked the location to its Facebook page, your friends can quickly discover more about your church. It's best to include a picture when you check-in to generate more interest.

4. Share Content

Hopefully your congregation is making available quality share-worthy content like videos, pictures, sermons, web pages, or links. Occassionally share this content within your social networks, either publicly or through direct messages to friends who you think might benefit from the content. It might be sharing a link on Facebook or Twitter, or just sharing a prayer you heard at church. You can add a short comment on the content when you post, or you can just share it without any comment. People do both and both are effective.

5. Celebrate Your Church

There are so many negative messages about church today. Social media gives us a great platform to can tell positive stories about the church and the difference it makes in our lives, community, and the world. Share a picture and tell people about something fun or meaningful that happened. Share your joy about your church!

Question: What other ways do you as a parishioner participate - or, as a professional ministry leader, encourage involvement - in your congregation's digital ministry?

Meditating on the Run

Mon, 14 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I used to feel impatient when I stood in line at the grocery store or waited to get off a plane. On good days, I zoned out. On bad days, I wondered why the people in the front of the line were so slow.

Things began to change when I took my energy to the interesting place of prayer. In the supermarket line, for example, I often pray Psalm 23: Thank You, O God, that You are my shepherd. Thank You that I really do have everything I need even when I crave more. Thank You that being in this store is one way You provide those things. I long for still waters and green pastures with You—help me experience that this minute, even while standing in line. I can ignore these magazine covers and gadgets by the checkout line and focus on how You long to restore my soul. . . .

Immersing ourselves in truth by meditating on Scripture in this informal way results in prayer conversations that can occur anywhere. These back-and-forth prayers are caught up in the language and pattern of Scripture and they become a way God transforms us into Christlikeness. Praying the 23rd Psalm, for example, helps us become people who really do believe that God is providing everything we need (well, almost). Such praying makes us active participants in how God increases our faith.

Meditating on the run is not irreverent, but a way of surrendering more of the moments of life to God and recognizing God as our companion throughout the day. This is important because we pick up things from those we spend time with – perhaps their accent or odd laugh. In the same way, as we hear God speak to us in Scripture (even in non-religious, everyday moments), God’s words and ideas invade our mind until we begin thinking more the way God thinks. God’s ways rub off on us. We may set out only to fill our time positively, but we find to our surprise that we have interacted with God and sensed more joy within.

When Scripture shapes our thoughts, we are more likely to act on it. Because this meditation occurs in a relaxed everyday setting, the truth is more likely to become embedded in everyday thoughts and actions. Trusting God begins to sound normal, not just something a spiritually elite person would do. Having God speak to us through Scripture outside a church or Bible study setting makes it more likely that whatever we do in word or deed, we’ll do to the glory of God. Working with it in odd moments such as waiting in line is a concrete way of affirming that I really want God to permeate my life.

On a certain leg of my morning bike ride, for example, I started praying for several friends. Then I decided I wanted to pray more substantively so I memorized phrases from Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:16-21. I liked praying for these people that they would be strengthened with power through the Spirit in their inner being (instead of feeling so incapable and ineffective), that they would be rooted and grounded in love (in every difficult conversation), that they would grasp how wide and long and high and deep the love of Christ is (and pass that love to others). In fact, I began praying it for me!

Getting Started

How do we start such praying-meditating on the run? Take a passage that impresses you or meets a deep need. Maybe you’ve heard it taught in a class or preached in a sermon. You can start by copying it or printing it from your computer in 20 point type. The large print works well not only because it’s easier to read but because there’s something about letting the eyes feast on the individual words and drink them in slowly.

While hiking, I often carry a printed out passage with me to ponder as I move along. I may add to it or rephrase it by substituting words that fit me:

If an army (questioner/grouchy person) besieges me, my heart shall not fear.
If war (intimidating people/a headache) breaks out against me, even then will I be confident.

Working through Psalm 27:3 this way helps me not to be defensive or take things personally. It frees me to love the person in front of me without fear of what he or she is up to. Then I pause on my bike and pick up the next line.

Such conversation with God all day long brings a new quality to life. One feels that God really is a constant companion, the Shepherd of one's soul.

Meditating When Crabby

Meditating on the run allows us to let God change our attitudes when we’re grumpy or lacking energy. It lets Scripture take us back to what Jesus asks of his disciples. This happened to me once when riding with two friends on a long trip. They explained how I had to sit in the back the entire time since the passenger easily got carsick but then they began to converse about situations that didn’t involve me. I felt excluded. I tried asking a question or two, but I was clearly not part of the conversation.

I felt myself falling into an abyss of judgment. I knew if I spoke up, I’d be unbearably resentful. So I tried to pray for them, but I ended up whining to God. So I dug out my dog-eared, coffee-stained sheet of paper on which was printed the Sermon on the Mount. In a flash, I read these words: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Mt 7:1-2).

Though I knew these words by heart, I needed to see them in print. It was such a relief to read the truth I knew in the midst of my crabbiness. Yes! I breathed. It was as if I could hear God’s voice – gentle but firm – reminding me of who I am committed to be. Clutching my paper, I began to pray silently: “I will not judge, O God. I don’t want to be condemned the same way I’m condemning others. I want to be generous and overflowing in how I measure events.”

Then I read, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (vs. 3). The word look stood out to me. I prayed: “Yes, O God, I am looking long and hard at the behavior of the folks in the front seat so I can judge them. I confess to you that I look for error! I even do it to people I am committed to serve.”

Then the words sawdust and plank leapt out at me. “Oh God, I confess to you that I am so obsessed with finding sawdust. I am the Sawdust Queen, yet so weighed down with planks in my eyes.” I sat riveted for several miles, gazing out the window at the beautiful hills. I’m not a I’d been a country-western music fan, but I almost broke out into a prayer song about being the Sawdust Queen.

My prayers of repentance and confession melted into surrender and peace. Still clutching Jesus’ words, I prayed, “I, the recovering Sawdust Queen, am greatly loved by you, O God, who skillfully eases planks out of my eyes.” As the miles passed, I began to feel peaceful. I knew then that I could ask my friends to include me in the conversation without resentment. I felt generous and kind so I knew my words would come out that way.

God’s words call out to us to come home in prayer to find freedom from fear and resentment. When we’re finished, we find that Christ dwells in our hearts another layer more deeply.

Handling Worship Distractions

Fri, 11 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Are you easily distracted during Sunday worship? People who have ADHD or those who find it hard to focus in a school or work setting will often have similar struggles during prayer or worship times. Here are a few things I’ve found distracting during church services over the years, especially during worship segments:

The guy who sings off key.
The woman who doesn’t sing off key but sings louder than everyone else.
Crying babies.
The worship leader who talks too much.
The guy who says the word just too much when he prays. Or the one who says Father God before each sentence of his prayer.
People who arrive late. I’ve often found myself having a conversation (with myself) about how the church is practically empty even though we’ve already started and what would we do if no one else showed up this week... blah, blah, blah...you get the idea.
The woman who never sets her cell phone to vibrate until it rings at least once.
The person in front of me who’s texting, especially when they don’t hold their phone so I can read what they’re sending.
Kids fidgeting.
Adults fidgeting.
Typos in the worship Powerpoint slides.
Typos in the bulletin.
The guy who who raises his hands during every song.
People who stare at me when I raise my hands.
The people who never raise their hands unless we’re singing “Here I Am, Lord”.
Anyone who punches me and tries to continue a conversation during the opening song. This distracts me during movies too.
The wasp flying around the ceiling. How did he get in?

There’s no easy answer for handling distractions during worship. (Mean mugging the ones causing the distractions usually isn't very effective.) What I have figured out is that if I take the pressure off myself to focus (and the accompanying guilt that I feel when I can't), then I start taking pressure off of everyone else not to distract me in the first place. In other words, if I focus too much on whether or not I'm focusing on God, then I'm not really focusing on God to begin with, I'm being self-centered. True Christian worship is always more about God than it is about us.

The second thing I try to remember is that group worship is not my private prayer and worship time. I don't get to have God all to myself. I have to share him with others in the group, even the ones who don't have the right political views, those who don't use the right Bible translation, the theological eggheads, the people who read the fluffy books from the Christian celebrity I don't care for, people who don't talk to me, and the garden variety hypocrites. Group worship is not simply worshiping God by myself with other people in the room who happen to be doing the same thing. I believe that's one of the mistakes we sometimes make with modern praise worship services. Worshiping with a group means sometimes interacting with the group, not tuning them out so that it's "just me and God."

Perhaps a reason we often have such impossible expectations for group worship is we're not getting enough quality time by ourselves with God. I've found that if my own private prayer/worship times are consistent and healthy, I'm bothered much less by distractions when I get to church.

What things distract you during Sunday worship? How do you handle distractions?

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Managing Expectations: The Importance of the Weakest Link

Wed, 09 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Managing expectations is critical in every organization. But it is especially important in the service-oriented businesses where one’s last experience can ruin years of a strong reputation. I was just reminded of how important that is during dinner out last night. Sometimes it is not the big things that can ruin an experience, but a careless decision that puts your entire team at a loss.

I met with some co-workers and a client at one of Nashville’s most celebrated restaurants. My out-of-town guest is a foodie. He has eaten his way through Europe as well as some of the best restaurants in the US. I was hoping to make a good impression of Nashville and what we had to offer. He and I were immediately drawn to one of the chef’s signature dishes: the miso crusted sea bass.

We were promptly told that even though the menu said sea bass, the actual fish was grouper. For environmental reasons, the restaurant decided to no longer serve the endangered fish. I guess that for the same environmental decisions, they decided not to reprint the one-page menu either. “Our new menu is coming soon,” our server told us. However, it has been months since the sea bass had made its exit from the kitchen.

Grouper is not a bad fish. But it’s not the same quality as the sea bass, not even by a mile. My client politely asked, “so are you charging less for the grouper?” No, they were not. The poor server trying to save face quickly offered hope, “it tastes just as great the way we prepare it.”

At that moment the dynamics of the dinner changed. The expectations placed on the kitchen staff to deliver a superior quality product (sea bass) but with inferior ingredients (grouper) was unreasonable. And they failed.

The three of us who ordered the dish expected the expensive taste and texture of the high-cost item we had ordered. We got the best of what the inferior option could be, but, unfortunately, it was not good enough. Under those expectations, it could never be.

I am certain that there are more than the three of us who were disappointed with the execution of the dish. Over the course of several weeks, others, too, had the same expectation. They looked forward to a $30 worth of taste; instead they got something that should have cost around $20. I am not sure how much it would have cost the restaurant to replace the printed menu, but I know it would be a lot less than the brand-erosion such sloppy management decision has cost them.

Managing expectations is a difficult but critical part in every organization. Millions of dollars in building, state-of-the art kitchen, modern decor, a great staff, and even competent cooks could not overcome something that could have been avoided by spending a few dollars on a new menu insert. Interesting how often you are only as strong as your weakest link. How well is your organization managing expectations? What kind of experience are you creating?

Maurilio Amorim is CEO of The A Group, a media and technology firm in Brentwood, TN.

Connect with Maurilio: Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn | Blog

Why Christians are Pro-Bullying

Tue, 08 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

You want to know what the next big cause is?

No, environmentalism isn’t going away. Though it turns out that those eco-friendly wind farms actually contribute to global warming by stirring up all the hot air floating above us. Water and shoes and war and nutrition aren’t going away as causes either.

But people need a sexy new cause to keep their attention. And the spotlight on bullies has been growing brighter for a while, and I think it’s going to stay that way for a long time. And like most pop-culture causes, it didn’t start with Christians. In fact, I have yet to see any prominent Christians throw their hat in the bullying ring at all.

So I have a question for you, Christians. Are we going to let this be another cause that’s too “liberal,” or “secular” for us, and let it pass us by? Or are we actually going to do something?

The Tables Have Turned

The anti-bullying crusade has been picking up steam for few years, but I think it has finally reached critical mass. It started several years ago when schools enacted “zero tolerance” policies. Though principals were probably kind of heavy-handed with it. A bullied kid could get thrown out of school for physically defending himself.

Then you had the “It Gets Better” campaign on YouTube more recently. Lots of celebrities got on board with that one, including Ellen Degeneras, Anne Hathaway, and Neil Patrick Harris.

Last month saw the release of the “Bully” movie. The ‘Biebs has been a vocal advocate of the film.

If you or your kid is a bully, the tables are turning on you.

Why the Church is Pro-Bullying

What I want to know is where the hell are the Christians?

If you’re wondering why people think the church is irrelevant, this is a case in point.

Nearly every cause that people get passionate about, the church lets pass by. People are still whipped up about environmentalism. They want to stop “global warming.”

Now, I don’t really believe in man-made global warming. But why should that matter? We should have heaped on an even bigger ethical dilemma on people: that we are destroying God’s creation. Christians should have taken their share of control of the environmental movement. We should have been motivating people with God while other people are motivated by fear of cooking to death. (Aren’t we accused on a regular basis of preying on peoples’ fears?) But we let it pass by and the hottest environmental discussions we had were about how old the Earth actually is, and how long it took to be created. A completely irrelevant debate.

Now we’re going to do the same thing with bullying. Why? Because it’s seen as a gay cause. The bullied kids being showcased are almost always suspected of being gay. The LGBT community owns this thing.

And the evangelical church can’t be seen as standing up for gays. God forbid we stand up for the queer kids, or partner with the LGBTs. (Even though this isn’t just a gay issue. It’s a “fat” issue, and a “dorky” issue” and a “special needs” issue.) We’d rather be silent. If we’re silent, we might as well be pro-bullying.

People Get Bullied, Then They Hit Back

I had a bully in middle school.

And I finally got him off my back by cracking him right in the face. I wasn’t much of a fighter. But it was enough to send a message.

Christians think there’s a “war” on Christianity, that we’re being marginalized and bullied and picked on.

The fact is we marginalized ourselves. We made ourselves irrelevant. And to a lot of people, we are the bullies. And when someone feels bullied long enough, eventually, they hit back. That’s what people are doing to Christians.

We ought to be taking control of the bullying conversation, telling people that every child is made in God’s image. But instead, in between barking about how the government is too big, we’re arguing about the laws the government should pass to restrict other peoples’ freedoms.

What do you think? Is bullying the next big thing? Should we jump on board and take the reins. Or is the Christian community going to let this one pass by?

Young Adults and DreamUMC

Tue, 08 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The United Methodist Church went into its quadrennial General Conference with several proposals for restructuring: The IOT's Call to Action, and alternatives to it, most notably Plan B and the MFSA proposal. I outlined and compared these proposals before General Conference, and I've examined the role of young adults in the Call to Action process and product. So to bring it home, now that we're all back from Tampa with no restructuring plan, let’s trace the steps and see how we got from PlanUMC to the RestructuredUMC to the new DreamUMC. And see how Young Adult voices were treated along the way.

(Failure to) Compromise

On Saturday night, April 28, the Legislative Committee tasked with this restructure effort voted down the ‘Plan’ that had been debated and agreed upon by the majority of the members of the sub-committee after three days of work (I say majority because the supporters of two competing plans by the PlanB and IOT groups had mostly stopped voting altogether halfway through the conversation, abdicating conversation with the young adult delegates on the committee). They then voted down the various forms of PlanB, MFSA, and the original IOT plans. Everything. Nothing left the committee as a recommended path.

So on Sunday April 29, members of the IOT and the PlanB people got together in a marathon meeting starting at 4pm and still without a compromise measure by 9pm. Sam Hodges’ article at UMReporter says “while no MFSA representative participated, there were negotiators who had backed the MFSA plan.” (Indeed, MFSA was not invited). In other words, they wrote the ‘compromise’ measure including 2/3 of the active groups (only one of which wrote actual legislation in the ADCA) and they excluded the young adults who were the majority of MFSA representatives. So calling it a compromise was a bit loose.

The Rise and Fall of PlanUMC

On Monday April 30, apparently a plan had been brokered, was dubbed “Plan UMC” and General Conference suspended their rules and open legislative process to allow Plan UMC to be printed for consideration in the next day’s publication of legislation. Then no copies were distributed. No delegates or press or bishops or anyone was able to have an additional 14 hours (from 5pm due date to the next morning’s publication at 7am) to read or to translate. When the Plan was finally made public the next morning, I spent four hours reading and writing a comprehensive blog post about it before I left Tampa to go back to pastoring my local church. After the publication, the ‘Plan UMC’ people contacted me through a mutual friend and asked if I would meet with them. I replied back with this quote: “I had to leave to continue to grow my vital congregation in Oklahoma. Including me as a token young clergy at the last minute is too little, too late. As the book title states, ‘You’ve Lost Me.’”

On Wednesday, May 1, the Plan was put up for discussion, amended, and passed with 60% of the vote. Then from the floor a member of the New England delegation called for a Declaratory Decision from the Judicial Council (the body deciding if legislation was constitutional according to the United Methodist Constitution and Restrictive Rules). The motion passed and the PlanUMC was sent to the Judicial Council for review.

On Friday, May 4, at 4:15 p.m., the Judicial Council released their ruling. The PlanUMC was unconstitutional on the several grounds:

General Oversight of the church is given by the Constitution to the Bishops only, not any other entity. Then it appoints a member of the Bishops to oversee the General Council of Strategy and Oversight. This comingling of powers is unconstitutional.
The Plan UMC allows for the GCSO to redistribute funds allocated by General Conference. Since GC2012 voted down the constitutional amendment for this to happen, it was unconstitutional.

There is more but the net effect was a simple one: by sabotaging the conversation in the Committee by parliamentary tricks and efforts, by keeping people from the room in the crafting of PlanUMC, by keeping Plan UMC under wraps until morning, the net effect of the yearlong drumbeat of fear by the Call to Action movement were backroom deals that were not subject to the same oversight as the official plan. And the verdict came down: PlanUMC was unconstitutional.

Like a hippo sitting down on a waterbed, those in the middle of the room were instantly flattened by the ruling, while those on the margins, the young adults, the LGBT activists, the supporters of COSROW and GCORR whose agency’s witness had been blunted, the disenfranchised Central Conference delegates, they suddenly swelled up on the wave and found a new voice to change the UMC for the better . . . and they didn’t need a plan. They needed many plans.

DreamUMC

New England Delegate Rev. Becca Clark has written the bulk of how this formative action came about at her blog. But in short, an unlikely pairing of people got together and suggested that the best course of action was to pass all the individual agency petitions that allowed them to restructure the way the agencies had requested. These were passed, and by the time Plan UMC came back to the table, it failed by a percentage point to even be discussed again, much less adopted.

But that’s not the end of the conversation.

Twitter was abuzz that day: one of the most dramatic moments of General Conference 2012, and indeed of all three GC’s that I’ve attended in person. And like the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, everyone was speaking in different tongues: some pointing blame, some blaming structure, some blaming process, some lamenting a ‘do-nothing general conference,’ some rejoicing at the saving of GCORR/COSROW, and some wondering how #GC2012 got so popular that we were getting spam and porn links in the mix. But the variety of tongues expressed one message clearly heard: if the upper echelons of leadership failed to even check if their plan passed constitutional muster, then it’s time for the grassroots to take action.

From the ashes of PlanUMC came a dream of something new. A dream of a United Methodist Church that had young people’s voices from the beginning, not tacked-on after-the-fact. A dream was emerging of a generation that settled not for the scraps from the adults’ table, but would demand a communion meal welcome to everyone, even the wrong people.

In short, there’s a new movement, fueled by social networks, meeting in holy conferencing beyond General Conference. And if you consider yourself a young adult, you are invited to the conversation.

I invite you to join Young People from across Methodism in a Twitter conversation on Monday, May 14 at 9pm EST. Here’s instructions how to join. Search the hashtag #DreamUMC or follow the twitter account @DreamUMC to seek out with other young people from across Methodism to not just demand a reorganized church but to organize it ourselves…starting now. I hope you join me Monday, May 14, 9pm EST (that’s 6pm Pacific) and join in the dream that could be the UMC, from the ground-up.

Money and Guilt Trips

Mon, 07 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Several years ago, I was preaching to a group of teenagers about stewardship and I unfortunately played the “feel guilty for spending money” card. I referenced the World Vision gift catalog, found out how much money it took to feed a village for a week (or buy a chicken, dig a well, supply diapers, provide health care for a needy child, build a school, etc.), then I proceeded to compare these amounts to the stuff teenagers love to spend money on. Things like music, cell phones, clothes, fast food, and video games. I even made a visual presentation that would have made the toughest dictator in the world cry. My goal was to get the youth to show concern for people other than themselves.

What on earth was I thinking?

My intentions were good, but I’m afraid I sent the wrong message that day. I essentially told these kids (whether I meant to or not) that spending money on themselves was selfish, especially when there are so many people in the world who are much worse off.

While all of us probably could (and should) simplify our lives so we can give more to the Kingdom, once we start heading down the road I was on at that youth group meeting, we risk putting people in bondage.

Besides, how do we define how much money is too much to spend on something?

Take my denomination, The United Methodist Church, for example. For the last two weeks, we held a quadrennial worldwide conference in Florida that by some estimates cost up to $10 million. As the conference moved along and frustrations mounted, I noticed people on Twitter criticizing how much money we were spending on the event. “How many hungry people could we feed with that money?” some wondered. Or how much could we have sent to help wipe out malaria, save the environment, provide microloans in the developing world, insert your favorite cause here.

Good questions, but I have a couple of others. Like... How many meals could you provide for the hungry if you got rid of your iPhone? Or your car. Or your Netflix membership. How much money could you save by downgrading your wardrobe from Banana Republic to Gap, or from Gap to Old Navy, or from Old Navy to Target ...to Walmart to Goodwill....

Remember what happened when the woman in Mark 14 poured the expensive perfume on Jesus?

Some grew angry. They said to each other, "Why waste the perfume? This perfume could have been sold for almost a year’s pay and the money given to the poor." And they scolded her. Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me." Mark 14:4-6 CEB

Do you get where I’m going with this? What some consider extravagant, we may see as basic or essential. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be better stewards, but we need to frame the discussion around our freedom in Christ, not around guilt.

We must never put a yoke on others that we can’t even handle ourselves.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

The Unaware Leader: 10 Symptoms

Fri, 04 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A couple years ago there was a consistent problem in one of our areas of ministry. It was something which I would have quickly addressed, but no one brought it to my attention. Thankfully, I’ve learned the hard way that what I don’t know can often hurt my leadership or the church the most, so I’m good at asking questions and being observant. Through my normal pattern of discovery I encountered the problem, brought the right people together, we addressed the problem and moved forward.

End of story.

It reminds me though that the leader is often the last to know when something is wrong. I tell this to our team consistently. You only know what you know and many times, because of the scope of responsibility of the leader, he or she isn’t privy to all the intricacies of the organization. Some people, simply because they would rather talk behind someone’s back than do the difficult thing of facing confrontation, tell others the problems they see before they share them with the leader. Without some systems of discovering problems the leader may be clueless there is even a problem.

Not knowing is never a good excuse to be unaware.

It’s not a contradiction in terms. I’m not trying to play with words. I’m trying to make an important leadership principle. As a leader, you may not know all the facts, but you should figure out how to be aware enough as a leader to discover the facts which you need to know.

Not certain if you are an aware leader?

Here are 10 symptoms of the unaware leader:

Not knowing the real health of a team or organization.
Clueless to what people are really saying.
Unsure of measurable items because they are never measured or monitored.
Not asking questions for fear of an unwanted answer.
Not dreaming into the future; becoming content with status quo.
Preferring not to know there was a problem than that there is one.
Ignoring all criticism; dismissing it as negativity.
Not learning anything new, relying on same old ways to consistently work.
Making every decision without input from others.
Assuming everyone supports and loves your leadership.

There are some things the leader will never know. That’s okay. Walking by faith is a good thing. I highly encourage it. There are issues within the life of an organization, however, that while the leader may not know readily, or even want to know, he or she should explore continually.

Want to test your awareness?

Try this simple experiment. Send an email to a fairly sizable group of people you trust…key leaders…staff members…friends…. Make sure there are some people on the list who you know will be honest with you. In fact, tell them you want them to be. Tell them that you are trying to be more aware as a leader and need their help. Ask them: What am I missing? What do you see that I don’t see? What should I be doing that I’m not doing? What are people saying that I’m not hearing? Who on my team is keeping from me how they really feel?

Now, to really make this experiment successful, let them answer anonymously. You trust them, right? Set up a Survey Monkey account and let them respond without having to add their name.

See what responses you receive.

Not ready to do that? You could simply address the symptoms above and see how that improves your awareness as a leader. Whichever you choose…here’s to knowing what you do not currently know! :)

What other symptoms are there of an unaware leader?

Ron Edmondson is Lead Pastor of Grace Community Church in Clarksville, Tenn.
Connect with Ron: Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

Thoughts on the Loss of Guaranteed Appointment

Fri, 04 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Tonight, my heart was stilled from its racing on the guaranteed appointment issue.

I have felt the both/and of a desire for a clear, mission process for appointments AND the deep desire to protect my brothers and sisters who might unfairly be discriminated against in the process where homophobia, sexism, and racism still exist. I was not of one heart on the issue. When asked how I would have voted on the floor had I been seated, I honestly could not answer… perhaps I would have abstained.

But tonight, a colleague of mine – Sean McRoberts – and I dove deep into the legislation to figure out what the actual implications are.

1) this is not a simple power given to the bishop or cabinet to dismiss you to ministry… there are checks and balances all throughout the process. According to the legislation we passed and the BoD, either a lack of missional appointment placement OR an ineffective pastor who is not appointed has to be approved by the Board of Ordained Ministry AND the clergy session. Someone who recieves the status of “transitional leave” must be voted on by the order and so as clergy, if we feel uncomfortable with this process, we need to remember that we have the ability to vote and support one another if the process/boom/cabinet is acting discriminatorily…

2) the appointive cabinet, Board of Ordained Ministry, and Clergy Session all have to agree for a person to move to transitional leave (it is a status change). Transitional leave has a two year maximum according to the discipline. A person cannot simply be returned to transitional leave again and again. If a person is being transitioned out of ministry due to ineffectiveness, that two years gives time for a process of healing, discernment, counseling, and new calling to occur. In Iowa, we currently have a three year process to counsel and support clergy who are ineffective so that they can either grow or discern a new calling.

3) some important work was done in the legislative committee. They added a requirement for accountability that says statistical reporting on the people put on transitional leave and/or appointed to a less than full time position (age, gender, race) has to be sent to the executive committee of the BoOM and the conference and jurisdictional committee on the episcopacy. Committee on Episcopacy should then include those statistics in the annual evaluation of the bishop. (we also approved at this general conference a switch from bi-annual to annual episcopal review).

Prior to this GC, bishops were not evaluated on their appointment making activities, only on the other areas of their ministry. If there were complaints, we could use administrative process to require remedial action and/or bring charges. This is still the case, only this way we have a process of statistical information to help evaluate if their are patterns, intentional or unintentional, that exclude persons from the table. The process already is in place for helping ineffective or discriminatory bishops transition out of ministry (we just never use it!)

4) there is an important addition, also from the legislative committee, that calls for a group of four laity, two clergy, a district superintendent and the bishop of the annual conference to determine annually criteria for missional appointment making. These criteria are then to be used by the cabinet in their process of discernment. This adds the voice of clergy and laity into the process.

So… with these four clarifications/implications… what do you think?

Ending Guaranteed Appointment

Wed, 02 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The elimination of guaranteed appointment for United Methodist clergy came as a surprise to many Tuesday morning when the proposal as approved on a consent calendar. (Items are included in consent calendars when they pass committee with fewer than ten dissenting votes.)

Guaranteed appointment, a term that many point out does not officially exist in United Methodist legislation, refers to a tenure-type agreement that promises full time pastoral employment to ordained elders. The practice was instituted in 1956 as a way to protect female and minority clergy, who some churches might have been reluctant to accept as pastor. Many debate whether enough progress has been made to drop these protections.

Fans of the decision to end guaranteed appointment say it helps conferences get rid of ineffective pastors. An amendment to the proposal in committee added a provision for an eight-member team independent of the cabinet and bishop that would help guide the process when an elder’s effectiveness in a full-time appointment is being questioned.

When delegates realized what had happened, a motion to reconsider was brought up but failed. Read the full UMNS story.

Twitter erupted with many concerns and questions from pastors:

What will be the criteria for “effective ministry”?
Would bishops or district superintendents wield this power to end pastors’ careers if they disagree politically or theologically?
Will this limit pastors’ ability to speak prophetically in the pulpit?
What if a church tries to get rid of me?
Will pastors feel able to say “no” to bad appointments?
Will pastors be reluctant to take on a challenging congregation out of fear it could end his or her career if it goes poorly?
Will conferences become more polarized as liberal pastors feel “safer” with a liberal cabinet and conservatives with a conservative cabinet?

By the end of the day, however, many clergy bloggers seemed to feel comfortable with the decision.

From Andy Bryan:

Look, it’s all going to be fine. It will require pastors to effectively describe the fruitfulness within their particular context, and continue to maintain a healthy relationship with their DS. That’s all. No need to panic, everybody.

From Amy Lippolt:

My hope is that this removal of security will help elders realize they are not permanently entitled to a job and a good pension just because they were ordained. I also hope it will help cabinets have the hard conversations they need to with our brothers and sisters who are no longer leading effectively in the church.

From RevMomma:

I believe it is and will be possible to ensure justice with regard to race, gender, etc and still have missional effectiveness. Losing this does not lose our integrity with regard to appointment making, rather, to me, it increases our integrity and ability to do effective ministry.

As many point out, pastors are not really facing more risk than they were before. Bishops and cabinets had avenues to transition an ineffective pastor out of ministry, and they could always find a way to “punish” a pastor they disliked. My personal hope is that this change affects the process in such a way to make appointment less of a contractual obligation “to go where sent,” and more of a collaborative, consultative process where bishops, pastors, and congregations have more equal voices as we determine compatible leadership that will lead to more vital congregations.

The Flipside of Accountability

Tue, 01 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The General Conference has decided to end what is commonly called the “guaranteed appointment” for ordained elders in the United Methodist Church. The over-simplified nutshell explanation is that clergy who are judged to be ineffective no longer must be given an appointment. The first waves of reaction are coming from a kind of suspicion of authority common to so many these days. And I find it ironic.

Irony is rife in this decision, and in the reaction. One of the emphases of the UMC is attracting more young people, and the best way that happens is through vital and vibrant congregations. Young people are in general rather postmodern in their thinking. Postmodern people are (stereo)typically wary of big, institutional authority. So, some of the postmoderns who are already in the church, who are similarly prone to suspicion of authority, are reacting to the effort to bring new young people into the church by voicing their suspicion of authority, authority that is being wielded by the institution in an effort to bring more suspicious young people into the church by creating vital local congregations! Ha! I love it!

More seriously, though, the question that many clergy are asking is, “What definition of ‘effectiveness’ will be applied to me?” There is a fear that, even though I may believe that I am working faithfully, proclaiming the gospel, and bearing fruit for the kingdom, my DS or Bishop might not see it that way. And now that I am not guaranteed an appointment, they may apply their different definition of effectiveness to my ministry and ask that I consider another vocation.

Another perspective might call this “accountability,” in that pastors are being held accountable with more purpose than before. There was a process by which ordained elders could be removed from service before this decision was made. Now however, the accountability piece is closer to the surface.

Look, it’s all going to be fine. It will require pastors to effectively describe the fruitfulness within their particular context, and continue to maintain a healthy relationship with their DS. That’s all. No need to panic, everybody. It’s all good. Just be ready at a moment’s notice to lay down the dozen or more most fruitful moments that have happened in the last month, and share them with as many people as you possibly can.

No, the conference isn’t going to guarantee your appointment anymore—you are going to have to guarantee your own.

What I haven’t heard so much about is the flipside of accountability. I have heard an awful lot about how conferences will deal with ineffective pastors; I haven’t heard a bunch about how conferences are going to be supporting the effective ones. What new things will the conferences be doing now to support, encourage, inspire, refresh, renew, and affirm pastors who ARE effective?

Accountability has a flipside, and that’s where I’d like us to focus.

If an ineffective pastor is going to be encouraged to another vocation, how is an effective pastor going to be encouraged?
Should our Annual Conferences expend all their time and energy concentrating on what isn’t working well and just leave “well enough” alone?
Should the primary task of Conference staff be to guide ineffective pastors out of ministry and just assume that the effective pastors are doing fine?

I don’t fear the end of the guaranteed appointment. I’m going to preach the gospel, serve God faithfully, and work to change the world for God’s sake. I will have eyes that are open to notice fruitfulness in all of its diverse varieties. And I’ll be able to describe them to anyone who asks. I’m just wondering now, what will accountability look like from the flipside?

Not that I need an “Effective Pastor” plaque to hang on my wall or anything. I am an itinerant preacher in the United Methodist Church because I believe that’s what God wants me to be, not so that someone will pat me on the back and say “Good job, dude.” That’s not my point.

My point is simply that accountability is more than just addressing what isn’t working well. Accountability also means supporting what is.

Addicted to the Institution

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I remember when I was in seminary having a really strange conversation with another student. I remember him telling me that he saw the need for change in the United Methodist Church so much that his plan was to “sell-out,” to use his words, so that he could get himself in a position to implement the change he believed was needed to make the UMC faithful again (apparently, the assumption was that we aren’t faithful). When pushed as to whether “selling out” meant that he might have to say or do things he didn’t believe in so that he could attain the position of Bishop (which is what he said he wanted), he said he would, knowing full well what his goal was. Once he became a Bishop, he could then radically change the United Methodist Church. He just needed to be in a position of power and influence first. He needed a title.

I was so incredulous at his boldness. But I also knew what he meant. The fact is that we all love titles. We respect titles. I realized this years later when I came to hold the title I now have, Director of Civil and Human Rights of the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church. Pretty stinkin’ impressive, huh?

What amazes me though is the legitimacy that this title gives me. The truth is that before I was the Director of Civil and Human Rights I was a stay-at-home dad, writing my dissertation, working at three part-time jobs (as a Missions Pastor, doing intakes for an inner-city pharmacy for poor people, and delivering the Lexington Herald-Leader every morning), and I was very active in the anti-war and other justice movements in Lexington, KY. I also was a hippie, I had long hair and an earring – man, I was so cool then! (OK, I was cool in my own mind.) Life was hectic, and I hated getting up so blasted early every morning, but I also loved it. I was doing exactly what I wanted to. I was a Kingdom activist! But admittedly, not a lot of people willingly listened to me – I had to make them listen (and I did!). I had to earn the right to be heard or to be able to speak to situations. I earned it by showing up, by caring for people and acting out of my passion, by building relationships and being faithful in moving people into missional engagement. I earned it.

Of course, everything changed when I became, ahem, the Director of Civil and Human Rights (for one thing, I got a hair cut!). Literally overnight, people who had once wanted very little to do with me were calling and emailing and “wanting to get together.” I went from having to show my passion to earn the right to be heard to simply having to flash my fancy business card. It was weird, it still is. I am still the hell-raiser who used to have to deliver the morning paper to make ends meet, but because I have this title, I get asked what I think about stuff.

What does it say about the institutional church structure when a person’s title means that he or she has something to say that has more meaning and carries greater significance than those who do not have the titles? Do we really believe that someone who has a title automatically carries the wisdom and passion needed to carry out the associating roles? What would happen if we dropped the titles entirely? Seriously. What if I was no longer the Director of Civil and Human Rights and I was Bill, the dude who used to deliver the morning paper in Lexington, KY. Or even more, what if I was the dude who is really passionate about building multi-generational movements among United Methodists to end mass incarceration, or to abolish the death penalty, or to enact just and humane immigration reform such as the DREAM Act? What if I had to show my passion to get heard? What if I had to build relationships and be faithful in what I said and did, in order to get heard?

Let’s be honest, titles help us navigate society, or in the case of the Church, they help us navigate the structures of the Church. But I will be the first person to say that all too often – and I mean really often – titles become something we collect along the way for our own enjoyment or our own ego, and those who hold the titles simply fail to fulfill the necessary and associated roles. The roles are the things, the actions, responsibilities, that are supposed to be done by people who hold titles like the Director of Civil and Human Rights. But if you are more about collecting the titles, or if you are in a position of leadership and all you need to make the bureaucracy continue to function smoothly is someone to occupy the position – to hold the title for a certain amount of time – then you become somewhat cavalier about the carrying out of the roles. In fact, the roles can, in fact, get in the way of the bureaucracy running smoothly. Pretty soon, we become more focused on the title, making sure it is filled, rather than ensuring that someone is actually carrying out the roles associated with the title. It’s the way structures and bureaucracies tend to work.

I think for my denomination, the United Methodist Church, that we are addicted to structures. We are addicted to titles, more than we are committed to living out the roles that were meant to be associated with those titles. Back to my earlier question, what would really happen if we dropped the titles and just found the people who would carry out the roles? What would happen if we quit mandating that someone be the Director of Justice Ministries for “such and such” conference, and instead, looked for the person who was so passionate about justice, and was passionate about building teams among those in their conference who also cared passionately about justice ministries, and we supported their work? You know what I think would happen? I think we would be talking about building movements in conferences to defend and support vulnerable people rather than top-down, staff-driven programs that get the attention of people with titles and portfolios, but all too often, fail to generate much excitement or movement among those people who do not know the people who have titles and frankly, who don’t care.

As with all addictions, I think we need to honestly admit that we have an addiction to titles, structures and bureaucracies. I think we can’t imagine life without titles, structures and bureaucracies. It’s hard for us to think about what to do unless we have titles. That is a sure sign of addiction. All the while, those in the Church who aren’t suffering from this addiction are doing the work of justice and would love the support from the rest of us spinning our own wheels.

We know we are addicted because though we United Methodists know we have not been as effective as we should be, we continue to do the same thing over and over. We continue to look to titles, structures, and bureaucracies to accomplish what we have never accomplished with titles, structures or bureaucracies. And then, realizing that we are not effective, we decide we need to rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic and we tweak the titles, or the structures or the bureaucracies (and we call it the Call to Action!). But we never free ourselves from it and look to the only thing that has ever achieved anything of Kingdom significance – building movements based on incarnational relationships with people who are directly impacted by oppressive systems.

Our addiction has left us weak and impotent, but man, those titles, structures and bureaucracies make us feel good, don’t they? They are quick, they are efficient, but they also leave us feeling shallow and empty. I just cannot help but think that if we spent the same amount of time investing in people, hearing the stories of the vulnerable, listening to and sharing our passions with those who have similar passions, rather than fighting for titles that give us security within those structures, we might actually win justice for those who need it so desperately. Who knows, we might even be relevant again. But it all starts with honesty and the confession that we are addicted to titles, structures and bureaucracies. Confession is hard, but freedom is so good yet so scary too. I pray we will have the courage to confess and begin the walk towards freedom.

A Virtual General Conference?

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The other day I commented on how much time and money United Methodists spend on General Conference every four years, and I wondered aloud why we aren’t trying to move toward a virtual GC.

We’re already streaming it live and the delegates are even communicating with each other on Twitter. Couldn’t we spend some of the millions of dollars we already spend on GC to customize a state of the art teleconferencing system and add voting functions?

But then it hit me why it wouldn’t fly, even if we could get the technology to work reliably for every delegate. (And truthfully, we’re twenty years away from that, especially in some areas of the world. I can’t even get a decent cell phone signal in parts of downtown Nashville.)

It wouldn’t work because a virtual General Conference would get rid of most of what people like about GC and keep the things they don’t like. I’ve never been a GC delegate, but I’ll tell you this much: hanging out with friends from around the connection and worshiping with a worldwide group of Methodists would definitely be more fun than all the long sessions, early mornings, late nights, and droning speeches.

Do you seriously believe that anyone would sit in front of their computer monitor and put up with two weeks of committees and parliamentary procedure? I’d do it in person but not over the internet. When delegates are at a conference, they’re a captive audience. When they’re in their living rooms on their laptops, not so much.

The idea of moving some of the legislative committee and subcommittee work to the internet and cutting back General Conference to a week, however, has some merit. The first week is sort of like a pre-game show anyway. Couldn’t all the committees hash out legislation on GoToMeeting? Or maybe we should do away with the committees altogether. Bishop Will Willimon wondered in an interview last week why a church that already has too many rules and laws wants to create more. Good question.

In the end, General Conference probably won’t change much. It’s an institution. It’s the United Methodist Oscars. Most of us complain about it, but there are many die-hard Methodists who enjoy it and look forward to it. As dysfunctional as it is, we’d miss it on some level if it didn’t happen. It’s the one time where representatives from the worldwide United Methodist Church get together in one place.

I’m just glad it only happens once every four years.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Restructuring Rundown

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

We coined a new term here in the Ministry Matters offices this morning: MethoNerd.

Definition: those folks on the edge of their seats following every event at the United Methodist Church’s quadrennial General Conference, going on now in Tampa, Fla.

With some of those people in our midst, we certainly said it with love as we discussed with varying levels of interest and frustration the events of Saturday evening at General Conference, which some are even calling the “General Administration Debacle.”

I became aware of the breaking news myself Saturday night when my husband, a United Methodist pastor, noticed the #gc2012 Twitter feed exploding around 8:30 central time. As many have noted, Twitter is definitely the fastest way to follow the events in Tampa, followed (it seems to me) by GC2012 Conversations. But from all the news and blogs I've seen, here's the rundown for anyone needing the highlights.

So what exactly happened Saturday night?

In layman’s terms (Well, not exactly—the average layperson in the UMC has no idea what “CTA/IOT” means, and probably doesn’t care, but at least in terms that a merely moderate MethoNerd can understand) the General Administration Committee was mandated to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. without having made a recommendation on the church’s proposed restructuring plans. None of the three major proposals received enough votes to make it to the main floor. (Read a summary of the various proposals from Jeremy Smith. Updated: see also his April 30 comparison and analysis on restructuring.)

This doesn’t mean that all restructuring legislation is dead in the water, however. According to UMNS blogger Heather Hahn’s breaking news report,

“proponents of both the Call to Action [IOT proposal] and Methodist Federation for Social Action can bring their original legislation printed in the Advance Daily Christian Advocate to the floor to be amended and debated upon obtaining 20 signatures (according to the rules adopted earlier in the week). Plan B proponents can also bring their legislation forward as a substitute motion.”

Frustration, Outrage, and a Rogue iPhone

There was intense frustration over the mandated stopping time and what that meant for many good proposals that the committee simply didn’t have time for. Rebekah Miles wrote about an unfortunate pattern she noticed:

“Major petitions sponsored by boards and agencies appear to have had a better chance of being considered that those by individuals, churches and annual conferences. It seemed to me, also, that petitions related to local pastors were disproportionally represented on the 'not-considered' list.”

Stronger, however, was the frustration—even outrage—about the manner in which the committee session was conducted and the behavior of delegates clamoring for votes. Notable among those tweeting from the event was Andy Oliver, known as @gatordukie, who broadcasted a rogue video of the committee meeting through his iPhone. As Oliver reflected on his blog,

“Without the live stream in the room, people on the outside would have had to rely on the 140 character tweets of others and the news reports to come later. They would have missed the utter chaos, the impatient tone of the moderator, and the visuals of people telling others to vote or not to vote in the closing chaotic seconds. The response from twitter was shock. Last night those around the world witnessed the UMC at her worst.”

[Note: Oliver did not archive the videos, so they are no longer available for viewing online.]

How Did This Happen?

SMU professor Maria Dixon Hall gave her take on Saturday night’s events, beginning by saying “It ain’t Adam [Hamilton]’s fault,” and ending with concern over how Central Conference delegates were used as pawns. Between those two good points was a good rundown of where each of the main proposals failed.

"The IOT, which I thought had some very good points, simply didn’t do the hard work of communicating the plan in a way that didn’t frame it as a forgone conclusion but as a starting point for the discussion on reorganization. . . The IOT didn’t leave the audience with a sense of ‘shared’ creation and ‘shared’ future—it reeked at times of what I believe what an unintended (God, I hope it was unintended) exclusion of voices.

". . . What the authors of Plan B did was understand the feeling of exclusion that IOT left their audience with and exploited it. Exploited it they did. They promised everything to everybody especially the Central Conference delegates and Agencies. In the end, it was a beautiful tactic but nonetheless it was a tactic, which backfired when it got to the small committee assigned to ‘tweak’ it.

"God love the MFSA. They never expected to be at the table to shape this legislation, so when they found themselves able to ‘tweak’ Plan B, they were overwhelmed and ill-prepared."

Hope for Holy Conferencing

I have to admit, when my husband prayed for those in Tampa during worship yesterday morning, praying for them the oft-used term "holy conferencing," my cynicism flared up. Even on the best of days at General Conference, one expects heated debates and protest demonstrations from various groups, but from all accounts, Saturday night seemed to have been a much bigger blowup than anyone expected.

With the conversation essentially being deferred to the main floor, will we see a repeat of Saturday night in a larger venue on Wednesday, when the proposals are expected to be brought for general session consideration?

Is there hope for holy conferencing?

Stephen Drachler, a lay delegate from the Susquehanna Conference, writes that he believes so.

The chaotic ending of the work of the 2012 General Conference’s General Administration Committee puts to shame the worst machinations we all decry in the today’s secular politics. This was Holy Conferencing at its absolute worst.

The committee’s failure to reach any kind of agreement on a better structure for our denomination reflects how much we have come to allow manipulation, back-room dealing, whisper campaigning and a lust for control and power take over our legislative processes. . . . Yet, out of the chaos, I believe there is a solution out there. It’s contained in pieces of the IOT (Interim Operations Team), MFSA (Methodist Federation for Social Action), and Plan B Coalition proposals.

Out of Saturday night’s chaos, God remains present, offering another opportunity to discern God’s will for each of us individually, and for the denomination we all profess to love.

What are your thoughts about Saturday night's committee meeting and the proposals for church restructuring?

Holy Conferencing, Batman!

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Burt Ward, as Robin, the Boy Wonder, delivered some of the most delightfully inane “Holys” during the 1960s television show, Batman. He took a normal observation and turned it into an emphatic declaration. But just adding “holy” and some exaggerated energy doesn’t really mean much. We need to pay attention to this simple truth.

I have no problem with the concept of “holy conference.” I do have a problem with “holy conferencing,” or just about any noun we turn into a gerund (fellowshipping, discipling – or my new least favorite, discipleshiping!) Unfortunately the practice of holy conference (or holy conversation, if you prefer) is more than just a churchy way of talking about difficult topics. Holy conference isn’t a “tool” or a “process” or a “technique.” True holy conference is a way of engagement that is cultivated over time and becomes a normative and accepted way of holding discourse.

The botched attempt at “holy conferencing” at this General Conference should stand as a cautionary tale to United Methodists everywhere. When holy conference is poorly offered as a contrived attempt to make people talk nicely to one another, something is bound to go wrong. What went wrong with our “process?” Here’s a short list:

Inappropriate use of technology that did not work properly and that provided improper guidance for the process.
Poor instruction and incomplete explanations how to proceed.
Inadequate context setting and improper application of circle process.
Disrespectful use of the “talking stick” (flyswatters, beanie babies, a coffee mug).
No accountability to basic ground rules and shared agreements.
Inadequate time and no capacity to allow everyone time to participate.

These are just a few of the many things that didn’t work in our truncated attempt at “holy conference.” No time was given to really introduce and get to know each other beyond name and conference and a superficial question, before launching into the BIG questions. No one was taken to task for violations of even the simplest rule of not interrupting. Those who were “in charge” really didn’t know what they were doing or how to give instructions. And the video feed of Gil Rendle was delayed until it was too little, too late, and as was discussed in our circle, it came across as culturally insensitive.

But rather than scrapping the concept as a bad idea, it will be interesting to see if we might learn from this experience (and others – many people have shared horror stories from all across the connection of “holy conferencing” gone wrong…) and reframe holy conference to become a core value of our church. What changes might move us from the unintentionally hurtful and ineffective process we experienced at General Conference and move us to a better place?

Take more time to let people get to know each other.
Make holy conference a guiding value, and continuously reinforce what it is, why it is important, and how to practice it.
Make the whole of General Conference a holy conference, rather than making “holy conferencing” an agenda item.
Model from the top down and the bottom up. Through regular practice in all that we do, holy conference becomes normative.
Scrap Roberts’ Rules of Order once and for all. Don’t cultivate hypocritical whiplash by jerking people from prayerful, spiritual conversation and taking them into restrictively-structured legislative process.
Quit making “holy conferencing” a gimmick or technique that “experts” need to lead in order to “do it right.” Help people learn to talk to one another in Christian love – all the time.

The real tragedy of a bad experience with something labeled “holy conferencing” or “holy conversation” is that it makes people more resistant the next time they encounter it. This is too important to do poorly. We must work hard to cultivate respectful, kind, loving, and compassionate encounters for the people called United Methodist. If we are ever to carry a witness to the world of a better way to treat one another, it most likely will start by our ability to speak the truth in love in the church.

_____________________________________________

A reflection by Dan Dick, Wisconsin clergy delegate, ddick@wisconsinumc.org. Read more from Dan on his blog, United Methodeviations (doroteos2@wordpress.com)

Y'all Continually Repent

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Friday night’s worship’s service at General Conference was titled “An Act of Repentance.” I must admit after another long day of Legislative Committees I didn’t have great excitement about spending my Friday night asking forgiveness for all my sins. (My reticence was probably a pretty good indicator that I needed this service more than most.)

In the service we heard from different indigenous people who shared stories of atrocities that their ancestors had faced. These were not stories of long ago people with whom the speakers were distantly connected. They shared stories of their grandparents and great-grandparents, stories of lies, theft, and murder.

I was under no illusion that settlers and colonizers had always acted appropriately and morally, but this worship service began to hit closer to home that I had ever experienced before.

A quote was shared from Desmond Tutu. “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

Next we heard a story of a Methodist minister who led the massacre of hundreds of Native Americans. (Sand Creek 1864)

The speaker then shared a story about opposition to that evening’s service where someone wrote they didn’t see the need for us to repent for our distant relatives’ sins. And by the way the critic wrote, “At least we brought them Christ.” The speaker remarked he felt it a raw deal to kill his ancestors and steal their land in exchange for Christ. He wished another deal had been struck.

But I will never forget when Rev. Dr. George Tinker began to speak about the unwritten history of the atrocities against his people, Native Americans. He said what we had been taught in school was not the full story.

He then shared about the missionaries who did stay and defend the Indians when Jackson ordered the death march to Oklahoma now known as the Trail of Tears. A bit of pride began to swell up in me. “At least some stood up for what is right!” Then he said the missionaries stayed with the Indians until the Tennessee Annual Conference of the Methodist Church ordered that the missionaries come home. There would be great land and financial gains for the parishioners of the Tennessee Conference if the Indians were forced to leave. The missionaries left and the indigenous people of Tennessee were pulled out of their home.

It is hard to describe the emotion, the physical reaction I had when he spoke those words. I was sitting in the Tennessee Conference section, as a Tennessee Conference delegate, with Tennessee Conference on my nametag. I felt like a spotlight was on me. I began to sweat. Then, I began to cry.

I felt so sorry for my heritage. Who could I apologize to? What would it mean if I could? What weight would it carry? I wanted to run to the Native Americans who had gathered in the gallery that night and beg them for forgiveness.

Dr. Tinker said that we are far past the point of apology. And, he said, we are nowhere near reconciliation. His remarks were pointed, but full of compassion and grace as he said we must begin the work of repentance together.

He did some etymological and exegetical work on the word “repentance” in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. It was information I had heard before, but it sounded new in that setting. He said that the word in the Greek is a present imperative word implying that we are not to repent now, but to repent continually. He also said it is not an individual work, but one done in community. He said in the south we might say, “Ya’ll repent continually.”

As I sat at the table with delegates from Zambia I began to feel a closeness and connection with the global church that I had never experienced in worship in America.

We all named together, painstakingly so, a list of wrongs that we had committed against each other. We closed with this prayer.

Convict us, O God, by your judgment that we may hear your word to change, and grant us the power of your Holy Spirit that we may be empowered to repent, to turn around, and to participate in the new creation brought by our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

So be it Lord.

Telling the Truth about Homosexuality

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

In the conversation about homosexuality in the church, nothing new has been said in years. I have heard and read and understand the positions of those who speak from all of the various perspectives in the issues. And honestly it has become so boring that I hardly pay attention any more.

The General Conference of the United Methodist Church (the only body with the authority to speak for the whole denomination) has an opportunity to speak the truth, as it does every four years. And the truth is that there is a lack of consensus in the United Methodist Church with regard to the compatibility of homosexuality with Christian teaching. That’s the truth. And that’s what the General Conference should say.

Because here’s the deal - we have got to stop arguing about this. The intra-denominational argument is hindering the mission of the church, and making it increasingly difficult to make disciples of Jesus Christ. It is ugly; it is bitter; it is hateful. And it has to stop.

We have shamefully proof-texted the question until you’d think all that we knew of scripture were those little snippets that we hurl relentlessly at one another to prove our point.

We have accused one another of not loving God or of not loving neighbor with such ferocity as we willfully ignore the inherent irony of our words.

We obsess over this one issue with a kind of ghastly fascination that is in no way appealing or attractive or missional or faithful to who we are supposed to be as the Church.

We must stop; and we must tell the truth. And then, we have to be okay with the ambiguity of the truth. This is not a simple issue. There are multiple distinct positions on the question, and there is simply no consensus in the United Methodist denomination, and the General Conference should say that out loud.

Of course, I understand how unpopular my perspective is. There will be, “But it’s a sin and we should say it’s a sin” and there will be, “But the status quo is unjust and so we have to change it.” These responses will come from the either/or people on all sides of the question.

But this is not an either/or question, and so it shouldn’t have an either/or answer. The question for General Conference is not “Is homosexuality a sin” - the question is “What should the United Methodist denomination say about it.” It would not be truthful to say, “The UMC thinks homosexuality is a sin.” It would not be truthful to say, “The UMC thinks homosexuality is not a sin.”

The honest thing to say, the missional thing to say, the faithful thing to say is just the truth. Some of us think it is, some of us don’t; some think it’s a choice, some do not; some of us are legitimately homophobic, most are not; some think it is a sin but that doesn’t mean we should exclude, some do; and on and on and on. There is no consensus, and we needn’t pretend there is.

Now, can we please focus on the business of helping people become disciples of Jesus Christ who are changing the world, for God’s sake?

A Day in the Life of a Reserve Delegate

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The morning starts at 6:45 with showers and hotel room coffee and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich made from groceries I picked up yesterday.

As a reserve delegate to the United Methodist Church's General Conference, I get to observe most of the time, and so when I arrived at the conference at 8am, I made my way to the Superintendency committee. I’m not sure why I picked it, but there I was. Devotions were led by the committee chair and then we got down to business… mostly. The group started with two easier ones – and chose to not support an item to allow for laity to become bishops and an item that would require district superintendents to serve outside of their annual conferences. And then the fun began. 5 proposals all dealing with term limits for bishops had to be dealt with. Which would they chose? How would it affect central conferences? Are term limits a sign of distrust or a tool for effectiveness? Is being a bishop different than being an elder? The process was long, and at one point, the group decided to return to language allowing central conferences to chose their own term limits for bishops (current practice). Which then left the question of what to do with US bishops. As the debate went on, and an amendment was made by a delegate from a central conference, a woman from Germany stood to speak. She gently spoke to the fact that the committee had allowed for contextual local control for the central conferences to make their own decisions and asked that other central conference delegates would refrain from editing the proposal that was before the body so that the US delegates could make decisions about their own context. It was a gracious act of kenosis.

Lunch gave me the opportunity to sit down with other young adults and have a Q&A with Adam Hamilton about the Call to Action and Interim Operations Team proposals. Adam was extraordinarily gracious and did his best to listen and answer what he could. There were still many questions and not enough time and not enough dialogue back and forth (the format and sheer number of YP who turned up – 50+) didn’t allow for it. BUT – you could sense there was a change of feelings… it didn’t hurt that the backdrop for the conversation were the words “HEAL” – our theme scripture for the evening.

After lunch, I tried to catch up on some social media conversations. I sat outside in the sun, recharged my phone (which I used excessively b/c of the poor internet), talked with some other reserves and rested. Then I spent the rest of the afternoon session observing the Faith & Order sub-committee which was discussing qualifications for ordination. One of the most interesting parts of their work was watching the difficult work of the translator and the difficulty of not only multiple languages, but the added language of Robert’s Rules to complicate matters. It was an exercise in patience for all involved and they truly lived out the process graciously and beautifully… in spite of fumbles and human missteps. That happens… keeping the spirit is the hard part and they succeeded.

The hardest part about the process is that you can’t talk. You can’t add information. You can’t help to clear up problems. You can just be there. I tried to be available by offering to move chairs, by shushing folks next door who were being too loud, offering markers, etc. As a reserve you really are support. You can love and care and pray, but you can’t really participate in the same way. For anyone who knows me, that is a difficult thing for me to do. I like to be actively engaged and twitter has been one way for me to communicate and share even though I cannot use my physical voice.

Tonight’s plenary greeted our Pan-Methodist brothers and sisters from across the globe and featured nominations for important general church positions. It also featured a point of personal priveledge that lifted up the failure of the process of holy conferencing (not enough time, guidelines, compassion, importance) the day before – specifically in regards to LGBT issues. It was evident there was pain and hurt felt by many…

but the beautiful thing about a church conference is that God is in our midst. Our theme for the day was healing and plenary led into worship where we sang Balm in Gilead and talked about the healing power of Jesus’ love in our lives and we were challenged to lift up to God the places where we have hurt or been unkind or have sinned… the places we need spiritual healing as well as physical healing. It was powerful. Tears freely poured. I prayed with one of the marshals for her sister who is ill. We sang, we prayed, and God moved in that place.

10:00 – time to head back to the hotel… with stops for conversation, and witness, and sharing. It’s nearly 1am now… the blogging is done, the mind is clear, and I can sleep.

For Breaking News, Go to Twitter

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Those who aren’t United Methodist probably have trouble understanding why some of the ones who are UM get so wrapped up in this whole General Conference thing. For one thing, it only comes around every four years. It’s kind of like the Olympics. Well, not really. NBC doesn’t pay ridiculous amounts of money to put our General Conference on the air. We have to settle for a Livestream feed on the Internet which, more often than not, shows color bars. (Couldn’t we at least get a roving reporter with a cell phone cam fishing for sensational quotes between sessions?)

Eight years ago, I remember going to the UMNS website to get breaking news about GC2004. There must have been a lot of demand on the servers during that GC because I remember the site being down a lot. In those days we relied mostly on UMNS articles and the occasional mainstream news story to find out what was happening. Today we have all kinds of news sources and blogs with GC updates, but my favorite way of keeping track of what’s happening is Twitter.

I realized the power of Twitter as a news source on the Sunday night when Osama Bin Laden’s death was made public. CNN had announced an unusual White House news conference that would happen later in the evening. I changed the TV to Fox News Channel and Geraldo Rivera was saying the same. (If anyone was going to let the cat out of the bag prematurely, I figured it would be Geraldo, but not this time.) So I signed on to Twitter, and Bin Laden’s death was already trending. Television news had been scooped by the masses—what’s not to love about that?

Anytime you put power in many hands, it’s bound to get messy. That’s the nature of democracy and freedom. And there are few things as free and as democratic as Twitter. You obviously can’t believe everything you read there, but as long as you understand the limitations of the source and verify the information, you can learn a lot. And you can learn it before a reporter can write the first paragraph of their news story. It’s amazing how much can be said in 140 characters.

But Twitter won’t replace traditional news sources. It isn’t meant to. It will, however, help make in-depth reporting and analysis more important than ever. People will always want to go somewhere to find out more.

I glance at the #GC2012 Twitter feed from time to time while I’m working. I’m not that interested in every little detail of GC, but it’s fun finding out what’s happening in the legislative committees in real time. And the cool thing about Twitter is you can see every side of the story if you read enough tweets. Even sides you don’t want to see and sides you didn’t know existed. Plus you get the information and the emotion—unfiltered.

It’s a wild west, no doubt, but that’s the beauty of it.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Holy Tweeting

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

At first I was excited to be one of only a handful of United Methodist General Board of Church and Society staff not travelling down to Tampa, Fla. for the denomination's General Conference 2012. I figured it would be a great opportunity to get ahead in my work and support our staff by carrying on with the business of advocacy and communications while they were away. Plus, I really didn’t want to get bogged down in the politics of it all. Nothing sours my passion for the mission of the church like political squabbling and infighting. I’m relatively new to the Methodist church and the ordination process. I need all the passion I can muster to help push me through the archaic process that comes along with a call to professional service in the church.

I must, however, admit that by the time of opening worship on Tuesday I felt some regret for not attending.

But a funny thing happened on Tuesday afternoon during the opening worship service, which was streamed live at www.gc2012.umc.org. Right there beside the streaming video was a real time Twitter feed. I noticed, just as I was rolling my eyes to the use of the 90’s praise music to open this year’s event, quite a few other folks with the same reaction. It didn’t take me long to join the conversation.

Since that time, there’s been a steady stream of Twitter activity found at various hashtags—#GC2012, #GC2012love, and #GCYP (General Conference Young People) among others. What’s happened is quite remarkable. Delegates and observers from within the conference are engaged in real time conversations with those of us sitting in our offices and living rooms around the globe. We are doing the work of holy conferencing that is so rooted in the historical practice of the Methodist Church as we meet, encourage one another, worship, pray and become refreshed from the sense of unity and common mission.

An informal survey would suggest that those of us holy conferencing via Twitter range in age from 19 to 40. We represent regions across the country as well as divergent theological perspectives. I spent over an hour yesterday in a conversation on sacrament, communion, biblical literacy, and what is and isn’t sacrilegious. The entire conversation took place over Twitter. One person was in Tampa at General Conference, another was in Mississippi, one in Seattle, another in Iowa and me in Washington, DC. We didn’t all agree, but the venue also didn’t allow us to talk over one another or expend our breath making elaborate arguments. Instead, we shared our diverse points of view and found encouragement from the conversation itself. In the end, we blessed each other with the peace of Christ using our shared liturgical language.

Later in the evening, laity and clergy weighed in as Rev. Adam Hamilton led a primetime presentation on the Call to Action (a controversial reorganization proposal before General Conference). For many of us the Call to Action represents an unnecessary attempt to streamline and corporatize the church. The proposal claims to seek “vital congregations” but uses growth metrics as opposed to missional markers to gauge progress toward that goal. Twitter allowed folks an avenue to express themselves and point out places of agreement with and contradictions of the proposal.

I suppose we’ll be talking about Twitter’s affect on the proceedings in Tampa for the next four years. There’s no doubt that those of us engaged in the conversations are finding encouragement and hope. But we all seem to be asking the same question at the moment:

Is anyone listening?

Pentecost or Corporate Control?

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Wednesday’s most dramatic moment came in the evening with the presentation on the Call to Action by Adam Hamilton, pastor of a megachurch in the suburbs of Kansas City. It took place in the massive convention center where we are meeting for General Conference here in Tampa and it was one of the slickest presentations that I have ever seen. It was perfectly timed between in-person presentations with adjoining videos and music, building to a crescendo meant to urge us to leave the quite pathetic present of the United Methodist Church in favor of a glorious future where our churches are filled, our clergy are young and everyone lives with meaning and purpose. One thing I could not help noticing is that the presentation was designed to have speakers from every major voting block attending General Conference in it. Smart. It felt like a video you will see at the Democratic or Republican conventions. It was expertly done.

But I was most troubled (and I have to admit, I was troubled by a lot of things in this presentation) by the pictures Rev. Hamilton showed of boats in the water to signify where we are as a church and where we should go. One picture showed several boats going in random directions, each making a big splash of water but not seeming to go anywhere. It was comical. The other picture was of a sleek crew boat, which requires many people to row in the same direction, with the same exact speed and in perfect timing. The water was hardly disturbed with the boat smoothly gliding ahead. The image of course is the need for all to have the same mission rather than be disjointed and scattered.

But it felt to me much more than that. It felt dangerous. With the huge screens and the music building and carrying us all along, I felt stifled just watching it, because as one who tends to disturb the waters (calm waters usually means a lack of justice), as one who tends to not immediately jump in the boat along with everyone else, as one who resists the message of “grab an oar and row!”, as one who tends to prefer the energy that seems like chaos, but is in reality, creativity unleashed, I felt marginalized by Rev. Hamilton’s vision, not inspired. I felt imprisoned, not unleashed.

As I have reflected on this image tonight I see there are some incredibly troubling biblical images that come to mind that frankly make Hamilton’s crafted Call to Action dangerous to the life and mission, and yes, vitality of the church.

As I strained to think about all of the biblical stories that might fit into Hamilton’s vision – a picture of everyone in the same boat going into the same direction, rowing with perfect timing, the corporate whole replacing the uniqueness of the individual – the only story that kept coming to me was the story of the Egyptian subjugation of Israel under the leadership of the Pharaoh. There is no other picture I can think of that shows a body working with such conformity and precision. No, I do not think Hamilton is trying to enslave the church, but I do think the analogy does fit. Forcing everyone into the same sleek crew boat, all rowing in one direction with precise timing and speed, will naturally stifle and repress the gifts that actually, everywhere else in the Bible, create meaningful and necessary tension, conflict, and missional motion. Though the Body of Christ is equipped and meant to move quite differently with various responsibilities and purposes, this image of the sleek crew boat puts that body into a straight jacket.

The power of this presentation – the amount of money it took to put it all together, the number of people – including Episcopal leadership – that had to come together to pull this off made this more than powerful. It was stifling in and of itself – for those of us who do not fit into that sleek crew boat designed not to include the dramatic variances of the gifts of the Body, but instead, designed to be a one-size-fits-all church structure. It was overwhelming because it felt to many of us who sat in the hall that this had been pre-decided. The fix was in – we are going to fit into that boat or we will get left on the side, we will get left behind. Moving in the same direction and rowing in the same exact fashion to make the boat go, is all that seemed to matter through the sheer size, cost, time, and magnitude of the presentation.

And at the same time, the biblical image of Pentecost kept coming to my mind. Pentecost seemed to people standing and watching from the sidelines, like the random boats in the first picture, splashing around, chaotic looking, but yet filled with motion and even excitement. People could not help but gather to watch and perhaps even jump in and participate. Pentecost was like that. The Holy Spirit fills the disciples and they speak in tongues they likely do not understand themselves. It is an uncontrolled public witness – uncontrolled by human agendas – as well as a transformative movement of God. The Church is birthed here! Should not this image be the one we want to follow simply for that reason alone?

There is no doubt about which picture I resonated with and which one I felt the freedom to be who God has called me to be. It honestly feels like choosing between someone’s corporate controlled image of a smooth, efficient machine and the somewhat chaotic, yet entirely creative, dynamic movement-making frenzy produced by the Holy Spirit’s uncontrolled presence in the lives of a group of believers willing to risk it all for the Kingdom. I’ll take the latter any day of the week.

After the presentation Tuesday night I could not wait to get out of the hall, just to breathe. I must admit, I am afraid for the future of the United Methodist Church if Hamilton’s vision, the Call to Action, is adopted. The sleek crew boat and the incredibly powerful and expensive presentation, endorsed by all the powers that be seems quite attractive. Clean, efficiency is always attractive. But I do not see life coming out of that model. I do not see the New Testament Church birthed out of the Call to Action. I see centralized-control and a sleek new model that makes us feel good, asks us to do very little and meets our every whim and desire. But that ain’t the church I want to be a part of. I will take frenzy over precision, motion over calmness, and the control of the Holy Spirit over the control of a small group of church elites – a cabal if you will – any day of the week.

So, I am praying for Pentecost. I hope you will pray for Pentecost too.

The Theology in Our Polity

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Taking part in my first General Conference has caused me to wonder about the role of theology in our polity. Where do we find God in the way we have chosen to order ourselves?

At times I have been very grateful for the parliamentary structure that orders our gathering together. With so many voices, opinions, positions, and emotions it is clear we need some way to order our time together. Able and compassionate Bishops have presided with care and reason over some of our initial tedious conversations. I have been thankful that at times people were ruled out of order and at other times that voices had to be heard because of the system we employ.

It has been impossible, though, to miss the seeming change in tone and feeling in the large convention hall when we transition from worship to business. The organizers of the conference have clearly been careful to start and end our day with worship and prayer, but (and this is purely subjective) it seems to me that the room changes when we begin to consider our different petitions and hopes for the conference in the business sessions.

As we follow Robert’s Rules of Order I pause to consider a question that a good friend of mine raises from time to time. “Do we even know if this Robert was a Christian?” When my friend raises this question it usually gets a laugh, but it seems like a question worth asking.

Is parliamentary procedure the right way to discern the Holy Spirit of God’s movement in a large group of people?

Is a democratic voting system the best way for the church to make decisions?

It is of note that in Acts 15 when the early church faced its first big crisis, the first widespread church-wide issue with faithful followers lining up on both sides, there was no vote taken. There was time for discussion (holy conversation) and then James spoke up and said, “It is my judgment (or my decision then) that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

The only reason I bring this up is because there are times when I wish someone who we trust, that has been given the authority to lead by God and by the body, could stand up and say “It is my judgment that…”

I understand the multitude of problems that arise when one person is given sole leadership, and really wouldn’t propose that for the church, but at times the church does need an anointed person(s) in leadership who can speak a decision into a divided caucus.

Perhaps General Conference and its 900 or so delegates are the “James” for the United Methodist Church in 2012. We are the ones entrusted by the body to have holy conversation, to pray, to fix our hearts on Jesus and discern God’s will by determining what is reasonable and faithful for our beloved church.

One thing I’m sure of after 2 days in Tampa: It’s going to take 900 people a little bit more time than it took James to make a decision.

How Long Should You Preach?

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

If you preach on a regular basis, you probably have guidelines for how long your sermons should be. You may not always have a choice in the matter—sometimes, especially when you’re speaking somewhere else, you’re given a time slot and you have to fill it. But if you’re a senior pastor or regular preaching pastor, you likely have major influence over the structure and length of your church’s worship services. That means you decide how long you’re going to speak and what needs to be cut or added to the rest of the service to make it happen.

When it comes to sermon length, I’ve observed three kinds of preachers:

Short and sweet: These are the preachers who never go beyond the fifteen minute mark. Ever. Perhaps it’s because they’re from traditions that don’t encourage lengthy preaching. Maybe it's the way their homiletics professors taught them in seminary. Or it’s possible they realize that preaching isn’t their strong suit and they’re trying to spare everyone the agony of a long sermon. Whatever the reason, listeners who aren’t used to such short sermons will probably be in denial that they’ve just heard a real sermon. (If a visitor’s face lights up with delight as they exclaim, “That’s it?”, it’s a bad sign.)

Half hour or less: Preachers who speak for 20 to 30 minutes are fairly common. That’s because really good speakers will find that a 20 or 25 minute sermon leaves the audience wanting more. Not so good speakers will realize that they probably couldn’t keep the congregation awake longer than 20 or 25 minutes anyway, so they don’t dare venture into second half hour territory. Some probably shouldn’t even go into second quarter hour territory.

Half hour plus: Back in the 80’s and 90’s, Domino’s Pizza had a guarantee on pizza delivery that went something like this: If you don’t get your pizza within thirty minutes, it’s free. Domino’s discontinued the guarantee when drivers were having too many car accidents trying to make the half hour deadline. Sometimes I think churches should have a similar guarantee: If the sermon stinks and goes over a half hour, you get your tithe back. I kid, of course, but in all seriousness, only the most gifted and interesting preachers should preach over 30 minutes. And even they should proceed with much caution. Are you one of those preachers? If you have to ask, probably not yet.

So how long should your sermons be? It depends.

Do you preach from a manuscript? You should keep it to 15 minutes or less. Seriously, if people can tell you are reading (even if you only look down every few seconds), they will get bored quickly. Unless you’re really good at delivering a manuscript sermon (and I’ve met few preachers who are) keep it short. If you want to go longer, preach from an outline or train yourself to speak without notes.

Does your sermon have one big idea? (Not three—one!) If you had to condense your sermon down to a Tweet (140 characters or less) or an elevator pitch, could you do it? Is there one main thing people should get from it? Then you should feel free to take 20 or 25 minutes. If not, keep your sermon to 15 minutes or less, because it’s probably too complicated. Taking more time is just going to confuse everyone.

Are there a lot of young people in your audience? Unless you’re a crackerjack speaker (worthy of an HBO special or a gig at a Christian conference), keep your sermon to 15 or 20 minutes tops. Hint: Watch the teenagers while you’re preaching to see how you’re doing. They’ll be more honest with their body language than their parents will be. Some will even tell you to your face later if you were boring.

Do you spend a lot of time planning your sermon but speak with a minimum amount of notes? Then by all means, approach the 25-30 minute mark. If you walk around and make eye contact and experiment with voice inflection for effect, you’re probably one of those preachers who can pull it off. I’ve observed that people generally prefer hearing a well-prepared sermon, but they want it to be delivered as if it were being preached extemporaneously. It’s one of the great paradoxes of church life.

Do you use PowerPoint for every sermon and have slides for nearly everything, including your jokes? If you do, stop it. You don’t even get 15 minutes. Powerpoint is most effective when used sparingly. It’s not meant to carry the whole sermon or serve as a teleprompter for the speaker. PowerPoint isn’t what it used to be. Boring teachers and college professors have truly killed it for the rest of us.

So should you ever go over 30 minutes? Sure, but only if you’re already preaching for 25-30 minutes and people are regularly showering you with compliments like, “I don’t know where the time goes when you preach!” or “You have me on the edge of my seat every week with your sermons!” Or if you’re in a church tradition that has trained the congregation to expect longer discourses. But even then, you’d better learn how to deliver the goods. Otherwise, keep it shorter.

With most preachers, less is more. Even the best speakers should constantly be working to learn how to say more in less time. We’re in a short attention span world now whether we want to admit it or not.

Questions: Are you coasting with your preaching or are you spending time regularly learning how to make more efficient use of time in your sermons? Are you preaching the right amount of time or are you speaking past your ability to hold the attention of your congregation?

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Pressure to Make Out with God

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A friend of mine tweeted something the other day that caught my attention.

“Anyone else concerned that congregations in modern worship have become observers instead of participants/singers? People just stand & stare”

Then another friend who is a worship leader retweeted it with an enthusiastic “yes!”

I don’t have any issues with the question or the answer that these two men gave. I know them both and what they really want is to see people having intimate moments with God. But it did make me consider a few things about worship and how we perceive people’s actions during worship.

1. A healthy, evangelistic church will have quite a bit of “standing and staring."

Demonstrative worship is the result of a life that is filled with the Holy Spirit. Although a talented worship leader could probably convince people to do the “away, away, away, away, away”s in Hillsong’s “Go” that would sound like a European soccer match right before the riot, I am not sure that is a sign of health. In fact, a church that is full of fully engaged worshippers either has a fake congregation or a evangelism problem.

Worship with a lot of people who are not singing is a sign of a healthy church with large number of people who are far from God, who have been drawn towards him, but are not in love with him yet.

2. Sometimes we are asking people to make out with God too soon.

There were always a few people in high school who had no shame when it came to PDA. They would make out in middle of class with a boyfriend of three minutes. Those people are now worship leaders. (JUST JOKING!) Actually, those people are now mature adults who have learned to control themselves but will probably be drawn to a public demonstrative worship (PDW) a little sooner than your average accountant or Marine.

Most people are uncomfortable with PDA, even sloppy wet kisses of God. Worship leaders who push people to get get comfortable with their PDW too quickly need to examine their motivations.

Is it because having that energy come back at you from the crowd makes you feel like a rock-star?

Or is it because you truly want to see people have moments with God?

I think for most worship leaders, it’s the latter with an unhealthy dose of the former (just like this pastor who likes a few amens when he preaches to puff my ego). (BTW, Brad Hambrick has a GREAT article on this subject and the how and why of demonstrative worship.

3. Worship leaders need to become worshiper pastors.

I know this is easy semantics but I hope it can be more. Worship leaders lead people in worship music. Oftentimes, we can end up worshiping the music, because a good musical experience becomes the idol. The measurement will easily be how much did people sing, did they clap their hands, was there a real energy in the room? All good stuff. Good enough I guess, but seems a little anti-climatic. We all know people who worship well and live poorly.

Worshiper pastors shepherd the heart of a people to take their next steps towards God by using music, media, and sometimes words and silence to promote a life given fully to Jesus.
There is a difference. Not a huge difference that we can see, but a huge difference nonetheless.

I believe in demonstrative worship. It is one of our core values at Freedom Church. I think God made emotions and we are to offer them to him in worship. I just think sometimes I can be guilty of using it as a poor measuring stick.

What about you? What measuring sticks do you use for worship, rightly or wrongly?

Tampa 2012: A Fitting Place for United Methodists

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The United Methodist Church's General Conference 2012 is currently underway in Tampa. The convention center that is our “sanctuary” for these two weeks is bordered on one side by the busy downtown of Tampa and on another side by the calm waters of the Tampa Bay.

The opening worship service was themed around water, reminding us that the waters of baptism is where it begins for all of us. The service began with a blessing from some of the indigenous people of this part of Florida. Dressed in their traditional garments they invited God’s presence and blessing into the large convention hall. They taught us that the word Tampa comes from one of their ancient words meaning “fire sticks” or “lightning.” (Thus the NHL’s Tampa Bay Lightning)

Last night the mayor of Tampa addressed us telling us about the heritage that Pirates hold in Tampa history. (Thus the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers) In this morning’s Episcopal Address Bishop Pete Weaver taught us that when the Spaniards arrived here 300 years ago they named the Tampa waters “the Bay of the Holy Spirit”. What does this history have to do with our time here? What does this setting hold for the United Methodist Church?

Calm waters next to a bustling, concrete metropolitan downtown. The cool breeze off of the Bay reminds us of “fire stick” storms further out at sea. Do pirates loom on the Bay of the Holy Spirit?

I am learning that Tampa is full of contrasts. On the sidewalk in front of the convention center peaceful demonstrations for different theological views stand side by side. Inside of the convention center hundreds of countries are represented with all different colors and languages standing side by side in worship.

The United Methodist Church faces critical decisions this week. It seems we must remember that as the church we border the waters of the Holy Spirit on one side and the busy city in need of God on the other. There will be lightning and pirates at times but as the church we weather those storms because we follow the one who has the power to still the storms.

When I checked into my room I learned that I had a “city view” room as opposed to a “river view” room. This means that my balcony has a view of concrete and taxis instead of waves and sunsets. At first I was disappointed, but now it seems fitting as I consider out task at the conference. The church needs both views. At times we rest by the peaceful waters of the Spirit, but it is not to be our permanent seat. We also need the city view which holds for us difficult work but beautiful sights that cannot be seen if we are always gazing into the water.

I think Tampa is the right place for General Conference 2012.

Technocrats or Innovators?

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

To the average United Methodist, General Conference is a mythical place where we send our delegates to be the authorities of our conference and they emerge after two weeks with the best decisions about how the church can relate to the world. It is all that. But it is also more. There is more than just who we are. There are decisions made of how we are as well.

If we want to talk about how to change the church, then one of the problems that General Conference has to deal with is how to distinguish the technocrats from the innovators.

As my friend Kirk VanGilder has posited, a technocrat is someone who understands how a system works and how to best excel within that system. They do not push the system, they do not overhaul the system, but they are great champions within the system. The innovators are those who do push the system, who do go to the margins and back again, and who remain faithful to the core values as well.

My fear, informed by Dr. VanGilder, is that we are creating a system that awards the technocrats rather than the innovators.

The attached photo by the United Methodist Women is a great visual of this dialectic.

There’s a huge room with booths and areas where all the general church agencies have stuff set up. The United Methodist Women could have done what all the other general boards have done: put together shiny displays overloaded with information and relevant stories. Most of them have nice plush seats so that delegates and board members/staffers can chat about their values and offerings. And, finally, all these apportionment dollars are spent so that the delegates won't cut the apportionment dollars or do away with agency offerings entirely.

Enter the United Methodist Women. Instead of the above, they took their space, roped it off, put nothing in it, and put up a sign that said they could have done everything that everyone else was doing but they didn’t. And here’s why:

“So, instead, we used the money to fully fund the seminary education of two female local pastors in Cameroon.”

It's a gamble. The United Methodist Women is not playing the game. They aren't doing the flashy banners or "conversation nooks" or anything like that. Instead, they are critiquing the system and refusing to boil down their historic and extensive ministry to 600 square feet of flash and substance.

In the same way, the United Methodist Church is also deciding whether to build up a generation of technocrats or innovators. And by looking at the room full of similar conversation nooks, posters, images, the silent space of the United Methodist Women is deafening.

Our church has a huge number of technocrats in their ranks, and the proposals by the Call to Action for greater emphasis on church metrics will only exacerbate this tendency. By focusing on dollars in the plates and warm bodies in the pews, Dr. Van Gilder explains here why that is a worrisome focus for mission’s sake.

Just as United Methodist Women refused to spend their money as technocrats working the system and instead emptied themselves in a risky endeavor towards building up women in Cameroon, the United Methodist Church has a choice of whether to perpetuate and exacerbate a culture of technocrats under the guise of accountability, or instead to recognize churches that are truly emptying themselves in thankless ways.

I usually say the choice is ours. In this case, I could say "The choice is the Delegates'," but in reality, it isn't. Every local church can participate in the technocracy. Every local church can participate in the raising up of an innovative culture that doesn't play the game an instead takes congregational life to a new level. My prayer for General Conference to innovate is also for you. The choice is yours.

30. We See A New Church

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I recently spoke with some of the laity, clergy, and bishops who have given direction to Call to Action. Often I return from meetings with a low-grade depression, the discussions confirming the intransigence of the church and the hopelessness of reversing the downward trends that challenge our mission. Not so with this meeting!

As I listened to some of our most creative leaders, I felt a more profound hope than I have in a long time. There’s a growing consensus of vision and future that I find compelling.

We see a new church, a church that is clear about its mission and confident about its future, a church that is relevant, reaching out, inviting, alive, agile, and resilient. We see a church that is hopeful, passionate, nimble, called of God, outward-focused, courageous.

Where do we see this new church? It is not yet, and it is not everywhere; nevertheless, there are a thousand signs of its emerging.

We see signs of this new church in those congregations that are thriving, those pockets of excellence that have managed to buck the trends to reach younger generations, to extend the ministry of Christ into unexpected places.

During recent months I’ve preached in rural congregations led by local pastors and lay ministers that have doubled in attendance, started outreach ministries that change lives, and welcomed new people even from areas with declining population. I’ve celebrated the merger of urban churches in creative ways we wouldn’t have thought possible five years ago, combining the excellent and passionate work of growing congregations with strategic facilities to reach neighborhoods afresh. I’ve shouted with joy at the success of new congregational starts in African American and Hispanic neighborhoods. I’ve been humbled by the courage and vision of several long-established congregations who have opened themselves to deep and risky transformation. Many congregations are reappraising their mission, making hard choices, and realigning their resources toward more vigorous, fruitful, outward-focused ministry. I’m moved by the number of pastors who voluntarily join continual learning communities, delving more deeply into the dynamics of congregations and the theology of mission, and learning skills to reach new people.

Are these changes affecting every congregation? No. And yet every conference has congregations that are thriving, pastors willing to teach others, and laypersons with the passion to learn, change, and initiate ministry. We see a new church, with signs evident in church starts, unexpected mergers, experiments with second sites, transformed congregations, gifted young people entering ministry, creative initiatives, and risk-taking outreach.

And we see a new church shaping annual conferences, a serious refocusing after decades of restructuring committees and reshuffling staff. Through much experimentation, several annual conferences have truly realigned resources toward their mission. They lead congregations to lead people to active faith in Jesus Christ because they know that congregations do not exist to serve conferences, but conferences exist to cultivate ministries in congregations and communities. Many conferences take excellence, fruitfulness, and accountability seriously in bold new ways. They radically streamline operations, reevaluate the role of superintendents, focus the appointment system on the mission field, and rethink standards for ministry with attention to fruitfulness. I’m profoundly hopeful when I see conferences redirect the flow of energy, attention, and resources toward increasing the number of fruitful congregations. We can learn from them.

And we see a new church emerging at the general church. Several general agencies are unilaterally reducing their size and streamlining their operations. Ideas now abound about merging, consolidating, cooperating, removing redundancies, reducing costs, and most important, focusing on the mission of Christ particularly through congregations. Conversations taking place now would not have been possible a few years ago. Suggestions about a unified governance structure that focuses outwardly on the mission, forces future-oriented thinking, reconnects the local church to the general ministries, and increases accountability—these plans give me hope.

And there is a new spirit in the Council of Bishops. The unanimous adoption of the Call to Action with its sustained focus on congregational vitality, the willingness of the Council to confront some of the internal issues that have hampered it, the openness to evaluation, and the development of learning communities within the Council—these give me hope as well.

The Call to Action invites United Methodists to sustained attention to congregational vitality, a focus on leadership development, realigning boards to support our mission, and reworking the Council of Bishops. These are significant undertakings, and I wrestle with my own impatience on how we shall achieve them.

And yet there are many signs of hope. Picture a heat map, where clusters of fruitful ministry activity are lighted against a dark background with the most fruitful and vital ministries shining brightest. The heat map of The United Methodist Church would allow us to see bright spots in unexpected places, concentrations of vital ministry and congregations that are thriving. Some are in urban areas, some in suburbs, and some in the most isolated rural counties. Africa is aglow with congregational vitality and mission partnerships, but also the map draws our attention to an exceptional campus ministry in one area and to a courageous witness for the homeless in another. A flourishing traditional church lights up near a dynamic merger. Some conferences and seminaries and foundations and agencies glow bright as they risk genuine innovation to realign with the mission. Lights here and there, bright spots appear in places we never expected.

Some Call to Action recommendations stretch us uncomfortably, and some don’t go far enough. There are thousands of details to argue over if we choose to do so. Or we can look at the big picture, the change in culture and process that redirects the flow toward vital congregations.

We see a new church, and there are signs of it here and there in congregations, conferences, agencies, and at the Council. Something is happening in our church. The Spirit that blows where it will is creating openings for conversation and for a way forward with faithfulness. The way things have been is not the way they will be. And this gives me hope.

Where do you see signs of a new church, of a burgeoning of life through fruitful ministry?

What initiatives and ministries in your congregation, your conference, or the general church give you hope?

Pray through 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 in Eugene Peterson’s The Message for fresh insight from a familiar passage.

We See A New Church from Call to Action on Vimeo.

A Global Church

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

This Sunday, the African Ministry from a church in a nearby city came and joined our congregation for worship. Well, they didn’t just join us . . . they led us. Their pastor preached, the choir sang, the little boys danced, and it was an exciting, uplifting time of worship.

One of the things that really stuck with me was that Pastor Dieudonne kept reminding us that God is doing us a favor in worship, meaning that God is blessing us right now by allowing us to be here in this place. And it truly was a blessing to gather with brothers and sisters from around the globe and to remember what we are about and WHO we are about.

My congregation was full that morning – not only with members of my church and our brothers and sisters from Cedar Rapids, but also from other churches in our community who wanted to come and worship with us. So we were not only global, but ecumenical, and all different ages were a part of our celebration, too! For three hours, we were a living embodiment of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church… the body of Christ, itself. It was awesome.

And it got me very excited because this morning, I’m in Tampa for the United Methodist Church's General Conference, which begins today. And delegates from every state and countries from all across this globe are gathering. And as we worship we will remember that we truly are a global church. We are a church that has listened to the command of Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations . . . at least we are trying to do so.

So far, I’ve visited with folks from Michigan, Ohio, Alabama, Boston, Puerto Rico, Illinois, Korea, and the Philippines.

But on the plane yesterday, I was also reminded that our global church has some work to do. We do not truly share our standards across the globe. We will make a lot of decisions these next two weeks that will only affect the United Methodist Church in the United States. We will employ practices that are very “American.” Our denomination does not represent the diversity of the very places that we live in, much less the world. There is work to do!!!

For the next two weeks, I hope and pray that we might not only become empowered to truly be a global church, but to listen to our brothers and sisters, to speak out of the fullness of our hearts, and to be willing to change and expand and grow if that means welcoming someone else at the table and into the Body of Christ… or maybe even being willing to get up from our table and go to join someone else in creating the body of Christ where they are!

Conference as Google

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Discussing the purpose of our United Methodist Annual Conferences (FYI for non-UMs, the "annual conference" is more than a one-time-a-year gathering, but also the name of our regional church affiliation) with some colleagues, we wondered: What is the ideal Annual Conference structure?

For me the answer is simple - Google.

Google is a noun. It is the name of a website through which people can access a seemingly unlimited amount of information on just about anything they want to know about.

But google has become a verb. It means “what you do in order to access that information.” If you don’t know something and you want to know it, you just google it.

Whereas “google” is a noun that has been verbified, it feels like the word “conference” is a United Methodist verb that has been nounified.

Conference is actually a verb, in the Methodist lingo. In one sense, it means “google,” an action word describing what we do in order to access information, resources, equipment for ministry.

But it seems “conference” has become only a noun, it means the group of people itself, or even the meeting of this group of people. I’d like for it to be verbified again.

The United Methodist Church is uniquely structured to resonate with the way people connect with each other. We even call ourselves a “connection,” or a “connexion,” if you prefer the British version. In order to realized the potential of that connection, we need to verbify the conference.

Not sure what resource to use for VBS this year? Conference it.

Need an idea for a new worship song on the theme of hospitality? You could conference it.

Need an architectural concept to make your building more hospitable? Hey, why not conference it.

And as other needs emerge, they could be conferenced in order to crowdsource potential solutions.

The sole mission of the conference staff would be gathering and updating and providing access to ideas, resources, and guidance. Conferencing would connect congregations in ways that multiply their impact on communities. Conferencing would equip congregations to change people’s lives in ways they would not necessarily be able to do alone.

And we are already basically structured to operate this way, which is pretty cool. We are not a congregationally based system (and I hope we never are). We are a connectional system, but the problem is that we have nounified it, and in doing so our structure has become burdensome.

I envision a denomination that is a robust yet flexible network of congregations that transcends the regional thinking by which we are still geographically imprisoned. The Conference App on your smart phone would be the portal through which every Methodist around the world could access the connection with all of its resources for mission and ministry.

Just Conference it.

25 Years of Sex Talk at General Conference

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

When I attended my first United Methodist General Conference in 1988 as a denominational employee, I was still claiming to be a Southern Baptist, even though the church that had brought me to faith was pretty clear that there wasn’t room at the table for those of us who believed that the Bible was inspired but not dictated by God. And as a young man raised up in the world of Bible drills and holiness revivals, my eyes were quickly opened wide as I stumbled into the United Methodist Church of the 1980’s.

In those days, rooted in my fundamentalist heritage, I confess that I really didn’t know what to make of the protestors standing outside the St. Louis Convention Center arguing for the inclusion of gays and lesbians (only a few brave souls were talking about “bi” and “transgendered” in those days) in the life of the church. It wasn’t that I was unfamiliar with gay and lesbian folk (I was, after all, a child of 1960’s liberals) but how one’s orientation intersected with the church (given that the standard answer about most ANY kind of sex in the church of my youth was “NO!!!”) didn’t quite compute. I watched with confusion as a gentle bishop who would later become a friend (the late David Lawson) attempted to preside at a conference as protestors held banners in his face between he and the conference. I knew that this was an important issue, but I really didn’t know how it would all work out.

20+ years later, with a seminary degree behind me, years of conversation with folks of all stripes, and service as a pastor in a local church, I still really don’t have a clue how we will move beyond the divide we experience on the issue of sexuality. My position has changed since my first General Conference as I’ve searched the scriptures, participated in study, and learned from all sorts of people about sexual orientation and the pain that many feel at their exclusion from full participation in the church. I have engaged in my own struggles as a pastor who is called to offer love and grace to all, but who willingly places himself under the authority of a church who says that people I love and care for are “incompatible with Christian teaching.” I look with dismay at a communion which claims to want to increase the number of young adult participants while watching those young adults walk away from the church because for them sexual orientation is a non-issue.

And yet, the struggle we face is not an easy one, for this conversation is not simply about justice—the right and wrong of who is included and who isn’t. This is a theological argument which gets at the heart of important differences in how we interpret the scriptures, our concepts of revelation (static or progressive), and the nature of God’s kingdom. There are valid points to be made on both sides, especially since our current, post-Augustinian theology of sexuality as a whole is not especially robust. This is a hard and long conversation – and unfortunately the General Conference, which is primarily a legislative body, cannot give the necessary time and attention required to fully discern the will of God in light of the witness of Scripture, church tradition, human experience, and reason.

What we end up with instead is a kind of Kabuki theater, in which everyone seems to have a prescribed role and the outcome always seems to be the same. As is true in most church conflicts, about a third of the participants at General Conference usually are vocal advocates against changing the status quo, while another third are vocally for full inclusion. The remaining third just wishes everyone could get along, and so they tend to vote for the side which they think will create the most bedlam should they lose the battle, simply as a means of keeping the peace. Throughout the two weeks in Tampa, there will be the normal chest beating of those on the right who say it’s time for those on the other side to split off and create their own new church (as long as we get to keep the existing property, they think). There will be, of course, the carefully stage managed public witness used as a means of keeping the issue of inclusion in the mind of the conference. There will be much huffing and puffing, but in the end, I confess that I have little confidence that much will change.

This year, in the weeks leading up to the gathering by the bay, there really hasn’t been a great deal of conversation about the issue of sexuality. Sure, there have been the normal efforts by the usual interest groups making the case for change, but my sense is that the sexuality issue hasn’t been in the minds of delegates in their preparations for Tampa, due to concerns about institutional survival and building vital congregations. Of course some would say that it’s these very concerns that should lead us to consider how our position on sexuality undermines our call to make disciples of all persons. And yet I wonder if the focus in other places doesn’t in fact help turn down the pressure a bit and tone down the rhetoric that leads toward division? This will be an important issue, for sure, but I don’t think it will be the defining issue of this General Conference.

My hope and dream for right now is that we could be truly honest about where we stand as a communion: that we differ in our interpretation of scripture, leading to different definitions of sexual boundaries. As the Call to Action study pointed out, we are a denomination with trust issues, and I wonder if a good dose of honesty in admitting that we aren’t unified but are seeking clarity in our discernment of God’s will would go a long way in modeling a Christianity which has room to differ in our interpretation while remaining unified on the central gathering point of our faith – Jesus Christ. For some, admitting that we are a broken body on this issue is tantamount to admitting weakness – but didn’t Jesus turn upside down societal norms of power, suggesting that it is the weak, the vulnerable, and the honest who are the strong ones in our midst? For me, our ability to be honest about who we really are speaks volumes about our understanding of discipleship.

The good news is that there WILL be something different this year to help the conversation. Early in the conference schedule the delegates of the conference will be organized into small groups for conversation. Some of that conversation will focus on the sexuality issue, working together in smaller groups to think about how to best talk about the issue. Certainly, an hour or two of small group reflection is not enough to deal with a complex issue like sexuality, but at least our church has been willing to think about pushing beyond the Kabuki to facilitate real conversation.

So I come to the General Conference of 2012 with my eyes less wide than the twenty something year old man I was almost 25 years ago. After personally attending 5 General Conferences and about to attend my 6^th, I have come to realize that the show will go on, whether I want it to or not. The Kabuki players are most likely suiting up, and there’s a good chance that we will go through the motions we’ve seen before.

But maybe, just maybe, in a small group over here, and another over there, a rogue scriptwriter will show up, the Holy Spirit who turns things upside down and inside out, the one who helps us speak new words, and who makes clean that which was unclean before.

And if that happens, all bets are off.

29. Somewhere Out There

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Somewhere out there is a five-year-old boy who doesn’t know that right now plans are being made by a congregation he’s never heard of to offer a neighborhood vacation Bible school that will change the direction of his life. The songs he will sing will stick in his mind, the stories of Jesus will enliven his imagination. The puppet show will make him laugh, the teacher will make him feel loved and welcomed, and the hospitality of those followers of Christ will so touch his mom and dad that they will take a small, unexpected step toward faith.

Somewhere out there is an elderly woman who feels as if everyone has forgotten her. Her world has shrunk to her small apartment, the weekly trips to the grocery store, and the visits to the doctor’s office. Her television has become her best friend. She doesn’t know it, but right now a nearby congregation has awakened to the calling of God to invite people like her to a weekly lunch and to a chance to serve others. Soon she’ll use her long-neglected skills to knit baby blankets that will wrap medical supplies bound for Central America, and this taste of community will save her life and give her a rebirth she never imagined possible.

Somewhere out there in a rural Philippine village, a young couple strive to cope with the unexpected loss of their daughter in a flood that washed away their home. They don’t realize it now, but even as they grieve neighbors are holding them in prayer and asking God for the best way to surround them with the love of Christ. They cannot imagine now how the stories of faith, the songs of worship, and the embrace of strangers will move them step by step toward a sense of life they thought they would never see again.

Somewhere out there is a teacher who thinks no one else cares about the children she has given her life to serving. Her schoolroom is rundown, and there’s less money now than ever before to provide the resources she needs to do her job. She has no idea that a congregation is preparing for a new ministry that will change her circumstances. Six months from now she will weep with joy as strangers repaint and refurbish her classroom. She cannot imagine that droves of people will step forward to volunteer to tutor, to read stories, and to coach basketball. She has no inkling of the effect this will have on her and on her students, and how this will open the door by which she rediscovers her own faith in Christ.

Somewhere out there is a young man whose inability to cope with the basic mechanisms of daily living has caused him to lose his job, to stop taking his medication, and to slip through the cracks of every social, community, and family network. He kept falling until now he sleeps on the streets, carries cardboard for bedding, and digs through trash for dinner. He has no idea that a congregation is gearing up to offer a soup kitchen, and that this ministry will change his life. He cannot imagine that as he is served a meal, someone will engage him in conversation, treat him as human, listen to his story, learn his name, and reconnect him to his family and to the social networks that will allow him to live again a basic life with dignity. He has no idea that God, working through people desiring to follow Christ, will restore him to a life he barely remembers.

Somewhere out there in an African village a young girl and her little sister read stories together in bed, both of them safely protected by a mosquito net bought by the youth of a rural church in the American Midwest. No one can see it now, but she will grow up to become a doctor, relieving the suffering of thousands. She will live a full life that never would have been possible without a simple net and many generous young hearts across the globe.

When United Methodists work toward starting congregations and strengthening congregations and leading congregations, these are not merely attempts at institutional survival. Learning to deepen our life in Christ through congregations and to extend the outreach of Christ through faith communities are not merely submitting to worldly, corporate models of growth and success. Forming congregations are a means by which we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the purposes of Christ. Through people changed by belonging to the body of Christ, God transforms the world. God uses congregations to fulfill the mission revealed to us in Christ; increasing the number of vital congregations deserves our best and highest insights, efforts, resources, and attention.

Somewhere out there, somewhere in Texas or California or New Jersey or Norway or Mozambique, somewhere in a town like yours or a neighborhood near you is a person who has no idea of the change that is coming his way or the grace that will transform her life, a person unknowingly prepared by the Spirit of God to receive the embrace of Christ that people will offer when they come alive with purpose and fulfill the mission of Christ.

Somewhere out there is a person God plans to use you to reach. Somewhere out there is a person God will use to change your life as you reach them. Somewhere out there is a person for whom Christ died, and for whom your church was built, and for whom God has uniquely prepared you to reach.

*Today’s post is adapted from the devotional book The Balancing Act by Robert Schnase (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009). Used by permission.

Who are the “somewhere out there” people you and your congregation are reaching?

Has your congregation ever helped start a congregation? How do you, your church, and your conference work to strengthen the ministry of Christ through congregations?

Who are you uniquely qualified and perfectly situated to touch with the grace and ministry of Christ whom no one else can possibly reach?

For further exploration, contemplate I John 3:17-19 from The Message. What does it mean to suggest that our inaction makes God’s love disappear?

I Leave Hopeful

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On November 1, 1792, a year after the death of John Wesley, the Methodist leadership in America gathered in Baltimore for a conference. The Methodist church was on one hand young, vibrant, and growing and on the other hand delicate, full of strife, and on the verge of schism. It was under these conditions that Francis Asbury, Thomas Coke, and others gathered for what would be the first General Conference. They determined then that it would be good to have such a gathering every four years.

I leave tomorrow for my first General Conference.

I have packed, prayed, read the legislation (ok, some of it, there is over 1500 pages), and prepared as best I know how for some two weeks of holy conferencing with my sisters and brothers from all around the world. (This year 40% of delegates are from outside the U.S.)

Most of the sentiment I receive when I tell folks that I am heading to General Conference feels like cynicism, sympathy, or at best concern for my mental well-being. Strangely, though I feel hopeful.

I feel the same hope that I assume my parents felt when I was baptized in a little white dress in our small United Methodist Church.

It’s the same hope I felt when Quincy Hall led children’s time during worship and shared a story of cheating on a test in school. Then he said that God loved us so much that he forgave stuff like that.

The same hope I felt in my confirmation service. I had spent the last week in a hospital bed with an unknown illness. I was weak, and my mom helped me to the kneeler. With a feeble voice I professed my faith in Jesus Christ.

It’s the same hope I felt in Los Rubios Spain when on my 18^th birthday I worshipped in a United Methodist Mission on the coast of the Mediterranean. It was the first time I really felt the Connection.

I sensed it again worshipping with the poor in Mexico and then again in Nicaragua. The hope I felt there helped me see how poor I really was.

I felt the same hope four years ago when a few old bishops laid their hands on my head and prayed that the Holy Spirit would be poured upon me for the work of an elder in the church.

It’s really the same hope I felt last Sunday when I knelt beside a feeding trough filled with warm water from the janitor’s closet in the middle school where our church currently gathers. I felt it in the air as I said as loud as I could “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son…”

I guess as much as I hear negative about the United Methodist Church, as much as I read about its decline, as much as I hunger for its reform and revival, I still have hope.

Whatever we debate and argue and legislate in the coming days, I believe is worth it.

And so some might say I leave for the General Conference of 2012 naïve or idealistic or too young to know better.

I know this, I leave hopeful.

28. “Laid Aside By Thee”

Sun, 22 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Covenant Prayer, composed and adapted by John Wesley, invites complete humility and obedience to God’s service, asking God to work through us or to work around us, and to take us to places and to put us alongside people we would never choose if left to our own inclinations.

I am no longer my own, but thine.

Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.

Put me to doing, put me to suffering.

Let me be employed by thee or laid aside by thee,

exalted for thee or brought low by thee.

Let me be full, let me be empty.

Let me have all things, let me have nothing.

I freely and heartily yield all things

to thy pleasure and disposal.*

Like many United Methodist leaders, I have prayed Wesley’s Covenant prayer hundreds of times, sometimes in gatherings and many times quietly on my own. The prayer always has the power to unsettle me and provoke me to deeper reflection about my own motives. Repeating the prayer strengthens me while also making me more attentive to my spiritual vulnerabilities. It restrains my propensity to use the language of God’s will to describe and defend what is merely most convenient and desirable for me. It curbs my natural tendency to justify my own views and desired outcomes and forces me to wrestle with what submission to God in Christ truly means for my ministry. Several phrases penetrate the veneers I hide behind to preserve my pride and ambition. It’s a powerful prayer, but be careful where it leads you!

The line that disturbs me the most is, “let me be employed by thee, or laid aside by thee.” This forces me to face the truth that while God works through me to achieve certain good things in the world, God also works around me to achieve many other good things. Sometimes I’m not the right person. Sometimes I don’t have the right gifts, the right strategies, the right voice, or the right ideas for this particular moment and context of ministry. My ways, my experiences, my passions, my certitudes and biases and approaches may not be the ones for this particular time and for a particular work God needs accomplished.

Sometimes my conference, my staff, my congregation, my friends, my seminary, my board, or my committee is the one that is ripe and ready for the task, and other times mine is the one that must be set aside so that God’s good purpose can be fulfilled in another way by someone else. There are challenges that are not mine to resolve and strategies that are not mine to develop. The institutions where I have found my place and the methods I have developed are sometimes those that need to be set aside because the season for which they served is past or because another voice and another approach are needed to reach a generation I cannot.

General Conference delegates will deliberate on several significant organizational initiatives that involve reducing the size of governing boards, unifying numerous functions under a fewer number of agencies, and streamlining the general church structure. Those who are most at home with the existing activities and arrangements are likely to most keenly experience the impact of such changes as personal setbacks. Even those who know that change is necessary will consider such suggestions strategic mistakes and ill-advised tampering. They will feel the losses far more acutely than they will see the opportunities. Most of the people voting, in addition to the bishops on the platform and the agency staff members in the audience, have been the beneficiaries of the systems that have brought us to this point, and so they naturally grieve the losses that come with transitions. And yet the models, behaviors, and attitudes that we need to let go of are the models, behaviors, and attitudes that got us this far. This requires a spiritual maturity that surpasses mere organizational strategy.

How do I pray for the fulfillment of God’s purposes when sometimes fulfilling them leaves me on the sidelines or redirects my path from what I had expected? How do I develop the humility to be laid aside graciously, and even joyfully? God has work for me to do as long as I have breath, but sometimes it is not the work I expected. Praying deeply the Covenant Prayer requires discernment, a countercultural spirituality and a counterintuitive openness to God. It requires saying with Jesus that we have come “not to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45 NRSV). It requires accepting the emotional impact of truly believing that “those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39 NRSV). It prompts us to think about what it means to no longer be our own, but God’s, and causes us to meditate on what it means to yield and step aside with humility.

* The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1989), 607. Used by permission.

When was a time you experienced God working around you rather than through you? How did it feel? How did you handle any negative feelings of uselessness or abandonment, and how did you come to find a renewed sense of purpose in serving in other ways?

Have you ever voluntarily stepped down or stepped back or stepped aside so that a ministry could move in new directions? Where did the spiritual discernment come from to help you do this?

For deeper consideration, meditate on Matthew 20:20-28.

For resources about the loss and grief that comes with change in organizations, check out Managing Transitions by William Bridges or Leadership on the Line by Ronald A. Heifetz and Martin Linsky.

Ministry TO or WITH Young Adults?

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Let’s imagine a church situation that is increasingly common: a predominantly white congregation in the midst of a growing ethnic community. The congregation has taken the bold step of identifying the ethnic community as their mission field. They have two different choices:

The church can be in ministry TO the ethnic community through outreach, programs, vacation Bible school, community gardens, different language worship services, and offering their sanctuary as a safe haven against deportation initiatives.
Or the church can be in ministry WITH the ethnic community...by doing all of the things above but also including the community on the committees, worship teams, social justice teams, hiring an ethnic associate pastor, etc.

If a church runs all the committees and make all the decisions, then they are in ministry TO a community. The community has no voice or vote on their objectives. The better version is a ministry where the community is invited to be part of the discussion, to shape the ministry, to reflect and given opportunity to lead. Then they are in ministry "with" the community.

This would be an easily transferable scenario, whether the church defines as its mission field an ethnic community, a worker population, a women’s prison, a college town. As long as the mission field’s demographic is included in, shapes, and is given the opportunity to lead with the tools to succeed, then the church is in ministry WITH that population.

Given this scenario, then a question becomes clear when we look at one mission field in particular: In the United Methodist Church today, are we more interested in ministry TO young adults or ministry WITH them?

I ask this because one of the recommendations from the Call to Action movement is the re-distribution of funds to young adults (those under 35 years old): Five million dollars of the first amount of money saved to go to them. That’s a great gesture and will certainly be put to good use.

In the context of the imagined scenario above, though, it makes me wonder if the Call To Action values ministry to young adults rather than ministry with young adults. As a young clergyperson, are we included in the conversation or are we just being “ministered to?”

Young Adults in the Call to Action by the Numbers

Young adult delegate Rachel Birkhahn-Rommelfanger from Northern Illinois and I took a look at the Call to Action process and here are the disturbing numbers that we found about how involved young adults were in the biggest re-organization of the Church in 40 years.

The Connectional Table, which populated the Call to Action teams, has three young adult members on the team. That’s awesome and I’m glad they are involved in the highest perpetual body in the church alongside the Council of Bishops. So, excluding staff, three out of 49 members would make the Young Adult percentage on the Connectional Table as 6.12%. We’ll set that as a baseline.

So the Call to Action committee, which did the primary work of the Call to Action movement, has one young adult member on the team (Ben B.) with 15 other members. That’s pretty good, not representative of the actual number of young adults, but still respectable under the small size of the team. That would make the Young Adult percentage on the Call to Action steering team at 6.25%.

Now for the bad news. The Interim Operations Team, which crafted the majority of the Call to Action legislation, has zero young adult members out of 12. So for the actual crafting of the legislation, putting all the vision into play, the young adult input and decision-making ability is exactly zero.

So Young Adults are seen, heard, but not involved in the writing of the actual legislation for the Call to Action. Bummer. Indeed, by a commenter’s account that I’ve seen elsewhere, the Division on Ministries with Young People (the global UMC ministry focused on young people) was completely left off the original Call to Action schematic for general church structure. It was not until after this error was caught (by the young people serving on the CT) that $5 million was set aside for young adults.

Young Adults at General Conference by the Numbers

It may or may not matter how involved the young adults have been in the Call to Action. From the most current list of delegates I could find, there ar only 41 young adult (under 35) voting delegates for this General Conference. There are another 42 young reserve delegates. That’s a tiny less-than-5% proportion of General Conference.

Furthermore, from our research and head-counting, there is only ONE young adult on the General Administration committee at General Conference, which is the committee that handles the bulk of the CTA legislation. Out of 54 members, that’s 1.85%, which is far less than the representation on either the Connectional Table or the Call to Action committee. So while young adult delegates will get to participate on the floor, in the back-and-forth consideration of the two proposals in this very important committee, their involvement will be limited.

While I recognize this tiny percentage can be due to self-selection (both of the young adults from my own annual conference delegation chose other committees), young adults are usually lower on the list and thus the General Administration committee likely would have been taken by other delegates beforehand. As for the solo young adult on General Administration, that one young adult is my co-writer Rachel, and she’ll be louder and more articulate than ten young adults, so it may even out just having her on there. Ha!

Now we can go down the line and point out how many people are ethnic on each team, how many women, how many Central Conference delegates, how many hipster Mac users, and that would cause some back-and-forth between which team is more representative of that particular group. But if the voices of young adults are most important to you, be aware that the Call to Action legislation has a lower percentage of young adult voices at the theory and organizing levels, and minimal input into the actual writing of the legislation.

The Impact of Young Adult Voices in the Alternative Plans

Now the good news: General Conference has a choice! The response to the Call to Action put together by the Methodist Federation for Social Action Alternative (MFSA) Alternative Structure team has four young-adult co-signers to the legislation, out of 13. Thus, 30% of the MFSA Structure co-signers are Young Adults. Even when you include the extended team that co-wrote it but didn’t co-sign the legislation, you gain one young adult and make it five out of 32, or 15.62%.

I think there’s little wonder then that the Alternative Structure appeals to me as a young adult:

It has a cautionary approach to authority by removing the Board of Directors
It includes a diversity of voices by reducing the number of boards but still including at least 30 people on them.
It keep the Methodist values of accountability in our strong connectional structure

All of which (a suspicion of authority, an appreciation of diversity, and enforcement of accountability…not to mention rebelliousness to bad ideas) are certainly United Methodist values in general but are also hallmarks of my generation of young adults in particular. The Alternative Proposal includes young adults at every level of theory to organizing to writing and it shows in the values reflected in the proposal. And perusing the only other alternative to the Call to Action (Plan B), from looking at the leadership of the Plan B proposal, there are ZERO young adults on their team. And the MFSA alternative plan requires 10% more young adult voices on the highest executive team. Hmm.

Signs of Hope at the grassroots of the UMC

In conclusion, there’s a difference between being in ministry TO and being in ministry WITH young people (youth and young adults). Regardless of what happens at General Conference, there are signs of hope. Through one of the general boards, a couple of young clergy have started Spark12, which is an amazing project that has young adults evaluate other young adults’ projects that seek to accomplish social justice goals in their contexts. There are story after story of local churches that are in ministry WITH young adults and do terrific work. These are all elements from the middle and the local church level of involvement by young adults in the future of the church.

But what I hope is that when we read the rosters of who is in the highest executive committees and who is in the discussions about how to reach young people, that there are actual breathing young adults in on those discussions, in voices that are of significance. Because if you ask me, the leaders who have presided over the UMC’s decline in status with young adults are probably NOT the best people to lead it into restored relationships with young adults. May the future be bright for the United Methodist Church’s relationship with young adults, global and local.

27. The Vicious Habit

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Elections are drawing near in the U. S., and I’m already feeling bombarded by political ads. They barge into my driving time through radio spots, interrupt the rare moments I enjoy watching television, arrive uninvited to my email address, and fill my mailbox with leaflets. I’m disappointed and embarrassed by the viciousness and distortion from both parties. The tactics seem cheap, harmful, and empty of any attempt at honest, thorough, and serious engagement with the issues we face. Many ads feature grainy, black-and-white photos of an opponent taken from an unflattering angle to contrast with the polished, wholesome, color pictures of the candidate being supported. Extreme and negative hyperbole distorts motives of opponents and attacks their ideas without presenting meaningful, positive alternative proposals. It’s hard to find meaningful dialogue.

Criticizing political ads is convenient and popular. It’s easy to blame politicians, their strategists, and the media. Why have ads become so vicious and distorted? Evidently, negative ads work. Those who receive these ads are willing to avoid the hard work of learning about complex issues. We are happy to nod our heads based on 30-second soundbites rather than delve deeper, to think beyond our self-interest to the good of the nation and world. We’re willing to be seduced and deceived by oversimplification.

The same tendencies can shape our church life, including a propensity to oversimplify ideas, vilify opponents, and protect our own prerogatives.

“Most people, given the choice between having a better world, or a better place within the world as it is, would choose the latter.” We might restate this observation, attributed to 20th-century Methodist preacher Ralph Sockman, for church leadership: Most people, given the choice between having a better denomination, or a better place within the denomination as it is, would choose the latter.” We can even change denomination to conference or to congregation!

I don’t think people always pursue their own self-interest above the good of the whole organization. In a more nuanced way, we vote based on behaviors and assumptions with which we are familiar, find comfortable, and want to hold onto without carefully testing whether the behaviors we defend are best in the current context or whether the assumptions are still valid for the mission of the church today. We have trouble letting go

One can discern a rhythm at General Conference. Those present move from moments of profound communion to times when they feel palpable mistrust. On the one hand, we use organic models for community to describe and celebrate our relationship with one another—body of Christ, members, communion, bread, family, sisters, brothers. Our singing and praying and preaching unify us in Christ. On the other hand, we use adversarial strategies for deciding business, experiencing conference as a cauldron of competing self-interests, regional alliances, and caucus agendas. Primary connection for many delegates comes through the mutual support they find in affinity groups based on theology, board affiliation, race, gender, or cause. Rather than a gathering to listen, learn, discern, and decide together on goals for the church, General Conference seems a collection of people elected to win advantage in their effort to represent an idea, protect a project, or pursue an agenda with little regard for competing claims. Some groups depend upon the cohesive quality of fear to mobilize response. Delegates find it difficult to moderate conflict when they are motivated to win at any cost.

This places upon delegates a great responsibility to foster the unifying elements of our life together in Christ. General Conference does better at reminding United Methodists of our common history than at binding them to a common future.

An intensely political organization that aspires to communion requires intentionality in how the members pursue passions with humility and accept limits to their will with grace. Can a diverse body of people have a process that is fair, prayerful, and civil, and yet focuses on the mission of the church? Can conference foster such an atmosphere when it means some desires of nearly every member go unfulfilled?

Paul writes about the need to moderate divisive or self-serving motives while remaining passionate for the purposes of Christ. He reminds us to be ardent in spirit, to hold fast, and to seek what is good and acceptable and perfect. On the other hand, he instructs us to love one another with mutual affection, to let love be genuine, to live in harmony, and to not think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think (see Romans 12). Balance passion and courage with humility and confession. We are one body in Christ, members of one another, and yet we have gifts and perspectives that differ. None of us sees the whole truth.

Paul was not inviting us to deny hard realities; rather, he was asking us to deal with hard realities with integrity, faithfulness, and graciousness. There’s nothing distinctly Christian about being gracious; but if we are distinctly Christian, then graciousness, truth, and fairness characterize our interests, involvements, and behaviors.

In another place, Paul writes:

“It is obvious what kind of life develops out of trying to get your own way all the time: repetitive, loveless . . .; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; . . . ugly parodies of community. . . .

. . . If you use your freedom this way, you will not inherit God’s kingdom.

But what happens when we live God’s way? He brings gifts into our lives, much the same way that fruit appears in an orchard—things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely.” (Galatians 5:19–23 The Message)

The phrase that jumps out is “the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival.” In Christ, we can do better. None of us has ever belonged to any organization or community where we have not at some point disagreed with others or with the decision of the majority. The unity of the church is a hard and unending task entrusted to all who follow Christ. More than a political strategy, this is a spiritual necessity, a calling of God through Christ. Thinking alike is not mandatory, but living as one in the body of Christ is essential.

How do you remain passionately engaged with those who view things differently from you in your own congregation? At conference?

In your spiritual life, how do you balance the ardent spirit that propels you to action with a sense of humility and community?

To move deeper, meditate on Romans 12:1-2.

Doors of Opportunity

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Mother-daughter stories are legacies of love, hope, and pride. This story is told by Lucimarian Roberts, mother of ABC anchor Robin Roberts, in My Story, My Song: Mother-Daughter Reflections on Life and Faith

Sitting next to Eleanor Roosevelt at an elegant dinner seemed a foggy dream. Who could have imagined that Lucimarian Tolliver, daughter of a domestic worker and an alcoholic father, would be a foot away from the former First Lady of the United States? I was a senior at Howard University and could barely wrap my mind around the reality.

A few years before the luncheon, Mrs. Roosevelt had made newspaper headlines when she abruptly resigned from the Daughters of the American Revolution in protest of the DAR refusing to rent its Constitution Hall for a concert given by black opera singer Marian Anderson. Now I was seated next to her, the First Lady who had done so much to publicly confront the injustices of racism and segregation.

Dr. Mordecai Johnson, President of Howard University, often invited dignitaries to the campus as a way to introduce students to prominent individuals who were involved in humanitarian causes. I was one of only two seniors invited for this particular occasion. As the president of Howard University Women’s League, I was asked to sit on one side of Mrs. Roosevelt. A male student representing the young men of Howard sat on the other. I remember being impressed by how articulate Mrs. Roosevelt was, asking questions then listening attentively to my answers. But it is only in retrospect that I realize just how blessed I was to have had that opportunity.

My years at Howard University were filled with other opportunities I had never expected. Besides the honor of sitting next to the First Lady and being selected as the president of Women’s League, I was the president of my dormitory, Frazier Hall, during my junior year. For my senior year, I was elected by my classmates to be one of the mentors at Sojourner Truth Hall, the residence hall for freshmen women. It was a special honor because students were asked to select a senior classmate they would most want to mentor their younger sisters. I also took great pride in participating in my sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, which was founded at Howard back in 1908. And of course, I was active in the chapel choir program.

I confess that there was a certain amount of esteem that came with these leadership positions. But if ever I began to feel too puffy and proud, the words of my wise mother came circling back through my mind. It was a simple but weighty warning. When you strut, you stumble.

During my junior year, I was especially pleased that my mother was able to attend a mother-daughter tea hosted by the university. She preferred to travel by bus and had saved enough money for a ticket for a long weekend in Washington. A fashion-conscious friend from Akron helped her select clothes suitable for the occasion. I met her at the bus station then took her on a tour of the campus where she met some of my classmates and their mothers. As evening came, my roommate and I gave our dorm room to our mothers while we bunked in another room with fellow students. In truth, we should not be credited for our gracious hospitality. We just didn’t want to share a room with our mothers who snored.

On the day of the tea, my eyes rimmed with tears of joy. My mother was so proud to be included in this special event. I remember glancing at her work-worn hands and thinking of all the things she had sacrificed to help get me to this place in time.

Robin’s Reflection

Whenever I'm waiting for mom down in baggage claim people from her flight will stream past me and let me know she's on her way. I always wonder how do all these people know she's my mom...it's because she has never met a stranger. She talks to everyone. She enjoys visiting me in New York and having lunch at a sidewalk cafe. She gets a kick out of looking at people up and down as they pass by our table. I'll say: "Mom, stop staring!" She responds: "I'm not staring, honey, I'm people watching." Mom has a wonderful sense of humor.

One day, some years ago, I was in the car with her and she accidentally cut off another driver. At the next light the driver pulled up next to mom's car and was telling her off. I wanted to jump out and give this guy a piece of my mind. But before I could, mom calmly rolled down her window and sweetly said to him: "Your momma." I don't know who was more stunned, him or me.

________________________________________

Excerpted from My Story, My Song: Mother-Daughter Reflections on Life and Faith, by Robin Roberts and Lucimarian Roberts with Missy Buchanan. Used by permission.

It Takes a Village to Throw a Conference

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Were just a few days out from the opening worship service of the 2012 General Conference of the United Methodist Church and you can bet that our elected delegates to the proceedings are hard at work trying to digest the contents of the phone directory sized books of proposed changes known as the Daily Christian Advocate. These days are filled with endless e-mails, phone calls, and conversations from a variety of persons and groups trying to make their positions known to the saints and gluttons for punishment that make up the General Conference. What is less known to most of us is that the preparations for the gathering in Tampa have been years in the making, and putting on the conference involves a team of hundreds of persons who are likewise enmeshed in the thousands of details required for a successful conference.

24 years ago, I attended my first conference as a denominational employee charged with making sure that the proceedings were projected on large screens so that the delegates could follow the proceedings. At the General Conference of 1988 in St. Louis, we utilized the very first electronic voting system, using an Apple 2 for its brain, and covering the floor of the conference with thousands of unwieldy ribbon cables. Yes, there were computers in the newsroom, but petitions were pretty much tracked by hand, and there was certainly no thought of creating a real-time legislative tracking system that could allow folks from throughout the world to keep up with the latest votes (after all, the World Wide Web as we know it was still five years away from being operational). But even then, in the days of mechanical adding machines and IBM Selectrics, putting on the conference involved a team of professional staff and dedicated volunteers from throughout the world, and the attention of a faithful host committee from the local annual conference.

I was reminded of all of this when I gathered with 75 other folks in the studio of United Methodist Communications to talk about UMCom’s part of GC2012. For many months the folks at UMCom have been deeply engaged in preparing for the time in Tampa. This included working with various boards, agencies, and the Council of Bishops in preparing presentations; making arrangements for sound, lighting, and video coverage for a meeting on par with many rock concerts; developing a plan for releasing information and meeting the needs of media outlets from throughout the world who want to cover what is coming out of the conference; and making sure that they were addressing needs and concerns related to their own paragraphs in the Book of Discipline. As I sat in the meeting (for the record, they have invited me to come and assist with their social media and community engagement strategy), I was struck by the dedication and determination expressed by everyone in the room who is working hard to ensure that the delegates have what they need for a great experience in talking about the future of the church.

UMCom is just one agency of many who play a part in putting on the conference, starting with Alan Morrison (the Business Manager of General Conference headquartered at GCFA) to the lowliest volunteer brought in by the Florida Conference to ensure that delegates find their way about the city. Some of this folks are being paid for their work, while others are doing it out of their love for the United Methodist Church and their dedication to ensuring that effective Christian Conferencing can take place. In both cases, the staff will give countless hours, often arriving at the convention center before the delegates awake, and staying far into the night to ensure that when the delegates walk into the building they will have the latest and most up to date information in front of them as they carry out their work.

Of all the staff, some of the most dedicated are the volunteer page and marshal team that guards the facilities, runs errands for the delegates, and generally handles all sorts of tasks that they could never anticipate or imagine. The marshals and pages come at their own expense to volunteer for two weeks of standing and walking on concrete floors for endless hours, meals caught on the run, and often having to tolerate verbal abuse from both delegates and observers alike who somehow think that the rules of the conference don’t apply to them. While there has traditionally been an offering collected to help cover the expenses of these dedicated volunteers, it rarely covers more than the most basic of expenses.

My favorite example of a dedicated page/marshal was the one who was assigned to assist a bishop from another country who was in failing health. At one point during the conference, he was asked to help take this bishop to the bathroom. He walked the bishop to the nearest facility not thinking much of it – until he realized that he would not only have to help the bishop pull down his pants but also help with cleanliness afterwards. This page/marshal did so without batting an eye, believing that Christ’s call to loving our neighbor included meeting the most basic of needs.

This servant represents just one of the hundreds who will be contributing to the success or failure of the 2012 General Conference in Tampa. Without the support of these dedicated professionals and volunteers, the ability of the conference to function effectively and cost efficiently would be seriously hindered. It’s only because of this team that we are able to do the impossible and recreate the infrastructure of the U.S. Congress in a different city for a two week period every four years. These folks need your prayers as much and even more than the delegates of the conference, for some of them are working to support a meeting that may call for an end to their jobs.

My call to those attending the conference – as delegates, as observers, and in other capacities – is that you take some time to personally thank this village that has come together in their dedication to our church. This team exemplifies people who are engaged in the work of the church, and will give of their time and resources to make this meeting a great success. Without this village, there would be no General Conference of 2012.

26. Cultivating Clergy Fruitfulness

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Imagine that you chair the History department of a university, and three tenured professors announce their retirement. Student enrollment has declined and finances are tight, so you close one position and announce openings for two new people. You forward search criteria to Human Resources, defining what qualities the positions require—educational credentials, professional associations, publishing history, teaching experience, and references. Some weeks later, the Search Committee reports that they’ve had 16 people apply. Five did not have requisite credentials, one had a record of improper conduct, and two did not interview well. Eight persons met every criterion and did fine with interviews. Therefore, the Search Committee has contracted for tenured positions with all eight applicants who met all the requirements and these have all been assigned to your department!

In The United Methodist Church, there is no connection between the missional needs of our churches and the number of people commissioned or ordained.

Or imagine that you supervise a large service company that has 400 employees. You are held accountable for progress, effectiveness, and results. Four employees do not complete tasks, foster conflict with colleagues and customers, miss work, blame others, are unwilling to learn, and undermine supervisors. No department manager wants to work with them. However, you cannot remove them or take disciplinary action without the approval of all 400 employees, which includes their long-time friends and relatives!

In our church, supervisors (bishops, superintendents, or boards of ordained ministry) cannot remove ineffective clergy without calculating the support or resistance they will find at the clergy session of annual conference, which alone determines the status of clergy.

Finally, imagine you are a young person with a calling or curiosity about Christian service. You ask your pastor how someone becomes a pastor, and she pulls out a lengthy, multipage description with numbers of steps, requirements, and educational criteria that take years to complete. When you ask which steps come first, you receive one answer from your pastor, a different answer from a campus minister, and yet another from a district superintendent.

Our systems for recruiting, interviewing, educating, training, and deploying clergy for certified, licensed, commissioned, or ordained ministry; combined with our various relationships to conference (lay members, affiliate members, associate members, provisional members, full members, retired members); and our numerous statuses (lay ministers, local pastors, extension ministers, deacons, and elders) contribute to lengthy and convoluted approval systems, confusing and contradictory interpretations of the sequences and steps, and practices that vary widely from district to district and from conference to conference.

The Call to Action calls the church to dramatically reform the clergy leadership development, deployment, evaluation, and accountability systems. A related issue is the guaranteed appointment. While the words “guaranteed appointment” do not appear in the Book of Discipline, the requirement to appoint each credentialed elder began in 1956 when a bishop refused to appoint a female pastor. Before 1956, there was no guaranteed appointment and no covenant linking itineracy to guaranteed appointment.

Every bishop I know wants a system that protects pastors from abuse of authority related to gender, ethnicity, theological bias, and so on. Reasonable checks and balances through boards of ordained ministry or judicial processes protect pastors from arbitrary abuse of authority by bishops and protect bishops from accusations of the same. However, most bishops want procedures that allow for quicker assessment and intervention regarding ineffective clergy.

Would adjusting guaranteed appointment stifle the prophetic voice of pastors? Our prophetic witness is protected not by guaranteed appointment, but by connectional episcopacy; pastoral appointments are the prerogative of bishops rather than of congregations, and this protects pastors from arbitrary removal by local criticism that is inappropriate.

The real issue surrounding guaranteed appointment is not the 3% of ineffective clergy. It’s the disconnection between the numbers of people credentialed and the numbers we need to maximize our mission. It takes an average attendance of 125 or more to support a full-time elder without strangling vital ministry. Each year we have fewer churches that can afford full-time pastors. Some conferences have one elder in a pastoral role per 70 people in attendance. This is unsustainable, and we need mechanisms to regulate the numbers to fit the mission. Frankly, we need to move from credentialing processes with a default of “as long as you complete the assignments and we find nothing egregious, you are approved,” to a default of “you are not likely to be approved unless you’ve demonstrated exemplary fruitfulness in ministry.”

And guaranteed appointment feeds a sense of entitlement and complacency among some clergy rather than motivating them toward learning, growing, and enhancing skills. Systems that foster dependency tend to produce a sense of powerlessness in those who work within them. We’ve underestimated the deleterious effect guaranteed appointment has had on clergy morale and pastoral excellence.

Our lengthy, complex, and arduous process for credentialing pastors derives from the guaranteed appointment. Because our approval obligates the conference for years to come, we insist on greater certainty by adding more steps, more interviews, more sources of approval, and more testing. The system has not created the reliable stream of healthy, gifted, fruitful clergy we would expect; rather, the complexity and length filters out many creative and gifted people, and allows entry to some who merely conform to the modest expectations of meeting the requirements but do not practice fruitful ministry.

Imagine conference leaders looking 15 years into the future, honestly appraising leadership needs for current congregations, focusing on communities that have not been reached or that cannot be reached by current churches, and considering what qualities and preparation most help us to fulfill the mission. Imagine shaping systems that cultivate leadership for the church to come—reaching people outside the faith, engaging alternative communities, and using unconventional means and unexpected settings for mission. Imagine inviting, preparing, and equipping a healthy mix of part-time, full-time, bi-vocational, lay, and ordained pastors that fit the mission field of the future. Imagine entry processes that are elegant in their simplicity, that embed people in the immediate practice of ministry while deepening theological and historical reflection upon the faith. Imagine systems tailored to a new generation, relevant to the changing populations we are called to serve, and effective in identifying and cultivating excellence, fruitfulness, and the spiritual capacity to mobilize people in Christ’s work. Imagine systems that foster creativity, experimentation, and exploration, and recapture the sense of adventure in ministry.

Changing systems will not happen with a single vote. As a consultant said, streamlining processes is like changing the tires on a bicycle while continuing to pedal forward up a steep hill.

But imagine!

How do our current recruitment, training, deployment, and evaluation systems support excellence, faithfulness, and fruitfulness? What aspects are not conducive to excellence and fruitfulness? What would you change?

The post suggests changing the default expectations of our credentialing processes. What’s your response to this idea? What would that mean for district committees and conference boards? What might result?

To delve deeper, reflect on Luke 9:1-6 in The Message. What does “Keep it simple; you are the equipment” mean for us.

For more, check out Lovett Weems’ Focus: The Real Challenges That Face the United Methodist Church, or his study with Ann A. Michel on young people and clergy trends, The Crisis of Younger Clergy.

25. The Best Organizational Plan in the World

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The first concern of the Call to Action is not structural change. The critical question is how to shift attention, resources, and energy toward enriching and extending high-quality ministries through congregations. In a large complex organization, governance involves forcing future-oriented thinking and cultivating an outward focus. We don’t fulfill our mission in meetings; we fulfill our mission at the margins where congregations engage the community and world around them. The Call to Action redirects our energies toward that mission.

Currently, we have more than 500 board members who govern 13 distinct agencies, each with its own mission statement, financial system, logo, and identity. The proposal suggests unified governance that includes a 45-member council and a 15-person board. The intention is to increase collaboration, align resources, reduce redundancy, and streamline decision-making. Most large churches and many annual conferences have discovered the effectiveness of small boards.

Is this the best organizational plan in the world? There is no such thing. But we can make the best decisions among options when we are guided by proven principles for large organizations. We need a plan that supports a clearly articulated purpose, with high accountability, good horizontal communication and vertical alignment, characterized by simplicity, missional clarity, and the agility to respond to change. This plan offers many of those objectives. Even better alignment, clarity, and simplicity in the future may be impossible until we take this first step that brings people into the same room for decisions regarding the mission and priorities of the church.

How we organize our work at the congregational, conference, and general levels is not merely a structural choice but a missional decision. We cannot evaluate whether a plan is good or bad by looking at charts. We can discern only how various plans affect outcomes. We would never spend time researching and debating whether to travel by train, plane, or automobile until we first determined where we need to go.

Organizational development pioneer, W. Edwards Deming said that organizations are perfectly aligned to get the results they are getting. If the thousand delegates of General Conference and the bishops and general secretaries stayed up all night to intentionally develop a system to foster 40 years of uninterrupted decline, the system we would design would look just like what we have! The functioning, policies and practices of our bishops, superintendents, seminaries, conferences, apportionments, general boards, and congregations—these comprise a system that is perfectly aligned to get the results we are getting. This brings us to the point of change.

Alignment means right processes and right structures for the mission. Some of our systems in congregations, in conferences, and in the general church are not conducive to our mission. They block and restrain innovation, create distance between leaders and members, foster outdated and unnecessary tasks, pull resources and attention toward conflicting priorities, or prescribe process steps that are ambiguous or irrelevant.

The United Methodist Church has many moving parts. What would a more technically elegant system directed toward increasing the number of vital congregations look like? Imagine people working together smoothly, supporting each other in the mission, with excellent communication, and minimal territoriality. Imagine a system where best practices and successful innovations receive support while overlapping functions and unfruitful programs are evaluated honestly and reduced quickly. Imagine a plan that allows continual evolution as contexts change. Imagine reinforcing the mission at the local church while fostering global connections. Imagine a system that is fair, simple, clear, and effective.

Organizational simplicity is both beautiful and functional. In a strange paradox, most United Methodists deeply desire simplicity but choose complexity. We choose complexity through incremental decisions at general and annual conferences that restrain and control rather than support innovation and contextual, outward-focused ministry. How do we shift the conversation from “What’s the perfect structure?” to “What matters most?”; from “Here are a thousand reasons we can’t change” to “Here are the steps we can take to align toward our mission”; from “We don’t have enough money” to “Let’s direct our resources toward what is essential”?

I’ve been involved in restructuring plans since I was 26 years old, and I’ve discovered that if people want to make a new system work, they can figure out the details, snags, setbacks, and resolve legitimate concerns. But if they fundamentally do not want to change, then they can find hundreds of reasons why any plan is impossible. The Call to Action plan is not perfect, but it is a step forward. It leads us toward a new future that we know is unachievable through the systems we now have.

In the short term, growing churches will continue to grow and declining churches will continue to decline no matter what General Conference does. But in the long term, it matters how we address issues of clergy recruitment, education, training, deployment, and evaluation. It matters how we realign resources to start new congregations, interrupt decline, and help congregations focus on their mission fields. It matters that our leaders focus on the right questions and deal with issues relevant to our mission around the globe. It matters that we connect our money to our mission.

Through our decisions at General Conference, we leave a legacy to future generations of United Methodist leaders. Is the legacy we leave going to be a mishmash of convoluted rules that serve our purposes today? Are we going to tie their hands, limit their choices, and draw generations to come into our current territorial struggles?

Or are we going to provide a springboard for creative change, for new models of ministry, for connectionalism that is alive and vibrant and agile and effective? I hope we leave a legacy to the next generation, not of complex and impenetrable rules and ineffective systems, but of a church that is clear about its mission and confident about its future and engaged with the world for the purposes of Christ. I hope we make decisions that lay a foundation for a new expression of United Methodism, the next phase of our mission.

What systems within your congregation are not conducive to your mission because they restrain, dampen, limit, or slow new initiatives? Within your conference? In the general church?

Your congregation (and conference!) are perfectly aligned to get the results they are getting. What new insights occur to you as you think about this idea?

Read John 5:1-18 (NRSV), especially reflecting on the significance of Jesus’ question, “Do you want to be made well?” What does the question imply about our various forms of paralysis?

To delve deeper, read Gil Rendle’s Back to Zero: The Search to Rediscover the Methodist Movement, and George Hunter’s The Recovery of a Contagious Methodist Movement.

Working in the Cloud

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

When I came to Ministry Matters in 2010, I set two major goals as I was acquiring tools to help me do my job. First, I wanted to go as “paperless” as possible. It's not that I was trying to make some kind of environmental statement (although being green is certainly an added benefit). I just get overwhelmed quickly by stacks of stuff on my desk!

My second goal was to do as much work “in the cloud” as I could so I wasn’t tied to a particular computer or location.

If I could work toward these goals, I figured I’d bring a couple of important things to my job—simplicity and flexibility. The idea was for me to keep productivity and creativity levels high while keeping stress levels low.

I’ll write about going paperless in another post, but first I want to share some of my experiences with cloud computing.

Cloud computing, if you’re not familiar with the term, is loosely defined as using computer services through the internet, usually through a web browser. Rather than running software or storing files on your local computer, you do everything online. If you’ve used Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo! Mail, for example, you’ve already used cloud computing.

The biggest advantage to the cloud is that I’m able to work from almost any device (phone, tablet, PC, or netbook) anywhere that I have an internet connection. This is huge for me. If I need to complete a project before the end of the day, instead of sticking around the office I can leave on time, beat the traffic, relax a little, then finish up at home. If I’m traveling, I can do work from the airport or hotel using my laptop. And if I’m waiting somewhere, I can access almost everything from my smartphone and work during the downtime. I’ve even written and edited articles using my phone while visiting a coffeehouse or riding a bus.

My company uses Microsoft Outlook for email, but I prefer using Gmail, so I have two email accounts. Gmail's search functionality is superior and I love the user interface. Outlook sometimes makes me want to punch the wall of my cubicle. But even so, I can still access my Outlook account from any computer through a web browser, and I also have it set up to sync with the email program on my phone. You have to really discipline your workaholic tendencies if you’re going to take your email with you everywhere. It isn’t always easy—it requires setting priorities and being able to discern what really deserves your attention when you aren’t in the office. I don’t obligate myself to read or respond to email after hours, and most of my regular email contacts know this. But I’ve found that it’s nice keeping in contact with the office in case something big does come up. Like anything else, you have to set boundaries to make it work.

Here are some of the cloud programs I use on a regular basis:

Gmail: I already mentioned this one—it’s my favorite email client, bar none.
Google Docs: I use this instead of Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. It’s free and you can open and edit Microsoft files inside Google Docs. I do run across an occasional formatting issue, but nothing major. You can also collaborate on documents with others using Google Docs and see each other’s changes in real time.
I also use a smartphone app called Documents to Go. This one isn’t free, but it’s worth every penny if you need a powerful way to access and edit your Google Docs with your phone. You probably won’t be doing a lot of heavy lifting with this app, but it’s nice to be able to if you want.
Another good alternative is Zoho, which offers similar features to Google Docs, as well as tons of productivity and business applications for managing projects and collaborating with others.
Evernote: This is my personal assistant and my other brain. I use it to save ideas, lists, sound files, photos, and various documents. I also use it to take notes during meetings. There’s a smartphone app, desktop client, and web-based version and they all sync together nicely. It’s free, but there’s also a paid version that gives you more functionality, the ability to create and upload bigger files, and the ability to collaborate.
Dropbox: I have this program on all my devices. It essentially creates folders that are shared across your devices. So if I put a file in a Dropbox folder on my desktop PC, I can get to that file easily on my phone, netbook, laptop, or tablet. I can also create folders that I make accessible to whomever I choose. It’s free too, but for a few bucks a month I can get additional storage space.
WeVideo: I was skeptical at first about doing video editing in the cloud, but I love this service. It's great picking up where I've left off on a project without having to somehow get the file to my other computers. To really get all the bells and whistles with WeVideo, I recommend getting a paid account, but the free account will let you try it and see if it’s for you.
Amazon: This isn't work-related, but I'll share it anyway because it's in the cloud. When I buy music, I buy it from Amazon because I can download it anytime I want or use their free cloud player no matter what device I’m using.

I've been able to use many cloud applications to replace some of the more traditional software programs typically used in the company I work for. Have you used any of these applications for work? What are some of your favorite cloud applications that I didn't mention?

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

24. A Healthy Urgency

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Find a comfortable position in a peaceful place. Bring a cup of coffee. Take a deep breath. Breathe in slowly, and then release. I’m about to share bad news. Everyone who loves you before you read this will love you after you are finished. God is with us. We can handle talking about things we’d rather avoid.

Let’s look at why we face some hard decisions in the United Methodist Church:

We operate using financial models that are intrinsically unsustainable. Membership and attendance in the US fall while expenses at the local, conference, and general church increase. The closing of churches, the move to part-time ministry, and the reduction of costs for hundreds of churches result in ever-increasing cost shifts to the 15% of our churches that are growing. If we do not radically reduce costs or create new systems for supporting connectional work, then the disproportionate weight will slow the growth of our most fruitful congregations. In addition, some conferences face pension liabilities that they cannot meet, several seminaries face financial hardship and reduced enrollment, and because of our high median age, we will lose large numbers of our most generous donors during the next two decades.

Most of our congregations are not reaching younger generations. The age disparity between the leadership of our congregations in the US and the communities we serve increases each decade. Our denomination, like most mainline churches, is perceived by youth culture as irrelevant, conflicted, hypocritical, insensitive, and out of touch.

Our clergy leadership systems for recruiting, educating, training, credentialing, deploying, evaluating, and (when necessary) removing clergy are not serving us well. The default in most conferences is: “if you meet the requirements and have done nothing egregious, you will be approved,” rather than “you will likely not be approved unless you demonstrate exceptional fruitfulness and promise for ministry.” The number of people approved for commissioning and ordination has no relation to the number needed to serve churches. Even among our most gifted clergy who are excellent at maintaining current ministries or leading a growing church to further ministry, few have the ability to actually transition a declining congregation toward growth.

Our organizational structures are not conducive to our ministry. Local churches struggle with complex disciplinary requirements derived from an era when we expected uniformity. Annual conference sessions conduct business with three times as many people present than thirty years ago, even though we have fewer districts, churches, and members (the unintended consequences of changing the status of local pastors, lay/clergy equalization requirements, and the role of retirees). Vertical alignments between general, conference, district, and local church boards, based on 1950s centralized organizational models, restrict creative contextual organizing according to the mission. At the general church level, autonomous structures function with limited accountability and with few mechanisms to unify efforts. The disconnection between members in the pews and the bishops and the general agencies fosters the perception that congregations exist to serve conferences and general boards. The Council of Bishops gathers as a group of leaders rather than functioning as a leadership group. These dysfunctions foster mistrust, conflict, and despair.

We lack clarity about our mission. Most of our churches do poorly at connecting with the unchurched and nominally churched in their communities. We wait for people to come to us, to find our churches and to like our worship styles rather than reaching out to engage people. We began as a “go to” church, but we’ve become a “come to” denomination.

We are resistant to change, suspicious of accountability, averse to metrics, defensive about letting go, and protective of the patterns and models that have brought us to this point. Congregations long for young adults but will not make the changes that would attract them and involve them in new forms of ministry. Pastors resist asking for help from those who are successfully experimenting with outreach models that work. Conference leaders have difficulty truly aligning resources and personnel toward the mission.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Take a sip of coffee. You are still loved. God is still with us.

I don’t pretend to have the answers to all the challenges listed above. Nor do I believe that the Call to Action, the petitions from various task forces, or a service of repentance will fix everything overnight. And this is not a good people versus bad people discussion. I am one of us. Like you, I’ve inherited, lived with, worked through, cultivated, benefited from, and led the systems we now have. Blaming others is not nearly as helpful as taking responsibility.

These challenges do not tell the full story of United Methodism today. We touch the lives of hundreds of thousands of people through our ministries, we have thousands of deeply committed and highly gifted laity and clergy, and we practice a theology of grace that the world needs. God continues to work through The United Methodist Church. However, the fact that we do many things well should not keep us from addressing the elements of our life together that restrain and weaken our mission.

The Call to Action expresses a healthy sense of urgency. I pray we begin to address these situations seriously and courageously. We need all the creative responses we can imagine.

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, writes, “We can either have a hard decade or a bad century.”* We have to make some hard decisions—about our own discipleship, about our congregational mission, about how we organize our work in conferences and the general church—or we will face an increasingly difficult future.

*My appreciation to Lovett Weems for drawing my attention to the Thomas Friedman quotation, from The New York Times, September 20, 2011.

Do you feel the challenges listed above are real and valid concerns which need our attention? What other challenges are critical to our future?

How do you personally feed the passion for ministry while also fostering the patience to work through an organization that responds slowly?

What ministries, initiatives, and experiments with new models and practices give you hope?

For deeper reflection, explore Philippians 4:6-9 from The Message for new insight into a familiar teaching.

For more, Lovett Weems’ new book, entitled Focus: The Real Challenges that Face The United Methodist Church, may be the most helpful resource for understanding our unsustainable financial models in particular as well as the larger missional challenges. Also, I would commend to you Gil Rendle’s Journey in the Wilderness.

Biblical Checks and Balances

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Once you were alienated from God and you were enemies with him in your minds, which was shown by your evil actions. But now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death, to present you before God as a people who are holy, faultless, and without blame. But you need to remain well established and rooted in faith and not shift away from the hope given in the good news that you heard. (Colossians 1:21-23a CEB, emphasis mine)

I saw a quote on Twitter a while back that went something like this: “If you watch what you think, you won’t have to watch what you say.” Sin begins in our minds, and culminates with our actions and the chain reaction of consequences that results from those actions. So even if we could “be good” without being cleansed by Jesus, we’d still be enemies of God, because our sin originates on the inside of the cup. Thankfully, because of Christ’s death on the cross, we’re reconciled to God and we don’t have to be his enemies anymore.

Did you notice this passage has a second but?

Part 1: Once you were God’s enemy… (bad news)

BUT…

Part 2: Now he has reconciled you through the death of Jesus (good news)

BUT…

Part 3: You need to remain established, rooted in faith, and not shift… (this one’s open-ended)

The first sentence in the passage puts us in a hopeless predicament. Then the first but gives us a way out of the darkness. Jesus has done something for us that we can’t do for ourselves. But the second but brings the ball back to our court. It tells us that Jesus paid the price, however, we have to appropriate the power of what he did on the cross by connecting (and staying connected) to the vine. Our faith should be an active faith, not a passive one.

We leave out parts 1, 2 or 3 at our peril. Omitting part 1 denies the need for parts 2 or 3. Omitting part 2 leads us into the error of works salvation, and leaving out part 3 makes Christianity nothing more than cheap grace and fire insurance.

The Word of God is full of checks and balances to keep us from wandering into theological extremism– this passage is just one example.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Peace Be with You

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning of God’s new project not to snatch people away from earth to heaven but to colonize earth with the life of heaven. (N.T. Wright)

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so I am sending you.” Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22; context)

The peace that Jesus brings the disciples is a standard greeting and so much more. It is a greeting like “Shalom” or “Salaam” are today. It is also an antidote for fear. Think about the disciples on that day of the Resurrection. They are afraid, confused, uncertain. And into these things, Jesus comes and says, “Peace be with you.” He comes to them even though the door is barricaded. He comes to them even though three days earlier he had died an excruciating death on the cross. He comes to them even though they aren’t expecting him, even though they haven’t understood what he told them about who he is. And when Jesus gives them peace, their fear turns into joy.

But let’s not stop there: let’s go a level deeper. When the Risen Christ offers the disciples peace, he is also offering them “the abiding presence of God.” This is how a friend of mine described what “peace” means to her, and I adore her definition. Peace is not simply the absence of conflict. Peace is “the abiding presence of God.” Peace happens when we tune ourselves to God’s abiding presence. Peace happens when we resonate with God’s movement in our lives. Peace happens when we discover the inner serenity that God provides in the midst of the maelstrom of activity that marks our lives today.

And “Peace” is also a mission, which is why Jesus sends the disciples out with Peace on his lips and his breath filling their lungs. As the spiritual descendents of the disciples, we have the same mission. So let’s bring the peace of God into every handshake, every embrace, every nod of the head, every greeting we participate in today and everyday.

Adam Thomas blogs at Where the Wind and is the author of Digital Disciple.

Connect with Adam: Twitter | Facebook

Confessions before General Conference

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

In the past few weeks, between holy week services and fundraiser dinners and youth group and church meetings and the normal day to day business of pastoring, I’ve been trying to get a handle on the General Conference legislation.

It is actually difficult to try to digest it all. There are 1400+ pages in the Advance Daily Christian Advocate. There are different proposals about the same items. There are nuances. There are huge, crazy, dramatic statements.

And my blood pressure has been rising.

I have been focusing much of my effort on the materials related to restructuring and changes to the understanding of ministry. Which means that I put off the section on church and society. In part I was afraid to look. But I did. Monday night, I dug deep in those two sections and realized why I was so afraid to even look.

One of the reasons that I am United Methodist is because we have such a rich heritage of taking progressive stances in areas of war, poverty, work, and relationships. And for the first time, as I read through legislation, I began to worry that we might take huge steps back this year in our areas of social witness. Now, I have very little historical perspective under my belt. This is my first General Conference, my first rodeo, so to speak, and so perhaps these are issues that have come and gone before. Maybe there are always people making waves and trying to take us back to the way things were before.

But I do not have that history. And my shackles started to raise. I found myself wanting to yell at the pages and the proposals. I began to see familiar names repeated… legislation that would roll back some stances on worker’s rights, the death penalty, our positions on war and peace, and they were coming from the same few people.

Confession time: I started to feel bad thoughts towards those people. Until I realized that they were merely the secretaries of the conferences that those pieces of legislation were arising from. And then I really felt bad.

If we are not even at conference yet, and I’m feeling this defensive, territorial, angst filled… God help us all.

I closed my files. I took a deep breath. And I prayed for forgiveness.

In this particular General Conference, I get to travel on behalf of my conference as a reserve delegate. And this means that while I will not be voting on every issue, I will be in the midst of it all. And my prayer is that I can help remind us of the spirit of unity that brings us together as disciples of Jesus Christ. I want to surround my delegates with prayer and support. I want to be a calm, non-anxious presence for them and for all who gather. I want to breathe deeply and remember that this is the Body of Christ in action. I want to see the best in every person, hear their best intentions, and prayerfully discern together. I am going to lay aside my own anxiety, my own agendas, my own desires and truly hope that God will speak through us.

My friend, Anna Blaedel, wrote on facebook today: “holding the pilgrims making their way to Tampa in prayer… for courage… grounding… webs of care… for surprising in-breaking of Justice and Joy”

Amen, Anna.

Instead of expecting the worst, I’m looking for God. I’m looking for where God surprises us, and breaks in to the ordinary time and the ordinary practices of debate and decision to bring holy unity and powerful witness. I’m looking for joy and courage and stories of resurrection and hope.

I repent of my divisiveness of spirit. I repent of my anxiety. And I pray that Christ would help us all remember – Peace.

23. Metrics and the Immeasurables of Ministry

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Vines, branches, seeds, vineyards, farmers, fig trees, harvests, sowers, soils, weeds, roots. Fruitfulness provides a metaphor for many profound aspects of the spiritual life and the Christian journey.

Jesus uses fruitfulness to draw our attention to our impact, the consequence of our ministry and of our life in Christ. He describes kingdom fruit, the effect and promise of the reign of God. Fruit refers to what Christ accomplishes through us. Jesus cursed the fig tree that bore no fruit (see Matthew 21; Mark 11) and describes the pruning of fruitless branches (see John 15). Fruitless means inconsequential, ineffective, showing no result. Jesus expects our life of faith and our ministries to make a difference. If it’s not working, stop doing it.

Jesus says, “My father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples” (John 15:8). Fruit evidences discipleship; following Jesus and fruitfulness are inextricably linked. Disciples bear fruit.

The writings of John Wesley are replete with references to fruitfulness. “Have they fruit?” was one question he commonly asked pastors, leaders, and churches.

These teachings and our passionate commitment to Christ’s ministry stimulate us to honest evaluation of the impact of our personal ministries, and the ministries of our congregations, conferences, committees, and councils. Honestly, churches, conferences, and other non-profit organizations are usually weak on evaluating outcomes, results, and impacts. The Call to Action explicitly invites greater use of metrics and evaluation to measure outcomes at all levels of the church. Some people celebrate this as a positive step, and others see this as acquiescence to corporate organizational models that have nothing to do with the spiritual life. But doesn’t Jesus clearly emphasize fruitfulness?

The fruit of some ministries are easily measured—in numbers of people participating, real changes in life conditions, homes rebuilt, dollars given, meals served, inequities resolved, illnesses cured. Other fruit seem beyond measure—the changes of the human heart, the growth in compassion, the stirrings of the call to service. Just because some aspects of ministry are immeasurable does not free us of the God-given call to focus on fruitfulness.

When we become unclear about our mission and fail to focus on fruitful outcomes, we begin to measure “inputs” instead of fruit, taking great satisfaction in how many people, meetings, dollars, buildings, and hours we’ve given to a task with little regard to whether these things have truly changed lives or made any real difference. Many churches and conferences have come to believe that spending more money, having a larger staff, holding more meetings, and preparing longer reports are progress. But these are all inputs. They are not fruit. The purpose of the church is the changed life—hearts deepened in Christ, children protected from malaria, vulnerable people sustained against injustice, the poor receiving access to education, mourners supported by the grace of community. There are thousands of ways of impacting lives through the ministry of Christ and a thousand forms of fruitful ministry. Some are measurable, and these we should count and learn how to do better. Where we cannot measure outcomes, we can describe changes and bear witness to the visible signs of the Spirit’s invisible work through us and our churches.

I readily confess that there are limits and problems with metrics, including finding the right things to measure that reflect and enhance ministry for churches, conferences, boards, and councils. Many strategies have us counting membership in a time when people are not joining, worship attendance in an era when people relate to the church in countless ways beyond worship, baptisms when parents are allowing their children to decide for themselves at a later age, and Sunday school attendance when most small-group discipleship takes place during the week. And far too many pastors, local church leaders, and cabinets are using numbers with an implicit “contingent/reward” modality: if I do this, then I earn, deserve, or receive that. This use of metrics risks becoming a disincentive to creative ministry.

However, when metrics are used properly, they become tools toward an end and toward the goal of changed lives. They help us understand what works and what doesn’t, and how to redirect resources toward greater fruitfulness. Even if we measure imperfectly and even though much of ministry is immeasurable, we have an obligation to focus on fruitfulness. Otherwise, we simply increase budgets, staffs, buildings, and meetings in ways that are unintentionally but insidiously self-serving, institutional, and inward-focused.

When Jesus says, “I am the vine; you are the branches,” he reminds us that all our fruits derive from our relationship to God in Christ. When Jesus says, “and they will know them by their fruit,” this should make us extraordinarily attentive to the end and purpose of our calling. Our fruit is God’s fruit.

What do you see as the fruit of your personal ministry as a layperson or pastor? How does God use you to shape the lives of people around you and through them to change the world?

What are the most fruitful ministries of your congregation? What are the least fruitful? Of your conference? Of our general church? Do ministries need to be pruned? Do new seeds need to be planted?

How do you deal with the fact that some outcomes are clearly measurable and some are not? What fruit are describable even when they are not easily measurable?

How does the discipline of focusing on fruitfulness strengthen ministry? How does an attentiveness to fruitfulness shape your discussions, deliberations, and decisions as a church leader?

For deeper consideration, read John 15:1-17 or search the New Testament using a concordance or online resource for the words fruit or fruits.

For further reading, check out Good to Great for the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer. This is a short monograph by Jim Collins that supplements his book, Good to Great. Daniel H. Pink’s book Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us may be of interest.

Also, pick up Bearing Fruit: Ministry with Real Results by Lovett Weems and Thomas M. Berlin.

View part 2 of Bishop Schnase's video on fruitfulness here.

Losing the Offering Plate

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Change is a buzzword in church circles. Even some traditional congregations have added modern worship music, practical sermon series, 21st century marketing concepts, theater style seating, and small groups in recent years. But the last thing some churches want to touch is the traditional offering with the passing of collection plates and baskets. If Social Security is the third rail of American politics, taking an offering could be the third rail of the church. Anywhere money and church mix is a potential hotspot for controversy, and some churches are probably slow to change the way they do the offering because they’re afraid donations will decrease. The bigger risk, however, could be continuing to do things the old way.

If your church is still relying on passing the collection plate, here are some reasons you might want to rethink that:

Many people don’t use cash and checks anymore. I haven’t written an actual check in ten years. I do all my bill-paying online, including tithing. However, doing that has required some set-up on my part, and I’m not sure most people would or could go through the trouble. To facilitate giving, some churches are setting up giving kiosks in their main lobby or narthex. These are equipped with machines that accept debit and credit cards. Think self checkout stations in the supermarket. This supplements online giving opportunities churches may offer. The major upside to kiosks is that people can donate while they’re at church, which is when more of us are generally inspired to give.

Some people believe the negative stereotypes about churches and money. I talked to a friend recently who visited a new church. “How did you like it?” I asked. “The service was good except for one thing. They asked for money too much. The pastor kept passing the plate until the people had given a certain amount.” What a horror story. While most churches don’t approach that level of tackiness, you’d probably be surprised at how some practices we consider to be innocuous are actually perceived by visitors.

Passing the plate puts people on the spot. A few years ago, I was helping a fellow finance committee member count the Sunday offering. As he straightened a stack of dollar bills, he remarked, “People need to be educated about tithing. They think this place is the dollar movie theater.” I found the comment amusing (if rather harsh) but it made me think about why people give what they give. I’m sure there are some who only have a dollar to give, but I wonder how many put a dollar or two in so they won’t look like they’re giving nothing. We certainly shouldn’t think that way, but I’ll admit, since I give online and not during the church service, I sometimes wonder if people think I don’t give at all. (That’s assuming anyone even notices or cares. But when you’re in any kind of leadership, you’d be amazed at the conclusions people jump to.) The bottom line is, the offering is an awkward time for some people—second only to “pass the peace/greet everyone around you” time.

Someone could get the idea that church has a cover charge. Don’t laugh. When people are looking for reasons not to go to church, not wanting to feel pressure to give comes in just under not wanting to be judged and not having the proper “church attire”. Most churches are really good about telling visitors not to feel compelled to give, but passing around offering plates still creates a potentially uncomfortable situation. With church, there are two types of uncomfortable—"good" uncomfortable and "bad" uncomfortable. This is bad uncomfortable.

Getting rid of the collection plates doesn’t mean getting rid of offering time. People need to have opportunities to give to God and invest in your church’s ministry. It’s an important part of worship. The main idea here is to create alternative ways for people to give—such as the kiosks I mentioned earlier, strategically placed (and securely mounted and locked) offering baskets or boxes, and an easy-to use online giving option. A mobile giving app is another idea that offers both convenience and immediacy for the giver. If your church has weekly communion or prayer time, people can bring offerings to the altar rail (or equivalent) too.

Even if you choose to retain the collection plate, pushing alternative ways of donating gives people who don’t use the plate permission to be more comfortable in your church. And that’s a definite win for everyone.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

22. The Most Significant Arena

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Methodism began as a way of life. Wesley organized people into societies, classes, and bands in order to provide a disciplined accountability to sustain growth in Christ and growth in service. Early Wesleyans were chided for their “methodical” adherence to practices that included worship, the sacraments, daily prayers, Bible study, classes, giving to the poor, visiting the sick and imprisoned. Every organizational innovation fostered that way of life. Circuits were created as a means of providing the sacraments and for deploying leaders. Class tickets were given and giving records were maintained, not merely to provide an accounting for the aggregate totals, but to hold each person accountable for growth in Christ. Wesley did not establish faith communities so that he could have a conference; he established a conference to support the work of Christ through faith communities.

Throughout the history of Methodism, the primary means by which we have brought people into this way of life has been through faith communities. Congregations offer the invitation and embrace of Christ. They offer worship that connects people to God and that stimulates the change of heart that transforms lives so that people see the world through God’s eyes. Congregations provide the means to grow in faith through small groups, Bible studies, support groups, and the care of souls. People cooperate with the Holy Spirit in their own sanctification, growing in grace and in the knowledge and love of God. And fruitful congregations help people discern the calling of God to ministries of service, mission, and justice. They provide avenues for life-changing, sacrificial service that transforms the world. Congregations draw people into the body of Christ, and through congregations God changes the world.

Consider the impact of congregations on your own life. Suppose we could extract from your life all the influences that God has had on you through congregations. Imagine we could pull out of your mind and heart all the thousands of sermons you have heard, the tens of thousands of hymns you have sung, the pastoral prayers and personal devotions that have formed you. Remove from your life all the pastors, friends, colleagues, laypersons, youth leaders, and teachers who have encouraged and embraced you in the faith. Extract from your soul all the work projects, the meetings, the soup kitchens, mission projects, hospital visits and support from others you have experienced. Remove all the volunteer hours, stewardship campaigns, mission fairs, camp experiences, and youth ministries.

If someone removed from your life all the influences congregations have ever had on you, you’d be someone totally different. The congregations you have belonged to have changed and shaped you. Congregations are a primary means by which God reaches into our lives to work on our behalf to create us anew, to claim us as God’s own, and to call us to God’s service. It is through congregations that God’s Spirit shapes how we understand ourselves, how we relate to our families, how we view community, and how we participate in the world.

Jesus intentionally formed his followers into a community of disciples to fulfill this mission. United Methodist congregations exist today for the same mission for which Jesus gathered his disciples and for which the Holy Spirit unified those who gathered on the day of Pentecost. The United Methodist Church makes disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world by repeating over and over again what has happened in your life and mine. In small congregations and large, in urban and rural churches, in every place and culture and language, God works through faith communities to change lives.

The Call to Action invites the leaders of The United Methodist Church to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The focus on congregations is not about institutional survival, an obsession on numbers, or a fear of failure. It is about returning to the basics. In the first sentence that immediately follows our mission statement in the Book of Discipline, we say, “Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs” (¶120, italics added).

Imagine if we really allowed this priority on Christ’s mission through congregations to direct us in our alignment of resources, personnel, and energy in every district, conference, and general agency of the church. Imagine bishops and superintendents and conference staff and lay leaders and pastors viewing Christ’s mission through congregations as job one. Imagine if reaching the poor, the vulnerable, the hurting, and the lonely with ministries driven by the grace of God focused our energies. Imagine fostering congregational leadership and spiritual depth and invitational culture and courageous witness in every community of faith. Imagine how God could use our churches all the more to change lives, foster communities in Christ, and relieve suffering if we really behaved as if local churches provide the most significant arena through which we make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Imagine!

How has God used faith communities to shape your life?

How can decisions at General Conference foster life in Christ for more and more people?

For deeper exploration, read Acts 2:37-47 in in The Message as well as in the NRSV for added perspective, and reflect on the practices that formed the earliest faith communities and how these form congregations today.

To expand horizons about the purpose of faith communities for the future, try one of these: Tribal Church: Ministering to the Missing Generation by Carol Howard Merritt; The Shaping of Things to Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch; Church Re-Imagined by Doug Pagitt; Transforming Church by Kevin G. Ford; or Emerging Churches by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolgar. Also, Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations by Robert Schnase offers a clear line of sight between the work and practices of congregations and God’s mission in the world.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Describe Your Fruitfulness

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

One of the sources of the anxiety that many are feeling in reaction to the Call to Action recommendations is the lack of clarity as to what comprises effective pastoral performance.

It is unclear how exactly the indicators that assess effectiveness will be applied, and even what those indicators will exactly be. From the Call to Action website:

1. Performance of Clergy

Adopt updated performance qualities and vital indicators for clergy.

Bishops lead in requiring that assessments are used consistently in every annual conference on an annual basis.

Focus training and continuing education efforts to enhance performance of new and experienced clergy in relevant competencies based on assessments.

Appointments should be made based on proven performance and potential for achieving the desired outcome.

I love the ideas of updating the definition of pastoral effectiveness and training pastors in “relevant competencies,” but am wary of the second point in this list, specifically the requirement of “…assessments that are used consistently in every annual conference.” I find it inconsistent with the idea of training pastors on “relevant competencies” to apply denomination-wide standards for pastoral effectiveness. What is a “relevant competency” in one place may not be in another.

In fact, I am wary even of assessments that are used consistently across an Annual Conference, or even an assessment that is the same for one congregation as the one just across town. Each community is unique, and each congregation responds in unique ways to impact the communities in which we serve.

This highlights the importance of conceptualizing the practices of a congregation as a framework upon which the local church can create ministry unique to the context. As Bishop Schnase writes in his worship chapter of Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations, “Passionate Worship is contextual, an expression of the unique culture of a congregation. Communities have their own distinct patterns, voice, and language for loving God authentically.” This idea can be applied to each practice of ministry.

To be sure, there is a framework, and it includes worship, study, fellowship, hospitality, service, and generosity (or whichever words you have attached to those practices in your context), but upon that framework, each congregation is relatively free.

And so it becomes critical to describe your fruitfulness. Individual congregations must make it a priority to share stories of ministry success regularly, and with as many audiences as possible.

Share and celebrate within the congregation, to the district office, through the conference communication channels, and most importantly, in the community itself. Any given pastor should be constantly ready with a dozen or so stories to tell about something amazing that has happened in and through the congregation.

Congregational vitality is about so much more than counting; if it were just about the numbers, Bishop Schnase’s book would have been a pamphlet. Describing fruitfulness is harder than measuring it. It requires purposeful and regular communication, and we must confess that we often get so involved with doing the good stuff that we don’t remember to describe it to others.

Too often, we settle for counting the easiest things to count (worship attendance, offering, small group participants, etc.) and call that “fruitfulness.” A pastor thinks that all he or she needs to do is count stuff and ka-pow—you are “effective” (or not).

It’s easy to count; it’s harder to describe. But it is absolutely vital to do so. Describing your fruitfulness generates excitement and energy that bubbles up and becomes even more fruitful ministry, which you then describe and use the energy generated to launch another … and so on.

I do not lament the lack of a clear, uniform definition of pastoral effectiveness from the “Call to Action;” I’m actually glad there isn’t one. Yes, there’s a framework, a starting point—and we’ll take it from there. And then describe our fruitfulness for anyone who will listen!

Leaving Vegas: When God Tests Us

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.’” – Genesis 22:1-2

I’ve never liked the story of God calling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It seems foreign and barbaric that God would ask someone to do such a thing. But perhaps there is more to the story than the blurb which we all know. Let’s back it up a few verses.

“Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba and called there on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God. And Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines.” – Genesis 21:33-34

Seemingly dull, but there is a world to explore here in these two small verses. Is Abraham calling on the name of the Lord before he journeys to a pagan land or is he just trying to appease his Deity before running off to Vegas for the weekend? I don’t know. Yet going to the land of the Philistines carries a connotation in itself.

Remember the story of Samson and Delilah? This beautiful woman lured Samson into giving up his position before the Lord.

She was a Philistine.

Remember the mighty warrior Goliath whom God’s people trembled before?

Philistine.

The Philistines were rich sea merchants. They mastered the skill of making purple dye, an expensive commodity at the time. And they worshiped many gods… So they were rich, mighty, technologically advanced, and sexy… No wonder God wanted to test Abraham’s faith upon his return!

The grass always looks greener on the other side. Human instinct gravitates us toward glitz and glamour, toward bigger and better, toward rich and sexy. And without warning and without our own cognizance these things become what we value as most important to us.

God desired to see if Abraham succumbed to the temptations. So He tested Abraham by asking to give up that which was most important to him, his son. God wanted to see if spending time in the land of the Philistines has changed Abraham’s heart, if it had compromised his faithfulness.

It did not.

You know how the story ends. Abraham lifted the knife to sacrifice his son when an angel stopped him. Then Abraham looked and saw the ram God had provided for the sacrifice, the ram which was stuck in a bush by the alter.

Abraham remained faithful. He passed the test.

Will we?

Following Christ and being faithful to God costs us what we hold most dear, at the very least we must be willing to give it to God. And what we hold most dear is easily influenced by the world around us. So maybe we ought to call on the name of the Lord more like Abraham, firming our hearts lest they by tempted away by what seems bigger, better, stronger, richer, or sexier. In the end, it is only God that satisfies.

When God tests your faithfulness, will you pass?

Read more from David Dorn at The Pursuit Blog.
Connect with David: Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Tumblr

5 Lessons from 'Caine's Arcade'

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The newest celebrity on the Internet is a nine year old kid from East Los Angeles. If you haven't heard of Caine Monroy, he's the star of a short film by Nirvan Mullick that has gone viral on YouTube and Vimeo. Since "Caine's Arcade" was posted last week, it has been viewed around 4 million times between the two video sharing sites. And a college fund the filmmaker set up for Caine now has over $151,000 in it.

If you haven't seen the video yet, watch it below, then scroll down and I'll tell you why I think "Caine's Arcade" has struck a chord, and I'll also share a few lessons I believe we can learn from this kid.

On The Fox Report newscast last night, someone mentioned that this video has been making grown men cry. Perhaps it's because it connects so many of us to our childhoods. I remember being Caine's age and building vending machines out of cardboard boxes. You probably remember doing something similar when you were a kid. If you did, this video will make you feel like a kid again, at least for a few minutes.

But there's more to this story than stirring up nostalgia and sentimentality—there are some simple lessons in the video that we can benefit from if we'll pay attention:

A positive attitude pays off. Caine Monroy sets up a "business" where there there is little foot traffic, and until the filmmaker comes along, he has no customers. But day after day, he doesn't get discouraged, and he doesn't give up. In fact, he keeps building games for his arcade. Because of his positive attitude and perseverance, this kid is probably going to do something huge someday.

Sometimes you need to learn to work with what little you have before you're given more. Creative people are going to find a way to make things. And in some way, most of us are creative. Caine creates his games from used cardboard boxes and odds and ends in his dad's used auto parts store. His industriousness and resourcefulness are pretty impressive.

Sometimes you have to be persistent. His father's auto parts store isn't in a great part of town anyway, and most of the business is done on eBay, so there aren't many potential customers for Caine. But he keeps asking people to play his games, and he doesn't give up because people say no.

Fathers are important. Caine's dad is quietly supportive. He gives him space to build his arcade (partly to keep the kid occupied, granted) and he encourages him. But I also get the impression that this man doesn't coddle his son. In the film, Caine's dad doesn't try to protect him from disappointment or failure. The fact is, just being there for his kid is the biggest thing a father can do. I wonder how much of Caine's work ethic and positive attitude comes from watching his dad constantly reinventing a declining auto parts store.

We need to recover our childhood wonder. Somewhere between the ages of 10 and 30, many of us forget how to dream the way a kid dreams. And it's a shame. Cynicism has taken its toll on our culture, which is part of the reason so many of us fall into a pessimistic existence. We don't dream as big, and we stop believing we can do great things. Instead of really living life, we settle for just getting through it. When I watched this video, I thought about when Jesus said to become like children. The wonder, the excitement, the simple belief that we can accomplish huge things—that's part of what we need to rediscover.

This video is about one kid, but there are kids everywhere like Caine who need encouragement. I was a latchkey kid in the 80's and I thought I was forced to grow up fast, but I didn't have anything on kids today. Too many of them are already losing hope by the time they reach middle school, and it's heartbreaking.

"Caine's Arcade" is a reminder of the good things that can still happen in America.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

20. Every Dollar Has a Mission

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Apportionment formulas, budget requests, salaries, pensions, line items, giving patterns, reserves, expenditures, capital costs, stewardship, reductions, audits, revenue projections . . . welcome to the vocabulary of church finances! This is the language we use to navigate and deliberate the fiscal aspects of our mission at congregational, conference, and general church levels. Understanding the nuances of church finance and aligning our resources with our mission is a daunting task.

Every single dollar spent by a congregation or conference was first placed in an offering plate and offered up to God. Multimillion dollar budgets begin as coins from children, folded bills stuck in envelopes by young families, and checks written by retirees. Each dollar has been voluntarily contributed by someone following the promptings of the Spirit, and each has been prayed over by a pastor during worship and counted by a church treasurer and deliberated over by congregational leaders seeking to fulfill the mission of Christ. Each dollar has been sent on a mission.

As a pastor and as a bishop, I’ve remained keenly aware that every financial resource and expenditure I oversee comes from the generosity of people seeking to serve God faithfully, and this has made me conscientious to a fault when we make decisions about money. Does this use of money honor God? Does it further the mission of the church? Do donors feel well-served?

In a large, complex, multitiered organization like The United Methodist Church, the distance between the people who offer their gifts to God during worship and the ultimate decision about how some portion of those gifts will be used grows with each layer of ministry. If leaders become too disconnected from the original giving, they risk losing sight of the spiritual meaning and missional intent that the money represents. “It only costs a thousand dollars” in the congregation’s finance committee becomes “It’s only ten thousand dollars” in annual conference discussions, and this leads to “It only costs a few hundred thousand dollars” at General Conference.

Jesus notices the woman who drops two coins in the temple treasury, declaring that she has given more than all the others because she, out of her poverty, gave everything she had. Her two coins make no noticeable impact on the temple budget, but Jesus perceives the sacred and sacrificial quality of her gift. God uses her gift to reconfigure her interior life, to reshape her character and spirit. The gift represents an element of her love for God and her desire to further God’s purposes. It’s not merely about what she does, but about what she becomes through the gift, a person of remarkable generosity and largeness of heart. She grows in the image of God.

Usually we think of this story as contrasting the size of her gift with the offerings of the wealthy. As we prepare for General Conference, let’s think of the story another way. How do you suppose the two coins were used by those who had responsibility for the treasury? Merely to enrich self-serving religious leaders? Were they lost in the vast treasury of funds or wasted for extraneous and unimportant expenses? Were the coins mixed in with all the other gifts to cover the costs for the oil burning in the lamps that lit the temple? Were they distributed to the poor to help someone in even more dire need than the widow herself? In short, were the coins used in a manner that truly honored the spiritual depth and personal sacrifice of the donor?

Many of the Call to Action recommendations derive from what we learned about ourselves in the Towers Watson study of our denomination. One of the most remarkable patterns the study revealed is how rapidly our costs for operating congregations, conferences, and general church ministries have increased during the same period that our membership and attendance in the United States have precipitously declined. Per capita giving (average annual donation per member) and per capita debt (amount of local church debt per member) have increased year after year for decades. Giving goes up while attendance goes down. Annual budgets for churches, conferences, and the general church are up while the people to cover those costs become fewer and older. While we honor the great generosity that has sustained these models of ministry for so long, we also realize that the overall trend makes these models fundamentally unsustainable into the future.

Conference delegates carry an immense responsibility. They make decisions that have huge consequences for local congregations, for seminaries, for attempts to eradicate malaria, for initiatives to reach young people, and for infrastructures that support disaster relief. The numbers are mind-numbingly large over which delegates will pray and deliberate. We are a vast denomination with an expansive vision and extensive responsibilities. But we can never allow the size and complexity of the task to distract us from our responsibility to align money with the mission of the church. After all, it’s not our money; it’s God’s. It’s not our mission; it’s Christ’s. It’s not merely dollars and cents; it’s the faithful offering of children, young adults, families, and the elderly from around the world.

How does the fact that the money we discuss at church councils and conferences derives from the offerings of people to God in worship shape your decision making about budgets?

What values do you think should drive financial decisions for church leaders? How should money relate to, shape, or serve the mission? How well do you feel your congregation and conference do with prioritizing and aligning resources?

For deeper consideration, read and meditate on Luke 21:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 8:1-7.

Lovett Weems of the Lewis Center for Church Leadership offers excellent analysis of the giving trends of The United Methodist Church in Focus: The Real Challenges that Face the United Methodist Church. For deeper exploration about personal generosity, reread chapter five of Five Practices of Fruitful Living by Robert Schnase, or for daily devotions on giving, consider Practicing Extravagant Generosity by Robert Schnase.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

21. At the Margins

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The church fulfills its mission at the margins of the congregation, where those who actively follow Christ encounter those who are not a part of the community of faith. Picture a congregation as concentric circles. In the center circle are the pastor, the leaders and staff, and key volunteers who plan and think and pray and act to lead the church. Farther out is the circle that includes other leaders, including teachers, volunteers, and helpers, and then another circle for those who attend and participate in worship, work projects, and Bible studies. The next larger circle includes all those who attend with less consistency.

When we reach the edge of the farthest circle, we discover on the other side of the margin the people who are not part of the community of faith. The church fulfills its mission at that edge, where those who belong to the community engage and interweave their lives with those outside the community. There, at the margin, we fulfill our mission, through service and justice ministries—helping, serving, relieving suffering; and through our sharing the goods news of Christ—seeking, inviting, welcoming, and nurturing faith. In a missional church, the boundary is wonderfully permeable, and members reach across the edge and new people easily enter into the faith community. The mission of the church is not fulfilled in church planning meetings composed of church members talking with other members about church business, although those meetings may be important to strategize about the mission. The margin is where the action is.

Jesus focused his attention on the margins of the community, usually over the objection of the religious leaders of his day and the counsel of his followers. Nearly every Gospel story involves Jesus speaking with the marginalized: calling tax collectors, healing lepers, engaging a woman at the well, interceding on behalf of a woman accused of adultery, receiving children, challenging money-changers, praying with a thief on the cross. We have no stories of Jesus attending meetings! When he does gather his disciples, he draws their attention to the people at the margins: “just as you did it to one of the least of these members of my family . . .” (Matthew 25:40 NRSV).

Leading involves redirecting the attention of the congregation toward the margins where we fulfill the mission of Christ. Leading means outward-focused thinking.

Early Methodist conferences refreshed pastors and laity in their attention to the mission field. The mission was not fulfilled at conference; rather, conference was a means of reinvigorating one another for continued engagement with the mission field.

We could describe the general church with concentric circles as well, with bishops and general agencies and general conference somewhere in the center, then annual conferences and their ministries farther out, and then congregations where the mission is fulfilled.

No offense to bishops or conference staff, but the mission of the church is not fulfilled in conference offices. Conference offices don’t feed the homeless, counsel the bereaved, or host divorce recovery groups. Rather, conference leaders strengthen congregations to fulfill the mission. In effect, we help people to help people. Congregations don’t exist to support the conference; the conference exists to start and strengthen congregations and to develop the leadership streams to make that possible. We lead congregations to lead people to active faith in Jesus Christ.

Many general agencies are one more step removed from the locus of the mission than the conference is. The General Board of Discipleship or the United Methodist Publishing House do not teach people the faith; they teach people to teach people. The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry does not lead people to faith, it prepares people to lead people to faith. Other agencies, such as the General Board of Global Ministries, provide channels and connections throughout the world that expand our understanding of the neighbors our congregations are called to serve.

Sometimes we prepare reams of petitions to present at conference sessions in the belief that if the petitioners can win a majority vote of approval for their cause, we have fulfilled the mission of the church. But the mission of the church is not accomplished at meetings, no matter how large; or by petitions, no matter how well-crafted; or by changes in the budget, no matter how well-motivated. At best, these are preparatory. At worst, they represent avoidance behaviors that keep us focused inwardly on the organization.

Within a mile of your church, an elderly person lives alone, feeling abandoned and isolated. Within a mile of your church, a couple struggles to strengthen the last threads of love that bind them together. Within that radius, children live with no one to invite them to the spiritual life or to the community that can help them discover God’s grace. A middle class family struggles under the anxieties of losing a job, and an immigrant family lives in fear. A teenager contemplates suicide. Within a mile of your church, dozens of people wrestle with personal addictions related to alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal substances. Hundreds of people carry burdens of unresolved guilt and grief and despair, and do not belong to sustaining communities who surround them with love. Hundreds more wonder about the purpose and meaning of their lives, and do not have the vocabulary to express their inner longings and searching as spiritual hunger.

The people at the margins of our church represent the mission field entrusted to us by God. They are the reason your church exists. Your church is the means of grace God uses to reach them. And by the grace of God, most of our churches are imbued with the vision and resources to engage far beyond one mile, but to reach across the community and around the world.

The Call to Action invites us to redirect the flow of energy and resources toward increasing the number of vital congregations that make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. This is not about institutional survival, but about missional renewal. Church leaders are trying to move the focus of a large, complex organization from the center to the margins once again, to draw our attention to the mission field. Local congregations provide the primary arena through which God works to reach those at the margins in the spirit and way of Jesus.

What ministries of your congregation reach the people at the margins? What changes of attitude, behavior, and focus cultivate a deeper sense of mission?

What redirection of conference resources, personnel, and energy might increase the number of congregations that reach out? How does your conference prepare and form people for outward-focused ministry?

To delve deeper, read Luke 15:1-7. What does this passage mean for people at the margins?

Some excellent resources for congregations desiring to become more outward focused: Jesus Insurgency: The Church Revolution from the Edge by Rudy Rasmus and Dottie Escobedo-Frank; Holy Conversations: Strategic Planning as a Spiritual Practice for Congregations by Gil Gendle and Alice Mann, and The Race to Reach Out: Connecting Newcomers to Christ in a New Century by Michael Coyner and Douglas Anderson.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

19. Logjam

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I run along a bike trail that has a number of small bridges stretched across creeks and streams. These former railway structures were built with thick steel girders that rise high above the creek beds. I often pause in the middle of a bridge to look down for fish, snakes, or turtles, and to listen to the refreshing gurgles of the stream through the rocks.

After a few days of hard rain upstream, the soothing picture changes. The small streams become raging currents that rise to the bottom of the bridge. During flood conditions, the steel girders form a grate that catches tons of sticks, branches, and logs until the combined effect is a dangerously large and impenetrable dam of densely-pressed debris. I can feel the bridge shudder under the pressure of the flow against the blockage. As I look at the tons of accumulated matter, I wonder, “Where did all this come from? What happens if all these branches and logs and trunks totally dam up the streaming flow?”

I’ve just described a logjam. Any one branch or stick or log does no damage and has no effect on the flow. But if the stream picks up enough of them, and they seize together at a narrow spot, then the results can lead to disaster—the stream is stopped, the floodwaters overflow the banks, or the bridge is put at risk.

Logjams are risks to organizations as well. Remember, my friends, that I am one of us, and I’ve poured my life into the task of serving the church I love. I do not offer critical observations in order to feed cynicism or anti-denominational feeling. But as I’ve watched the effect of successive General Conferences and Annual Conferences and Church Conferences, I’ve often felt that many of the changes we make to policy and practice result in tossing more logs and sticks and branches into the stream, a practice that inevitably contributes to the formation of logjams for our mission.

Each individual change may grow from positive motive, but the cumulative effect can be dangerous to our mission. I recently reviewed a list of changes to the Book of Discipline resulting from our last General Conference. There are requirements that all conference committees name a “witness” coordinator, and requirements that mandate in more detail the composition of the Board of Ordained Ministry. I’m not arguing for or against any particular requirement; it is the combined effect that limits the flow of creativity and adaptability and responsiveness. If you wish to see what I mean, look at the Discipline’s paragraphs related to the Conference Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry (¶634) and you will see nearly sixty duties and responsibilities. Look at the list of more than thirty “Specific Responsibilities of District Superintendents” (¶419–425) or check out the fifteen other places in the Discipline that speak of Superintendent responsibilities. Or review the requirements for Charge Conferences or for Annual Conference organization. If new committee members or superintendents sit down to study their tasks, the list of accumulated disciplinary requirements would more than occupy the whole calendar year before they even consider their own context, mission fields, or their own gifts and callings.

All the individual sub-paragraphs were adopted because well-meaning individuals, committees, constituencies, and boards offered ideas to address concerns, redress problems, and increase ministry by prescribing connection-wide remedies. But the effect is as if each of us picked up a branch and set it afloat in the stream. We’ve unknowingly contributed to the logjam, the experience of intransigence and paralysis that we see at nearly every level of the church, of people focused and absorbed by unending and unclear policies, procedures, and requirements to the neglect of the mission field around them.

Logjam describes the inevitable intertwining and accumulation of policies, procedures, standards, requirements, and structures that result from years of recorded decisions in a mature organization. The dense, impenetrable mass stifles creativity, blocks the flow of innovation, discourages experimentation, and thwarts inventiveness.

Methodism began as a movement. Life and faith are fluid and flowing. Growth involves adaptation, change, creativity, motion. The principal identifying elements of our tradition began as tools to maximize adaptability and movement—itinerancy, connectionalism, conference, and episcopacy. These were strategies to enhance maximum flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances and opportunities.

Recently someone asked me if organizational changes at General Conference can really make any difference in whether we have more vital congregations. In the short term, growing churches will continue to grow and declining churches will continue to decline no matter what General Conference does. But in the long term, it matters how we address issues of clergy recruitment, education, training, deployment, and evaluation. It matters how we realign resources to start new congregations, develop ways to interrupt decline, and help congregations focus on their mission fields. It matters that our leaders focus on the right questions and deal with issues relevant to our mission around the globe. It matters that we connect our money to our mission. It matters that we leave a legacy to the next generation, not of complex and impenetrable rules and ineffective systems, but of a church that is clear about its mission and confident about its future, and which is agile and responsive and engaged with the world for the purposes of Christ.

Can you think of “logjam” policies and procedures that limit creative response in your congregation? In your conference?

How do we avoid innocently contributing to organizational intransigence? As a leader, how do you help sustain the life of the Spirit and of community in Christ as something alive, fluid, and flowing?

For deeper consideration, read some of the passages in which Jesus confronts the corrupting influence of systems more tied to their rules than to their God-given purposes. For a fresh look at Matthew 23, read it in Peterson’s translation, The Message. Or if that’s too harsh, read Luke 6:1-11.

For more on this theme, you must read Back to Zero: The Search to Rediscover the Methodist Movement by Gil Rendle, or his earlier book, Journey in the Wilderness. For a delightful quick read about the same idea, read Orbiting the Giant Hairball by Gordon McKenzie.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Lightening the Load

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I enjoy traveling. I also like to be prepared. So, when it comes to packing my bag(s), I have a reputation for taking along much more than is necessary. Hey, you never know when you might need three extra pair of socks, some Vitamin C, a 12 pack of LARABARs, a travel candle, a carabiner with flashlight/compass, and plenty of tea bags! However, I'm learning to lighten the load when I travel. I've learned that the less I pack, the less I have to carry and keep up with (and eat before my return). And, I really do just fine without all the excess.

It seems that lightening the load is something that I'm having success with in many areas of my life and this comes without regret. By simplifying my home space, my schedule, my quiet time, my diet and even my suitcase I have been able to see and hear God's activity more clearly because there is less distraction. However, this takes commitment and determination as it is very easy to slip back into thinking I need more stuff or less space on my calendar. I know I'm not even close to mastering my load but I am encouraged to strive to eat, live, travel and pack more simply.

As I was traveling this week from Nashville to Chicago I loaded my one suitcase onto the plane and a woman in front of me said she was so envious that I had such a light load. She admired my packing skills with her compliments and said she could never slim down her bags to just one (she had three on her shoulder and who knows how many were checked, so I'm not sure I should have considered this a huge compliment). However, I was pretty proud of my growth and recalled the same trip just a year ago when I had nearly twice as much stuff to lug on the plane.

Once in the city, I arrived at the train station and a gentleman offered to carry my bag down a rather long flight of stairs. I could have carried it and refused his offer, but he genuinely acted as if he wanted to help, so I let him. After lifting my small but mighty bag (yes, it was a little heavy, I still had at least six LARABARs and two extra pair of socks for the next 72 hours) down the very long flight of steps, I made a not very humble comment about how much I'd slimmed down my packing over the last couple of years and may have said something about how impressed he should have been with my packing skills. But as he sat my bag down at the bottom of the steps, he looked at me and stated that I clearly still had room for improvement. Yes, strange man, I surely do. And, at the next flight of stairs, he walked down those steps right in front of me without even a glimpse. I think we both know there is more work to be done in regards to my suitcase and my life.

What about you? Is your load lighter or heavier than it was a year ago?

If it is lighter, what areas have you begun simplifying and what benefits have you seen because of your efforts? If your load is heavier, where could you start to clear some clutter for the benefit of clarity and simplicity?

You may just find that the results are well worth a good purge. If you need some inspiration, you may want to check out a book I just recently finished and would highly recommend by Jen Hatmaker, "7: An Experimental Mutiny Against Excess".

18. Who's In Charge?

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The United Methodist Church has no governing board. That fact surprises many United Methodists. As a Bishop, I receive countless letters that begin, “Why don’t the bishops do something about . . .” and then they fill in the blank with concerns about a policy in the Book of Discipline, a group of pastors, the general agencies, the budget, apportionments, our seminaries, or any of a number of other boards, ministries, or entities related to The United Methodist Church.

Most people picture a hierarchy or organizational pyramid with bishops on top, and with the annual conferences, the General Conference, the general boards, the general commissions, the seminaries, finance and administration, the UM foundations, and many UM-related ministries all somewhere neatly organized underneath with direct, vertical lines of responsibility and accountability. That’s not the case. In fact, a more proper diagram would involve horizontally listing all those entities in a row and then adding the Council of Bishops in the same line up. All of these act autonomously, in response to their own internal and self-determined governance boards. All influence one entity has over another is informal. To be sure, the ultimate authority of The UMC rests with General Conference, but General Conference meets only once every four years and gives direction through budgeting decisions and legislation related to the Book of Discipline. Neither the bishops nor anyone else has control; they merely have influence.

This form of organization brings several challenges. Who performs the essential roles of governance without a governing board?

For instance, who cradles the vision? Who sees it as their work to absolutely and resolutely focus the energies, resources, and activities on the mission of the church: making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world? Who repeats, deepens, and interprets our mission and focuses us on changing lives for Christ?

And who maintains an external focus to the organization? Peter Drucker wrote, “An organization begins to die the day it begins to run for the benefit of the insiders and not for the benefits of the outsiders.”* Jesus said simply, “[I] came not to be served, but to serve” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). Older organizations—including churches—risk turning their energies inward, protecting prerogatives, lifting the convenience and preference of the insiders to highest priority. Who makes sure that our decisions and our energies are focused on those we’ve been sent to serve rather than on our pastors, our pensions, our salaries, the survival of our existing forms of ministry, our facilities, our personal agendas, our boards, our bishops, or the mere preservation of our institutions? Who keeps us focused on those outside the church and the needs of a hurting world?

And who forces future-oriented thinking? A principal task of governance is pushing us to think about the next generation, about shifting cultural dynamics, about new strategies and forms of ministry that we cannot even begin to fathom.

And who fosters a continuing relationship of trust between those in the pews who generously and passionately desire to serve Christ and ministries that are two or three steps removed, including the work of our conferences, general boards, and leaders? This also is a principal task of governance.

Who explicitly states the results to be achieved? Who assures performance in achieving those results? Who is charged with focusing and enacting basic, explicit policies that reflect core values and norms that support the mission of the church?

All these are tasks of governance. One may argue that many of the individual entities described above invest time and energy in these tasks for their own organizations. The result is a quilt-like mix of contrasting and sometimes competing inconsistencies. Some unevenness and diverse interpretation of our mission is good for our church. However, the overall result of our approach has been dismal, with extraordinary decline, rampant mistrust, dysfunctional decision-making processes, and financial models that are completely unsustainable.

The Call to Action represents a meaningful effort to bring focus. It suggests ten years of sustained focus on increasing the number of vital congregations, since we fulfill our mission principally through fruitful, dynamic, outward-focused faith communities. The Council of Bishops also supports legislation intended to streamline and align the governance systems of The United Methodist Church. The legislation does not create a single governing board over all our work together, but it does provide a first step toward organizational models that helps us align according to the mission, maintain an outward focus, remember the future, and hold ourselves to a greater accountability in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

*Quoted on leadnet.org.

What concerns do you have about the current organizational model of The United Methodist Church? How is our organization conducive to our mission, and what elements are not conducive to our mission?

Think about your local congregation or annual conference. How do you feel your governance systems provide for the essentials of missional focus, maintaining an outward focus, forcing future-oriented thinking, and fostering good relationships among members and leaders? Are our systems working effectively? How willing would you be to accept change? To lead change?

Jesus had the remarkable capacity to turn every experience into an extraordinary moment of teaching and insight that reminded people of God’s mission in the world and their part in it. Read Luke 5:1-11 from The Message. What would fishing out of the other side of the boat look like for you? What does it mean to redirect our energies anew toward “fishing for men and women?”

For more related to organizing the church for ministry, read The Externally Focused Church by Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson; Direct Hit by Paul D. Borden; Simple Church by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger; or Visioneering by Andy Stanley.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Is Mass Evangelism Dead?

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I’ve come to the realization that mass evangelism is becoming increasingly less effective. I know that’s not exactly an earth-shattering revelation. It has become fairly obvious, at least here in the United States. In 1994 I attended my first open air evangelistic crusade in Raleigh, NC—the evangelist was Franklin Graham, and his father Billy made a special appearance on the final night of the event. It was huge! Over 20,000 people attended. If you’re Gen-X or older, you know the routine. There was opening music from a Christian rock band. (Franklin was considered much edgier than his dad back in the day.) Then there was a stirring sermon with an invitation to come down to pray with a counselor and commit your life to Christ. Many people became Christians or renewed their commitments to Jesus. Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, and Catholic churches (and every other Christian denomination) came together to make sure the event was a success. For this wide-eyed college student, it was a pretty awesome sight to behold.

Times have changed. You don’t see big crusades as much nowadays. 21st century ministries and churches rely more on festivals, concerts, and community outreach extravaganzas to reach the lost. And even those events aren’t as explicitly evangelistic as their predecessors were a generation ago. While many churches still do some form of the altar call, more seem to be moving toward relational and small group evangelism as the primary strategies for bringing people to Christ.

Why is that? The Gospel certainly isn’t less true than it was in the heydays of John Wesley, Charles Finney, or Billy Graham. And we know people generally aren’t less sinful now or less in need of mercy and grace. Has wholesale evangelism really become less effective, or are we just doing it wrong?

I think it’s some of both, but it’s definitely harder nowadays to get through to a lot of people, so one on one evangelism has become critical. I’ve come up with a few reasons why I believe that’s the case.

There’s too much noise. In 2012, everywhere we go, there’s a screen with virtually an infinite amount of entertainment and information choices competing for our attention. And many of us tend to gravitate toward the people and ideas we’re most comfortable with. As society has become increasingly unchurched, the odds of a nonbeliever wandering into a gospel crusade or church are much smaller now. And unless they’re up at 6am flipping through basic cable channels, the likelihood of bumping into Joyce Meyer is less also. Truth be told, evangelism has always been about relationships. The Franklin Graham crusade in the 90’s relied on people bringing their nonchristian friends and relatives to make it work. But back then, you could often see results by dragging someone to an event and letting someone else preach the Gospel to them. It’s not as easy now, partly because—

People are more cynical and skeptical. This is closely related to the noise factor. When more people are saying different things, their perceived “authority” gets diluted. Consider how this has played out in the television news industry. In 1994 there were the three big network newscasts and CNN. While some would say those outlets often exhibited an ideological or partisan bias, most people viewed them as somewhat authoritative. I’ve even heard the three network news anchors of earlier eras half-jokingly referred to as “the voice of God”. Now that there are two additional big cable news channels and many other specialty channels, people can choose their news and opinion to match their own political views. But not without a price. When the news can be served any way you want it, people start losing faith in the news. It’s the same with religion. When it comes to finding out more about Jesus, many nonchristians are more likely to respond to someone they know well and respect than some stranger or televangelist.

We’re in an age of personalization. Companies like Facebook and Google target ads to individuals now. Broadcasting was the way to reach people in the past; today it’s narrowcasting. A principle for evangelism applies here: knowing people is a key to reaching them. The better you know someone, the easier it is to have an impact on the decisions they make. (Yes, there are exceptions. It’s still quite difficult to evangelize family members. But that’s another discussion altogether.) Bottom line: We’re more likely to be effective witnessing to someone in our circle of influence than to complete strangers.

People need follow-up. John Wesley and the early Methodist movement understood this—but many of us don’t. That’s where the Methodist class meetings originated, and it’s part of the reasoning behind the church small group movement today. But without the personal factor of friends inviting friends and holding each other accountable, the odds of new converts falling through the cracks increase tremendously. No one would deliver a baby (or many babies) and leave them alone without care and nourishment. Yet we somehow manage to do that very thing in the spiritual realm every day with new believers.

Finally, there’s the prayer factor. From my observations, prayers that are more specific seem to be more effective and get the most defined answers. This is true for prayers related to evangelism and personal growth as well. There’s a big difference between praying for generic “people” to come to Christ and praying for “my friend John” to come to Christ. For one, we’re going to be more passionate about praying for individuals, and even more so when we’re close to them. Passion is a key to prayer. I’m convinced that even when mass evangelism has been successful in the past, much of that fruit can be attributed to people praying for individuals.

Mass evangelism won’t go away, it will evolve. But one-size fits all evangelism is long gone (if it ever really existed at all). Now more than ever, we can’t depend on celebrity preachers, our own pastors, or even viral online videos to do most of our evangelism for us. Some plant, some water, and God makes the seeds grow. And then some get to see the harvest. Truthfully, evangelism has always been a group effort anyway. It’s just becoming more apparent in the 21st century.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

17. Love with Legs

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

John Wesley’s inner holiness, the sanctifying and perfecting love at work inside us, finds outward expression in social witness, a dedicated commitment to changing conditions that rob people of fullness of life. Social witness serves God, who is the “lover of justice” (Psalm 99:4 NRSV). United Methodists perceive God’s activity not merely in stories of personal transformation but in the great shifts of history toward justice, release from oppression, and relief from suffering.

Whenever United Methodists gather in conference, they focus not only on how God uses faith communities to reshape human souls but also on how God works through the church to affect society. Disciples place themselves in service to God “for the transformation of the world.” Many people feel that the church should avoid controversial issues. But while conscientious Christians may seriously disagree about social and legislative strategies to feed the hungry, heal the sick, protect the innocent, and foster peace, no Christian can act as if these things do not matter to God. How should disciples of Jesus respond?

“Justice is love with legs,” one seminary professor said. God’s love takes a social form, a political expression, when the followers of Jesus learn to love strangers by relieving suffering though programs to prevent disease, health care systems that serve the poor as well as the wealthy, and laws that protect people from injustice.

Victims of violence, poverty, discrimination, and people who suffer through war, famine, or natural disaster often lack the power to effect change that will transform their circumstances. If no one with power and resources speaks for them, how can their voices be heard? To advocate means to speak for, to act on behalf of, to give support. Among the most important ways followers of Christ express God’s gracious love is by speaking up for children, the oppressed, the homeless, the poor, or the marginalized who cannot speak for themselves.

As followers of Jesus, we look at the world from the perspective of someone who suffered innocently—a person who was crushed and broken by the world’s powers—rather than through the lens of privilege, power, and wealth. Christianity began with catastrophic brokenness and violence, resulting in a persevering, sacrificial love that drives us to work on behalf of the suffering with unending passion. We can do no other.

Some social witness the world understands—seeking cures to diseases, protecting children from abuse, supporting victims of violence. Other forms of social witness the world cannot fathom because the ideas run counter to deep cultural biases or because such initiatives seem foolish, unrealistic, or hopeless—working with violent offenders, protesting torture, organizing for peace, protecting the rights of immigrants.

Prophetic voices help us see the incongruity between what we believe and the personal choices we actually make. The dissonance is uncomfortable. We want such voices to be wrong, even when we intuitively know that some of what they say is true. Listening attentively rather than reacting with indignation may cause us to rethink and to act with greater fairness and more compassion. We are able to influence systems and make personal choices that align more truly with the deep principles we hold and with the scriptural witness we have inherited. God speaks to us sometimes through the voices of people who disagree with us just as the prophets of the Old Testament bothered the comfortable and complacent in days gone by. They rally us to a collective sense of responsibility.

John Wesley writes that “Christianity is essentially a social religion; and that to turn it into a solitary religion, is indeed to destroy it.” (Sermon 24, “Upon the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount”) He calls us to immerse ourselves in the world and not to separate ourselves from it. Without immersing ourselves in the world, we cannot influence the lives of others or become the force for good that God desires us to become.

The Call to Action urges the church “to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” (the adaptive challenge facing The United Methodist Church as stated in the Call to Action reports).

Does this mean we neglect our social witness as United Methodists? I cannot imagine The United Methodist Church without a robust engagement with the world. Begin with the end in mind: the transformation of the world and the reign of God that we see revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. God works through us and through communities of faith to transform the world. The more we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in forming disciples who are mature in faith and committed to service, the greater our social witness.

We are personal disciples and social creatures, and God’s grace leads us to private action and public change. God forms us in the way of Christ not merely for our own personal benefit but for the transformation of the world. How do we have in us the mind that was in Christ Jesus? is a social question as well as a personal one.

How does your ministry reveal God’s passion for justice? When was a time you offered a ministry of advocacy on behalf of those who had no power to do so themselves? Does your congregation offer a social witness? How do you evaluate its effectiveness?

When has someone’s prophetic voice provoked you to positive ministry despite your initial resistance? What role do you think the church should play in social change? What role do you think annual and general conferences should play?

For scriptural study, read Eugene Peterson’s interpretation of Matthew 5:13-16 in The Message for a fresh restatement of a common passage, or check out Amos 5:21-24.

To explore Wesley’s notions of social witness, John Wesley’s Sermon 24, “Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount,” which you can find by searching online websites. Also, Paul Chilcote’s Praying in the Wesleyan Spirit relies upon Wesley’s sermons to deepen our discipleship and social witness. For further reflection on social witness, reread the chapter on “Risk-taking Mission and Service” from Five Practices of Fruitful Living by Robert Schnase.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Getting over the 2:30 Wall

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

You’ve probably seen the commercials for 5-Hour Energy, the energy shot that supposedly helps you overcome the "2:30 feeling". I know the 2:30 feeling well. But for me, it doesn’t come only with tiredness and lack of energy. Usually it’s accompanied by confusion and anxiety. There are times when I experience it at such a level that I literally can’t get anything done. It’s as if I’m seized by a creative paralysis. I’ve exhibited symptoms of ADHD since childhood (before it was even called that) so I’ve always had to work hard at keeping myself focused. But this was turning into something bigger than that. A few months ago, I finally reached the point where I felt like I might need to get professional help. But I’m a stubborn guy, and I love thinking through things and solving problems, so I decided to work through it myself. I’ve given out a lot of advice over the years. Why does it seem like it’s easier to help other people with their issues than it is to deal with my own?

Whenever I run into a problem that makes absolutely no sense to me, I assume that at least part of it might be spiritual. So in late 2011 I started taking a “spiritual inventory”. But I didn’t stop there. I began to look analytically at every area of my life— including sleep, nutrition, exercise, and prayer—and I discovered some big problems.

My prayer life had become less consistent than it had been in the past. My diet was horrible. I wasn’t exercising regularly and my desk job was taking a toll on my health. I realized I had to do some things differently.

Over the last few months, I’ve gradually introduced some bold changes to my routine. Here are some of the biggest ones:

I changed the way I ate. No, I didn’t make dramatic changes all at once, but I started tracking all the food I was consuming on a daily basis. It’s amazing how simply writing down what you eat makes you eat healthier. (Tracking your spending helps you waste less money too. It’s the same principle.) I used the program at Weight Watchers Online. (You don’t have to go to meetings with this version of WW.) SparkPeople is a free alternative to Weight Watchers that is similar in its approach. I increased my protein and fiber intake and lowered my consumption of sugar. (Goodbye sugar highs and crashes!) I also added some basic nutritional supplements. As of this writing, I’ve lost 46 pounds with six more to go to reach goal. I weigh the same now as I weighed my freshman year of college. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that I’m feeling more energetic now partly because I’m not dragging around an extra 46 pounds.
I changed my sleeping habits. Honestly, I believe I’m wired to be a night owl. But that wasn’t working for me and I finally faced the truth. So I did the unthinkable. I started going to bed at 8 or 9 and started getting up at 3 or 4. Now I begin the day with Bible reading and prayer, then I get a jump start on the rest of my day by reading, brainstorming, and writing. I’ve found that by front-loading my days like this, I’m getting enough sleep and I’m not tired in the afternoons. I also am able to hit the ground running when I get to work instead of figuring out everything after I get there.
I ditched the caffeine. I’ve actually done this before and somehow I always seem to gradually go back to it. But this time I think I’m going to stay on the wagon. You see, I was probably drinking a pot or two of coffee per day! But I had trouble sleeping because of the caffeine in my system, and the "2:30 wall" was partly a result of my body (and brain) crashing. I didn’t give caffeine up cold turkey, however. I weaned myself off of it over the course of about a week. (Caffeine withdrawal headaches are the worst!) Now I’m falling asleep quickly at night and I don't experience the afternoon crashes anymore.
At work, I replaced my conventional desk with a stand-up desk. I’m not sure everyone would like doing this, but I love it. My creativity and productivity have increased dramatically, and I seem to be full of energy all day. I have a whiteboard in my office that I use to brainstorm, and I walk back and forth to use it often. I also like to pace when I think, so I’ve made sure I have room to do that. Supposedly we burn more calories standing than sitting, so that’s another plus.
I’m more active. I’ve built more exercise into my routine, and I take a couple of quick workday breaks (one mid-morning and one during lunch) to do a few laps around the walking track. I often get ideas there for blog posts and articles so I keep my smartphone with me and keep track of everything using Evernote. (I don’t care how good you think your memory is, record every idea you get somewhere.)
I pray in the morning and throughout the day. I can’t overstate how important spending time with God has been in helping me make all these changes. I once did my praying mostly at night, but I’ve got to admit, for me, going into God's presence and looking forward to the day ahead has been more effective than reviewing my day with him at night. It grounds me and gives me the right mindset to tackle everything I need to. I’m also learning the value of praying throughout the day and getting God involved in the creative process as I write.

I’m still figuring this thing out, but I’m pleased to say that I haven’t experienced the afternoon crashes for a while now. I’m full of energy, sleeping well, and my productivity at work has grown by leaps and bounds. I’m also more upbeat.

If you’ve been struggling with the same problem I was dealing with, I encourage you to take your own “inventory” and gradually make some changes that will work for you. I’m pretty good at holding myself accountable once I set my mind to something, but that may be more difficult for you, so I certainly recommend getting accountability if you need it—from a friend, counselor, pastor, life coach, doctor—whoever you need to bring in to help you.

What steps have worked for you when you’ve struggled with problems like depression, anxiety, and lack of energy?

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

The Case for Unity

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

In the midst of my preparations for Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday last week, I received a mailing sent to delegates of The United Methodist Church's upcoming General Conference. It was a pamphlet entitled “In Support of Disaffiliation for Reasons of Conscience,” speaking to a particular piece of legislation that arises in one form or another every four years.

As we know, The United Methodist Church is deeply divided over its own position on homosexuality, with many of us seeking to overturn the church’s policy that homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teaching, and that the church cannot officiate marriages/unions for gay or lesbian couples, or appoint and ordain pastors who are in relationships with a person of the same gender. And so, in response to this division, the question arises each General Conference: are we really the “United” Methodist Church? Should we split along lines of opinion on this matter? Can what we have in common hold us together when compared with the depth of our disagreements?

This particular legislation would give local churches the right to disaffiliate from the denomination, becoming, I presume, nondenominational churches (something with which I also take issue—much as I may resist over-focus on metrics, accountability is a very good thing!) and would allow clergy to withdraw from the denomination (something I thought I could do anyway), all based on whether or not we agree with the church’s stance on homosexuality.

Personally, I don’t find this a compelling course of action. It suggests that the depth of Methodism is agreement with the Book of Discipline in whatever its current iteration is, or even worse, agreement with a handful of paragraphs.

I am often asked, given the outspoken passion with which I disagree with my denomination’s policy on this point, why I don’t withdraw my status as a United Methodist clergyperson and affiliate with a denomination that I find more agreeable.

The reason is that there is so much more to being United Methodist to me than our current language about gay people.

Don’t get me wrong—how we treat others is vitally important. And as I have said, our language and position on homosexuality represent, in my opinion, our gravest sins of commission. However, I did not choose the UMC as my denomination based on whether or not I agreed with the Discipline.

I grew up Roman Catholic, and so upon feeling called to pastoral ministry, I went denomination shopping, learning as much as I could before intentionally affiliating with one denomination that I felt was most faithful to how I understood the call to live as the Body of Christ. I chose The United Methodist Church for four reasons:

An understanding of grace that gives voice to both the journey and the love that surrounds us before we even know it,
Mission that does not seek conversion, but empowers people by working side by side, and a historical commitment to social justice in all levels of mission and minsitry,
“The quadrilateral,” which is a misnomer, but for me means that we are never asked to check our reason or experience at the door, but continue to engage with the history and context of our faith as we understand and apply scripture, and
Strong support of women in pastoral leadership. This includes the fact that, because Bishops make appointments, women cannot be refused as pastors by local churches based on their gender. Neither can persons of color. One day, when we ordain gay and lesbian clergy, as I believe we will, neither can they.

I now add the itineracy as something I find invaluable about the UMC. I hate it when it’s time for me to go, but I do honestly feel that the Methodist practice of having clergy appointed by the Bishop for a shorter (i.e. less than 20 years) period of time keeps congregations and clergy fresh, promotes congregational identity that is separate from the pastor (resists cult of pastoral personality), and frees clergy to preach, teach, and administer with sometimes difficult words and actions without fear of direct retribution from the personnel committee (now, whether one can critique the denomination or conference without reprisal is another matter!). And, above all, I love the people called Methodist.

So I remain. The United Methodist Church is not perfect. We are slow in “moving on to perfection” in trying to be who we say and envision we are. Still, I believe we are on the path to being as faithful a people as we can be. We engage difficult conversations, and it takes us time to resolve them, because we are a global and diverse body. We are a deeply passionate people, and we care far more about following and serving Christ than perfecting doctrine, so we quibble incessantly, because following Christ is hard to figure out faithfully.

I believe there is room for everyone in the United Methodist Church.

Dick Cheney is United Methodist. So is Hillary Clinton. So is Rush Limbaugh. So is Sandra Fluke.

So am I.

And as strange as it may be, and as hard as it is to see sometimes, I believe there is more that keeps us together than can keep us apart. We believe in Christ. We strive to follow. We believe that social justice is vital to ministry and mission and theology itself. We walk grace as a journey before we even know it and long after we have had our “hearts strangely warmed.” We sing. We pray. We eat potluck like nobody’s business. We value relationship and connection—with God and with each other. We confess our sins of racism and discrimination, and try, albeit imperfectly, to repent. We have a network of mission across the face of the earth in more places and in longer deployments than nearly any other charity in the world. We say our hearts and minds are open, and we pray it might be so.

We have split in the past (over slavery), and there are those who have walked away because of matters of conscience (over homosexuality or discrimination, or other reasons we may not know). We will continue to wiggle and wrestle and fragment, I am sure.

But I’m not leaving until and unless we lose what holds us together, or until and unless the day comes when the church no longer wants me because the denomination sees not enough in my ministry that keeps me Methodist when compared to the areas of my disagreement. When I criticize my church over homosexuality or idolizing metrics or anything else, I do it because I love it, and because I believe my voice matters—in the pulpit, in the committee rooms and on the floor of General Conference, and yes even on my little blog—when it comes to engaging the church as it is and calling it into what it needs to be.

We are a great denomination, but I believe we can be yet more faithful. I want to be part of that conversation and growth, as we are made perfect in love and witness by the one who calls us to life, to faith, to work.

Becca Clark is the pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church in Montpelier, Vermont.

Connect with Becca: Twitter | Facebook | Blog

Call to Action for the U.S. Church

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Taylor Burton-Edwards reminded me a few weeks ago that it is helpful to see the United Methodist Church's Call to Action as a sort of vision that has been cast but that does not necessarily include specific proposals.

In fact, when our Iowa Annual Conference delegation read the Council of Bishop’s statement on the Call to Action, we endorsed the document for conversation because it does challenge us to think in new and creative and transformative ways about what it would mean to be the church in a new time and place. I think that this video put out by the Call to Action team also does this:

We See A New Church from Call to Action on Vimeo.

When I saw the video, I was mostly inspired and felt like I could find agreement with about 95% of what we were being called to live into. The vision put forth here is of United Methodists out in the world, sharing the good news, working for transformative change in our communities, and the call is to do something bold NOW… I agree.

BUT… that doesn’t mean we can’t have serious conversation about whether some of these proposals are the best possible solutions for us to live out that vision. I actually am beginning to worry they aren’t bold enough, that we won’t have the courage to really make changes that will transform our church and the world.

There is also a larger question that I started pondering after seeing this particular video. If we are doing something right globally… if we are making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world in places like Nigeria and Indonesia and Russia… then how will these proposals affect that work? Are we really talking about a problem with the UMC in the USA and parts of Europe? And will a focus on American lackluster Christianity actually harm our global impact as a church?

What I see around me is not necessarily a problem only with United Methodism, but a problem with how American Christianity has been watered down and has lost its ability to truly claim a space in the world. Many young people my age have no interest in the church and do not believe it has any value or meaning for their lives. They can change the world without us. We have not articulated how we have something to offer. We have not connected with people in our country in a way that shares the true transformative power of a relationship with the church and with Jesus Christ. But that doesn’t mean that what we are doing is necessarily wrong for other parts of the world.

Maybe underlying this problem is another question: how can we contextualize the ministry of the church without losing our global unity? How can we continue to resource and support the amazing work we are doing on the African and Asian continents and at the same time make adjustments to our engagement with the American and European dechurched and unchurched? And will our current proposals hold up one at the expense of the other? Will our focus on vital congregations drift us towards congregationalism and isolationism? Or will it inspire us to learn from one another and from what is working in other parts of the world in a way that makes our connectionalism that much stronger?

16. People No One Else Can Reach

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I would not be a Christian today if it were not for The United Methodist Church.

That’s a rather bold statement. I’ve only recently come to realize this as I reflect on the formative events of my early discipleship. If not for the particular approach to theology and practice expressed in The United Methodist Church, I would likely have followed a path of rejecting faith.

I remember an experience that followed the 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua that killed more than 5,000. I was 15 years old, and several of my friends were active in a charismatic Christian house group. They were reading The Late Great Planet Earth about signs of the end times. I saw an adult leader clap her hands and praise God for the earthquake because it was a sign that we were one step closer to the end! I was outraged. I was so furious about “Christianity” that I told my pastor I could no longer be a Christian if that’s what Christians believe. He patiently listened and offered alternative views of those obscure apocalyptic passages. He spoke of God’s grace and talked about what our church was doing for the people of Nicaragua and how I could help. If the only expression of Christianity open to me at that age had been that group of friends, I would not be a Christian today.

That was one of several experiences that opened the door to the spiritual life when other doors closed to me. My girlfriend was active in a fundamentalist Baptist church. The role of women and the attitude toward women that she accepted offended my common sense even before it contradicted my biblical understanding. At our United Methodist church, women chaired committees and taught from the pulpit, and I could not imagine belonging to a community that excluded women. Later, a classmate committed suicide. Hundreds of students attended the funeral in a fundamentalist church where the pastor spoke about how we should all feel happy because Martin was in a better place. He told us not to cry, because God has a reason for everything he does. He suggested that Martin had done things that caused God to do this. The image of a punitive God that causes suffering and the inability of the pastor to address the real grief in the room made me cringe. The experience sent me back to my pastor. If this was Christianity, I wanted no part of it. A month later, Martin’s father killed himself.

There were branches of the Christian family that surrounded me as a teenager that were militantly anti-science and anti-intellectual, and that forced people to choose between the Bible and evolution as if these were fundamentally incompatible. I could not have followed Christ if it meant giving up my intellectual curiosity. There were branches that were perfunctory in their liturgy, void of music and song, and entirely intellectual in their approaches, and the emptiness left me cold. Some of my friends were strict Nazarenes, and they could not go to movies, watch TV, or attend plays. Their isolation from society would not reach me. There were denominational families that prohibited birth control, and these made no sense to me. And there were churches that railed against gays and lesbians in hateful and hurtful ways, and I could not belong to a community like that. There are many theological disagreements and clashing perspectives in The United Methodist Church about homosexuality, but I’m glad to belong to a church that does not avoid the hard conversations and the complex issues. Sincere people of faith strongly disagree, but I’m glad we say that homosexuals are people of sacred worth, loved by God like every person on earth.

United Methodism’s theology of grace, varieties of worship, emphasis on inner holiness and social witness, global vision, hymnody, our ability to hold together head and heart, our respect for women and men, our openness to people of all nations and ethnicities, our vision to transform the world through audacious projects like Imagine No Malaria—these form an expression of Christianity, a way of following Jesus, that can reach people that no other faith expression is able to reach. I’m not saying our approach is better than all the others; I’m merely suggesting that people respond to the truth of Christ through our expression of faith who cannot respond to other expressions. This form of faith and practice reached me, and without The United Methodist Church I suspect I would never have become a Christian.

The goal of the Call to Action is not to save the denomination or the institutions of the church. I’m offended by people who accuse me and others involved in this work of merely working for institutional survival. I have poured thirty years into the work of ministry in Christ’s name, and I have not done this to maintain an institution.

The reason I pour myself into the ministry and into leading the church comes from a deep-rooted place inside. It is grounded in the grace I have experienced, an initiating love that sought and found me through countless people who brought me God’s unconditional love. This desire to share God’s grace is God-given and sacred.

From the depths of my soul, I desire for people to love and be loved, to experience a sense of purpose from serving others, and to believe that their lives matter. I want people to feel immersed in community, surrounded and sustained. I genuinely desire for them to discover the inner life, and to learn to ease the suffering that comes with empty strivings. I want them to discover that love is the better way, and that the ultimate expression of love can be discovered in Christ. The spiritual life changes us, and through us God’s Spirit changes the lives of those around us. Patterns of violence and injustice can be interrupted, loneliness can be overcome and suffering relieved, and there is a depth to life that is sacred and worthy of cultivation.

Methodism began as a way of life, and this way of life, deep-rooted in our theology and practice, is worthy of fostering, not for our sake, but for the love of God in Christ. There are people who can receive this love in the form we offer it who otherwise would never be able to do so.

In Leading Beyond the Walls: Developing Congregations with a Heart for the Unchurched, Adam Hamilton suggests that every church leader should be able to answer the following questions: Why do people need Christ? Why do people need the church? Why do people need The United Methodist Church?

What elements of our faith and practice form a way of following Jesus that made The UMC the way for God to reach you? What makes it worth the effort to strengthen the United Methodist witness?

For Scriptural exploration, read Luke 5:36-39.

To delve deeper, check out Leading Beyond the Walls: Developing Congregations with a Heart for the Unchurched by Adam Hamilton, or for a reflections beyond United Methodism, read Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices by Brian McClaren.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Christians and 'Christ Followers'

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Lately I’ve noticed more than a few people, especially on social networks, referring to themselves as “Christ follower”, “Jesus follower”, or some other variation of Christian. It intrigued me at first and actually seemed kind of cool. Now I feel like it’s beginning to approach shopworn status.

There are several reasons someone might have for choosing to forgo the Christian label:

Negative associations: Christianity often gets a bad rap in our culture—sometimes deservedly so—but many times it’s because of an inordinate amount of negative publicity given to people identifying themselves as Christians but who come across as anything but Christlike. Some Christians don’t want to be seen as “guilty by association” so they shun the label.
Confusion: A Christian is someone who has a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. That’s how I define the word. But there’s not always a common understanding on what the word Christian means. For example, some use Christian as a term for evangelical or Protestant. When I worked in youth ministry, some of the teens in my youth group who had Catholic backgrounds thought this way. I had to explain on more than one occasion that both Catholics and Protestants can be Christians. Others consider themselves Christians if anyone in their family has ever been Christian—it’s viewed as a heritage thing. So people who avoid calling themselves Christians may choose some other term because they feel it better expresses what they're trying to say.
Word fatigue: Sometimes words are used (or misused) so much that we stop thinking about what they really mean. At that point, we take a mental shortcut and “think what we always think” rather than approaching words with fresh eyes. When someone uses the word Christian, I ask myself what they might mean by it, but there are probably some who don’t ask anything, they just assume they know. Using a less common term is more likely to catch people off guard and make them wonder what it is you're really trying to get across.
A desire to be taken more seriously: Perhaps some Christians want to let people know that they’re not just “nominal” Christians. Let’s face it, when practically anyone is allowed to use a name, the “brand” can get diluted. There’s a fascinating article out today from the Associated Press that talks about generic brand names. Did you know that aspirin, escalator, and heroin were once trademarked brand names, but they lost their trademarks because the names fell into common usage? Now, the companies owning the trademarks to Kleenex®, Band-Aid®, Xerox®, and the iPad® are having to figure out how to maintain the ubiquity of their brands without their trademarks being deemed “too generic”. Since anyone who wants to call themselves a Christian can do so, there’s technically no quality control for the brand. Maybe that’s why many believers run from the word.

When people call themselves Christ followers, my first instinct is to be a smart aleck and ask them which Christ they follow! (Christ is the same as messiah. And there are plenty of “messiahs” out there to follow.) Plus, I always feel like they’re playing that old party game Taboo, the one where you get buzzed (not that kind of buzzed) if you use a word from the list of forbidden words on the game card. And frankly “Christ follower” sounds both archaic and sci-fi—like something Teal’c might say on Stargate SG-1. I’m really not trying to be too critical—as I mentioned before, people have legitimate reasons to use different terms if they want, but I generally stick with the old school terminology. I’ve avoided using alternative terms for Christian mostly because I don’t think there is any single word that gets the same idea across with as much simplicity and clarity. I just say that I’m a Christian, explain it when necessary, and let the chips fall where they may. It is what it is.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

10 Ways to Be a Good Follower

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I have a strong desire to help improve the quality of leadership in churches and ministries, especially among the next generation of Christian leaders. My youngest son, Nate, who has already proven to be a great leader in the environments where he’s served as one, consistently encourages me that I need to develop good followers, along with developing good leaders.

He’s right.

We aren’t all called to be leaders, although I have a contention that we are all leaders in some environment in our life, even if it’s self leadership. The point is clear though, that not all of us will lead at the same level. Equally true is that it is difficult to be a good leader without good followers.

I’ve listed qualities of good leaders in several post; most specifically in this post. I suppose there is room for a companion post. So, I set out to make a new list. Now, granted, these are important to me as a leader. You may have your own list. In fact, I’ll welcome you to share your thoughts on characteristics of a good follower in the comments. If there are enough added, perhaps I’ll do another post.

Here are 10 ways to be a good follower:

Help me lead better – You see things I don’t see. You hear things I don’t hear. You have experiences I don’t have. Help me be a better leader in the areas where I may not have the access to information you do. I love something our children’s ministry does frequently. They alert me of people who are hitting home runs in their area so that I can personally thank them. I’ve made some great connections this way. I should be recognizing individual contributions anyway and this helps me do that more often. Help your leader do his or her job better. Good followers find ways to make the leader better.

Do what you commit to do – One of the most frustrating things for a leader is to assign a task, practice good delegation, and then watch the ball drop because the person didn’t follow through on what they said they would. It could be an issue of not having the right support, resources or know how, or it could be the person doesn’t know how to say “No”, but good followers find a way to get the task completed, whether by personally doing it or through further delegation. If you aren’t going to complete it, or if you find out along the way you may not, let me know in plenty of time to offer help or find someone who can.

Don’t commit if you won’t put your heart into it – If the leader strives to be a good leader, then he or she wants the task completed well. That won’t happen with half-hearted devotion. Good followers give their best effort towards completing the work assigned to them, knowing it reflects not only their efforts, but the efforts of the leader and the entire team. I need that from those who follow my leadership.

Pray for me – I don’t have all the answers. In fact, some days I have none. I sometimes wonder why God called me to be the leader. I rely on the prayers of others, especially from those I am attempting to lead.

Complete my shortcomings – The reason we are a team is because you have skills I don’t have. To be a good follower means you willingly come along side me to make the team better, bringing insights, talents and resources I can’t produce without you. Don’t get frustrated at something I may not understand or be gifted at doing, but realize this is one way God is using you on the team.

Respect me – There will be days when I’m not respectable, but I do hold the responsibility to lead, so encourage me when you can. Chances are I’ll continue to improve if I am led to believe I am doing good work. In public settings, even when you don’t necessarily agree with my decisions, honor me until you have a chance to challenge me privately.

Love the vision – Genuinely love the vision of the team. You’ll work hardest in those areas for which you have passion. Ask God to give you a burning desire to see the vision succeed, then become a contagious advocate of that vision.

Be prepared – When bringing an issue to me for a decision, do your homework and have as much information as possible. Know the positives and negatives, how much it will cost, and who the major players are in the decision. Be ready to open to having your idea challenged in order to make it better. I also believe in consensus building and a team spirit and don’t want to make all the decisions, so it’s probably wise to have a solution or two in mind to suggest should you be asked.

Stay healthy – I admit, sometimes I run at too fast a pace. I believe a healthy organization is a growing organization and that requires a lot of energy. I also think we are doing Kingdom work, which is of utmost and urgent importance. You can’t be as effective on the team if you are unhealthy physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually. You can’t always control these areas and life has a way of disrupting each of them, but as much as it depends on you, remain a healthy follower.

Leave when it’s time – I realize this is a hard word, but when you can no longer support the vision or my leadership, instead of causing disruption on the team, leave gracefully. If the problem is me, certainly work through the appropriate channels to address my leadership, but if the problem is simply differences of opinion, or something new God is doing in your heart, don’t stay when you cease being helpful to the team. (Don’t simply stay for a paycheck.) God may even be using your frustration to stir something new in your heart.

What else would you add? What makes a good follower?

Ron Edmondson is Lead Pastor of Grace Community Church in Clarksville, Tenn.
Connect with Ron: Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

15. Changing Lives

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

“I was not trained to change peoples’ lives, but to change their membership affiliations.” From the first time I heard Gil Rendle say this, the truth immediately struck home and matched my own experience in ministry.

Nearly thirty years ago, I served as an intern pastor to learn the practice of ministry. A lay-led team met each Monday evening in a home to divide up index cards with the names and addresses of recent visitors to the church. Volunteers went in pairs to visit these prospective members.

As we reported back, we talked about “prospective members.” We heard stories of people new to our community who held membership from United Methodist congregations in other cities, or who belonged to other denominations. The volunteer director of the Monday Visitors would carefully note membership and record attendance until it was time to talk about transfer. Very few prospects had no experience in the church. We focused on changing memberships.

The intentional follow-up placed this congregation ahead of its time. Several implicit assumptions undergirded this approach: we lived in a Christian culture where everyone had some experience in belonging to a church; our work was to support their move toward a decision about membership transfer; and, if they joined and completed a pledge card, the shaping influence of the Holy Spirit through congregational affiliation would positively impact their lives. Everyone came by transfer, and we seldom recorded a profession of faith.

When I graduated from seminary, I patterned my own practices accordingly. I remember countless visits to the homes of prospective members on Sunday evenings. We delivered bread or plants. We provided literature about our ministries and welcomed people. My focus was still directed at membership affiliations.

As we reached more young adults, however, we discovered that many had never belonged to a church, and neither had their parents before them. There was no membership to transfer!

People entered into our community of faith, not desiring to change their membership, but to be shaped by our ministries. They’d sing with the choir, serve on a Habitat for Humanity-type project, or sign up for a Bible study. We created a low-threshold for entry into our ministries while developing a higher threshold understanding of membership.

While we didn’t call it that at the time, we created a robust discipling system. Nearly two hundred people worked through Disciple Bible Study, and more than two hundred attended Emmaus weekends. Nearly two hundred offered themselves to hands-on mission projects, and through lay-coordinated Consecration Sundays, we developed a pool of people who became articulate about expressing how giving related to their spiritual life. Most of our core leaders experienced all four of these life-changing ministries. Our most visionary new ministries resulted from the committed, spiritually mature leaders who were formed by these experiences. Lives were changed, and through them God changed the community and world around us.

What do we really hope happens because someone belongs to a United Methodist congregation? What’s the end and purpose we pray for? What does the church exist to do? Belonging to the body of Christ, with time, mysteriously causes us to become a different person, with more depth, peace, and courage. We become more hopeful, more thankful, less reactive, gentler, more patient, more resilient, less angry, better able to relate. We attend to others with greater compassion. We more readily offer ourselves in service to God and neighbor. We care for those whom we may formerly have overlooked. We grow in grace, and in the knowledge and love of God. Sometimes the differences are nuanced and the progress seems imperceptibly slow, like someone taking yoga classes who appears the same from the outside, but who has developed within them a greater flexibility, smoother breathing, and increased circulation. The change is real, but hardly discernible to other people. Other times, the change noticeably reshapes outward behaviors. Slow or fast, unrevealed or dramatic—God uses our belonging to the body of Christ to change us from the inside out.

Gil Rendle suggests that vibrant organizations “must learn to be steady in purpose but flexible in strategy.” Long-established congregations and conferences risk becoming so steady in strategy that they lose focus of their purpose (Journey in the Wilderness, 23).

Many of our churches still operate on assumptions from a previous era, and they hold to strategies that no longer work. We expect good Christians to move into our communities, visit our Sunday services, and want to join. But most people around us are seeking something other than membership; they are seeking authentic community, profound purpose, a deeper spirituality, and ways to make a difference with their lives. They are seeking the changed life that comes through belonging to Christ.

The Call to Action invites us to intentionally focus on the mission and impact of our local church ministries. Intentional means having a plan in mind. It refers to our determination to having a purpose to what we do and to developing the right strategies to support the purpose. Intentional derives from Latin words meaning to stretch out for, to aim at. Intentional ratchets up commitment and consistency of effort.

God uses congregations to change peoples’ lives, and through changed lives, God changes the world. That’s a purpose worth preserving, even if we have to change our strategies.

How would you express the purpose of your congregation? What do you hope happens because someone enters into the life of your church? How does God use your congregation to change lives?

Which ministries of your conference help congregations lead people to active faith in Christ? How fair and reasonable is it to expect that our general church, conference, and congregational strategies align with a clear purpose?

For further focus, reflect on several stories of Jesus that come immediately to mind, and consider how lives are changed by his presence. Or read Romans 12:1-3 from The Message for a refreshing interpretation of a favorite passage.

For helpful insights into these topics, read Gil Rendle’s Journey in the Wilderness, or his newest book, Back to Zero: The Search to Rediscover the Methodist Movement.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Avoiding Unnecessary Mistakes

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Have you ever given advice to someone knowing they were going to do the exact opposite of what you were telling them to do?

It happens to me a lot, although I guess it’s fitting. I’ve certainly ignored my fair share of good advice and faced the consequences. But as I’ve matured in my faith, I’ve discovered a simple truth. It’s usually less painful to learn from other people’s mistakes than it is to learn from your own.

Ultimately, it’s a faith issue. You see, faith is really the same as belief—not just belief on an intellectual level—an active belief. When we ask someone for their advice and don’t take it, we’re essentially saying, “I don’t believe you.” Or maybe we do believe them on some level, but not enough to take heed to what they have to say. And many times, we know the bad things that will probably happen but we still do our own thing anyway.

It’s more difficult in the short term to believe someone else’s wisdom, but it’s usually a lot less trouble in the long run. I don’t necessarily buy the notion that the only lessons that stick with us are the ones we learn for ourselves. Certainly we remember those lessons better, and we get a little more “street cred” when talking to others about certain issues, but why would we insist on going through problems when we don’t have to?

Christianity is not built on the premise, “Seeing is believing.” (Sorry, Thomas.) That’s the way the rest of the world operates. We Christians are in our element when we’re required to believe something before we see it. In John 20, Thomas refused to believe Jesus was alive unless he saw Jesus for himself and touched his wounds. Thomas was eventually satisfied and came to believe, but it wasn’t exactly a leap of faith for him. It’s easy to believe Jesus is alive when he’s physically standing right in front of you!

Biblical faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1: “Faith is the reality of what we hope for, the proof of what we don’t see.” (CEB) At the risk of oversimplifying it, faith is believing God—or taking God’s word for it. But if only it were that easy. Trouble is, God doesn’t just speak to us through Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. Often he uses other Christians, occasionally he uses an unsuspecting nonbeliever, and sometimes he speaks to us through the ones we really don’t want to listen to: our relatives!

That leads me to another point—the closer we are to people, it seems like the less we want to listen to them. That’s why I like to also get advice from solid, reputable Christians I don’t know very well. And it’s why I read tons of books. I’ve avoided making many mistakes by reading about the mistakes others have made. Books are a relatively low-cost way of learning at someone else’s expense!

Jesus told Thomas, “Happy are those who don’t see and yet believe.” Many translations also use the word blessed. When we exercise Biblical faith (believing before we see) we move heaven and receive blessings. I’m going to add my own corollary to what Jesus said... Happy and blessed are those who come to a place where they’re able to learn from the mistakes of others. We’re not meant to learn everything through our own successes and failures! Christianity has a group component! We’re supposed to build on what those who came before us learned and on what we learn from Christians around us. That’s how we reach new heights in Christ!

Do we seriously need to duplicate the same mistakes Christians make all over the planet, generation after generation? How inefficient is that?

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Four Names

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

If you’ve ever been to a Bible study that I’ve led, then you know that I have a lot of favorite scenes in the Gospel according to John. But John 20:1-18 is easily in the top three. What always strikes me about the scene is the movement from Mary’s desolation when she weeps at the empty tomb to her utter elation when she recognizes the resurrected Christ. John paints the scene with a special tenderness he reserves for only the most intimate of moments between Jesus and his followers. John focuses our attention on this intimate moment, the first reaction to Jesus’ resurrection, because the moment of the resurrection itself is far too mysterious and far too momentous for John to attempt to narrate. That moment belongs to God alone. And so John gives us a sliver of Mary Magdalene’s story – her move from desolation to elation when she realizes that Jesus is still with her as he promised he always would be. And the pivotal moment of this story is Jesus calling her by name.

Names are rare in the Gospel according to John. I went back and counted, and in the entire 21 chapters of the Gospel, Jesus calls exactly four people by name. There’s Simon Peter, first among the disciples. There’s Lazarus, whom Jesus brought back to life. There’s Philip, who had been with Jesus from the beginning. And then there’s Mary, who heads to the tomb before dawn on the first day of the week. In each of the special moments when Jesus calls these four people by name, he is somehow affirming or strengthening his relationships with them.

The first thing Jesus does when he meets Simon is give him the nickname “Peter,” which means “Rock,” which is a pretty cool nickname. We invest all kinds of theological motivation to this name because of Peter being the “rock” on which the church is built. But if they were any two people besides Jesus and Peter, we would see the nicknaming as a sign that their relationship is moving into the territory of good friendship. At the end of the Gospel, Jesus says Peter’s name three times, and this naming reasserts the relationship that Peter had denied three times during Jesus’ trial. In the end, their relationship is repaired because Jesus calls Peter by name.

The Gospel describes Lazarus as “one whom Jesus loves.” When Lazarus dies, Jesus is days away, and Lazarus’s sisters make the faithful accusation that if Jesus had been there, Lazarus wouldn’t have died at all. So Jesus goes to the tomb and shouts out, “Lazarus, come out.” Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, “Lazarus, I raise you from the dead.” Rather, he says, “Come out.” Jesus calls Lazarus by name, but does not give Lazarus the option of remaining in the tomb. The naming is joined to Jesus’ command to return to his family and his friendship with Jesus.

Jesus calls Philip by name after Philip says to him, “Lord, show us the Father; that will be enough for us.” Jesus replies, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been with you all this time? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus calls Philip by name in the midst of wondering how Philip could possibly not know him yet after being with him from the beginning. With this, Jesus calls Philip into deeper, more committed relationship with him.

And then there’s Mary Magdalene, who is weeping at the empty tomb. She is desolate, thinking that her Lord’s body had been stolen and possibly desecrated by the people who put him to death. With tears and the fog of despair clouding her vision, she sees the gardener, who asks her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Could this gardener be in collusion with the body-snatchers, she wonders? And she accuses him of being in on the plot. But then he says the all-important word: “Mary.” And she turns and the desolation vanishes in an instant of delight. And new elation, new hope, new life surges in to fill the void. “Teacher!” she shouts, and I imagine her jumping into his arms. Then Jesus gives her a task – to be the first to proclaim his resurrection.

So why does Jesus saying her name change the story? Why is this the pivotal word? As with Peter, Lazarus, and Philip, saying Mary’s name proves Jesus’ relationship with Mary. Her name is the outward sign of her inward identity. In this way, names are quite sacramental. Know a name and you know something of the person. Who among us didn’t feel elation when we found out our high school crush did, in fact, know our names? On the flip side, take away a name and you begin to take away the humanity of the person. How many Jews had their names erased and exchanged for numbers in the concentration camps?

Saying Mary’s name is Jesus’ shorthand for saying that he has returned just as he promised and that life would never be the same again because their relationship would never end. Earlier in the Gospel, Jesus foreshadowed this when he said, “[The shepherd] calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Whenever he has gathered all of his sheep, he goes before them and they follow him, because they know his voice.” Later in the same passage, Jesus talks about the command from his Father that he “give up” his life in order to “take it up again.” Thus, Jesus links the power of the resurrection with the power of naming, which is really shorthand for the power of relationship.

This is the good news of the resurrection: Christ rose from the dead to show us that nothing, not even death, has the power to keep him from remaining in relationship with us. Christ knows each of our names. They are written in the book of life. They are written on his heart, just as his name is written on ours. As Jesus called Peter, Lazarus, Philip, and Mary to deeper relationship by saying their names, he calls to each of us. He calls to each of us, speaking our names, and thus ourselves, into being.

These names of ours are special things – they carry within them the promise of eternal relationship with God in Christ through the power of the resurrection. So the next time you find yourself in a moment of silence, a moment of peace at the center of the maelstrom of busyness that marks our lives today, just be still. Be still and listen. Be still and listen for the resurrected Christ calling you by name.

Adam Thomas blogs at Where the Wind and is the author of Digital Disciple.

Connect with Adam: Twitter | Facebook

Out Ahead into Galilee... and New Life

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

After the Sabbath the women make their way to Jesus' tomb to lovingly finish their obligations toward their Lord. In haste, they could not complete the anointing of Jesus' body before burial. Now that the Sabbath is over, they make their way toward the tomb, just after sunrise, to do just that.

Their main concern is who will assist them in removing the massive stone that has sealed Jesus' body in its burial cave. The male disciples remain in hiding, either nowhere to be found, or they simply refuse to put themselves at risk by venturing out into the light of day.

To their shock the women discover that the stone, for some unknown reason, has been moved. The entrance to Jesus' grave is open. Creating a sense of fear they encounter a "young man" dressed in white. They are not prepared to meet the living in a place reserved only for the dead.

They then receive the bewildering and unbelievably incredible news. Jesus is no longer in the grave because he is no longer among the dead. He has risen. The "young man" then gives the women a message to his disciples and Peter. Why is Peter singled out separately from the rest? Could it be that, because of his denial, Peter is, for the moment, out of the band of men who had followed Jesus? Could it more likely be that in mentioning him by name, the "young man" hopes to comfort Peter in the knowledge that his Lord still wants something to do with him, even though he had denied publicly he wanted anything to do with the Lord?

"He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." That is the message to the disciples. "He is going out ahead of you." The disciples could not keep up with Jesus in life, and now he has gone out ahead of them into new life. Not even death could slow Jesus down. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah cannot be tamed. Instead, Jesus has tamed the Principalities and Powers. Jesus has entered into the jaws of death itself and pulled its teeth. As he entered into death and has now emerged out the other side into new life, Jesus remains on the move. All the disciples can do is follow him doing their best to keep up. All they can do is obey the command of the "young man"... Go and tell.

Allan R. Bevere is a United Methodist pastor in Akron, OH. He blogs at AllanBevere.com.

Connect with Allan: Facebook | Twitter

14. While It Was Still Dark

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Can congregations change? Can God breathe new life into congregations as surely as God’s grace can interrupt and redirect a person’s journey? Can congregations with a long pattern of numerical decline, of decreasing financial support and rising maintenance costs, of fewer new people and an increasing median age renew its purpose, reverse the trends, and grow? Can cultural values, deeply imbedded attitudes, and long-standing patterns of behavior shift so radically that leaders begin to think and practice differently in order to reach the changing community around them and the next generation?

In Oakton, Missouri (population 24), a United Methodist open-country congregation declined for forty years until only 60 people were left. However, during the last 12 years the church has grown to nearly 500 in worship, moved into a new facility, and has 150 children attending Sunday school. A licensed local pastor led the turn-around until his retirement, and now his son, another licensed local pastor, has led the congregation to start a Hispanic congregation that already has nearly 100 people attending. The church offers recovery ministries locally while globally, the congregation generously supports UMCOR and Child Rescue in the Sierra Leone Conference. Oakton United Methodist Church provides a positive witness that draws people from miles away in a county whose population is declining.

First UMC of Sikeston, Missouri, watched its attendance decline for nearly 50 years, even under the leadership of excellent pastors, until it settled into an average of 320. Congregational leaders courageously invited a Healthy Church Initiative consultation, and accepted recommendations regarding outreach, facility, staffing, and worship. They used coaches and consultants and mystery visitors. They prayed and learned and worked. They initiated community service projects, and then reached to other parts of the state and world with life-changing ministries. During the last two years, the congregation’s attendance has increased by nearly 150 people, and more young people are involved. Outreach magazine named First UMC, Sikeston, the fastest growing mid-sized congregation in the U. S.

Last year in Kansas City, a young African-American clergywoman started Renaissance, a multicultural congregation with 140 people each week, in a facility that previously belonged to a church that had dwindled to 12 members. The new church bustles with young people in one of the three poorest school districts in the state. Also, in downtown Kansas City, the Missouri Conference cooperated with a congregation from another conference to start Church of the Resurrection Downtown. They’ve converted a bar into a place of worship, with 600 people attending weekly, mostly young adults who have had no previous faith affiliation.

In Sedalia, Missouri, First UMC risked a second site and built a wonderfully inviting, child-friendly facility while also continuing worship in their historic downtown facility. Attendance that had declined for decades has grown in the last 15 years from 130 to nearly 900, with 2,500 people attending recent Easter services!

In urban St. Louis, in a story reminiscent of Elijah passing the mantle of ministry to the next generation, Immanuel UMC, which had declined to a handful of elderly members, closed its doors. The facility was given to a new church called The Gathering of St. Louis. The Gathering renovated the building, reached out to mostly young professionals, with worship that combines weekly Communion with excellent contemporary music. The congregation averages 600 people after five years, raised more than $100,000 last Christmas Eve for the Mozambique Safe Water Project and to deepen their partnership with Kingdom House, a UM community center, and has started a second site in another facility where a church has closed. The second site already averages 160 people.

In the suburban rim surrounding Kansas City, most of the United Methodist congregational growth has resulted from relocations of long-time churches that have followed the population. With new facilities adapted to the lifestyles of their communities, they are thriving. Lee’s Summit UMC averages an attendance of 1,400 today compared to 620 a dozen years ago, and Woods Chapel has an attendance of 1,200 today, up from 600. Woods Chapel provides one of the most extensive disaster-relief ministries in the state, and has maintained teams in Joplin without interruption since tornados struck nearly one year ago.

In rural Calhoun, Missouri, a licensed lay minister accepted an assignment to serve a congregation of fewer than 20 people. For four years, she has led the congregation through extraordinary growth, numerous building improvements, and an ever-expanding ministry to the community. Attendance now averages more than 40.

These United Methodist congregations are samples of a significant number of churches that have figured out how to reverse decline, strengthen ministry, broaden outreach, and move toward greater fruitfulness. They fulfill their missions in areas of population decline as well as growth: in rural, urban, and suburban settings, and with small, medium, and larger memberships. Decline is not inevitable. Resurgence of spirit and vision can happen. God can breathe new life into congregations.

Every US conference has congregations that buck the trends. The purpose behind the Call to Action is to cultivate a systemic organizational environment in our conferences and general church that fosters new life, new learning, and new missional outreach in more and more congregations so that we can more fruitfully and faithfully fulfill the mission God gives us in Christ.

Sometimes our emphasis on the joy of Easter fosters the illusion that new life in Christ is disconnected from and unrelated to death. This is untrue in our personal discipleship—dying to self is part of rebirth and new life. “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it” (Luke 9:24) And when we speak of the body of Christ, the church, we also discover that new life is found in pouring ourselves out, in dying to old ways, in embracing a new path in Christ.

In John 20 (NRSV), the story of the resurrection of Christ begins with the words “while it was still dark. . . .” The most momentous event in faith history happened while nearly everyone was asleep. It was discovered by grieving followers before the light of dawn. They had no idea that the days to come would be forever different from anything they had yet experienced. God had plans for them they could not possibly imagine. The same is true for us.

The resurrection of Christ renders permanent all that was revealed about God in Jesus’ earthly life—that God loves us with an everlasting love, that God’s grace extends to all, that God invites us to follow and calls us to serve and sustains us in ministry and sends us forth to share God’s way. And we discover in the resurrection of Christ the truth that life defeats death and hope breaks through despair.

What are the signs of new life in your discipleship? What are signs of new life in your congregation? Your conference?

What attitudes, behaviors, and values need to die in order for your congregation to focus on the mission of Christ? Do you believe congregations can really change?

To delve deeper, read John 20:1-18.

For stories of how churches change, read Renovate or Die: 10 Ways to Focus Your Church on Mission by Bob Farr.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

13. The Field

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

With binoculars in hand, I entered the field seeking a better angle to see the mix of sparrows stealthily foraging in a brush pile. The field, jointly owned and managed by the conservation department and a local farmer, had evidently lain fallow for a season. I quietly walked around the brush pile, identifying white-crowned and white-throated sparrows. After the sparrow pack moved on, I turned and faced the field.

A thought occurred to me. What if someone unexpectedly gave me this field in its current condition with the expectation that I would deliver a harvest? What would I do?

Whatever I were to do would involve a long, slow process. You cannot give me a field one day and expect that the next day I will produce bushels of corn or truckloads of pumpkins. Unless I climb a fence and steal the neighbor’s corn, I will have nothing to show for some time. Starting from this point, it will take months to evidence any noticeable harvest. Cultivation takes time and the passing of seasons and requires patience without cynicism or resignation.

And since I know little about farming, I would have much learning to do. I’d want to know about my field—soil studies, agricultural studies, climate studies, water studies, and market studies. There’s no sense planting banana trees in Missouri or rice in Arizona. I’d need to learn from other farmers. I’d talk with them, watch them, ask their advice, see what works for them, and pattern my work after theirs. Yet studying and learning does not bring a harvest.

I’d get to work, doing something each day to move toward the harvest. The kind and volume of work that fill my days would differ from season to season. Sometimes the work would involve tilling the soil, enriching the soil, planting the seed at the right time. Other times involve cultivation, watering, protecting from pests and rodents and weeds. Other times require harvesting at perfect ripeness and readiness, and then immediately doing the “groundwork” for the following season.

And I’d have to attend to pacing and rhythm. Some periods require repressively long hours of urgent work and other periods involve simply reading and learning more. There are times of ripeness and readiness I dare not miss, seasons of unusual and one-time-only opportunity. Some evenings I’d need lights as I worked through the night, not because that’s my preferred schedule, but because the ripeness of the crop or the changing weather requires it.

And, of course, I’d have to learn to live with mixed and inconsistent results. There are good seasons and bad, harvests that exceed expectations and others that disappoint. I’d take the long view and trust that if I repeated the right actions year after year, that harvests will come, some large, some mediocre, and some small.

Scripture is replete with images of seeds and sowers, farmers and soils, seedtime and harvest, vines and branches. The biblical writers remind us of the patience and hard work required, and of the risks of birds and rocks and weeds. They also steady our fears with the promise and hope of harvests, some thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, and some a hundredfold.

These metaphors describe our souls. We’ve each been given a field. Our personal work is difficult and lifelong, the risks are many, and fruitfulness is expected. How do we till and re-till the soil, plant the right seeds, protect against the weeds and pests, and offer fruit pleasing to our Lord? God’s is a Spirit of assurance, of vision, of sustenance, a present help in trouble. We do not garden alone. God is the Lord of the harvest. And each of us has been given a mission field, the people who surround us, our network of friends, relatives, and strangers whom God intends to reach through us with the good news and hope of Christ.

These metaphors also speak of our congregations. How are we doing with the hard work of preparation, of cultivating the hearts and minds and souls of people? And each church has a mission field. Each has been entrusted with a field, the community of people that surround us, the large numbers of people who do not know Christ. The mission field also includes countless people who suffer from loneliness, poverty, racism, or violence. This field provides the mission and purpose for our work, and we serve in obedience to Christ and out of love for neighbor and for God. How are we learning about this field and how best to bring forth its yield? How are we protecting, and cultivating, and caring for the mission field? The mission field includes the people in the community and around the world whom we’re particularly equipped and called to reach through service or invitation.

The United Methodist Church, with millions of members, tens of thousands of churches across the continents, and hundreds of clinics and schools and billions of dollars in material resources, also has a mission field. Imagine the possibilities! Imagine the expectations God has for us! Imagine broken lives restored, communities transformed, people healed, suffering relieved, homes rebuilt, hope restored, unjust systems changed forever, souls graced by the love of God. We dare not turn our back on the responsibility given us, the mission field entrusted to us. May every ministry we initiate, every program we prune, every practice we learn, every decision we make, every prayer we offer turn us toward the mission field and toward the rich harvest God intends through us.

How does your congregation study the mission field in your context? How do you study the field and learn the practices that bring a harvest of changed lives? How is your congregation equipped to reach mission fields far from your community?

For more, pray your way through Galatians 6:7-10 or Luke 8:4-15 or Luke 10:1-17. Use The Message for additional perspectives to our usual readings of these passages.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

12. The Big Rocks

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A story in First Things First (Stephen Covey, A. Roger Merrill, and Rebecca R. Merrill) describes a lesson about the use of time. The instructor fills a large jar with big rocks until he cannot possibly add another rock. He asks the audience if the jar is full. Everyone agrees that there is no more room for more rocks. Then he lifts a container of pebbles, and pours them into the same jar. The pebbles tumble loosely between the spaces left by the rocks, settling into place. Again, he asks if the jar is full. People are now wise to his ploy and are less willing to agree. Next, he lifts a container of sand and pours it into the jar, and people watch as the sand cascades through all the loose spaces between the rocks and pebbles. “Now, is the jar full?” The audience agrees that the jar is completely filled and has no room for anything else. Then he pours a glass of water into the jar, and the water trickles from top to bottom, saturating the sand and pebbles and rocks.

“What have we learned about the use of time?” he asks.

Someone says, “You can always squeeze one more thing into an already crowded schedule!”

“No,” the instructor answers, “we’ve learned that if we don’t place the big rocks in first, we can never squeeze them in later.” The story is about priority (88–89).

I’ve discovered the truth of this for shaping my personal and professional time, and also for leading an organization and establishing agendas. Keeping the main thing the main thing requires intentionality.

What’s the one activity or practice of yours that done consistently (and consistently well!) would have the greatest positive impact on your ministry? One pastor thought about this question and began to invite one person who had recently visited worship to lunch each week. The result was so positive and immediate in helping people assimilate into the congregation that he continued the practice for years. A layperson committed to holding one conversation each Sunday with one of the youth of the church, and another committed to taking a new person each month to coffee to explore their interests in serving in outreach projects of the church. These are a few of the Big Rocks of forming community in Christ.

I wrote Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations to answer the question, “What are the most important things for congregations to focus our work on to fulfill the mission of Christ?” Church councils spend inordinate amounts of time debating facilities, budgets, schedules, and planning more meetings. These are important, but we dare not focus on them to the exclusion of what is essential. If we do not repeat, deepen, and improve upon the basic fundamental practices of ministry—Radical Hospitality, Passionate Worship, Intentional Faith Development, Risk-Taking Mission and Service, and Extravagant Generosity—then our mission weakens a little more each year. The Five Practices are the fundamental activities that are so critical to the mission of the church that failure to perform them in an exemplary way leads to diminishing ministry. They are the Big Rocks of congregational ministry.

Our Missouri Conference leadership teams spent considerable time thinking about the purpose of the conference. What are the fundamental activities that are so critical to our mission as a conference that failure to perform them with excellence leads to decline? In our context, we focus on two critical functions: Congregational Excellence and Pastoral Excellence. Congregational Excellence means we focus on starting new congregations, exploring alternative forms of faith communities for college-age adults, and strengthening existing congregations. If we fail to start and strengthen congregations consistently, there will be no conference in the future. Pastoral Excellence involves systems for recruiting, developing, educating, training, supporting, and evaluating gifted clergy who are spiritually grounded, emotionally healthy, effective and fruitful leaders. Again, if we fail at this task, or fail to do it with excellence, there will be no conference in the future. These are the Big Rocks of conference ministry.

What about finances, pensions, insurance, boards, councils, meetings? What about missions, laity, social witness, youth, camping? All these are important, and in fact we have nationally-recognized mission initiatives as well as robust and effective ministries for laity and youth. Thousands of our laity and clergy participate in these each year. But they are directed at strengthening the ministries of our congregations because congregations are the most significant arena for making disciples, reaching youth, serving the world, and offering our social witness. The conference leads congregations to lead people to active faith in Jesus Christ.

General Conference will overwhelm delegates with thousands of petitions and bundles of legislation. Committees will meet from early morning until late night. Various constituencies and caucuses and causes will provide breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. Thousands of pages of paper will be handed to us as we arrive and placed on the tables when we sit down. Screens will light up with videos, charts, statistics, and reports. General Conference is sensory overload. The huge majority of things demanding our attention are good ministries, genuinely grounded in motivations to serve Christ.

But what are the Big Rocks in our life together as a denomination, the most essential work for fulfilling the mission of Christ? The Call to Action suggests a few: increasing the number of vital congregations, clergy development systems that foster excellence, reaching young people, sustainable financial systems, organizational structures that are conducive to our mission. What are the things we absolutely must do consistently well to have the greatest impact for the purposes of Christ now and into the future? I pray for discerning hearts to sift through all that is good for the things that matter most.

What are the activities that are so critical to our congregation’s mission that failure to perform them with excellence leads to decline? What about our conference’s mission?

For engaging Scripture, think about the word first in the stories of Jesus: “first be reconciled to your brother” . . . “strive first for the kingdom of God” . . . “first take the log out of your own eye” . . . “first let me go and bury my father” . . . “first sit down and estimate the cost” . . . “the greatest and first commandment” . . . “whoever wishes to be first among you” (Matthew 5:24; 6:33; 7:5; 8:21; Luke 14:28; Matthew 22:38; Matthew 20:27 or Mark 10:44 NRSV). What do we learn about priorities for our life and ministry from these references?

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

11. Obedience

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Christian year provokes us to reflection upon many key words that shape our faith. During Advent we deepen our understanding of waiting, watching, anticipation, hope, announcement. With Christmas we explore joy, new birth, promise, and other delights. Epiphany opens our eyes to gifts, journeys, and revelation. Pentecost focuses us on Spirit, community, the church, service, and mission. These are but a few of dozens of words from key moments in the Christian story that merit exploration, openness, and rethinking of our practice of faith.

Holy Week brings an abundance of words that deserve our careful reflection and response: Passover, sacrifice, passion, betrayal, serving, denial, fear, prayer, blood, cross, death. Then there are the words of Easter: joy, life, witness, resurrection.

Obedience is a word that comes into focus for me during Holy Week. In Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, in his prayer at Gethsemane, and in his submission to the cross we see a radical redefinition, expression, and invitation to obedience.

Obedience is not my favorite word in the Christian adventure. I prefer to mull over words like grace, love, charity, generosity, kindness, prayer, caring, or joy, and to reflect upon how these shape my life. There’s something appealing about these other words; they pull me forward, invite me in, and provoke in me a positive curiosity. I’m attracted to them.

In contrast, words like obedience, duty, submission push me from behind, and they prod me into places I don’t always want to go. They rob me of control, offend my sense of self, challenge my pride, and undermine my pretention. With words like these, I risk losing my independence and choice, perhaps losing something of myself to which I cling. They take the focus away from what I want, what I know, what I desire, where I want to go, and what I will.

Obedience invites me into an unnatural humility, a trust that is hard and deliberate. Obedience suggests there are some things we do, not because we want to do them, but because Jesus asks us to. Jesus commands them of us. We perform acts of grace, offer ourselves, sacrifice time and talent, express love and service because . . . well, simply because Christ tells us to. What we perceive we need or where we desire to go isn’t the driving question. Our will is not the center. There are things we do because Jesus did them. We do things Jesus did, love the people Jesus loved, act the way Jesus acted. That’s what being a follower and a disciple means. Pretty simple. Pretty hard.

Watch ballet dancers glide across the floor, their every movement both extreme and elegant. They effortlessly lift themselves on tiptoe, spinning in graceful movement to the music. One dancer lifts another overhead as if weightless, with such incredible ease of motion. Every movement perfectly coordinates in graceful patterns that make it all look so unspeakably natural, effortless, and graceful.

How do they do make it look so easy? They have worked very hard. How do they make it appear effortless? They have put years of extraordinary effort into the task. Their discipline has laid a foundation for an exquisite creativity. They are able to do things they never could have imagined at an earlier stage because of a disciplined submission, an obedience to teachers and lessons and fellow students for years.

By using the metaphor of the dancer, I risk supporting a works righteousness corruption of the message. Rather, I would suggest that through faithful obedience practiced with intentionality, the following of Christ becomes more creative, satisfying, effective, and graceful even when it takes us into places we may not want to go. In some people, obedience begins to look effortless, even natural. They have cooperated with the Holy Spirit in their own sanctification, in their own perfecting, in a way that has allowed God to use them in remarkable ways. A patterned and practiced obedience, a saying Yes to God, even when doing so stretches us into uncomfortable territory becomes a foundation for creative and life-changing ministry.

Holy Week means many things. During worship services, meditations, sacraments, prayers, fasting, Scripture readings, youth dramas, and special musicals, we remember Jesus, open our hearts to his life and his death, and celebrate the new life given us in Christ. Between the sober reflections of Holy Week and the joyous choruses of Easter morning is a bridge, a necessary pathway. And a critical word and necessary commitment for crossing that bridge and finding that pathway is obedience. In practiced obedience is greater freedom, finer humility, more intentional serving.

Jesus says, “Follow me.” The words are an invitation to an adventurous new life, and they stimulate our curiosity, our commitment, and our anticipation. But Jesus’ way also includes a whole host of imperatives: Go . . . Teach . . . Pray . . . Give . . . Heal . . . Love . . . Wash . . . Forgive . . . Offer . . . Obey.

When we obey, we find ourselves moving toward those who suffer rather than turning away; we find ourselves reaching out when our tendency is to pull back; we discover ourselves offering an open hand instead of a clenched fist. We discover that giving our lives allows us to receive life, and that in losing it all, we gain more than we ever imagined. We discover that what looks like death to self really prepares us for new life in God. That’s the way of Christ.

What would sustained obedience in a consistent direction, daily honoring and serving God, look like for you? What unexpected places might such an obedience to Christ’s mission take you in your community?

What might sustained obedience to the mission of Christ mean for your congregation? For your conference? What tasks of discipleship trouble us? Which are we prone to avoid? How does obedience to Christ push us through to tasks we would never choose for ourselves?

Read John 12:20-27.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Happy Easter! Again

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Once again the Easter eggs are colored or hidden, the family is at church, and the lilies are aggravating people’s allergies. We read the Easter story and prepare for our Easter meal. Families and churches observe a variety of Easter traditions to commemorate the highest Holy day on the Christian calendar.

Celebrating Jesus’ resurrection makes complete sense. But why do we celebrate Easter in such specific ways? Why do we observe the same rituals and traditions year after year? The celebration of annual religious festivals reaches back to Exodus and God’s instructions for the celebration of the Passover (see Exodus 13:3-10). After God spared the firstborn sons of the Israelites by passing over their homes, God asked the people of Israel to remember the event each year by eating only unleavened bread for seven days during the month of Abib. The unleavened bread reminded the people that they had to leave Egypt in haste, before their bread had time to rise.

Later on God added other festivals as a way for the people to remember their story and honor God’s love, power, and faithfulness. Christians carry on these traditions by celebrating Jesus’ birth each year at Christmas, attending special worship services during Holy Week, decking our churches in red on Pentecost, and by regularly partaking in the Lord’s Supper.

The Power of Story

As a whole the rituals and traditions that we observe every year tell the story of our faith. A growing body of research indicates that the stories we tell have an impact on who we are and how we live. Sadie Dingfelder concludes in a January 2011 article from the American Psychological Association’s online journal, “Taken together, psychologists’ narrative research makes one resounding point: We don’t just tell stories, stories tell us. They shape our thoughts and memories, and even change how we live our lives.” Telling our stories makes sense of where we have been and where we are going in our lives. Our stories can inspire, give hope, encourage perseverance, teach virtues, and pass on important knowledge.

Good stories all have similar elements: characters we can relate to, settings that put us in other places and times, high-stakes conflicts, and resolutions. Scripture is full of good stories—stories that teach us about God, how God lived among us as Jesus, and how we can have a relationship with God through Jesus.

Only God Knows the Rest of the Story

Good stories, whether we read them in the Bible or hear them told by others, have the power to change lives and change history. From the earliest cave drawings to the 140 character tweets of today, human beings have always told stories. God asks us to tell God’s story and gives us rich material from the Bible, history, and personal experience to help us do so.

As much as we would like to control the impact a story has on a listener or reader, we must leave that to the Holy Spirit. Even the most sincere testimony can fall flat if the listener is not ready to hear it. There are times we may have the right message but the wrong audience or vice versa. There may be times when we don’t know until much later that our story helped someone else.

We all have stories to tell. As Christians, we have stories about how God changes us, uses us, and blesses us when we worship, obey, and love God. When we tell our stories, we must acknowledge that God is not a character in our story but rather that we are a beloved character in God’s story. This Easter we can be inspired to tell good stories about God and the life we have in Jesus, and we can trust God that those good stories will bring the outcomes God desires.

This article is also published as part of LinC, a weekly digital resource for youth small groups and Sunday school classes. The complete study guide can be purchased and downloaded here.

10. An Especial Care

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

How did the notion of conferring together (Conference!) begin for United Methodists? John Wesley describes the first conference this way:

In June, 1744, I desired my brother and a few other clergymen to meet me in London, to consider how we should proceed to save our own souls and those that heard us. After some time, I invited lay preachers that were in the house to meet with us. We conferred together for several days, and were much comforted and strengthened thereby. The next year I not only invited most of the traveling preachers, but several others to confer with me in Bristol. . . . this I did for many years, and all that time the term Conference meant not so much the conversations we had together, as the persons who conferred. *

The agenda for the first conference 268 years ago was threefold. Mr. Wesley and the Methodists conferred on “1. What to teach, 2. How to teach, and 3. What to do, that is, how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice.” **

Ever since those first gatherings, Methodism has organized its life and ministry through conferences—charge conferences, district conferences, annual conferences, jurisdictional conferences, central conferences, and general conferences. From the earliest days, a Methodist conference referred not only to the meeting and the act of conversing that took place, but to the people who gathered. The conference is you and me. Clergy and laity not only attend a conference, they are members of a conference.

According to Russell E. Richey’s The Methodist Conference in America, early conferences comprised a family of preachers and church leaders held together by affection, common rules, a shared mission, and by a watchfulness of the members over one another. They were strongly relational, providing mutual support and encouragement for pastors and congregations, and they were purpose-driven, focused on how to extend the gospel message in ever more fruitful ways. Far from merely serving an organizational or governance function (as we usually consider them today), they served as the spiritual center of Methodism. They dealt with the training and deployment of pastors, and they pooled their resources to provide for common ministries to address needs beyond the scope of any local congregation.

Conferences were times to renew commitments, to encourage ministry, to learn together and to pray together. People left conferences feeling clear about their mission, confident about their future, and connected in Christ. Wesley says that the people left feeling “comforted and strengthened thereby.”

Wesley’s notes from the 1747 Conference record this discussion:

“Q: How may the time of this Conference be made more eminently a time of prayer, watching, and self-denial?

A: 1. While we are in Conference, let us have an especial care to set God always before us. 2. In the intermediate hours, let us visit none but the sick, and spend all our time that remains in retirement, and 3. Let us then give ourselves unto prayer for one another, and for the blessing of God on this our labour.”***

As people met with Mr. Wesley to “confer” together on their common ministry, he invited them to keep God front and center in their deliberations, to care for the poor and ill, and to pray for one another and for God’s blessing on their work together. I love the way every moment of the time together is imbued with purpose. There are no meetings for the sake of meeting. All serves Christ.

Conference is a Wesleyan expression of the body of Christ, the notion that I belong to you and you belong to me because we both belong to Christ. Your ministry is mine, and mine is yours because we both serve Christ; and so we pray for each other, strengthen each other, watch over each other, and hold each other accountable in Christ.

United Methodists hold many diverse theological and social perspectives. We communicate the core of the mission in ways that derive from our unique contexts. We disagree about budgets, structures, and organizational strategies. We come to conference with differing priorities and divergent plans for how to fulfill the mission of the church. Every local church, annual conference, general agency, and global gathering of United Methodists includes a mix of people who love Christ and desire to serve the church, but who perceive the task, purpose, and means of ministry differently. A continuing task of leadership for every United Methodist is to consider, “How do I seek to understand those who do not understand me?”

Community in Christ is persevering and resilient and eternal, binding us to one another and tying us to those who have come before and those who come after. And yet community in Christ is also fragile, something elegantly intangible and subtle, spiritual and breath-like; it requires of us great intentionality and care. The threads of grace that bind us to Christ and to one another require sustained and gentle attention by all of us. Perhaps this is what Wesley meant when he writes, “let us have an especial care to set God always before us” and invites us to focus on the mission of Christ and to pray for one another through all the organizational deliberations. Our mission begins in Christ and ends in Christ. Wesley also reminds us to fulfill every step of our mission in the spirit of Christ.

* John Wesley by Albert Outler (NY: Oxford University Press, 1964), 134.

** See chapter 13, John Wesley, the Methodist by a Methodist Preacher (NY: Methodist Book Concern, 1903). Accessed on wesley.nnu.edu, 2012.

*** Outler, John Wesley, 164.

How has “conferring” together in the Wesleyan way strengthened you in your ministry? How does our contemporary way of holding conferences expand ministry, encourage spiritual growth, and deepen our witness, and how does it limit or discourage ministry?

How might you make conference “more eminently a time of prayer”?

What do you hope the leaders of The United Methodist Church learn through their time together at General Conference? What do you hope they teach or model?

For moving deeper, read Philippians 4:6-9 from The Message by Eugene Peterson for perspectives from a well-known passage.

For a more complete understanding of the history, purpose, and evolution of conference, see Russell E. Richey’s The Methodist Conference in America.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Are We Conferencing Like Wesleyans?

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

When John Wesley gathered with his brother Charles and his colleagues in ministry in June of 1744, it’s hard to know if they had any idea that they were starting what would become an ongoing process of “conferencing” to discern God’s will for the people called Methodist. And, yet, here we are some 268 years later and we find ourselves facing another gathering of Methodist leaders to discern God’s desires for the United Methodist Church. In the lead up to the meeting, and throughout the gathering of the General Conference of 2012, there will be regular appeals to Wesley as the guide for Christian conferencing. And yet, the form and content of the 2012 conference would be foreign to the brothers Wesley, probably leading to a harsh word or two along the way.

At that first gathering at the Foundry, a plan for the meeting was laid out. In the minutes of their time together, the leaders of the Methodist movement articulated their focus of the conversation in three questions: 1) What to teach; 2) How to teach; and 3) What to do (or as they put it, “how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice.”). Some would argue that the same is true today, however when one looks at the petitions to the 2012 General Conference, one generally sees a greater focus on the third question rather than the first two, and one must wonder what Wesley would think about our fixation on structure and practice at the expense of serious conversation on our core values and beliefs.

During the past few months, beginning with the Call to Action report sponsored by the Council of Bishops, and continuing with the work of the Interim Operations Team, the lion’s share of conversation has focused on practices of ministry which some research suggests contributes to church vitality, and the restructuring of the general church to improve efficiency and hopefully lead to a greater focus on building vital congregations. Many words have been uttered, position papers written, and even videos produced that argue for one plan or the other, and seem to think that what we do is more important that what we teach (or more accurately, what we believe). And yet, as any church revitalization expert will assure you, practices arise from shared values and beliefs, and the inability to spend time talking about, and confirming those core values usually ends with a burnt out congregation which tried and failed because the stuff that the did wasn’t energized by a common set of beliefs which provided meaning and purpose to the practices. Talking about who we are and what we belief becomes a means of creating the “forward leaning state of engagement” talked about in the Call to Action report in their definition of church vitality. And we neglect these conversations at our peril.

It’s interesting to look at the minutes of those early conversations of 1744, because they are so different in their focus than much of what we talk about today. The topics of interest represented the core of Christian belief – justification, repentance, faith, the fruits of the Spirit, sin, the relationship between faith and works, Christian perfection. For two days the leaders of our movement talked solely about the central tenets of the faith that brought them together. It was only after they were rooted in their understanding that they began to talk about points of discipline and common life.

What would it look like today if the first couple of days of General Conference were spent in conversation around the theology and spirituality of the United Methodist people? What would happen if we ignored all the trappings of being a worldwide institution and asked everyone to gather in small groups to talk about the condition of their souls, and what they understand are the core beliefs of United Methodists? Might we get closer to Wesley’s ideal of Christian conferencing (that is, the belief that God is revealed in the midst of gatherings of Christians talking about the stuff of God) if we were to take time to really think together about why God is calling the people called United Methodists to be present in the world, and what we believe that is connected to that sense of call?

Of course, it really isn’t practical to think that we could conference in that way in the modern world. Wesley’s 1744 gathering was limited to 6 people. In our current system, with some thousand representatives from all over the world, all representing different backgrounds, different contexts, different cultures, and even different ways of speaking, it seems impractical to think that we could spend time talking about the stuff of God rather than the stuff of the common institution we are a part of.

And yet, it’s those differences which make taking time to talk about what we believe so crucial – more important to our future than any structural change. Wesley could have never imagined the great rainbow of belief that our church current welcomes – a rainbow that leads to competing and conflicting visions as to where God is calling us. If we can’t figure out a means by which to sit down and truly conference about the important stuff – Christology, Soteriology, Eschatology, Ecclesiology – then we will continue to find ourselves deeply divided and spinning our wheels in the muck of practices for which there is no passion and meaning.

Wesley would likely look at us today and shake his head, for he understood that without first considering the first question, the other two don’t make a great deal of sense.

9. Pruning for Growth

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

While teaching in a congregation, I recounted scriptures about fruitfulness: vines, branches, seedtime, harvest, soils, vineyards, trees, fruits. The Bible is replete with stories that highlight how God expects us to use what we have received to make a positive difference in the world around us. Fruitfulness points us toward the result, the impact, and the outcome of our work for God’s purposes and saves us from merely congratulating ourselves on our efforts, our hard work, or our inputs. Fruitfulness reminds us to ask ourselves, “Do our ministries really change lives and transform the world?”

While I was listing agricultural metaphors, someone shouted, “Don’t forget pruning!”

She was absolutely correct. Biblical images of branches and fruit are incomplete without pruning. What do we do with ministries that have served their time and are no longer fruitful?

Peter Drucker urges us to practice planned abandonment. Planned abandonment involves intentionally closing down work that no longer contributes to the mission. The purpose of any non-profit organization is the changed life. A strategy of planned abandonment means we allow ministries that no longer shape lives in significant ways to fade from view and cease to continue, even though these ministries served the mission of the church fruitfully at an earlier time and deserve our respect and appreciation.

One of the most difficult tasks of leadership is deciding what not to do. As we start new initiatives, are there also ministries we need to reduce or close down? How do we redirect staff time, volunteer energy, and financial resources toward the ministries that most help us in the current context?

A layperson told me that in his business they teach four keys for strategic planning: more, better, different, less. Their goal is to do more of what works well, to do better at what serves acceptably but that can be improved, to do different by welcoming new ideas, and to do less of what is not working. If it’s not bearing fruit, stop doing it.

Before you accuse me of sounding harsh, listen to these words of Jesus: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit” (John 15:1-2 NRSV). As leaders of congregations, we make decisions every day that express implicit value and direction. Practicing planned abandonment involves learning to say No to the things that demand our time but that are not critical to our purpose so that we can say Yes to the things that are essential.

Congregationally, practicing planned abandonment means ending ministries that no longer bear fruit, are no longer sustainable, or that do not serve the present context. This is difficult to do. Congregations find it easier to start new ministries than to end unfruitful ones.

Denominationally, reducing the size and complexity of our operations is even more difficult. Most of those making decisions have been the beneficiaries of the way things are. Sometimes we feel disloyal to mentors and those who modeled ministry for us when we stop doing things that they poured themselves into. Or suggesting change feels like criticism or judgment against those who have done ministry in the form we propose to change. And sometimes we feel guilty about ending something that many people still value.

But every system, approach, and strategy that no longer serves the present context actually replaced a previous system, approach, and strategy. Endings are as essential as beginnings. Endings are just harder than beginnings.

The Call to Action proposes to streamline, unify, and align general agencies. Some view this as a threat to connectionalism, and yet connectionalism existed as a distinctive quality of Methodism nearly 200 years before any general board ever existed. Connectionalism in early American Methodism involved a nationwide network of class leaders, circuit stewards, book stewards, exhorters, local preachers, circuit riders, and presiding elders. All of these sustained a way of life, formed the conditions for life-changing maturation in Christ. Our organizational systems were a means of cooperating with the Holy Spirit in our growth in grace and service to the world in Christ’s name. Nearly all those innovations, which served their times so effectively, have long since ceased to be. They were replaced by other ministries that served for a different era, until they also ceased to be. Does anyone really think our current systems ought to function the same way fifty years from now as they do today? Even such immutable structures as the Council of Bishops and the Judicial Council came into being as recently as the 1930s . Like all organizational innovations, they had a time when they began, and they may have a time when they no longer serve the mission. (Please, don’t tell anyone I actually said that!)

For two weeks at General Conference, our church will be like a ship in the dock. We have the opportunity to carefully unload some cargo. We have time to balance the load and plan for what we need for the next part of our voyage together. We can decide strategically what to take with us and what to leave behind. If we do not take this opportunity, then when we set sail and face stormy seas, we may find ourselves tossing crates over willy nilly, with no priority or sense of balance. If we don’t unload some things now, we will likely unload them later in less favorable conditions. Practice planned abandonment.

When has your congregation, or your conference, successfully pruned ministries in order to focus more clearly on priorities? What made it work? What made it difficult?

Why is it so hard for a church or conference to decide to stop doing something, or to stop doing something the way it has always been done?

Explore John 15:1-11.

For more about endings and beginnings, read Managing Transitions by William Bridges. For a positive word on the hard topic of closing churches, check out Legacy Churches by Stephen Gray and Franklin Dumond.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Restructuring and the Four Areas of Focus

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Over the past few months, conversations, posts, articles, videos, etc. have been flying around about the Call to Action and the Interim Operational Team proposals for restructuring. As a reserve delegate for General Conference, I probably won’t be someone voting on this, but I’m still going to be there. I am meeting with my delegation and we are looking at all of these pieces together. I did the Call to Action Study with my church. I’m reading as much as I can. And I have to say, I’m not sure how I feel about all of it. Soon, I want to talk a little bit about the need for distinction between CtA and the IOT proposals (because they are different things), but for now, I just want to think about the idea of restructuring our general boards and agencies.

Most people who know me would say that I’m not someone tied to the past. If something isn’t working – by all means, scrap it and start afresh. I often work by trial and error until we find just the right fit. I like to take risks and push the envelope and be bold. So the fact that I’m a little uneasy with all of the change proposed here means something.

I’ve had a few people ask me pointedly in the past month what I think about all of this restructuring. Here is my first response:

I’m still pretty torn. I think there are some benefits to the ways they want to realign the boards and agencies, but talking with the boards and agencies folks, they have already made significant cuts and some of the ways they benefit the church would be severely restricted by having to cut more. I worry about our continued GBCS presence in the capital. I worry about whether we will have the resources in place to support the local churches if we diminish any more GBHEM and GBOD and the like. I understand the financial benefit to a smaller board, but think the diverse representation in so many places is one of the awesome things about the church and wonder if we couldn’t use technology and more web conferencing to cut back on some of the cost. I worry that with only a 15 member board, we just will not have a diverse representation of the United Methodist Church as a whole. I’m not necessarily worried about power consolidation or anything like that – but I would HATE to be on that board – that is a lot of responsibility and time, for such a small group to be overseeing all of the boards and agencies in that way. On the other hand, our own local church just consolidated all of our committees into one church board and its working just fine.

That probably doesn’t help.. does it? lol.

My friend Gary’s response: "Katie, help the Church think beyond either/or options. Thanks"

*sigh* Gary… I belatedly, and with great humility and not a small amount of uneasiness accept your challenge.

And as I think more about that restructure our own church just did, what I realized is that we did so because we didn’t have enough people who could sustain that large of a leadership structure. To have four required committees that needed 6 people, plus our ministry committees of education, worship, outreach… that would be 6×7= 42 people!!! Not to include the chair of our council and our lay leader. We average 50 in worship on a Sunday. And so our large leadership structure certainly involved people, but people also felt like they were simply filling holes. There was a lack of engagement. Our structure was too big. I’m not sure that with a global membership of 11-12 million has large problem with a leadership board and agency structure that involves around 650 lay and clergy representatives on boards/agencies.

Second, we did consolidate our work around three primary goals for our congregation. Which sounds a lot like the denomination consolidating around the Four Areas of Focus. But in doing so, we have actually funneled MORE money into those three teams in our local church. They have more to work with now than they did in their respective disjointed committees. If we truly want those three things to be the focus of the life of our church, then we have to put our money where our mouth is. On the contrary, it feels like the UMC restructure proposals are in order to save money to be sent somewhere else – to local churches perhaps, to reduce apportionments so resources stay on the local level, who knows – to be honest I haven’t seen anything about WHERE the extra resources will come from or WHERE they will go. That seems like an important piece of the puzzle that is missing.

I completely understand restructuring for missional reasons to help us refocus our attention on the Four Areas of Focus that we as a global church have named as important: global heath, ministry with the poor, new places for new people and revitalizing existing congregations, and developing (young) leaders. But have we actually given these four areas time to settle in with our churches yet? And will a restructure help us to focus on them if we do so at the expense of diverse and abundant representation (when we have so many capable and talented people we can use in our global church) and with cuts to the funding for said ministries? In fact, we might be chopping the legs out from underneath ourselves if we do not provide the resources in people and dollars and institutional weight behind those four areas of focus.

So if I’m thinking both/and, I want to ask the questions:

What would a restructured church look like with larger boards than the proposal entails?
What could it accomplish with the resources to really make a difference?
What kinds of bold risks could our boards and agencies take if they felt like we as the church trusted them and didn’t see them as an excessive growth that needed to be trimmed away?
What would we say to the world if we not only realign our church around these four areas of focus, but back it with our time, energy and resources?

I’m not saying that vital congregations are not important… in fact, the other materials we have been given by IOT and the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table and Call to Action all seem to point to the idea that we need to develop more young leaders and create new places for new people and that a vital congregation is defined by its fruits – which includes its participation in the redemption of the world (global health and poverty seem to fit here). If we continue to focus on these four areas and put both our larger institutional AND local resources towards this focus, I think we are heading in the right direction.

Whispers

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

God’s voice is, more often than not, described as a small, still voice—a whisper.

It’s not a stupid question to ask, “Why?” Wouldn’t it be more beneﬁcial for both God and us if God used more obvious ways to get our attention? Like a burning bush, the way God did for Moses. How much easier it would be to recognize God’s voice and presence if there was a burning bush? Or a loud, booming noise. How much easier it would be to hear God’s voice if God spoke in a thunderous manner! No denying that.

A couple of weeks ago, we got new neighbors in the apartment unit right above us. They are an older couple with a huge dog. There’s noise coming from upstairs constantly. The dog makes a lot of noise just by running around. They vacuum constantly at odd hours. Their garage door is right below our unit so every time the garage door opens and closes, we hear and feel it. They watch their TV with the volume all the way up and their windows open. We hear their TV more than our own.

But after a week of “What in the world” thoughts, we sort of got used to it. Recently we had someone over, and the neighbors were being themselves and making awful amount of noise. The guest, surprised, asked, “What in the world was that?” Our response? “Huh? Oh that? Yea, that’s nothing. That’s just our neighbors.”

It's the same living near the airport. After a while, the rumbling of the planes becomes part of the routine. Or living in the south with spectacular lightning storms. (For those who’ve never been in one, it can get scary.) Those who are used to storms don’t think much of it. For us Californians, small earthquakes are nothing. We just go on with our routine after the minimal rolling has stopped. (Big earthquakes, however, are a different story...)

With the burning bush, Moses didn’t realize what was going on at ﬁrst. He just thought it was a bush that caught on ﬁre. (We Southern Californians, unfortunately, know all about brush ﬁres.) Moses didn’t catch on right away. He lingered a little longer, and that’s when he realized something wasn’t right. The bush was on ﬁre, but it wasn’t burning up. Who knows? Maybe that bush was on ﬁre for days straight and Moses just didn’t see it...

It’s easy to ignore loud and obvious things too.

I think God chooses to use a whisper because of its intimate nature. We whisper sweet nothings into the ear of our lover. Not just anyone can whisper into our ear. It’s a violation of our personal space. If a stranger leans in to whisper, we pull away in horror, hoping our stares will burn a mark of shame into them. And if someone doesn’t know how to whisper, they lose that privilege forever. You know, like those people who get so close their lips touch your ear. (I didn’t ask for a kiss.) Or those who use too much breath in their whisper, and after they ﬁnish, your ears are a little moist.

Often, it’s the small voice that really gets our attention. The authority ﬁgures in my life got all of my attention when they spoke softly. My parents would nag, yell, nag yell nag... and it became really easy to tune them out... but man... when they lowered their voice.... I knew something was up, and that I better pay attention.

It’s why when we preachers get to an important point of our message, we don’t shout it out—we lower our voice, to drive home the point.

Besides, when someone wants to whisper something to us, we know we want to hear it. It could be juicy gossip or something real serious. But when someone says, “I have to tell you something” it’s usually followed by a lower tone of voice.

That’s why I think God chooses to whisper to us. It’s more intimate. It’s more personal. It’s harder to ignore once we hear it. We have to seek it, meaning that we have to know God in order to be in an intimate, personal relationship. That’s why spiritual disciplines like reading the Bible, prayer and fasting (to name a few) are important in staying deeply connected to God. It’s in this relationship we begin to recognize God’s voice more. It’s when we really get to know God that we know where to look for God’s voice.

So may we continue in deepening our relationship with God, and may we continue to be listening for God’s still, small voice.

Take a moment from your day. Go to a place where you won’t be disturbed. Be still, and know God.

Joseph Yoo is pastor of youth and spiritual formation at Valencia United Methodist Church in Valencia, CA. He blogs at Step by Step.
Connect with Joseph: Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | RSS

4 Good Things about the Call to Action

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

When Adam Hamilton, Mike Slaughter, Rudy Rasmus, and many other United Methodist Church leaders recently signed their names on an open letter in support of the Call to Action legislation, it got my attention. If you aren’t familiar with this proposal, it essentially restructures The United Methodist Church’s governing boards and agencies to help the denomination run more efficiently and (hopefully) become more effective at bringing people to Christ and making real disciples. It also deals with clergy accountability, and one of the major changes it would make is ending guaranteed appointment for pastors. There are other proposed changes too, including the redirection of up to $60 million in church funds over four years to developing future United Methodist leaders. I won’t go into all the details—you can read more here. But I will share a few thoughts and observations:

Change is good.

In a denomination not known for changing quickly, you’ve got to give props to those who crafted this proposal. Its recommended changes are pretty dramatic. Is it perfect? No. I’m sure most of us would tweak a few things here and there if we could. But more than anything I’ve seen, it seems to “get it." Communication, ministry, and the way we must do church to reach the world are all changing. Even the rate of change is changing! When you only get one shot in four years to reorganize things, any changes that will make a noticeable impact are going to seem like a shock to the system. Is it risky? Perhaps a little, but reward usually only comes with risk. The bigger risk is doing nothing.

Accountability is good.

Some of us are uncomfortable with the idea of using metrics and vital indicators to evaluate clergy, but the reality is, numbers tell a story. Whether it’s baptisms, professions of faith, weekly attendance, offerings, or some other figure, statistics help churches gauge what’s going on in their ministries. Numbers don’t always tell the whole story, but if kept accurately and consistently, they tell a big part of it. And numbers provide a more objective way to evaluate clergy than what we currently have. The proposed end of the guaranteed appointment system seems like a positive step for accountability, although I’m not sure it will be well received without some kind of tradeoff. Many pastors see guaranteed appointment as a “perk” to offset the perceived disadvantages of being part of the itinerancy. The problem is, guaranteed appointment has become (to some) like teacher tenure or “immunity from getting voted off the island”. But systems for evaluating job performance have been ubiquitous in the private sector for years. The same pressure hasn’t existed to the same degree in the public and nonprofit sectors—but in a tight economy where productivity and efficiency matter more and more, that’s quickly changing. If it’s done fairly and consistently, I believe implementing the proposed accountability system will make The United Methodist Church stronger.

Consolidation is good.

I’ve been United Methodist my whole life, and I work for a church agency (the United Methodist Publishing House, which enthusiastically gives me a platform to share my opinions on these matters but doesn’t necessarily endorse what I write.) Yet I’ll admit, even with my UM background, I don’t understand every role and function of every agency we have. But I do know that simplifying an organization every so often is a good thing. Many churches already do it regularly at the local level. Every now and then you have to figure out where you’re duplicating efforts and get everyone on the same page. And sometimes you have to ask honest questions about the amount of leadership and bureaucracy you have. Is the system helping or hindering ministry? Even if you don’t shrink staff at all, streamlining systems and structures makes an organization more productive because it potentially frees up people and resources so the organization can do more things (or do what it’s already doing even better).

Reevaluating spending is good.

With my personal finances, I analyze my spending patterns occasionally and I look for ways to save money. I find areas in my budget where I spend too much money and figure out how I can move that cash to something that’s more of an investment for the future. I also adjust goals from time to time. What was important to me five years ago may not be as important to me today. It’s not a formal process, but I do think about my budget on a regular basis. Perhaps you do the same thing. Now if we’re that thorough with our own money, shouldn’t we at least have the same attitude about money from the offering plate? As a denomination, we’ve decided that planting churches and developing young leaders are going to be high priorities. Part of the Call to Action proposal redirects some church funds to those priorities. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, although I understand how controversial it might be, especially if an area that has a decrease in funding is one you’re passionate about. But in these tough economic times, most of us are having to learn to do more with less—the church is no exception. I don’t see that changing for a while, and increasing apportionment percentages isn’t a real option. For every existing budget item to get at least the same size piece of pie, we need to grow the pie. When the church grows again, the pie will get bigger.

I find it fascinating how our church’s struggles with budgets, priorities, and accountability seem to parallel similar debates taking place right now in our federal government. I’m confident, however, that The United Methodist Church will handle business in a much more civil, mature, and efficient fashion than Washington has dealt with its issues. As for the Call to Action legislation, there’s much I like about it, but I’m keeping an open mind and examining the other ideas too. Those of us who aren’t delegates have an important role in the 2012 General Conference—prayer. Let’s not take the responsibility lightly—let’s pray that God will give the delegates the wisdom they need to make good decisions later this month in Tampa.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

7. Forty Days

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A lot can change in forty days.

I listen to the news every day, mostly on the radio as I drive. It occurs to me how much can happen in just a few weeks. The world can turn upside down.

Students connected by social media on their cell phones and computers took to the streets, and several countries in the Middle East turned it upside down in the span of a couple of months last spring.

Last Easter, the churches of Joplin, Missouri, celebrated Christ’s resurrection along with communities throughout the world. Forty days later those same churches were mission stations and disaster relief centers helping people rebuild their spirits, their lives, and their homes after the devastation wrought by a tornado. Another forty days after that, plans were being laid for a new school, a new hospital, and a new future. A lot can change in forty days.

In the Old Testament, forty days of rainfall ended an era and redefined the covenant between God and the people of Israel. In only forty days, the newly liberated Hebrew people grew restless and rebellious at the foot of Mount Sinai, and in those same forty days Moses received the commandments that made us a covenant people. Elijah fasted for forty days, and in his hunger he heard a still, small voice that otherwise might have gone undetected.

Forty days can also change the course of a person’s life, the direction of a human soul. Falling in love, celebrating marriage, having a baby, unexpected grief, receiving a diagnosis, going through divorce, moving away, losing a job, changing a career—periods as short as forty days cantotally change the trajectory and direction of our journeys.

Forty days is the period Jesus spent wrestling temptation in the desert. I wonder how he was changed by the experience. I wonder how different his ministry might have been had he avoided the face-to-face tangle with the tempter. What was tempered out of him or hammered into him by the experience? What did he learn? What did he hear? How was he different? Did his disciples and friends notice?

Forty days is the length of time between Jesus’ death and his ascension, the period during which his defeated and despairing disciples discovered his resurrection and presence among them. What convulsions of spirit did the followers of Jesus experience during that time? The redemption of Peter after his denial? The sorrow and joy of Mary and Martha and Jesus’ mother? The awareness of life out of death, of resurrection out of despair? Forty days changed everything for them.

In less than forty days the direction of Paul’s life was entirely reversed. While breathing threats of murder against the disciples, he was struck by grace into utter blindness. Then the scales fell from his eyes and he dedicated himself to lifelong service to Christ. A whole lot can change in a short period of time.

Easter again marks the ending of Lent. For forty days United Methodists have focused on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We’ve offered prayers of repentance, listened for God’s call, pondered afresh the offering of Christ for the world, allowed ourselves to be rewoven into the body of Christ, and offered ourselves anew to follow Christ. We open ourselves to the joy of new life in Christ through the songs and celebrations of Easter.

For The United Methodist Church, the forty days to come will determine much about our future. During that time, delegates and leaders from across the globe will gather for prayer, worship, and deliberation about our common ministry in Christ. Forty days from now General Conference will be behind us.

What will happen within our church during these forty days? What is the change we yearn for? What is the change God desires for us? Are we willing to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in the transformation and redirection of our life as a church? Will we change course by a few degrees or redirect our energies more dramatically? The earliest disciples received the great commission during the forty days after Easter. Will we?

While there are several specific issues I hope our church addresses in particular ways, I have a deeper hope beyond all legislative proposals. I hope we emerge forty days from now a stronger church, more clear about our mission and more confident about our future. I hope we become a church that is more outward-focused, future-oriented, and committed to reaching the next generation. I pray we prove ourselves willing to be changed by the Holy Spirit and redirected by the calling of Christ. I hope we break through the tangles, knots, and restraints of our inner polity and free ourselves for creative response to the needs of a broken world. I hope we are somehow different forty days from now in ways that please God and deepen our mission in Christ.

In September of 1771, a young Francis Asbury sets sail for America under the direction of Mr. Wesley. Sifting through his motivations, he records in his journal the reason for his mission. “To gain honour? No, if I know my own heart. To get money? No. I am going to live to God, and bring others so to do.”*

I pray that during the next forty days, we open ourselves again to the restoration and pardon of God, to repentance and prayer, to the reshaping of our souls by God’s grace, to the great commission, and to the spirit of holy adventure as we seek more boldly to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. A lot can change in forty days.

* American Saint: Francis Asbury and the Methodists by John Wiggers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 45.

When was a time that your life changed direction because of the events in a single 40-day period?

When was a time when your congregation’s ministry and focus shifted dramatically during a short period of time?

Look again at Asbury’s succinct personal mission statement. What is yours?

For stories of the days after Easter, read Matthew 28:16-20 or John 21:1-19.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

8. Where Did It Come From?

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The COB and the CT commissioned the TWR from which the CTA was derived. The COB and CT approved the CTA and named the IOT, which developed GC legislation that affects GBGM, GBHEM, GBD, and other agencies as well as the COB, conferences, and congregations.

If you understand that alphabet soup, you deserve an advanced degree in contemporary governance of The United Methodist Church! In brief, the above paragraph answers the question, where did the Call to Action come from? This affects every conference, congregation, pastor, and general board, so let’s unpack its origins.

The Call to Action comes from the passionate desire, deep commitment, profound concern, and great hope of countless United Methodist leaders, including bishops, laity, pastors, general secretaries, and consultants. It comes from focused attention on the mission of the church. It comes from prayerful attentiveness to God’s calling, the gifts of our theology and practice, honest confession about our own responsibilities in failing to be outward-focused. It comes from our love of Christ, our love for the United Methodist Church, and our dedication to the task of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Every United Methodist leader knows the disturbing trends of the last 50 years—the decline in attendance, the closing of churches, the aging of our membership, and the increasing financial stresses for sustaining congregations, conferences, and our collective general work. Many have experienced the intransigence and complexity of our organizational structures and polity to deal with these challenges. Laity, pastors, writers, consultants, conferences, boards, foundations, and organizations have noticed, analyzed, experimented, and made recommendations. The Council of Bishops (COB) and the Connectional Table (CT) explored how to receive the most accurate appraisal of our denomination as well as to identify congregations that thrive in spite of the trends. The Council and the Connectional Table commissioned the most extensive analysis of a mainline denomination ever completed, resulting in the Towers Watson Report (TWR). We wanted comprehensive, robust, reliable, honest research from objective professionals. We asked for data analysis from more than 32,000 United Methodist congregations as well as extensive interviews, observations, and visits.

In late 2010, the Council of Bishops received the Towers Watson Report and a set of directional recommendations titled the Call to Action (CTA). The Call to Action was prepared by a team of bishops, laity, clergy, and general secretaries working with analysts from the Towers Watson consulting firm. The Council studied and deliberated over the report and the Call to Action, and voted unanimously to approve it. The Connectional Table also approved the Call to Action unanimously.

The Towers Watson Report details many contributing factors to our decline, including a crisis of relevancy, lack of clarity about our mission, rampant mistrust, organizational distance between the people in the pews and the governance of our denomination, structural systems that are not conducive to our mission, and difficulty reaching young people. In addition, the report identifies churches that are vital, fruitful, and alive in their mission—outward-focused, forming new disciples, missional, engaging the community and world, receiving young people, providing vibrant and relevant worship—and isolates key drivers these congregations have in common. There are vital congregations of every size, including rural, urban, and suburban.

The Call to Action challenges The United Methodist Church to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. In addition, the Call to Action calls us to dramatically reform our clergy leadership development, deployment, and evaluation systems; to collect and act on metrics in key performance areas; and to reform the Council of Bishops to assume responsibility for improving results and for establishing a new culture of accountability throughout the church. Finally, the Call to Action calls us to consolidate program and administrative agencies, and to align their work and resources with the commitment to build vital congregations. (see the Call to Action report, 20–23).

The Council and the Connectional Table named an Interim Operations Team (IOT) to work on specific recommendations that would move a few priorities forward at General Conference. The team put forth several bold legislative recommendations, including consolidating most of our general boards, giving annual conferences the freedom to organize for greater fruitfulness, and providing for the Council of Bishops to elect a non-residential president to reform the Council and to focus its energies on the core challenges. Some bishops wanted to take bolder action and some preferred to move more cautiously. However, the Council and the Connectional Table voted overwhelmingly to support the recommendations because we do not want smaller differences to keep us from supporting the significant new direction in which these proposals take us.

Some recommendations will likely be approved; some will be modified and amended; and a few may not be supported by General Conference at all. Regardless of the outcome, the Call to Action provides direction and guidance to the Council of Bishops, the Connectional Table, and to our conferences for years to come. Increasing the number of vital congregations that make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world belongs to all of us at every level of leadership. This task does not begin or end with legislative initiatives, but with a rededication of ourselves to the ministry of Christ through communities of faith.

Where did the Call to Action come from? It has come from people like you and me—United Methodists who are passionate about the ministry of Christ, willing to deal honestly with the hard challenges, profoundly concerned, open to change, and full of hope for the future. Study the Call to Action with an open mind and heart. Prayerfully discuss it with colleagues and leaders. Enter the conversation that perfects and strengthens it. And consider how God may be using this conversation to prompt each of us to change ourselves, our churches, and our conferences for sake of the mission of Christ through The United Methodist Church.

The Call to Action calls for sustained refocusing of energy and resources toward increasing the number of vital congregations. How appropriate is this priority? What are the hopes this emphasis stimulates for you? What concerns arise?

For scriptural reflection, read Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 4:17-21; and Acts 2:41-47.

If you would like to delve more deeply into the Call to Action, review the Towers Watson Report and the Call to Action Steering Team Report. Also see “The Call to Action Study Guide” a small pamphlet produced for General Conference delegates by the Council of Bishops.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Maundy Thursday

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

We gather today to worship in Word and Sacrament. This day, what we call “Maundy Thursday,” or “Holy Thursday” is the beginning of what is often called “The Easter Tridiuum” – three days of remembering the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus. The word Maundy comes from the Latin word mandatum, which means "commandment.” In the act of washing the Apostles feet, Jesus gives them the commandment to “love and serve one another as I have loved you.” It is also the day Jesus celebrated The Last Supper with his Apostles during their Passover meal, thereby instituting the sacrament we know as Holy Communion, The Lord’s Supper, The Mass, or Holy Eucharist. Jesus commanded his guests to “do this in remembrance of me.” This serves as a link to connect The Passover meal to The Lord’s Supper and that Jesus was the new, and final, Passover Lamb.

The words of Scripture tell us the story of that fateful evening and the events which led up to it. We know that in three days, there will be great rejoicing. But, let us not get ahead of ourselves. We cannot get around the fact that we must first witness the betrayal, a trial, great suffering, and a crucifixion.

Some of you will attend worship services later this evening. You may hear sermons about the significance of The Lord’s Supper and the Commandment we are given to love and serve one another. You may wash one another’s feet. You may witness the beauty of your worship space stripped bare and left empty. Memories will no doubt be formed in your mind. When my own son was three years old I took him to the Maundy Thursday service at our church. I tried to explain what would happen prior to entering the sanctuary, mainly in hopes that he would remain quiet and civilized we entered, armed with crayons and paper. To my amazement, and relief, he was not only quiet but also attentive to what was going on around him. As if he knew the solemnity of the events were important and meant something. The altar was stripped, and at the end of the service we all departed in silence while the lights were turned off. I was carrying Gabe in my arms he leaned into my ear and asked in a saddened tone, “Why did God turn the lights out, mommy?” Remarkable!

“Why did God turn out the lights?” indeed!

Let us go to the Mount of Olives for a moment (picture of Agony). Jesus is praying and asking God that he not have to suffer – we can sense in his words a great deal of fear and anxiety. He is overwhelmed with grief when he finds that even his disciples were unable to keep vigil. Jesus is arrested – he has been betrayed, he is alone, in agony, despair and feels the deepest levels of loneliness. Look at the empty altar here and remember.

The disciples scatter in the midst of the arrest. Peter denies Jesus; bitter weeping ensues. Darkness and emptiness enclose upon those who were closest to Jesus. Look at the empty altar here and remember.

We live with an interesting dichotomy in the next three days. We are on this side of the Resurrection and yet we spend these few days in repentance and mourning, or at least we should. I understand that we have been redeemed and should give every thanks for it; however, I cannot help but stop and think about the utter chaos, fear, loneliness, and despair that the scattered disciples must have felt. Their beloved teacher and leader was gone! They had not yet witnessed the resurrection. From where we are, is it even possible to know how they felt that night or the next day watching Jesus die on the Cross?

Have you ever spent any part of your life outside of the Church? There is no doubt in my mind that you, or maybe a family member, a colleague, those we encounter on the street have experienced some form of grief, depression, sickness, hopelessness. I recall going through a period of time in that state. After God led me back to the Church, and specifically to our Lord’s Table, I’m unable to fathom now how I survived without it. There have been times when I have had to cling tightly to the promises of my baptism.

But we also run into those same people in the pews next to us. We try to tend to those in our midst with care and compassion. In general though, we often run from suffering and despair. We hide it in ourselves because we don’t want to make others feel uneasy or we discreetly step away from those we encounter in this state because we’re not sure what to say or we end up offering some platitude. Silence often makes us feel uncomfortable. What we really want is to make it all better, and quickly! I have a close friend, a deeply committed Christian, who was suffering from depression. A fellow parishioner told him that what he really needed was to accept the Joy Christ was offering and that would give him the attitude adjustment he needed. Needless to say, that wasn’t helpful and only added to my friends grief and guilt. Our society is consumed with the need to ‘be happy’ and individuals the need to feel special. I know, let’s all go to the empty tomb and we’ll know then that it’s going to be alright. Yes, but it’s not really about me, is it?

Look here, at the empty altar, and remember. We cannot go to the empty tomb without first standing at the Cross. John Henry Newman wrote in his sermon, The Cross of Christ,

“the doctrine of the Cross is not on the surface of the world. The surface of things is bright only, and the Cross is sorrowful; it is a hidden doctrine; it lies under a veil; it at first sight startles us, and we are tempted to revolt from it. Like St. Peter, we cry out, ‘Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee.’ And yet it is a true doctrine; for truth is not on the surface of things, but in the depths.” (1242)

We cannot get around it today or tomorrow – the altar is empty. Despite the desperate need to do so, don’t run from it or from those who do not yet know the joy of the Resurrection. For the next couple of minutes, sit in silence. For the next couple of days, allow yourself the space to contemplate what the Cross means for our world. The next time you gather for Holy Communion, give thanks and praise that our Lord is present and real!

The Cross of Christ: The Measure of the World by John Henry Newman. Ignatius Press.

6. It Takes What It Takes

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I recently listened to a podcast interview with a Catholic priest whose ministry focuses on young people involved in urban gangs. Many of the tools he uses derive from the recovery movement, including wisdom gleaned from Alcoholics Anonymous. He used a maxim that I’ve heard before to describe what it takes to cause someone to want to change from one kind of life to another. He said, “It takes what it takes.”

This intentionally redundant saying refers to the fact that every person’s journey is unique, and the experience that provokes transformation is unpredictable. A young person gets drawn deeper into the violent, chaotic, and self-destructive habits of gangs, or someone develops a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that becomes absolutely ruinous to mind, body, soul, and relationship. Eventually, the person reaches a point that seems beyond any capability of returning. And then something happens that causes the person to want to change, to yearn for a different life more than anything in the world. That’s the moment when the hard work of recovery begins.

What event sparks such a yearning, awareness, or awakening? “It takes what it takes.” For one person it is reaching rock bottom, crashing and burning in a way that costs home or family. For another it is falling in love with someone, the birth of a child, becoming tired of being tired. For another it is a near-death experience or the critical illness of a loved one.

A wrecked marriage, a lost job, an arrest—these events can stimulate a yearning for new life. But so can holding a newborn baby, discovering the spiritual life, a powerful and penetrating piece of music. In that moment, a person is struck by grace, and an opening occurs.

The priest went on to say that he does not try to persuade young people to leave gangs just as he has learned not to try to persuade an addict to put down a syringe or an alcoholic to set aside a bottle. “I’m not the one who saves people; God does that,” he says. “I simply point to the door and say, ‘I believe that if you go through that door you will live a happier life.’” The priest looks for people who are ready to change. When someone is ready to walk away from the old life and step into a new way, the priest and his team are ready to help.

I’m reminded of the prodigal son who insistently and violently rebels against his father. In simple and suggestive terms, the Scripture says that some months later, while wallowing with the swine, “he came to himself” (see Luke 15:11-32).

People come to themselves through varied experiences. Zacchaeus needed Jesus to dine at his house when everyone else rejected him; the woman at the well required a penetratingly true conversation with a stranger; the paralyzed man beside the pool needed confrontation about his true desires for healing; a rich man needed the nightmare reminder of life without God to notice his neglect of Lazarus at the doorstep; the bleeding woman needed a touch of grace from Jesus.

How do we come to ourselves? How does God’s grace break through? It takes what it takes.

I’ve discovered that the same is true for congregations that have experienced years of uninterrupted decline. Some continue on the path of growing older and weaker with each decade. But others turn around. They wake up. They come to themselves. They discover and embrace new life. In nearly every case, the primary vision, spiritual energy, leadership, and motivation come from the local congregation rather than from the conference or the denomination.

A conference or bishop or superintendent cannot talk a congregation into new life. The congregation has to decide it wants a different future. The congregation willingly invests the time and hard work to make it happen. The conference staff and many other clergy and lay colleagues can provide consultation, encouragement, support, and a wide range of tools once a congregation decides to change, but change cannot come from the outside.

The conference can only point to the door and say, “When you are ready to walk away from your old ways, we will help you. We think you will be happier going through that door rather than remaining where you are.”

What’s the turning-point event that causes a congregation to want to change? It takes what it takes. A tornado that destroys the old building, the arrival of a new pastor, the death of a long-time matriarch of the congregation, a severe financial challenge, a financial windfall, the loss of jobs in a community, the arrival of new families, a significant shift in the demographics of the neighborhood, the presence of children, the success of a mission initiative—any and all of these have been the occasion and inspiration for renewal in churches. It takes what it takes. And it takes openness to God’s Spirit to help us change.

What’s the turning-point event that causes a conference to want to change? What’s the catalyst insight or experience that will cause General Conference to notice the reality of the church’s challenges and want to change? One way of understanding the motivation of the Call to Action is as an invitation. When we are ready to change, here’s a path to follow. It’s not perfect, and there are many unpredictable twists and turns ahead. But when we are ready, here’s a way forward.

If your church or conference has turned around, refocused its mission, and reconnected to the community and world around it in a powerful new way, what was the catalyst event that God used? If your church has not experienced such a change, what do you think it will take?

For further contemplation on this theme, read Luke 15 and the stories of the lost—a sheep distractedly nibbling its way lost, a coin that slips through the cracks among the daily clutter, and a son’s willful rebellion. What do these suggest for a church losing focus or purpose?

For a mix of perspectives on transforming churches, check out Jesus Insurgency by Rudy Rasmus and Dottie Escobedo-Frank, Lord, I Love the Church and We Need Help by Virginia Bassford, or Transforming Church by Kevin G. Ford.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

5. Praying Hands and Dirty Fingernails

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

John Wesley modeled acts of piety and acts of mercy, and taught that both are essential to our life in Christ. The words piety and mercy sound curiously quaint today, perhaps even stirring negative responses. Piety brings to mind self-righteous, sanctimonious arrogance. And no one wants to be at the mercy of anyone else. Mercy connotes weakness, dependence, surrender.

In Wesley’s model, acts of piety had to do with the practices of prayer, worship, receiving the sacraments, fasting, and belonging to a society of Christians holding one another accountable for our growth in the knowledge and love of God. Through such practices, we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in our own growth in grace. By these means we open ourselves to the spiritual life and stay connected to Christ and to one another. Acts of piety convert the heart, turn us daily toward God, and help us receive the life-restoring work of God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Acts of piety feed our relationship with God.

Acts of mercy are ministries of compassion, service, and justice that relieve suffering, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned, and heal the sick. These we do in obedience to Christ. We serve others for the purposes of Christ. These are the personal and daily acts of service, kindness, and sacrifice that improve the conditions of life for our neighbors. In wider measure, acts of mercy include our social witness and advocacy, our work for justice and peace, and our support of systems that protect the vulnerable and relieve suffering.

Sometimes we act as if our living in Christ and leading the church requires us to emphasize piety to the exclusion of mercy or to choose ministries of mercy at the expense of congregational vitality. This presents an unhealthy and dangerous dichotomy. It forces us to ask ourselves, “Which kind of Christians are we?” Are we those who seek a deeper spirituality in the changed heart that comes through worship, sacrament, prayer, the Scriptures, and fellowship? Or those who pour ourselves out through ministries of service and justice, helping people to rebuild their lives, and offering hope to a hurting world?

Martyn Atkins, general secretary of the British Methodist Church, says, “Acts of piety and acts of mercy are like two wings of a bird; without either one, we cannot fly.” There is no simple dualism. We can’t evangelize hungry people without giving them food, and offering food alone never completes the task God gives us. Atkins goes on to say, “Following Christ involves praying hands and dirty fingernails.”*

The Call to Action focuses on increasing the number of vital congregations. Some view this as an abandonment of social witness and ministries of mercy. However, the Call to Action’s description of vital congregations includes not only a focus on the means by which people grow in Christ together, but also an emphasis on ministries that reach into the community and world to serve in Christ’s name. We cannot separate the two. These feed each other. Every faithful and fruitful congregation practices both acts of piety and acts of mercy.

Theoretically, all United Methodists know this. But place a mix of us in a convention center for conference, and watch how we feed the false dichotomy. Social justice advocates decry an emphasis on congregations, viewing such a priority as unfaithful and as deadening to our service to a hurting world. Focusing on congregations sounds self-serving, inward-focused, and based on values derived from a success-oriented culture. And those who emphasize starting and strengthening congregations answer that without vital faith communities to reach new people and deepen the spiritual life, there will be no foundation for social witness in the future. We can do better. We cannot allow our calling to serve the world to justify an unwillingness to focus on deepening the spiritual life and witness of our congregations. And we cannot allow our calling to build up the body of Christ to blind us to God’s demand for justice, peace, and healing.

Wesley had a profound interest in cultivating the spiritual life as well as feeding the hungry, serving the poor, and visiting the imprisoned. He wrote the sermon, “The Scripture Way of Salvation” as well as The Primitive Physick, a book of medical remedies to improve physical health. He wrote prayers, prescribed sacraments, and published sermons to strengthen souls while also speaking against slavery to change society. He saw no contradiction between the care of souls and the care of bodies, and he would see no contradiction in The United Methodist Church starting and strengthening congregations while also seeking to eradicate killer diseases. Our conferences are at their best when they invigorate congregational worship, strengthen preaching, enhance youth ministries, and cultivate new faith communities while they also lead congregations to dig water wells, work with at-risk children, confront racism, and advocate for immigration reform. For us to focus on ridding the world of killer diseases does not distract congregations from their purpose; it resurrects their sense of purpose. For us to focus on starting new churches does not dull our ministries of justice; it provides them an invigorating spiritual grounding.

I hope we help one another avoid dualism and reclaim our Wesleyan roots. The mission of The United Methodist Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Both elements—making disciples and transforming the world—are essential. Following Christ involves both praying hands and dirty fingernails.

* Martyn Atkins presentation at the 2011 World Methodist Conference in South Africa.

How does a sustained focus on increasing the number of vital congregations affect ministries of service, mission, and justice? How does an outward-focused dedication to service, mission and justice shape congregational strength and purpose?

How does your congregation cultivate ministries of piety and mercy? Your conference?

For deeper exploration, read Matthew 25:31-46; Matthew 20:27-28; and Romans 14:7-8.

To delve deeper, review the chapter on “Risk-Taking Mission and Service” in Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations by Robert Schnase. For the role of such ministries (including advocacy and social witness) in personal discipleship, read “Loving and Serving Others” in Five Practices of Fruitful Living by Robert Schnase.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Confession

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

It would be easy (and safe) to write off confession to a priest or minister as archaic or old school but since my sister's conversion to Orthodoxy, I've asked myself "What do we (Protestants) lose by giving up this form of confession?"

Now don't get me wrong, I get individual confession. I know I can go straight to God. And in my church the corporate confession we say during communion, although for some may be rote, causes me to stop and think about how we're doing as a community of faith. I get it.

What I'm talking about is confession to another person, a spiritual director/friend. Maybe even a minister. I've thought about this a lot. There is power in being with another person who has spiritual authority in our life. Letting go of the burdens of guilt, shame, and the secrets to someone we know loves us unconditionally. And hearing from them, God forgives you.

For a few people, I have been that person. I envision it as standing in the gap with people. Being with them during a difficult time and reminding them that they are in fact loved by God and forgiven. At other times I've sat in silence as the other person prayed.

I am not saying that God needs us to confess in the presence of another person, but for some people this spiritual discipline can be life changing. And I believe it can be a marker event, it marks a time and space in a person's life when they've let go of something. It reminds them that God has heard them and has forgiven them, even when doubt and fear creep in, which we all know will.

Can confession become ritualized to the point of becoming empty? Yes!
But so can my devotional time, in the morning, in my comfy chair with my cup of coffee.
Let's face it, any good spiritual discipline can become ritualized and empty.

So, I am thinking hard these days about who that person is in my life. Someone with the heart of a pastor, who can hear in my tears the guilt and shame and determine if silence is all that is needed. Or, who with the love and power of God can anoint my head with oil and say "in the name of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven."

4. The Challenge of the Ages

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Some time ago, National Geographic magazine included a poster of the most typical human being on earth, a composite representation that interweaves physical features of the single largest demographic niche. The single most common human being in the world is a Han Chinese male who is 28 years old! There are more 28-year-olds in the world than any other single age; the largest ethnic population on earth is Chinese; and there are slightly more male humans on our planet than females.*

Wouldn’t it be interesting to explore a similar exercise with The United Methodist Church worldwide? What about for The United Methodist Church in the US? Or for your own congregation? How might this compare to the demographic profiles of the communities that surround our churches? The results might surprise us.

For instance, does our perception of the United Methodist family acknowledge our strong growth in Africa and the Philippines? Of the 12 million United Methodists in the world, more than 4 million live in Africa, nearly 150,000 are in the Philippines, about 80,000 are European or Eurasian, and just over 7.5 million live in the United States.

The median age of United Methodist members in the US is between 55 and 59, and women outnumber men 58% to 42%. In our US churches, we are 90.5% white, 5.8% black, 1.1% Asian, and .9% Hispanic.** These numbers present a sharp contrast to the demographics of most of the communities in the US that our churches seek to reach.

If the only statistic we could fully comprehend about The United Methodist Church in the US is that our median age is approaching 60 while the median age of our culture is 35, we would see with stark clarity the missional challenge we face. There is an age gap of nearly two generations between the average US United Methodist and the local mission field. And across that gap lie significant differences in perception, spirituality, musical tastes, community, life experience, use of technology, and cultural value.

A few years ago, the research of Lovett Weems and the Lewis Center for Church Leadership, identified our most critical challenge: how to reach more people, younger people, and more diverse people (see “Reaching More Diverse People,” 2009). Lovett has succinctly identified what it takes for us to fulfill the mission God gives us right where we live. In the US, the population is increasing, becoming younger, and becoming more diverse while the church is declining, becoming older, and struggling to reach across ethnic boundaries.

How do we reach the next generation when most of our leaders and people with authority are one or two generations removed from the people we seek to serve?

And yet there are among us many young followers of Christ who are eager to serve and lead. They are not the church of the future but the church of today, the doorway people whom we do well to listen to, to trust, and to follow. Many more young adults will be present at General Conference as delegates than in previous years, and this is good. They help us remember the future in every conversation. Their ways are not our ways, and that’s why we need to learn from them.

One of the tasks of leadership is to pass the mantle to the next generations within our congregations, conferences, and the general church. Unfortunately, this often takes the form of inviting youth and young adults to serve on committees, boards, and agencies that were formed for the purpose of the church in the past. We squeeze them into our mold, urging them to play the role we used to play and do things the way we used to do them. This is not what passing the mantle means.

Much of how we do things—our worship styles, internal squabbles, organizational structures, and approaches to ministry—seem impenetrable, archaic, and out of touch with real human need and authentic spiritual hunger. The old ways of petitions and resolutions, of dividing between us and them, of lengthy processes and inaccessible procedures—these don’t make sense to those simply motivated to a deeper spirituality and ready to serve a hurting world. Younger people offer a wonderfully prophetic critique of our generation.

How can we offer an ancient and true message in fresh and compelling ways? Maybe this is something we (most of us in our 50s and 60s) can’t figure out on our own. Maybe this is something we learn from our younger sisters and brothers. One young pastor told me, “We have a foot in both worlds. We’re stuck in the nether region, recovering from past models that don’t connect while waiting for new models to emerge.” We need reverse mentoring, an intentional process for listening to younger people who see challenges from a different perspective.

For the young among us, I pray that you let your voices be heard, that you offer your best and highest, and that you don’t allow cynicism and frustration to overwhelm you. We need a church that goes where young people go and cares about what young people care about. You are a part of the picture of United Methodism, a member of the body, and we belong to you as you belong to us because we all belong to Christ. I pray for your passionate, patient, and persistent leadership.

Paul writes to Timothy, “Don’t let anyone put you down because you are young. Teach believers with your life: by word, by demeanor, by love, by faith, by integrity” (1 Timothy 4:12 The Message).

For the rest of us, I pray that in our deliberations, we find the courage to get out of the way sometimes and to balance our vision with fresh expressions of ministry.

* National Geographic, poster insert, March 2011.

** Statistics from 2009 General Council on Finance and Administration report.

What would a church look like that goes where young people go and cares about what young people care about? How well does your congregation do at cultivating the spiritual life and leadership of young people?

What would you estimate is the median age of those who attend your congregation, and how does this compare to the community you serve? What does this mean?

How do we unintentionally put people down because they are young?

Take another look at 1 Timothy 4:11-16 using The Message for a different angle on a familiar passage.

Check out a personal perspective on youth in the church: http://www.umportal.org/main/article.asp?id=8616.

Several authors have done excellent work exploring the spirituality of young adults: Kenda Creasy Dean’s Almost Christian: What the Faith of our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church, Chuck Bomar’s Worlds Apart: Understanding the Mindset and Values of 18-25 Year Olds, and The Slow Fade: Why You Matter in the Story of Twentysomthings by Abbie Smith, Chuck Bomar, and Reggie Joiner.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

The Frustration of Assumptions

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Recently I had the opportunity to be in conversation with a leading member of the Interim Operations Team (IOT) regarding the Missional Manifesto for the People Called United Methodist document that I have been a part of. Our “manifesto” was written in part because we felt like the Call to Action (CTA) report and the work of the IOT focused almost exclusively on church structure and practices and not enough on values and theology. This leader was expressing his support for our work, recognizing that it has an important place in the conversation about who we are as United Methodists, but in the midst of the conversation he expressed his own frustration with some of the criticism he had heard regarding the work of the IOT.

I think my frustration sometimes comes when folks assume, because this is not specifically mentioned at each turn, that those on the IOT don’t hold these convictions. I would guess that each of the team members would not only say Yes and Amen, but that they take seriously the living of this document. Our conversations regularly focus on these things, our prayers are centered on these things and our reason for the work we do is that we hope the church might be more focused on being an instrument of God’s mission.

I understand his frustration, for there are indeed many times when the requirements of publishing documents and creating presentations in a limited time frame forces one to focus on specific proposals and suggestions, and not the underlying process that led to those proposals. The press release on new ways of doing things rarely contains much about the hours of conversations, prayer, study, etc. behind the suggested changes, leaving much room for folks to speculate on the motives behind those changes. I have little doubt that both the CTA Task Force and the IOT have spent much time in prayer thinking about the core of who we are as United Methodists. These are folks who love our church, who want that best for our church, and have given countless hours toward working to improve how we function as a body.

Unfortunately I fear their own process and choices about who should be at the table has partially led to the perceptions that somehow the entire process has been disconnected from spiritual and theological concerns. The entire IOT was composed of persons who worship in a large congregation context, who (with the exception of a single active pastor and the few bishops) were lifted up for their business and organizational expertise than their spiritual practices and/or theological acumen. Certainly all are persons of faith, but in the press releases and other information about the team, there was little to suggest that their ultimate concerns in examining our church’s structures would be balanced between both theological/missional concerns on the one hand, and organizational efficiency on the other. This focus on their organizational leadership skills led to the disconnect that several in the UMC face today.

Yet another issue is at play here. I think those in leadership of the CTA and IOT assumed a shared core theology and identity for the people called United Methodists that may not, in point of fact, be as universally shared. We tend to be a church with several generations of persons present, with each generation having experienced a different identity of who we are. We continue to have many leaders whose paradigm for understanding our church was formed in the 1950’s when the Methodist Church was at its height numerically, but when being a good Methodist had to do as much with being a good citizen who lived a moral life than any sense of call to radical discipleship. Those of us in later generations experienced a church in which faith was interpreted in light of the call to social justice, while others have ONLY experienced a denomination in decline and much thrashing about to stem the tide of losses.

Certainly, I continue to believe there was a revival of sorts in the late 1980’s and early ‘90’s in which the UMC regained a deeper connection to the scriptures (through the Disciple Bible Study movement) as well as a deeper connection to Wesleyan theology and practices (through the work of folks like Bishop Kenneth Carder, David Lowes Watson, Thomas Frank, Russ Richey, and Steve Manskar). There are other streams as well – the Good News stream, the charismatic stream, and more and more the international stream, with special influences arising from Africa. With all of these streams in play, it has become harder and harder to maintained a clear sense of who we are, and more importantly why we believe God is calling us as United Methodists to continue to be present in the world. Given the complexity of addressing the competing claims of these various theological streams, it becomes much easier to focus on practices and structure, for the deeper conversations we need to have are hard and will take time and commitment that in fact may not be fully present.

And that is where I think some of the frustration about the work of the CTA and IOT lands. It’s not in that we don’t find value in what they are doing. No, it’s that what they have done doesn’t seem to address the deeper issues of a church which doesn’t have a clear sense of calling and mission. They may have had those conversations internally – in fact, I am sure they have as my friend shared above. But the rest of the church, for very valid procedural reasons, hasn’t been invited to the table to be a part of that conversation as well, and we all know that the legislative behemoth that is General Conference simply does not allow space or time for those kinds of conversations. Both of our frustrations are valid – theirs which doesn’t understand why folks are questioning their theological and spiritual intentions, and others which wants to be at the table but are separated from the conversation. Until we can find space for a broader conversation on who we are and God’s calling for us as a church, then we will continue to flounder away with faulty assumptions about the intentions of one another.

Reconciling God, help us not to make assumptions about intentions based on appearances, and help us to listen deeply to the concerns of one another. Break down the walls that divide us and help us all to clearly hear your desires and intentions for our church. Send your grace in special measure so that we may be fully engaged in proclaiming your kingdom and making disciples so that the world will be transformed. Amen.

___________________________________________________

This post originally appeared on The Methoblog.

Structure but No Life

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

God breathed the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils.

Ezekiel prophesied to the breath to bring life to the dry bones.

Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

In each of the three scriptural moments above, there is structure but no life. In Genesis 2, a man has been formed out of the dust of the earth, but has yet to live. In Ezekiel 37, the bones have been knit together with tissue and flesh, but they were not yet alive. In John 20, the group of disciples was together, but was not empowered to go and share the Gospel.

Structure but no life.

That kind of sounds like John Wesley’s motivation for what he did, doesn’t it? In his beloved church, he saw structure but no life. His desire was to breathe life into the Church of England, not to separate from it. By creating Methodist societies within the Church, Wesley hoped to revitalize the faith of the people while remaining a part of the structure that he so respected.

Working within that structure, he nevertheless pushed right up to the edge of it. In many minds, he transgressed the boundary. Eventually those who comprised the structure would not allow him to continue within it. The momentum of the Methodist movement carried it out of the Church of England and it flourished on its own.

Come to think of it, “structure but no life” is how many would describe the United Methodist Church of 2012, also. And in many ways, the “Call to Action” and the “Plan B” recommendations that will be considered by this year’s United Methodist General Conference are an attempt to breathe life into an old, top-heavy structure.

But the present recommendations differ from Wesley’s movement in two significant ways. First, Wesley worked from the ground up, and these recommendations are being made from the top down (a General Conference decision being the “top” and implementation in local churches the “down”). Secondly (and significantly), Wesley was responding to a powerful new spiritual movement taking place, and the present proposals are responding to a declining denomination.

Wesley created technical changes (societies, bands, classes) that resonated with the immense adaptive change that was taking place all around him (the “First Great Awakening”). Starting small, the movement expanded up and out, and ultimately “outgrew” the Church of England.

Wesley was brilliant. He discerned the historical moment and realized the church structure of his day was insufficient to contain it, and in his wisdom and immense capacity for detail, caught the leading edge of the wave, dramatically transforming the way people of his day did church.

I am not opposed to the Call to Action recommendations. Not at all. Let’s do it; make the changes and see how they fly.

What bugs me, though, is that we are making all these technical changes that are motivated by the decline of our denomination, and we are pretending that they are actually adaptive changes that are going to transform the culture in our congregations. They aren’t adaptive changes, in my opinion. They may be changes that are intended to bring about adaptive change, but the proposals as listed and discussed are technical changes.

The reason that this bugs me is that I think we are missing the actual adaptive changes that are already happening all around us. There is a significant spiritual movement taking place in the world, and we are already too late to catch the leading edge of it, as Wesley did so long ago. The best we can hope for at this point is to jump into it in the middle somewhere.

The technical changes the denomination needs to address are related to the tools we use to assess congregational vitality. For example, we are still trying to get our heads around the impact that new means of communication, social media, and other online interaction is having on the way people connect faith and life.

A person can watch their congregation’s worship service live online from just about any place in the world. Instant, hand-held access to more information than a person could ever hope to process has forever transformed how we learn, including how we learn about God. Facebook alone has fundamentally altered the way people feel about how well we know one another. Awareness of injustice is instantaneously Tweeted to millions whose resources can be mobilized to respond in just days, if not hours.

How do we assess congregational fruitfulness in a world that looks so different than it did 20 years ago? (Even ten, even five …)

This is the pressing technical question for our denomination, as I see it. But I believe the United Methodist Church needs to undergo some deep adaptive changes, as well.

The adaptive changes that need to be made in the United Methodist Church, in my opinion, are theological. Stated simply (and borrowing a term), we must immediately purge the “moralistic therapeutic deism” that pervades the church and allow the mystery of the triune God to empower us to realize the reign of God on earth by fully patterning our lives after the life of Christ, however that may look.

I want to make clear that I am not opposed to change, I do not fear change, this is not an anti-change thing. I say let’s give the “Call to Action” recommendations a go, and see what happens.

All I’m saying is I want answers to questions like, “Our congregation’s Facebook group has 211 ‘likes’ and last week it had 209. Is that fruitful?”

__________________________________________________

This post originally appeared on the author's blog, Enter the Rainbow.

Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen Indeed!

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Christ is risen! Not restored to life from the dead, not resuscitated, not brought back to life, but Risen! Given new life, given a new body! Given a new beginning! Christ is risen!

Christ is risen! No longer bound by the limitations of time and space, no longer restricted by geography or the calendar, but Risen! Present here with us now. Present where ever people suffer. Present where ever people rejoice. Present where ever people struggle and laugh and triumph and weep and seek. Present where ever God’s people are! Christ is risen!

Christ is risen! Freed from the constraints of mortal flesh. Freed from the constraints of that which had been deemed possible. Freed from the limitations imposed by human imperfections and inadequacies. Freed to set us free! Freed to set us free from all that binds us and keeps us from being all that God calls us to be! Christ is risen!

Christ is risen! Released from the strangle hold of death. Released from what had been believed to be the hopelessness of the grave and tomb. Set free from the helplessness of the human body. Set free to free us from the fear of death and despair. Set free to carry us to the perfect freedom that is His to give. Set free to live among us as part of us within us. Christ is risen!

Christ is risen that we might arise! That we might arise into newness of life here and now. That we might experience life abundant and life everlasting. That we might throw off the shackles of sin and shame and guilt and be freed to live and love and serve and sacrifice and rejoice. Christ is risen!

Let us arise with Christ, for with Christ, “ours the cross, the grave, the skies!”

Thanks be to God!

(Quotation from “Christ the Lord Is Risen Today” by Charles Wesley, 1739.)

3. Four Thousand Shalls

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Gordon MacKenzie has written a delightful and compelling book on organizations titled Orbiting the Giant Hairball. For companies (and churches!), the Hairball is MacKenzie’s term for the accumulated procedures and policies that accrue in an organization. These are the rules, standards, guidelines, and accepted models that become established and set in stone. The “hairs” of the Hairball begin as intricate patterns of effective behavior that initially solve a problem or deal with an issue. But over time they accumulate far beyond their usefulness. Every new policy is another hair for the Hairball, and hairs are never taken away, only added. The Hairball grows enormous, until it has its own heavy mass and gravity that pulls everything into the tangled web of established rules, policies, methodologies, procedures, standards, and systems. The Hairball stifles creativity, makes change nearly impossible, robs people of spirit, limits successful innovation, slows adaptive response, and restrains individual initiative. Organizations develop large, complex hairballs over the course of decades.

Have you experienced the intransigence of a large organization that is stuck in place by its own collection of rules and procedures?

Orbiting is MacKenzie’s phrase for how someone relates to the corporate Hairball without being drawn into it by its powerful pull. Orbiting involves keeping a healthy distance from the deadening influence of the Hairball. Orbiting is responsible creativity, vigorously exploring options. To Orbit a Hairball is to find a place of balance to benefit from the physical, intellectual, and philosophical resources of the organization without becoming entombed in its bureaucracy. Orbiting involves a measured assertion of one’s own uniqueness while keeping close enough to the gravitational field of the organization that you don’t fly off into the overwhelming emptiness of space.

Hairball is policy, procedure, imperative, rigidity, and regimented similarity in how we do our work, while Orbiting is originality, experimentation, flexibility, agility, risk, and adaptation.

Sometimes our gatherings at annual and general conferences result in enlarging and tightening the Hairball more than in encouraging greater and more creative ministry for the mission of Christ. Our Book of Discipline grows in size and complexity with each General Conference, incorporating more and more paragraphs that begin, “The annual conference shall. . . . The congregation shall. . . . The pastor shall. . . ” This limits agility and contextual creativity. There are 4,835 “shalls” in the Book of Discipline! Thousands of paragraphs require, direct, and limit the actions of committees, boards, conferences, councils, and teams. Obviously, we need some standard order for the theological and corporate essentials, but do we improve and expand the mission of the church each time we mandate a requirement?

In the Missouri Conference, our most fruitful ministries include the Mozambique Initiative, our Lay Leadership Development groups, Converge for clergy, our conference-wide Serve event, the Healthy Church Initiative, Pastoral Leadership Development groups, WOW for youth, and the Festival of Sharing. These ministries involve tens of thousands of people in serving and learning. None of these developed through conference committees mandated by the Discipline. They work effectively and joyfully while orbiting the Hairball. On the other hand, we are required to have a number of boards that do nothing relevant to our work in Missouri. The structure required by the “shalls and musts” does not align with our context or the work we do.

The 1996 General Conference gave congregations permission to organize according to their missions, providing only a few basic requirements related to trustees, finance, nominations, and staff-parish relations. The Discipline also says annual conferences can align according to their missions, but then continues with dozens of paragraphs that prescribe which committees they shall have. The Council of Bishops urges General Conference to give annual conferences freedom to organize their structures for greater fruitfulness.

Jesus challenged the rule-driven propensities of the Pharisees to model a faith “born of the Spirit” (see John 3:1-11). Wesley’s greatest fear for the movement he fostered was that one day we would have the “form . . . without the Spirit” (see Sermon 17 “Circumcision of the Heart”).

As we prepare for General Conference, I pray we focus on how we can spiritually soar beyond mechanical fixes and organizational structures to foster creative ways to fulfill our mission.

How does MacKenzie’s notion of an organizational Hairball help you understand some of your experiences in church leadership? How have your decisions contributed to the Hairball?

Can you think of a time when you navigated organizational restraints to offer fresh and innovative ministry? How did you do it?

For deeper consideration, read John 3:1-17.

For a delightful look at how to thrive amid organizational intransigence, check out Gordon MacKenzie’s Orbiting the Giant Hairball.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

Faith

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

“Faith for my deliverance is not faith in God. Faith means, whether I am visibly delivered or not, I will stick to my belief that God is love. There are some things only learned in a fiery furnace.”¹

While they are true, Oswald Chambers’ difficult words are not likely to gain wide distribution in the Christian market of T-shirts, posters, and bumper stickers. If the God not delivering part doesn’t stop seekers in their tracks, that “fiery furnace” idea probably will. Most people want the assurance that comes with faith and hope. They want security beyond what they can provide or acquire on their own. Yet what many seem to be looking for is quick, easy “faith” that visibly delivers on the spot, eliminates adversity and suffering, and makes perfect sense of all of life, all the time.

The Bible makes no such promises for those who choose to follow Christ. Scripture affirms that faith is a gift God freely gives us, but it likewise reveals that when we accept this gift and determine to live a life of faith, God sometimes takes us to places we would not choose to go on our own, to people we would otherwise not encounter. Faithful living makes demands of us, calling for hard things like patience, perseverance, endurance, trust, gratitude, sacrifice, and love, in all circumstances.

For some of us, the “fiery furnace” parts of our faith journey are occasional, even rare. Others experience them for long stretches of time, facing circumstances that challenge even the deepest faith. When asked how he responds to the hard questions those in harm’s way regularly ask him, military chaplain Nathan Solomon said, “I don’t encourage them to make sense of it. Chaos, suffering, and pain are a consequence of being human. I don’t think God wills it to happen; it’s just part of being alive. It’s not my job to defend God. It’s important for me to acknowledge that there are questions that are legitimate and that I have no idea how to answer.”²

Christian faith affirms not that we have all the answers, but that we know and completely trust the One who does.

The stories of the faithfulness of that “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) encourage those of us in the race. Models of faith for us, they challenge to become models of faith for others and live in ways that demonstrate our confidence that God is love, even when we face life’s fiery furnaces. “Now faith, hope, and love remain—these three things—and the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

1 http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/f/faith.htm

2 “Love, Faith, and War,” by Brian Mockenhaupt, Reader’s Digest, November 2011, p. 147.

Breathe

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them. "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)

It must be somebody's law that when one thing goes wrong, everything will go wrong. This is just as true within the church as anywhere else. Is it possibly truer in Christian education than in other areas of church life?

A teacher resigns-you tell yourself you can find another. Funding is lost for an after-school program you tell yourself you can get more. The education committee wants two more summer programs-you tell yourself you can find the time for program development and design.

At some point you realize that you are kidding yourself. It will be very difficult to find another teacher. It will be next to impossible to find another funding source. And there will not be enough time to develop two more programs.

You remember a prayer by Father Malcolm Boyd that you read a long time ago in his book Are You Running With Me, Jesus? (Crowley, 2006). "Here's that light and sound all over again," Boyd's prayer starts. It then lists all the things he's got to do.

It’s morning, Jesus. It’s morning, and here’s that light and sound all over again. I’ve got to move fast… get into the bathroom, wash up, grab a bite to eat, and run some more. I just don’t feel like it. What I really want to do is get back into bed, pull up the covers, and sleep. All I seem to want today is the big sleep, and here I’ve got to run all over again. Where am I running? You know these things I can’t understand. It’s not that I need to have you tell me. What counts most is just that somebody knows, and it’s you. That helps a lot. So I’ll follow along, OK? But lead, please. Now I’ve got to run. Are you running with me, Jesus? (Malcolm Boyd, Are You Running With Me, Jesus?, p. 19)

Does that describe your life right now? These days, "I've got to" seems to sum up your whole life.

What do you tell other people to do when they are under stress? Is it to breathe? You take a few breaths. Your heart rate slows down a bit. You take a few more breaths, only this time slower and deeper.

One of your favorite hymns plays in your head: "Breathe on me, breath of God; fill me with life anew." Life anew is what you need right now. What is the rest of that verse? "That I may love what thou dost love, and do what thou wouldst do."

That is your calling, to love and to do. That's why you are in the ministry. Does that mean endless projects and meetings and reports? Does it mean trying to work twenty-seven hours a day, nine days a week?

You become aware of your breath. Again it is short and quick and your heart rate is increasing. Breathe slowly and deeply. Slowly and deeply.

God blew the breath of life into a lump of clay and it became humankind. The breath of the Lord came upon those gathered at Pentecost, and the church was born.

The breath of God ...
the peace of the Lord ...
the possibilities of life in the Lord ...
A life of vocation.

Slow, deep breaths. A silent prayer while breathing. The heart rate slows. The words come:

Breathe on me, breath of God. Fill me with peace and with the wonder and joy of doing your work. Fill my schedule, Lord, but only so long as you continue to fill me with your peace, your life, your love. Only then, can I do "what thou wouldst do." Breathe on me, breath of God.

Come Back, Easter Crowd!

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Easter is often a wasted opportunity for churches. “Easter attendance looks good in the reports, but the extra people show up for that Sunday but they don’t come back until the next holiday” said the disappointed pastor on the other side of the table from me. Unfortunately, he was right. A lot of people come through the doors of churches during Easter who never return until next year, if they come back at all. But that doesn’t have to be the case. Over the years, I have seen churches of all sizes compel the “Easter Crowd” to return the following weekend and eventually become part of the congregation. With some pre-planning and strategic intent, you can improve your odds at getting back the people who, otherwise, you might not see again for another year.

Most of the churches I work with will start a new teaching series the weekend after Easter. It’s a strategic move because we know that most people like being a part of something new, rather than stepping into the middle of something. A fresh teaching series will give your Easter guests a compelling reason to return during the next few weeks, where hopefully they’ll enjoy it enough to stay for good.

When planning for a new series, keep in mind that compelling titles and strong graphics are great tools but if you want to maximize your outreach potential, you should try to create an emotional tie between the series subject matter and your audience even before the series begins—i.e. on Easter Sunday, when tons of people without a regular church home show up itching to discover that church can be exciting and meaningful.

Hollywood does this well. One of its most successful tactics to promote a new film is through a compelling movie trailer (which quite often is better than the movie itself). Your church could do the same. Create your own video trailer: a two-minute promo or “commercial” that will present the heart of your new teaching series. Show it during your Easter services and reinforce it with any other visuals you might have, such as posters, cards, or stage props.

Don’t let the trailer idea intimidate you. You don’t need to have a big budget or expensive equipment to create a persuasive piece. If you have a small church and resources are limited, consider doing something simple but effective. I once worked with a start-up that produced a simple man-on-the-street video. It featured the pastor asking one question to random people in his community: “What’s the most hurtful thing anyone has said to you?” The video set up a new series that dealt with relationships. The outcome was powerful. Some of the answers were funny (a woman told him that a neighbor once called her a hemorrhoid!), while others were very poignant (a son recounted how his father told him that he would never amount to much). The video didn’t cost a lot to produce, but had a strong impact.

What’s your church doing the Sunday after Easter?

Find dozens of sermon series ideas on Ministry Matters

Maurilio Amorim is CEO of The A Group, a media and technology firm in Brentwood, TN.

Connect with Maurilio: Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn | Blog

2. The Destination

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

“The church is not the destination any more than the plane and a successful flight are the ultimate destination on your next trip.”

I heard Dr. Joy Moore, associate dean for Black Church Studies and Church Relations at Duke Divinity School, use this metaphor in her address to the 2011 World Methodist Conference in South Africa. The plane and a successful flight are indeed important, maybe essential, to reaching the destination, but they are not the end and purpose. The end is arriving at your home to be with your family or to successfully complete your business or enjoy your vacation.

The end and purpose of the church, according to Dr. Moore, is the way to salvation. If you know Dr. Moore, you realize that the phrase “the way to salvation” is no throwaway line or formulaic utterance. This is no thin theology or shallow ecclesiology. Dr. Moore uses “the way of salvation” in the full-bodied Wesleyan sense. Both the end and purpose are growing in grace and in the knowledge and love of God, serving neighbor and seeking justice, pouring our lives out in service to God. Dr. Moore holds robust notions of the purpose of the church, grounded in scripture and derived from our Wesleyan roots. Her understanding of the purpose of the church includes all the richness of the Wesleyan acts of piety and works of mercy that you can possibly imagine!

Let me push the metaphor further. If the destination is not the church, but the way of salvation, then the test of any congregation—its worship, community life, and service ministries—is whether it takes people to the destination or not. Does our worship take us to more profound connections with God? Does it help us see the world through God’s eyes? Do our service and justice ministries pull us into the fullness of Christ’s compassion for a hurting world? Do they stimulate the call of God in us and provide the channels to make the difference God calls us to make? Do they take us where we need to go in our obedience to Christ, to have in us the mind that was in Christ Jesus? Do the community experiences of learning and loving together take each of us personally and all of us collectively to greater compassion, generosity, humility, and prayer than we would have ever reached on our own? Do the congregation’s ministries prod me along to deeper exploration of the spiritual life and the heart of God? Am I becoming a new creation in Christ because of belonging to the body of Christ in this congregation? Does our church take our world to a better place that reflects the reign of God and the peace of Christ? What is the destination and purpose of the church, and are we moving in the right direction?

I’ve flown on more planes than I can count, so I’m going to push Dr. Moore’s metaphor even further. As with congregations, sometimes the way forward involves a tolerance for unexpected turbulence. Traveling on the plane requires me to get along with people I might otherwise not choose to sit alongside. Sometimes I’m assigned comfortable seats and other times I feel squeezed and inconvenienced, but this is all part of seeking the destination. Without the plane and the flight experience, I would never get there. Without belonging to a congregation and everything that involves—worship, community, service—the destination of growing in the grace of Christ remains a distant desire, a philosophical abstraction.

Now I’ll overwork the metaphor beyond all reason: even if I board the plane and get along with my fellow travelers, we’ll just sit on the tarmac unless someone has learned how to fly the plane and has prepared a flight plan. Like planes, some congregations never leave the ground. Others circle the airport, eating the snacks but never moving toward the destination. Some don’t take us where we need to go.

The Call to Action urges us “to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” (the adaptive challenge facing The United Methodist Church as stated in the Call to Action reports).

Lovett Weems, director of The Lewis Center for Church Leadership, reminds us to ask the “so that” question* about any proposed ministry, and to keep asking that question until we arrive at a substantive purpose related to our mission. If we cannot do that, then we may need to rethink the proposal.

Why do we want more vital congregations? So that . . . The United Methodist Church survives? The numbers look better? The general boards have funding? The bishops have jobs? No! It’s not about institutional survival. We fail if we view congregations, conferences, The United Methodist Church, or our jobs as ends in themselves. The church is not the destination.

God uses congregations to change the human heart and to reach a hurting world. Congregations are a means of grace, a concrete and personal way God reaches into our world to work God’s purposes in us and through us. They open us to the way of salvation. They bring us Christ, and through us, they bring Christ to the world. We work for more vital congregations so that God’s plan of salvation becomes accessible, real, and visible.

The mission is not ours; it is God’s. The invitation is not ours; it is Christ’s. It’s not about us. It’s about God’s mission in Christ and how we embody that in our churches, and for that it makes sense for us to work to have as many vital, effective, fruitful congregations as possible. Otherwise, we will never reach the destination.

* See chapter 3, Bearing Fruit: Ministry with Real Results by Lovett Weems and Thomas M. Berlin.

How does God use your congregation to fulfill the purposes of Christ? How would you describe the purpose of your annual conference?

What do you think should be the destination, end, or purpose of General Conference? How do we keep this clearly in focus?

To go deeper, review Luke 4:16-21; Matthew 28: 16-20, and the many “I am . . .” statements by Jesus in John (the bread, the good shepherd, the light, the gate, the resurrection, the vine, the life, the way). How do these passages help us understand the purpose God has for the church?

For further exploration, read John Wesley’s sermon, “The Scripture Way of Salvation.” For a sampling of Dr. Joy Moore’s ideas, read her chapter on preaching in Generation Rising: A Future with Hope for The United Methodist Church (Andrew C. Thompson, editor).

For diverse expressions of the purpose of the church, check out H. Richard Niebuhr’s The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry and then peruse Simple Church by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger, Church Re-Imagined by Doug Pagitt; The Shaping of Things to Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, or On the Verge: A Journey into the Apostolic Future of the Church by Alan Hirsch and Dave Fergeson.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

1. Shouts for Joy and the Sounds of Weeping

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Why do people resist change even when they know that old habits, attitudes, and systems are holding them back from doing greater good? Ronald Heifetz (Leadership on the Line, 26–30) says people do not fear change; they fear loss. People fear the grief that comes with losing what has been familiar, reliable, known. Habits, values, and attitudes—even those that are barriers to progress—are part of one’s identity, and changing them challenges how we define ourselves.

Abandoning long-held patterns feels like we are being disloyal to those who created and taught the older, familiar ways to us. People hold on to ideas as a way of holding on to the persons who taught them the ideas. Change means leaving behind familiar ways of doing things and possibly experiencing uncertainty and incompetence with the new ways. Change asks people not only to redefine their identity but also to release what their role models taught them. No wonder people resist change!

Yet nearly all moments of reformation and rebirth result from people courageously embracing new attitudes and strategies. Each of us is a walking paradox when it comes to change in the church—we long for it and we resist it; we pray for it while trying to avoid any disruption to our own way of doing things. Each of us is full of good ideas about how others in the system should change—bishops, general boards, pastors, laity, seminaries, caucuses, young people, old people, annual conferences, the general conference—and short on energy for changing ourselves or rethinking our own approaches. But true, adaptive change changes me and you!

John Wesley discovered this when he risked offering ministry in a style he personally found repugnant. In his Journal for April 2, 1739, he reports, “At four in the afternoon I submitted to be more vile, and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation. . . .” This first attempt at field-preaching caused him to leave the comfort of the traditional parish church to preach outdoors to the poor on their way to and from their labor. Rather than merely railing against the inadequate methods and passions of the established church to reach the poor, Wesley allowed himself to be changed. Wesley was a person in need of change seeking to change the church so that the church can change the world!

Ezra records the rebuilding of the temple by describing the ceremony that accompanies the laying of the new foundation, a service marked by prayers, singing, and the sound of trumpets. The people responded with shouts of praise because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid, but many of the priests and heads of families and old people who had seen the first temple wept with a loud voice, though many shouted aloud for joy “so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted so loudly that the sound was heard far away (Ezra 3:13 NRSV).

This story captures the emotional complexity of change. Every congregation that has risked innovation to reach new people by changing worship styles or initiating outreach has discovered both the exhilaration and the grief that follows. To reach my own children and grandchildren requires offering ministry in styles and contexts that are not my preferred way. I celebrate the success of the new ways while grieving the loss of the old ways.

The Council of Bishops commissioned the most in-depth study of a major denomination ever undertaken. Based on those findings, the Call to Action calls for change that affects how annual conferences, general boards, and the Council do their work. The Call to Action asks us to redirect the resources and the flow of energy toward increasing the number of vital congregations, to reform the Council of Bishops, to streamline the work of general agencies, and to reconfigure the clergy recruitment, development, and accountability systems.

I find the directional change refreshing and invigorating. It gives me hope for a church that is more outward-focused, future-oriented, and responsive to the needs of the world around us.

And yet I feel uneasy stepping into a future without the well-known markers and predictable structures to which I’ve grown accustomed. Most of the delegates who will vote on these proposals, along with all the bishops on the stage and the agency staff in the audience, have been the beneficiaries of the systems that we now propose to change. The proposals stimulate grumbling, anger, attempts to make it go away, silent and expressed anxiety, sadness, and disorientation. People want everyone else to change, but do not want significant disruption to their own area of service.

Shouts of joy and the sounds of weeping—these are the signs of change. We know things cannot continue as they have, but change requires courage. We have to pray about it, and we’re going to have to talk one another into it. For the sake of the mission of Christ through our church, we need to shift focus and strategy as much as Mr. Wesley did 270 years ago.

What are the sources of loss you have experienced as your congregation has changed its way of offering the ministry of Christ? As your conference has changed? What have been the sources of joy resulting from these changes?

How does a desire for change sometimes feel disloyal to our forbears and mentors?

Have you ever experienced an “Ezra moment” (joy and weeping at the same time in the face of change)? Have you ever experienced a “Wesley moment” (successfully experimenting with a ministry you would have avoided at an earlier point in your life)?

For deeper reflection, read Ezra 3:10-13.

For more about leading through change, read Leadership on the Line by Ronald A. Heifetz and Martin Linsky, or Managing Transitions by William Bridges.

Get the Remember the Future series daily in your inbox

A Moment of Triumph

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Palm Sunday is the day we commemorate the triumphal entrance of Jesus into the city of Jerusalem. (Tragically, some of the very people who hailed him with such enthusiasm were also the ones who shouted for his crucifixion five short days later.)

But we miss some of the great significance of Palm Sunday if we focus only on the events of two thousand years ago. While those events constitute a historical fact, the reality of the Palm Sunday experience is more than that which took place many years ago.

The people of Jerusalem shouted at the approach of the one who comes in the name of the Lord. We in our day can shout with joy that the One who comes in the name of the Lord, Christ Jesus, comes to us each day. Christ Jesus did not come once in a historical setting, never to come again. Instead, he came once in this historical setting, but comes to us again and again in the everydays of our lives, in dozens of both subtle and blatant ways, in a multitude of forms and appearances. For Christ is the One who comes. He is the one who comes to us again and again, claiming us as God’s own, forgiving us, cleansing us, making us whole, and giving us both life abundant and life everlasting.

While we, like those who shouted on Palm Sunday, can rain our blessings down upon the Christ, it is the Lord God who has blessed him above all others. It is the Lord God who has enabled Christ Jesus to enter our lives to give us new birth. It is the Lord God who, through the Christ who comes to us, claims us as God’s own. So may we greet the One who comes with shouts of “Hosanna in the highest!”

Enemy-Loving Candidates

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Presidential candidates often get asked questions checking whether they oppose the right people or ideas and if they oppose them enough. Socialism? Check. Illegal immigrants? Check. Iran? Check. The theme seems to be "if you hate the same things I hate, I'll vote for you."

I think candidates who claim to be Christian need to be asked how they intend to love their enemies. I have always wondered why they’ve never been pressed to answer up to that specific edict. How, for example, would they express their compassion in a tangible way? Candidates who consider themselves followers of Christ in present and past campaigns have evidently not volunteered to offer an explanation perhaps because they’ve never been asked to do so. They’ve had a free pass. We expect our leaders (especially if they claim the Christian label) to uphold certain standards of morality and religiosity, but are heads of state exempt from this particular command of Christ?

Here’s the good news. The Jesus seminar, those brilliant biblical scholars who have spent decades analyzing every verse in the scriptures contend Jesus never uttered “Love your neighbor.” It turns out the phrase comes right out of the Old Testament. But they’re pretty certain he did proclaim “Love your enemies.” So, candidates are not necessarily under the gun to have to love their next door neighbors but they’re not off the hook when it comes to loving their enemies.

Here’s the other good news, Jesus evidently didn’t specify how long we have to love our foes. What if it’s possible to plunge to unconditional enemy-loving once in the span of a couple of hours—just long enough to talk face-to-face and see political rivals and enemy nations as fellow human beings? What if state officials only had to give it a shot and be assured they could walk away forever from their adversaries after a brief, honest, vulnerable, deep-seated, unconditional bonding experience?

Presidents of any religion seem to put more energy into not revealing their deepest and most candid feelings while in office. Ralph Keyes, in his book, The Courage to Write: How Writers Transcend Fear, states, “As president, Ike (Eisenhower) made an art form of syntax. This was no accident. ‘Don’t worry,’ he said when press secretary James Haggerty expressed concern about a ticklish question that might be asked at a press conference. ‘If it comes up, I’ll confuse them.’”

Keyes goes on to suggest that “We’re all born with an ability to get our message across. The ability to baffle is acquired. . . . Saying exactly what we mean can be risky. That’s why we so seldom do” (p. 100).

When I came across that last quote, naturally I immediately thought of the single encounter theme with which I’ve been obsessed in my writings. What if national leaders were required to love their enemies one time in some concrete way? What if they had to unload their inner-most feelings with each other? How would they go about that?

Even presidents possess those tricky inner drives that can get them to love deeply and/or get them into deep trouble. What if gutsy heads of state—the ‘good’ guys and the ‘bad’ guys—risked revealing within a two-hour condensed encounter their deepest feelings of compassion, anger, rage, fears and lust in their lives. What would it be like for presidents—whether they’re tyrants or dictators, democratically grounded or otherwise—to mutually open up with their enemies on what’s deep inside them? Vulnerability is an antidote to hostility. When we reveal who we truly are in moments of all-out truth-telling, we can hardly act tough and aren't likely to be in the mood to spit, scratch, cuss, or bear arms.

Jesus Testifies to the Truth

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

John 18:28-37

At a recent arts and tech festival in Austin, Texas, a New York advertising agency tested an idea that promised to give smart-phone users and area homeless persons something they both wanted. Those attending the festival were provided wireless Internet access for a small fee by homeless persons who were hired as mobile Internet hot spots. Homeless persons wearing customized t-shirts gave festival-goers log-in information for a particular hot spot and then collected $2 per connection.

The advertising agency used this project as an experiment that might be used to give employment to homeless persons in New York and other parts of the country. I am not sure how I feel about this experiment. Were these souls put on earth to be mobile hot spots? Is this the next step in dehumanizing those persons we prefer not to see at all? Even homeless persons do not agree on this project. One man said, “I wouldn’t do it because I can make 10 to 12 dollars an hour here panhandling.” Another man, who runs a shoeshine stand, feels differently. “I’d do it in a second. Out of every 20 people who sit down at my stand, at least six are on their iPhone or their BlackBerry or something trying to get Internet. I see it as a business opportunity. And you’re giving me a shirt, too? I have no problem with it.” (Read the full news story.)

As Jesus stood before Pilate, he was sure of the reason he was on earth. There was no doubt in his mind that he had a purpose and was living into it. Jesus knew that his purpose was to suffer and die so that he could defeat sin by rising from the dead. He was ready, even if no one understood at first. He did what needed to be done for us so that we could have an eternal home in heaven.

1. What do you think about the homeless hotspot program? Would you use the service? Would you be a hot spot to make money?

2. In John 18:37, Jesus says, “Whoever accepts the truth listens to my voice.” How do we listen to his voice? How can we tell if we “accept the truth”?

3. What is the purpose of your church? What is your purpose?

Redecorating Chapels

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Here’s a question that I almost never hear asked: Can a church be prophetic (by which I mean witnessing to the reality of God’s Kingdom justice and love in the world) if we spend vast amounts of money and time on things and in ways that do not reflect God’s Kingdom, but rather, reflect the values of a world bent on materialism, self-indulgence, war, violence, and madness? Most folks I think would join with me and say no. What we spend money on reflects who we are and what we value. And that is a scary thought for the church.

In a 2001 article I just discovered recently from Christianity Today, the writer sent out questionnaires about how churches spend their money. (The writer had a 23% response rate and there was nothing scientific in who responded or why; but I still find it to be a decent snapshot of how churches spent their money in 2001.) The survey showed that budgets were significantly weighed down by expenditures on facility upkeep. One in five dollars was spent on building upkeep—or as I prefer to call it, redecoration. Whether it comes in the form of fixing broken doors or broken air conditioners, re-carpeting the sanctuary, repainting the youth room, adding a Family Life Center, or redecorating a chapel, this all comes down to maintaining buildings that are built in our image for the glory of ourselves. Scripture bears this out.

Our church buildings are for our own vanity, our own indulgence, our own pleasure. God simply takes no delight in them and he never has. In 2 Samuel 7, King David said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.” (7:2) King David wanted to build a great temple for God’s presence, symbolized by the ark, but God wanted none of it. God spoke to David through Nathan (and this wasn’t the last time either) saying, “Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle.” (7:4-6)

Some interesting things to point out here include the fact that David only wants to build a house for God when he looks around at his own wealth. His motivation is to ensure that he does not feel the piercing guilt of a God housed in a tent while he lives in a spacious palace. Like David, we tend to build or redecorate our chapels and sanctuaries that reflect our own insecurity and embarrassment of our own wealth. We need our God to reflect our values, even if that means building God something that God declares he does not need and has never asked for. It doesn’t matter what God needs or requires. This is more about us. We need God to be housed in a palace to make sure our personal palaces do not seem out of place. We need God to be comfortable for the sole reason of ensuring our comfort. Damn the call on our lives to incarnate ourselves among the uncomfortable and the suffering. Our building maintenance—our redecoration—demands that we shut down that calling and focus on what we want. And that, my friends, is the essence of idolatry.

Another interesting note in this passage is that God specifically links his dynamic movement—his freedom from the captivity of a confining house he once lived in—with the liberation of an oppressed people from the hand of their oppressor. God repeatedly, throughout the Old Testament, warns his people to remember their liberation from oppression. Only by remembering that they were delivered by God from oppression were they able to live in faithfulness into the future. And now, while David wants to build him a house because he wants to feel more secure about his wealth and self-indulgence, God reminds David that “tabernacling” with the people of Israel best reflects God’s character and mission, rather than being housed in a great temple. Being free to move about, to be fluid and not static, to be dynamic and not sedate, to be organic and not stagnant—that best describes who God is and how God acts. Our wealth weighs us down, our buildings weigh us down and prevent our missional engagement. We build massive structures more for our protection than for God’s mission.

But yet David wants God to be made more in his image than to be made or remade into God’s image. Again, this is essentially idolatry; to place oneself, one’s security, one’s luxury, ahead of the interests and will of God. Think about it, our Savior was born in a barn—a barn stinking with wet hay and manure—while we are spending one in five of our dollars on making sure we never worship in anything resembling a stinking barn. One in five. We make sure we worship in only the finest, the best and we blame it on “honoring God”—the same God who was born in manure and hay. We worship in buildings that resemble our values, not God’s.

So, to answer the beginning question: can a church be prophetic—witness to the reality of God’s Kingdom justice and love in the world—if we spend money and time on things (such as building maintenance or redecoration) that do not reflect God’s Kingdom, but rather, reflect the values of a world bent on materialism, self-indulgence, war, violence and madness? The answer is emphatically no.

This is not a liberal or a conservative problem. This is a sin problem. Both liberals and conservatives spend far too much of our money redecorating our chapels and our churches. While we could spend money on providing shelter to the homeless, food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, we spend it on buildings that say far more about who we are than about who God is. We could spend money on projects to end mass incarceration, to welcome immigrants to our communities and to advocate for just immigration reform, to promote peace with justice ministries, and to defend the vulnerable. But we don’t. We want new carpeting, we want new paint, we want new stained glass windows. We want more stuff for our palaces—I mean, our chapels and churches. But if we asked God if he needed all the stuff we spend all this wasted money on, something tells me he would look around and wonder why we didn’t use all that money, all that time to care for the things he really cares about: people, especially people who are hurting.

Political Questions for Christians

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

I’ve not been watching the battle for the United States Republican presidential nomination as closely as I did in previous election cycles, but I’ve seen enough to draw the conclusion that, barring some cataclysmic event in the GOP, Mitt Romney will be the party’s nominee. Republicans, after all, tend to nominate the person who’s “next in line” or a party “brand name”.

The big question on my mind is just how much of a role religion will play in the general election if Romney becomes the nominee. If that happens, this will be the scenario: the incumbent will be from a theologically liberal Christian tradition and the challenger will be from a quasi-Christian church.

Some will consider the label “quasi-Christian” offensive, but the fact is most Christian denominations don’t recognize the LDS Church as a legitimate part of historical Christianity. And the Latter-day Saints actually make it a practice to proselytize active Catholics and Protestants. So really, the LDS Church itself is as responsible as anyone for its exclusion from mainstream Christianity. But since faith is ultimately a personal matter, membership in the Mormon church doesn’t necessarily disqualify an individual from being a Christian. And attending or belonging to a mainstream Christian church isn’t what makes someone a Christian.

Both Mitt Romney and President Obama have both openly confessed a personal faith in Jesus Christ—as did George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush the elder, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter... the list goes on. But anyone can say they’re a Christian, and considering how religious the United States electorate is (compared to other Western nations), declaring oneself not a Christian probably wouldn’t be considered too wise politically.

Whether you’re someone who takes President Obama and Governor Romney at their word or you doubt the Christian faith of one or both candidates, here are some questions and ideas to consider as 2012 moves along:

If given the choice between a Christian candidate and a nonchristian one, should Christians vote for the candidate closer to their own political views or for the one they feel is more likely to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ?
Is electing a president more similar to appointing or calling a pastor or to hiring the CEO of a company?
Is it better to elect someone who’s currently “wrong” on many of the issues but will bring God into their decision-making process or someone who seems to have the issues figured out but has no Christian faith?
How much more seriously would you evaluate candidates’ faith and character if there were no political parties?
Are you letting your faith shape your political views or is it the other way around?
Is it reasonable to expect Christian government officials not to let their faith play a role in how they approach their duties?
Can a serious Christian isolate their faith from their professional or political life? Would that even be desirable if they could?
Who are you more uncomfortable around (or suspicious of)—those who share your faith but not your political views or those who share your political views but not your faith? The answer to this question could be an indicator of how much your political ideology may have become an idol for you.
Both political parties share some common goals, but they often disagree on how to go about achieving those goals. Most people want better education, less sickness, and a higher standard of living for more people. And practically no one wants people in poverty. That’s important to remember in our polarized society where political orthodoxy unfortunately seems to trump religious orthodoxy, even among many Christians.

The best way to change your mindset and get above the political fray is to commit to praying for both President Obama and Governor Romney regularly between now and Election Day. Prayer not only shapes and changes history, it has a way of changing the attitudes of those who pray. When you’re praying for someone consistently, even your enemy, it becomes much more difficult to speak of them in an attacking or disrespectful way.

We’re told in Scripture to seek God’s kingdom first, but when it comes to bringing in God’s kingdom, politics only gets us so far. This will be an extremely important election but we should take heart. No matter who wins, God will still be God.

So exercise the freedom to get involved in the political process this year and vote your conscience, but don’t forget who you are. And don’t forget that you have Christian brothers and sisters in the other political party.

Shane Raynor is an editor and blogger at Ministry Matters.

Know When to Hold 'Em

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Kenny Rogers made a song famous a few (quite a few) years ago called The Gambler. Perhaps you remember it. If not, check it out HERE. Beyond a catchy tune, the song tells a story of a young man learning as he watched a season gambler.

I heard it recently and thought there were some good leadership lessons in the song. Some I’ve learned by experience…the hard, but valuable kind of lessons.

Here are 7 leadership lessons from the Gambler:

You got to know when to hold ‘em – There are sometimes in leadership when you know you’re right, even when everyone else thinks you’re wrong. In those times, follow your heart, your gut, and the Holy Spirit of God. And, remember, God has not given us a spirit of fear.

Know when to fold ‘em – You can’t win every battle. I’ve learned this one the hard way. Sometimes you are better to forfeit your right to control a minor issue so you retain your right to control a major issue. Don’t lose your leadership credibility over an issue of little lasting consequence.

Know when to walk away – There are better people on the team than me to make certain decisions. Recently there was a situation where I was asked to make the final call, but what didn’t make sense to me is I know little about the subject. I walked away, giving over the decision to others on the team.

Know when to run – There are times to run away from something and times to run to something. When it comes to issues, such as moral improprieties, get away from them as fast as you can. Avoid the appearance of evil. On issues where you know God has clearly called you to something, run to it fast, by faith, regardless of your fears or reservations.

You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table – You do the best you can to plan for a Sunday, an event, or a project. Give it everything you’ve got. Then don’t worry when you get there if the crowd is less than expected. Deliver everything you planned to deliver if the crowd was twice or four times the size.

There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealing’s done – There is a time to evaluate. You should always ask what you could have done better. Never settle on a plateau, but keep getting better. The gambler always did. (You know he practiced that poker face in front of a mirror.)

Knowin’ what to throw away and knowing what to keep – Leadership includes a lot of balance. You have to discern good from bad, better from best. You have to choose the right leader for the right position. You have to judge timing for change and know when to spur momentum. It’s often the weighing of options. It often seems “every hands a winner and every hands a loser”.

For the legalists out there: Please understand I’m not endorsing gambling, just using it as a backdrop for a post on leadership! Forgive me, and enjoy the song that's now stuck in your head!