Category Archives: General Conference

Heart-breaking Schism or Healthy Division?

day-lily-smI am choosing to participate in a synchblog by DreamUMC on the topic of Schism in the United Methodist Church.

Last fall, I wrote a post about the now-impossibility of actually reforming death-giving structure of the UMC.  My frustration emerged after the Judicial Council, doing exactly what they are supposed to do, put the final nail in the coffin by overturning all significant votes taken at the last General Conference.

Now, the big challenge, besides our structure, are the multiple theologies held by varying United Methodists. One of the UMC’s great strengths is its wide umbrella gathering many under its shelter.  That wide umbrella now threatens to self-destruct.

Give Up and Split Up?

So, the questions appears again and again:  should we just give up and split up?

My answer is both no and yes.  We must not give up.  To do so denies the transforming power of the Gospel that all of us seek to uphold.

To say to one another, “Our disagreements are so great that I no longer wish to be in connection with you,” says to the world (already prepared to condemn the church for its poor ability to create anything approaching heavenly harmony), “Yep, pretty well everything we say to you is a lie.”

If we need to split like this, we just need to give up.

The Healthy Division

But as a gardener as well as pastor, I also think there is a healthy division.  This is a division that brings lots of new life.

As are many gardens, my flower and vegetable beds are a mixture of annuals and perennials.

Annuals must be planted each year.  Ideally, and if we are not using hybrids, the plants produce well for a year, and then set some seeds so they can be resown and rebirthed the following year.  Life to death and back to life again, that beautiful cycle.

Part of church life consist of “annuals.”  There should be short-term efforts that produce fruit and then die and then have the seeds resown as necessary.

But the larger church functions more like perennial plants, which come back year after year without the necessity of resowing seed. Eventually they get so stuck together that only the act of dividing them gives them opportunity of new life.

Most gardeners I know take immense pleasure in dividing their perennials and giving them away.  The flower beds at the church I serve are almost entirely populated with donated perennials.  Those plants are a testament to the life-giving process of division and separation.

The image at the top of this post shows a daylily bloom just about ready to offer its beauty with flowers that live just one day.  That particular daylily plant is the third or even fourth division of the original daylily plant.  One plant has turned into at least 20 more.  All are related to each other.

The divisions may have been painful for the plants. There is some evidence that plants do feel pain.  Each plant to be divided had to be forcibly removed from its spot, pried apart and replanted some distance away.  There was loss in the process.  Some of the divisions didn’t carry enough roots to be able to rebuild themselves.  Most did, and continue to do so.

The ones I don’t divide eventually quit offering blooms.  The are just too tightly wound around each other to offer beauty any longer.

elephant-ears-sm

These elephant ears are now four years old.  I had planted seven bulbs originally.  At least sixty to seventy have now come up where the original seven first took root.

At some point, but not nearly as soon as the daylilies, they, too, will have to be divided. Otherwise they will end up killing each other because of inadequate space to grow and find light and water.

Lessons from the Garden

So what do lessons from the garden say to the church?

I think they teach us exactly what we need to know:  if we are going to stay alive for generations to come, and continue to be able to offer the beauty of grace, we must engage in healthy division practices WHILE staying connected by our DNA.

Right now, we appear to be functioning like a perennial that refuses to be dug up and broken apart.  Our roots are so intertwined and stuck together that they can no longer receive water or fertilizer.  The core had become hard, tight, and unable to bring forth blooms.  Slowly, but with great surety, the entire plant will die without separation.

This is the pattern of the early church.  They fought and argued and disagreed and separated and still stayed as one united by Jesus.

Doctrinal Purity/Missional Relevance

But how do we do this?  I so appreciate what Jeremy Smith has said hereSchism seeks to end the tension between doctrinal purity and missional relevance, but fails. There can be space in the UMC for both those who place doctrine above the human condition and those who place the human condition above doctrine.

We must not break into different denominations over these issues.  We must find a way to strengthen that umbrella so there is room for both to be covered by grace underneath it.

Certainly, there is not going to be unified thinking or universal agreement in our connection.  Thanks be to God for that.  A place with unified thinking and universal agreement is a place where terror and mind-control rule.  

Our rule is to be love.  That is how others will know we are Christians.  They will see us love WHILE we disagree and fight and argue and make some healthy divisions so we can continue to grow and bloom and give life.

Those on the side of missional relevance need those who value doctrinal purity.  Doctrine matters hugely.  We are to be distinctively Christian.  We are not an “anything goes” church.

Those who value doctrinal purity must learn to find their humility in the mystery of God and grace and recognize that doctrinal purity at its core leads to practices like the Inquisition.  When the need for purity is not balanced with deep humility and awareness that all human decisions about the nature of God are deeply limited and always flawed, that need brings death without hope of resurrection.

So, yes, we must divide. No, we must not split or let schism rule.

We need to stay United Methodists.  United in love, in the core of our Wesleyan understanding, and held together by the bonds of grace that remind us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  That proves God’s love for us.  In the name of Jesus Christ, we are forgiven.  Glory to God.  Amen.

4 Comments

Filed under church as garden, forgiveness, General Conference, schism

The Consumer-Driven Church Model, Part Three

Note: this is part three of a three part series. Part One is here; Part Two is here.

Three Things to Keep in Mind

First: not all growth is good growth.  When effectiveness is measured only by numerical growth, we make the fatal mistake of assuming that just because something grows rapidly, it is doing so under the blessing of God.  All gardeners and physicians know this:  rapid growth doesn’t necessarily mean good, healthy or desired growth.

Second:  the process of making disciples is a long, slow, and often painful one.  A disciple is one who is actually willing to walk the path of the Teacher, in this case, Jesus.  That path leads to the cross, a place of utter aloneness and excruciating pain.

It is at the cross that the question must be asked and answered:  Will I be a person of forgiveness and reconciliation, no matter what the cost, so I can go all the way to the resurrection?

Most will say no.  It’s not fun anymore at that point.  It’s no longer bells and whistles and loud music and video screens and constant movement and distraction.

Discipleship takes place in those moments when we are called to be still, to know that God is God, and to be able to say with the great man of old, that poor, beat up Job, “Even though He slay me, yet I will praise Him.”

Third, unless we address the deep and expensive structure of The United Methodist Church, we are doomed to follow the consumerist model.  But the cost to maintain our current structure leads us to think we have no choice.  And a place of no choice opens the door to the sin-compromised state where the ends are worth the means.

If we are going to go forth and do what we are called to do, then it is time to completely re-examine what holds us together.

When I entered into this church, I was drawn to two primary areas:  the expansive, inclusive, wide grace-infused theology and the power of being a connectional church.  Our theology turns us toward God and showers us with grace. Our connection turns us toward one another in covenant relationship.  In covenant, we may pass that grace around, support one another as necessary and together live out the daily challenges of being disciples of Jesus.

A consumer-driven model is rarely grace-filled and is fundamentally competitive, not covenant or connectional, in nature. Others must fall for us to stand.

Consumerism means that those who know little of grace, little of deep sacrifice, little of the challenges of picking up our crosses daily, call the shots.

I look at the money that was spent to pull off the show we call “General Conference” this past year and weep.  Every need had to be catered to.  It appeared on occasion that the least gracious hijacked the floor and engineered the direction of the Conference.  The displeased consumers, i.e., delegates, kept threatening in one way or another to take their business elsewhere.

The administrative arm of the church, which should be there to enhance the work of the local discipling community, instead pulls giant amounts of money out of the offering plates each week and month.  It loads upon local clergy and congregations, that place where the work of discipleship takes place, impossible-to-decipher forms and strangling requirements for minutely detailed reports that are never looked at except to determine how much money to squeeze from them the next year.

The world laughs and says, “You have nothing useful to say.”

But we do.  Yes, we do.  We have the Gospel.

And yes, we must address the crisis.  But it is much deeper than numbers and noses.

Let us answer the primary question first:  “What IS a disciple of Jesus Christ?”

Then we can ask: “How can our forms of worship, gathering, instruction, connection and structure actually aid in the process of shaping those disciples?”

11 Comments

Filed under administration, competition, consumer, General Conference, grace, metrics, theology

The Consumer-Driven Church Model, Part Two

Note: this is the second of a three-part series.  Part one is here; part three is here.
 

The Church is In Crisis

I suspect everyone agrees that The United Methodist Church, as a world-wide organization, is in crisis.  Our membership grows older and the death tsunami looms. Few churches see a vital future. People in the US church, who have been the principle financial support of the worldwide church, are moving away from denominational religious structures.

The crisis leads to pressure to have numbers that look good. We’re no different in that sense from any business that must please its stockholders and keep itself solvent for the sake of the economy and for the employment of the people involved.

One of our solutions has been greater accountability as we seek to push those numbers into the plus column and reverse the trend of losing members.

In response, denominational leadership, i.e., our Bishops (like worried Boards of Directors of corporations) cry loudly for public dashboards where pastors  (their underlings) will be required each week to post attendance, offerings, the number of those joining, being baptized, and making professions of faith the Sunday before.

“Metrics” have become the rallying cry to ensure survivability.

Those metrics will define pastoral effectiveness.  The pastor with the best numbers gets the most accolades, “attaboys,” glory and promotions.  Nickels and noses are all that count.

Sounds pretty consumerist/corporate so far.

A recent article in the United Methodist Reporter exemplified this trend.  A megachurch with an organ that alone probably cost more than the entire church building where I serve, is investing $2.1 million dollars to seek to attract new, young worshippers.

They’ve completely revamped a meeting space so that it has every bell and whistle anyone could want in order to present a high-tech, visually stimulating, professionally planned and choreographed worship time.  The musicians and technicians are all highly trained, and all paid.

According to the article, the young pastor, a gifted man for whom I have much respect, will be fully funded for nearly three years.

This is the best of all business—or church—start up strategies.   Everyone knows that it is easier to start large than to start small.  Any business walking into a new area wants immediately to gain a huge footprint and lots and lots of name recognition.

Get the people in the door, make sure they have a great experience, and send them back out hoping they’ll tell others about it.

I hope this works.  I hope the metrics do look good.  I hope this becomes a vital congregation, full of life and growth.  I hope that so many people come and so much giving takes place that people will stop bemoaning the fate of The United Methodist Church.

But I do wonder if it will make—or shape—disciples of Jesus Christ.

Note: this is the second of a three-part series.  Part one is here; part three is here.

3 Comments

Filed under administration, competition, consumer, General Conference, grace, metrics, theology

The Consumer-Driven Church Model, Part One

Bizarro Comic Strip, November 14, 2012

Bizarro Comic Strip, November 14, 2012

I recently walked out of a local electronics store in some frustration.  I have an older inkjet printer that needed new ink cartridges.  Now, ink cartridges are some of the biggest consumer rip-offs ever devised, so I wasn’t in a great mood when I walked in.  My irritation grew when I realized that my aged printer does not have its exact model number indicated on any of the multitudes of printer cartridges available.

Two different sales staff tried to help; each came up with a different solutions.  Both admitted that if I bought a cartridge, put it in the printer and it didn’t work, that I could not bring it back—possibly wasting a lot of money.  Only solution: go back to the office, open the printer case, hope the exact model number of the cartridges I need were there, and then come back and buy the exact match.

Result? First, I have resolved to purchase a different printer, and never, ever again touch one made by that particular manufacturer. Enough is enough.  Second, I probably will give it two or three thoughts before I go back into that particular consumer electronics store again.  It really isn’t their fault—but I am disenchanted.

I find it easy to decide to change both printer brands AND store preferences.  Printers and stores abound, all competing mightily for my business.  I can and will freely hop from place to place, brand to brand, price to price.  All it takes is one bad experience and I’m out of there.

That’s a lot of pressure to please.  Retailers know it.  Manufacturers know it.  Designers know it.  And everyone hops frantically like so many adrenaline-fed bunnies trying to please us increasingly fickle consumers so we’ll stay loyal to their brand.

As the Bizarro cartoon above says, “they are huge now, but I’ve been a fan since Monday.”  And next Monday, someone else will be huge, someone else will be pleasing the fickle crowds.

This is why a consumer-led church builds on a problematic foundation.  The church is not called to please.  We are called to make, or I prefer, “shape” disciples of Jesus Christ.

The moment we buy into the consumer-led model of church growth, using business success as our model, we have inevitably left that mission of shaping disciples behind.

Why? Because the moment we displease someone by . . .

  • offering a worship service that is not quite perfect or as good as the one down the street
  • presenting a nursery that doesn’t have the latest in child check-in/check-out procedures
  • stepping on someone’s toes theologically
  • insisting that people work through their conflicts with each other in the name of a higher calling
  • asking people to follow Jesus to the cross and forgive their enemies and do good to them so they might really experience the resurrection

. . . we run a huge chance of  losing our “customers.”

At its essence, Christianity is anything but a consumer-pleasing religion.

Jesus did not please very many people.  The larger crowds hung around hoping for a feeding or healing miracle.  When Jesus disappointed, they quickly dispersed.  They were the first century equivalents of our consumer religious folks.   Even the closest of Jesus’s disciples were in it for themselves—they did want those most powerful right and left hand seats in the kingdom, after all.

 
Note:  This is part of a three part series.  Part two is here; part three is here.

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under administration, competition, consumer, General Conference, grace, metrics, theology

The Election Port-Mortem, the Fundamentalist Takeover of The Republican Party . . . and The UMC?

Election Post-Mortem

Mark Davis, a right-wing conservative radio host and columnist, wrote this in his post mortem about the Presidential election:

But I lament a country where the middle class is more attuned to government benefits than the work ethic that was once our nation’s engine. I will blame the culture of dependency that leads millions to seek rescue paid by the incomes of others. And I will point to a society that has stood idly by while standards of family, self-reliance and independence have dwindled to mere shadows.

I found as I read his column that my normally quite low blood pressure began to spike.

Why I Voted Democratic

I voted for Obama, and it has nothing to do with needing rescue or wanting to enhance a culture of dependency. Furthermore,  I hardly “stand idly by” while watching essential standards dwindle.

I, as did many others and women in particular, voted Democratic in the Presidential election because I became increasingly horrified by what the right-wing extremists have done to the Republican Party.

I voted for the Democratic candidate for the same reason I left the Evangelical church, which came out in swarms for that same Republican Party.

But I did so with deep reservations. After Obama’s State of the Union address last January, I resolved not to vote for him in the election. I thought his policies and proposals were taking this nation very much in the direction of a socialist state, something that I think will eventually lead us to financial and social implosion.

I followed the Republican primaries and studied the possible candidates. One by one, it seemed to me that they had bought into the worst of Christian fundamentalism. Governor Romney appeared to be bought and paid for by them.

The World of the Right Wing Fundamentalist

I know that world very well. It is not a nice place to be. In my opinion, the leaders of that world have no business imposing what I have come to believe is flawed theology on the politics and future of this nation.

A core belief of the right-wing fundamentalist Christian world: women are simply worth less than men. Now, they’ll talk around it and use words like “complementarian” and “spheres of influence” and “how important women are as wives and mothers.”

They’ll also make sure that male sexual enhancing drugs are covered by health insurance, but not birth control for women, which might offer some protection against those sexually enhanced men. Also, I believe I finally understand something essential after a great deal of reading about this: the well-publicized comments about rape and “God’s will” for rape-produced babies, (which can only happen of course if the rape is “illegitimate”) have so permeated the Republican and Christian right wing that no one swimming and steeped in those waters sees how degrading such comments are to women.

Furthermore, no one really cares.  Why? Here the deep, often unspoken theological underpinning comes into play.  For them, males only, not females, are made in the image of God. Males only have the “Imago Dei” stamped upon them for God is male in essence.

Fundamentalists and The United Methodist Church

Now on this note I turn to the increasing influence of this type of fundamentalist theology in The United Methodist Church. One of the reasons I am an intentional United Methodist, as opposed to one born or brought up in this world, is that I saw this church as a place where theology could be openly explored, questioned and left ambiguous when necessary.

We are finite people are dealing with infinite things. We are unholy people exploring a world of holiness that we can only imagine but not yet fully enter. Ultimately, we do not have the capability to make final and holy pronouncements on those final and holy things. We must hold our truths with open and grateful hands, giving and receiving grace and space.  Christian theology has always been in flux.  It is alive, and living things change.

I understood that in The United Methodist Church, one could be respected for theological stances even when they differed from others especially when those stances were thoughtfully and carefully defended. I loved a world that honored the text of the Scriptures as inspired and authoritative, yet held that understanding in tension with the difficulties of properly interpreting words written in languages we cannot know as native speakers, at different times, reflecting different cultures, and with pre-scientific world views.

I reveled in a world where I, as woman, was no longer regarded as “unclean” or “not just quite . . . ” but as one in full covenant relation with all where we shared together equal worth before God and before each other.

I was delighted to learn that I would no longer be “proof-texted” and silenced with passages thrown in my face as final proof that I had no place in church leadership.  Passages such as these are used in that fundamentalist world that informs the Republican platform to keep women silent:

  • 1 Tim 2:12-15: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
  • 1 Corinthians 14, 33b-35, “As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

As one who had spent a lifetime on the theological outside, the underdog, and one not quite measuring up, I have developed huge compassion for those who are still marginalized. It has long been my hope that we would eventually learn that our systematic devaluing of our LGBTI brothers and sisters is equally as distasteful in the sight of God as our history of devaluing woman and people of color has been.

The Parallels Between the Republican Party and The United Methodist Church

But just as the ultra-right has taken over the Republican party with their strident rhetoric, their power and money, their insistence that they and they alone have the answers to our political malaise, I see the UMC being taken over by the religious right, their strident rhetoric, their numerical superiority, their insistence that they, and they alone have the right answers to our ecclesiastical malaise.

I have seen discussions on theological issues on FaceBook degenerate quickly because of the meanness and judgmental spirit of some of the responders. From my limited experience, the mean and judgmental spirits generally come from those on the conservative right. They offer no room for questioning their received truth. I observed the similar responses on the floor of General Conference last spring as I watched from a distance and read the commentaries of those who were present.

Today, the same type of de-contextualized proof-texting that kept me silent and in chains for many years is being used against those who do not fit the sexual mainstream.

Is this what God has called us to be? Really?

22 Comments

Filed under fundamentalist, General Conference, Imago Dei, theology

The Language of Power and Pentecost: Bishops, Clergy and Gardens

Note:  this is part of a larger body of writing I am currently working on with the theme of “The Sustainable Church” which is an extended metaphor of church as garden.  I believe what I am learning has important applicability to the current situation in the North Texas Conference of The United Methodist Church.

How do plants communicate with the gardener that something has gone wrong?  What means do they use to let the one with authority over them, i.e., the gardener, gain awareness of their health, their diseases, their thirsts and their floods?

This question strikes me as I ponder the situation with the Bishop and the Conference in North Texas.

The Bishop insists that no one ever told him that he was not effective in leadership until the Jurisdictional Delegation let him know that he would not be asked back as Bishop in the NTAC and that no other conference would have him serve as their Bishop.

There are strong parallels to explosions in local churches. Most pastors know that when people are unhappy with them, rarely will the discontent ones come straight to them to discuss their complaints. Instead, they speak of their unhappiness to others of like minds. Sometime they are so contagious with their spiritual illness that much of the church catches the infection. Suddenly, the pastor is pushed out and says, “Why didn’t someone tell me?”

Why did we not hear? I think the majority of those in the church do not speak the language of the pastor nor know how to communicate their discontent in a way that it will be lovingly heard and acknowledged.  I also think the majority of the clergy do not speak the language of the Bishop nor expect that they will be lovingly heard or acknowledged.

As godly leaders, we must learn the language of those we lead, rather than asking them to learn ours.

Think about it this way: how can plants indicate that there is a problem?  They can’t go straight to the gardener and say, “Hey, I’m suffering here” because they do not speak the language of the gardener. The effective gardener must instead learn the language of the plants.

Gardeners have great power over their gardens.  They pick what will be planted and what won’t.  They periodically plow or turn over the beds, causing giant disruption to every living creature within. They decide where the paths will be set out and which plants will get extra attention and which ones will be generally ignored.  They discern what is weed, and therefore not fruitful, and what is plant, and therefore expected to be fruitful.

Effective gardeners know when the plants are thirsty or have roots that are destructively wet. They see early signs of insect problems, note when some plants are going to seed too soon and thereby stop production of the needed fruit, and are aware when the normal processes of pollination are not working. For example, reduced honeybee populations have giant ramifications for gardens, and so systemic issues behind the problems must be addressed and leveraged.  Effective gardeners recognize quickly when a mistake has been made  with an experimental item, such as planting in the wrong season or in a weather zone where the plant can’t thrive, and rectify it quickly so space for more fruitful plants is not wasted.

But, remember, the plants can’t talk!  Gardeners learn the language of their plants by spending much time in their gardens, inspecting, watching, observing, gaining awareness of even slight changes that might cause huge problems later.

This cannot be done quickly! Those slight changes can be noticed only by those who have carefully developed deep and essentially unconscious knowledge of the plants and who understand that even a minor variation in temperature or soil make-up may mean the difference between abundant harvests and empty bushel baskets at the end of the season. Good gardeners have such keen eyes and strong sensitivity that they can pluck the almost invisible tomato hornworm off a plant the moment it shows up, because if they don’t, the leaves will be stripped in 24 hours.

As do gardeners, Bishops have great power, and they speak and live the language of power.  They display it by dress, by special seats and by unique insignia at General Conference, Annual Conferences and other events. They live power by hand-picking those who will work closest with them and to whom they are most likely to listen.  They speak it by acknowledging that the privilege of appointment making is ultimately in their hands.  Bishops can and do disrupt the lives of the clergy and the congregations in their domain.  They can and do make giant changes that leave everyone unsettled.

Both gardeners and Bishops need that power to work with effectiveness. The problem comes with communicating through the position of power.

It it up to those who have the power to learn the language of those who don’t.

And that is contrary to almost all human nature–and why the nature of the church must be so radically different.

Language is power.  Because of world domination and power first of Great Britain and then economic and technological leadership of the United States, English has become the lingua franca of the world.  For example, English is required of all pilots who fly international flights, because English is the language used by air traffic controllers to direct pilots in their routes, their landings and take-offs, their taxiways to gates and their delays as necessary.  Learn English or lose the job, no matter how skilled otherwise.

In addition, at least in the US, the lower on the economic scale, the higher the likelihood that people will become bi-lingual.  Speaking the language of those in power is necessary for survival.

The experience of women who first entered male dominated fields also illustrates this point.  Many of these women, more used to the language of nurture and cooperation, had to learn the language of power, domination and competition in order to earn and keep their places.  They were the one who had to become bi-lingual, not the ones who already had the power. Those with the power stayed monolingual.  Linguist and scholar Deborah Tannen,
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/,
 has done some powerful work here that has opened many eyes to that situation.

But the point of the Incarnation itself is that God will indeed stoop to speak our language, and will come as we are in all our frailty in order to open the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven.  The church MUST be different from the world, or we no longer live out that Incarnational truth.  The first have to become last.

This is shown powerfully on the day of Pentecost. The first, i.e., those privileged ones who had known Jesus intimately, became the ones who spoke the languages of others so everyone might hear.  They did not insist that those sojourners and pilgrims to Jerusalem, desperate for the water of grace, first learn the language in which it was being lived out.  Those first and intimate followers of Jesus spoke in languages different from their own.  They had to, for otherwise, the Word could not bear fruit.

That’s what effective gardeners do:  they learn to speak the language of the plants, for otherwise, the plants will not bear fruit.

And that, in my opinion, is the locus of the controversy now taking place in the North Texas Conference of the UMC.  Again, Bishop Bledsoe indicates that no one has spoken to him of their problem with his leadership.  I think they spoke, but it was in a language he does not know, and has not chosen to learn.  He, as do almost all people in power, expected his clergy serving under him to learn and speak his language. Essentially, he expected his garden to come to him rather than going to the garden and learning it intimately.

He has not walked his garden, or given himself time to carefully observe small and often unobtrusive signs of unhealth or disease. He has not noticed that many clergy are wilting under unrelenting pressure to prove themselves effective or fruitful with no good definition as to what that means other than coming up with numbers that look good.  His fields have not been tended well, and have become parched, sterile and dry, but he, as gardener, makes little discernible move to help them regenerate by times of fallowness and huge applications of life-giving compost.

I do not think this neglect comes because he doesn’t care.  I do think he does not take time to know or care for his own garden because of the nature of the Episcopal responsibilities and the nature of our structure.

He does send out his undergardeners, but they themselves, burdened by unending reports, meetings and paperwork, rarely walk the gardens either, except for the annual Charge Conferences, which probably function more like Potemkin villages than realistic assessments of the situation at hand.  The gardens are wilting, and the main response from on high: either figure out your own problems and bear fruit or get ready for the consequences.

It won’t work in the long run.  Not for gardens and not for churches.

Let us not forget that clergy do the same thing in our own parishes.  We expect people who are wilting and ailing spiritually and finding themselves unable to thrive under our pastoral leadership to speak our language and tell us so.  But they can’t, and we find ourselves shocked to discover that the virus that infected one plant, one plant could have been brought back to life by good attention, suddenly took over much of the church, which now needs expensive  and often fruitless life-support treatment just to survive.

I’ve done it myself, way too many times. I am busy with my reports and my plans and my messages and administrative details and Conference business and trying to make sure my numbers get bigger each year, because that is the only language I can use that the District Superintendents (the undergardener) and Bishop will understand. That is my official language; no one else in the local church can speak it fluently.

The language of those in my care is one of pain and brokenness and occasional desperation. Theirs is of family problems and intractable illnesses and economic pressures and teen pregnancies and destructive addictions. They need tending and watering and good care so they can bend and not break in the midst of the storms and rise the next day to greet the sunshine with ripening fruit of righteousness.

When I don’t take the time to wander quietly and unhurriedly through their lives, when I expect people to come to me with the problems they are having with me rather than noticing the wilt myself, then I get slammed, sucker-punched, and emotionally devastated when someone says, “I’ll never return to that church as long as she is pastor.”  This, I believe, is what happened to our Bishop.

I am the one at fault where my church is concerned.  I must take responsibility for my own actions and neglect. I have not loved them enough to learn their languages fluently and to observe adequately their need for support and nurture. I have too often refused the message of Pentecost for the least of these under my care.  I expected my plants to start speaking the Queen’s English, when the only language they know is to wilt and die and spread their infection to neighboring plants.

Why did the General Conference vote against a set-aside Bishop, which would have been a very good thing?  Because they heard the language of power, not servanthood. Why did they vote so overwhelmingly to eliminate guaranteed appointment of clergy without even being willing to bring this to the floor?  Because they heard the language of privilege, rather than the language of humble prophets.  Why did they vote against urgently needed and important restructuring plans?  Because they heard insider language, and they were outsiders and tired of having their own tongues denigrated or ignored.

Why has Bishop Bledsoe been deemed ineffective?  Could it be because he is surrounded, with a few exceptions, by those who speak language of power and privilege and who are happy to give orders, but who will not lay down their lives to serve?  Could it be that he has insisted that his gardens be the bearers of Pentecost miracles rather than bringing Pentecost to the gardens?

In my opinion, he shot himself in the foot when he first came on as Bishop and promoted an expensive cruise to the Holy Land as a way to get to know him better–this is clear language of power and privilege. I believe alienated many–it certainly did me.  Were and are his intentions dishonorable?  I personally don’t think so.  But the best and most honorable of intentions must be communicated through the mystery of Pentecost, rather than the cement of power.

Is this story redeemable? Of course it is. All stories are redeemable.  That’s the gospel. That’s what we stand for.

Can mutual trust and accountability rise from the ashes of this fire?  Yes, indeed!

Can our gardens again become heavy with fruit and feed the world with the life-giving grace of God?  Of this, I am sure.

I also know the work that goes into transforming toxic and barren soil–and that it never happens quickly.  If we look for the quick fix here, if we sweep this under the rug, if we do not all carefully examine our own souls in this process, then we will ensure barrenness and death.

5 Comments

Filed under accountability, clergy, garden, General Conference, heaven, Kingdom of Heave, reconciliation

The Human Tendency: We Murder One Another Over the Details

Most of us can agree on major goals.  For the church, it is “Love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul and love your neighbor as yourself” and “Make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” We can rally around those things with unity and purpose.

BUT . . . the moment we seek to determine the details in the “how” of doing those acts of love and the work of being and making disciples, our unity often dissolves into interminable, soul-destroying squabbling and even death.

So, we make rules.  We do it as a nation with our Constitutions, our national, state, and local regulations.  We do it as a church with our Book of Discipline, with our committee and votes, with Robert and his Rules of Order.

We need them.  We need guidelines and structure.  We need what I have often called “the boundaries to our playground” so we can find creativity within that space as well as safety.

Ideally, the older and more mature we grow, the larger our playground becomes.

Ideally, we ourselves become more and more trustworthy and we use our own trustworthiness to trust others.

Ideally, we gain greater and greater freedoms to explore, to learn, to grow as confidence in one another grows and we can lessen the number of rules that govern our lives.

Reality:  we layer law upon law, rule upon rule, restriction upon restriction because much of our experience of life has been littered with betrayal, broken trust, power plays, unchecked aggression, and the wanton disregard of others in our efforts to expand our own little fiefdoms.

In politics, business and the mafia, betrayals, power grabs, and aggression are winning plays.  But in the church, we really are expected to live by different rules.

And yet, as much as we try to do so, we find ourselves following the same path  Then we do what people have done from the beginning: look to the legal code to find the answers.  The more we look to the code, the more that code has to expand to answer every contingency, thwart every possible power play, provide in advance for every betrayal, and, if cleverly enough written, offer special privileges to a certain elite.

This is human history.  This is what we do.  This is what we are doing today.  This is, among other things, The United Methodist Church.  This is the Roman Catholic Church.  This is Sharia, Islamic religious law. This is the holiness code of Orthodox Judaism.  This is the world of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Zealots.

This is the world that says, “My reality and opinion is the only reality that counts.  If yours is different from mine, then I must legislate yours out of existence. If that doesn’t work, then I must expel you from my community.”

This is the world I think Jesus broke into and said, “Whoa!!!!  You’ve missed the boat.  Again!”

I believe that God’s world is an extremely open place–but that is MY world.  Others completely disagree with me.  Years ago, I would have violently disagreed with me if I had known then what I am thinking now about theology, sexuality, the nature of God, the nature of the Holy Scriptures and the nature of the church. My internal world has changed radically over the years.

Forty years ago, I would have called the present “me” a heretic and demanded that the present “me” recant or be expelled.

Forty years ago, I would have burned the present “me” at the stake.

Forty years ago, I would have gone to holy war over those details because I just knew that I was right.

I still think I am right.  But my “rightness” is not the same as it was.  It is not the same as that of many of our African brothers and sisters in the faith.  It is not the same of my beloved husband, whom I love dearly and respect highly but with whom I disagree seriously over some major issues.  And we are both profoundly Christian, both United Methodist clergy and both have given our lives over to God.

At its best, that disagreement is held, nurtured, honored and covered by grace.  The wide umbrella of The United Methodist Church is our genius and our hope to actually live and offer that same grace to a world in desperate need of it.

At its worst, that disagreement leaves only room for one of us to live. The other must die.

At its worst, that disagreement says that those who recognize a spectrum of sexuality to be expressed within the bounds of holy covenant must be labeled as “non-biblical” or “heretics” or even “beastial” as I understood one delegate to General Conference affirmed.

At its worst, that disagreement means we write a book of rules so large, so thick, so indecipherable to the majority of the church that only the elite of the elite can decode it and make binding pronouncements about it.

At its worst, it means there will be only one person left standing when this fight is over:  the one with the biggest gun.

The song says, “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.”  Can we, and those with whom I so hugely disagree and who so hugely disagree with me, find peace without insisting the other change?  Can we possibly trust the redemptive movement of the Holy Spirit both in our lives and in the lives of others to bring us to perfection while, in our moving on to perfection state, we work side by side WITH our disagreements to do the will of God on earth as it is in heaven?

Can we?  I think so.  This does not mean we stop saying, writing, blogging, or tweeting what we think is true.  It does means we recognize that others just don’t think the same way.

It doesn’t mean we don’t have a rule book or organizational structure.  It does mean we work to raise trust and lower the amount of minutiae so we are freed for creativity and exploration and the explosion of grace that we need.

Let’s keep the conversations going and the doors open.  Let’s lay down our swords.  Seriously.  Everyone.  Put them down.  Quit demonizing the “other.”  Respect each other’s worlds and opinions.  Create a holy structure big enough for us all where we can live in holy connection.  Let us speak our truths freely.  Let us disagree with respect and honor.

I will say this one thing:  the church that refuses to “agree to disagree” over issues that are not central to our faith but where a significant minority disagrees with the majority position (like sexuality) is in serious danger of ringing its death bell. For some are clearly saying, “my way or the highway” and are sure they are speaking for God.  That is the big difference in my forty-year ago self and my current self:  I no longer say I speak for God with absolute certainty.  I still speak for God, for I am called to preach, but with great trepidation and humility because I have learned this well:  I just might very possibly be wrong.

12 Comments

Filed under betrayal, Bible, calling, character, church, clergy, gay marriage, General Conference, grace

Biblical Ignorance and the Delegates to General Conference

I have been reading blog after blog about what is happening at General Conference, taking particular interest in the ones that supported the now dead legislation that would taking language out of the Book of Discipline that condemns homosexual practices.

I have numerous thoughts here. The thing that hits me the hardest here is the utter biblical ignorance that is being expressed by those who oppose the full inclusion of our GLBT brothers and sisters into the life of the church. They pick up a few verses from Scripture and use them to condemn or go with that disgusting “Hate the sin, love the sinner” justification.

If we are going to take a literal adherence to biblical teaching, without regard to essential hermeneutical and interpretative issues, as to who is worthy of ordination–and I’m willing here to just use the New Testament–then we need to do these things:
1. First, remove from clergy leadership all the divorced.
2. Remove from clergy leadership all females.
3. Remove from clergy leadership all single men.
4. Remove from clergy leadership all childless men.
5. Remove from clergy leadership all men with long hair.
6. Remove the idea of ordination completely from our vocabulary.
7. Return to the custom of the Lord’s Supper being a simple part of the communal meal without need for special words of consecration.
8. Stop any fights we may have against any who are keeping slaves.
9. Insist that plural marriage take place when a woman’s husband dies and leaves her childless–she MUST marry her husband’s brother and MUST have sex with him until she has a male child.
10. Sell everything we have and give it to the poor.
11. Own everything in common.
12. Empty our pension plans and take no thought of the future, for this day has enough trouble of its own.
13. Start handling snakes and raising people from the dead.

Anyone want to give a few of these things a try in order to have a more “biblical” church?

5 Comments

Filed under change, character, clergy, General Conference

Ministry With the Poor

Today, Dr. Frederick Schmidt posted on his blog here about doing ministry with the poor, on of the four areas of focus of the United Methodist Church mandated by the 2008 General Conference (just a meandering thought:  will all those change with the 2012 General Conference–just when I’m starting to figure this out?).

Anyway, I thought Schmidt made a particularly insightful comment when he wrote, “I have no way of “knowing” in the sense that really matters. No one who works on a computer, went to college, pursued graduate work, and writes online knows a thing about what it means to be poor.”

I’d like to add to that, “Anyone who has decent health insurance also doesn’t know a thing about being poor.”

In the last year, I’ve hit, for the first time in my life, several what I am calling “health hiccups.”  Thanks to my handy-dandy insurance card, which my church pays dearly for, I’m able to make the rounds of physicians and expensive tests, bearing a relatively small (but still painful!)l percentage of the cost by my deductibles and co-pays.  If I didn’t have insurance, there is no way I would be getting any health care, and certainly not the quality that has been available to me.

This, perhaps more than anything else, is the great divide today between the “haves” and the “have nots.”  Access to a basic human need: basic, skilled, compassionate aid when something goes wrong with our quite fallible human bodies.

I do have days when I wonder if the health care system in the United States is broken beyond repair.

Leave a Comment

Filed under General Conference, health care, insurance