Out the Door

Ten Provocative Questions: Q3

Lowell Weems writes:

Can we move from a structure of control to a structure of grace?

Mainline denominations have often been fundamentalists of structure rather than of doctrine.  It is not working, according tot he State of the Church report.  From the General Conference through virtually every level of structure, clergy and laity express significant dissatisfaction.  Is it time to create a Discipline that leaves organizational detail to all the global regions with the challenge to simplify, simplify, simplify?

What might this mean specifically?

We live in a time when people are not anxious to have others make decisions for them or to speak for them.  What if the General Conference came to address the "essentials" of doctrine and United Methodist self-understanding and then left to the global regions all matters of structure, regulations, and proclamations?  Further, could the global regions themselves take a minimalist approach?  For example, could we agree that significantly more than a simple majority be required for all policy, directives, and proclamations addressed to other than the operations of that body--given this time of high distrust of systems of control?

What if we saw the role of leaders as helping to insure accountability to the mission and vision--rather than managing structures?  Accountability, then, is based on faithfulness to our mission, vision, and values, and no longer simply on authority.  Leaders do not spend time telling people what they cannot do, but asking people what they are doing about our shared commitments.  People will be less likely to feel the need constantly to report what they will not do because no one is telling them what they must do.  Instead, everyone is busy being responsive to the shared vision because that is the expected accountability.

The message to all levels of the church is that you are free to be flexible with your structure.  You are not, however, free to structure in a way that does not promote the manifestation of the power of God where you have the calling of ministry.  You are free to structure for reaching diverse populations in any way you choose with one exceptions.  You are not free to structure in a way that does not result in the love of God through Christ becoming a reality for all the people you are called to serve.

Accountability in our day will not come by mandates, legislation, or resolutions.  Accountability instead may be achieved through the right questions.  Leaders no longer will be those with the answers but those with the questions.  The background of every question must be what is it God is calling us to do.

My response:

This is a wonderful vision for the church, but not one that I can see coming true any time soon.  As Weems points out, "Mainline denominations have often been fundamentalists of structure."  The odds of the UMC simplifying its structure are about as good as the Assemblies of God declaring that speaking in tongues ended with the apostolic age.  Our structure has come to define who we are, rather than our vision and mission.  This certainly isn't unique among United Methodists, it's true in most any organization that has existed for a period of years.

There are simply too many people who are invested in the structure of control to allow the structure to be dismantled.  What would the Board of Church & Society do if it didn't have the power to make proclamations on behalf of the whole church?  It would interesting to know how many resolutions that are passed at General & Annual Conferences would be passed if they required a super majority.  My guess is that it would be significantly less.  And since those who support these narrowly passed resolutions know that if the structure is changed, they will no longer be able to claim that the United Methodist Church believes such and such, these people will do all they can to insure that the structure is not simplified.

Sadly, I fear that for those invested in the present structure maintaining control is more important than the fact that, as the Report points out, it's not working.  I hope I'm wrong about all of this, because a structure that calls for accountability based on mission and ministry and not on how well the structure is being supported would be a wonderfully freeing thing and would increase the effectiveness of congregations throughout United Methodism.

Ten Provocative Questions: Q2: Global United Methodism

Question 2:  Can the growing global regions of United Methodism remember the first law of life-guarding--don't let the drowning person drown you?

With the vast differences among the world regions of United Methodism in growth, vitality, and hopefulness named in the report, what should connectionalism and mutuality among them look like?

One way to think about it is to ask what American Methodists most needed from other Methodists during the years of dramatic growth.  The last things needed were another culture's structure, rules, liturgies, and politics.  Of more benefit would be prayer, relationships, resources, and genuine partnership in reaching others for Christ and healing and transforming the world.  The money required for a global governance system on the traditional U.S. model could, if rechanneled, mean the difference in life and death to untold numbers of people, missions, congregations, schools, and clergy around the world.

How then do we accomplish a global church with maximum support and minimum interference?

Weems makes a very valid point that our sisters and brothers in other parts of the world, places where United Methodism is growing, don't need US Methodist baggage.  I've always wondered what General Conference delegates from other parts of the world must think when the GC takes up resolutions which apply to the USA only.  Does the US delegates' focus on US issues make them feel like second class Methodists? 

One of my greatest desires is that we US United Methodists would humble ourselves enough to learn from our sisters and brothers from other countries.  But it seems we're too hung up on our own issues to listen to them.  Our Americanized polity which focuses so much on control, drains away valuable resources from true ministry.  The General Boards of the UMC hold assets of approximately a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS.   Since our American system is set up for control not ministry, those who could most benefit for people's generosity go unaided.

We are drowning under the weight of our bureaucracy, however since that's not likely to change any time soon, we must find a way to keep those in other parts of the world who haven't been caught up in the power struggles of the US UM's to continue to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.    And maybe, just maybe we US UM's will eventually figure things out by watching their example that we will once again seek to spread holiness across the land.

10 Provocative Questions: Q1: Theological Grounding & Spiritual Vitality

In response to the State of the Church report which was completed in 2007 Lovett Weems of Wesley Theological Seminary addressed a paper to the Council of Bishops.  He chose to include in his report "10 Provocative Questions" and his answer to them.  These are questions I believe are worth considering and after noting his response to them, I want to address them myself.

Question 1:  Can we  capture the Wesleyan power of being an evangelical church in a liberal tradition?

United Methodist core beliefs are clear, says the State of the Church report. There is remarkable consensus on key affirmations of Christian faith. There is also strong evidence of spiritual vitality across the church shown by extraordinary responses on questions of faith and core beliefs, as well as practices of Christian discipleship, including social justice.

There are variations of emphasis across global regions and within the United States. These differences should not overshadow the consensus, but they do point to the need for good Wesleyan Christian conferencing in which we honestly engage theological differences for mutual edification, knowing that no one perspective captures all of God’s wisdom.

United Methodists today appear to be in the tradition of Georgia Harkness, who spoke of herself theologically as an “evangelical liberal.” She believed that it was possible to combine “tolerance with decisiveness, open-mindedness with Christian conviction.” Most survey respondents would agree with her that the powerful communication of the gospel is “the most important task under God that any person can undertake.” The respondents also would affirm the call theologian Claude H. Thompson made years ago for evangelical renewal in the United Methodist Church, saying this is an hour when United Methodist evangelicals are called to eliminate the evils of war, poverty, and racism from our society.

Could this Wesleyan identity be captured in an inclusive vision of an evangelical church in a liberal tradition? We are an evangelical church. At the same time we are in a liberal tradition. We are the first to challenge assumptions. We are the first to open windows and doors to new ideas and possibilities when faith mandates it. Could such a vision that is both deep (in faith and piety) and open (to new needs and possibilities) sustain us over the years ahead?

I can think of few things which could strengthen the United Methodist Church more than recapturing the spirit of evangelical liberalism.  In our diverse society where people live all over the political, religious, and social-economic spectrum, there is no other denomination better positioned to do ministry in this brave new world than the UMC.  

In order to do that however balance must be found between evangelical and liberalism.  When I was a child, one of the games my friends and I would play on the teeter totter was to try to get the board to be perfectly balanced, so that neither one of us was higher or lower than the other.  The other game I played was to try to force my friend to the ground by pushing off as hard as possible so that I could be the highest up, all the while my friend was trying to do the same thing.  One doesn't need to be around the UMC for very long before figuring out which one of these games we're playing.

How much of an impact could we have on the world for Jesus Christ if we stopped playing the game of "I'm the highest" and really started to learn from one another?  Those on the evangelical side of the teeter totter need to listen and learn how to address the evils of war, poverty, and racism.  Those on the liberal side need to listen and learn how to live lives of holiness, piety, and discipline.  Is it possible for us to quit playing the power games and bring together the balance that is so much a part of our heritage?  If we could, people from every spectrum will find a home in the UMC.