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.
Comments