Call to Action – Salvaged Faith

a day in the life of a reserve delegate #gc2012

Posted on April 26, 20121 Comment

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, 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.

GC04: The Call to Action for the US Church?

Posted on April 3, 2012Leave a comment

Taylor Burton-Edwards reminded me a few weeks ago that there needs to be a distinction made by the Call to Action and all of the proposals that have been issued forth. It think that it is helpful to see the CtA 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 Eurpoe? 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?

GC03: Restructuring and the Four Areas of Focus

Posted on April 2, 2012Leave a comment

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. Tomorrow 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 $ 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 when 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 + 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 engagment. 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 consolidating around the four areas of focus. But we did so and 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. It feels like the 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 of focus 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.

GC02: Fruits vs. Roots… or the Call to Action vs. IS3

Posted on March 2, 20123 Comments

An interesting counterpoint to all of my general conference focused discussions on the Call to Action has been my involvement on the local level with the Iowa Safe and Supportive Schools (IS3) grant.

One afternoon as I was pouring over survey data and statistics and numbers and practices for the IS3 grant, I asked myself why these numbers were so important when I was having such a hard time thinking about church numbers in the same way. It has taken me a while, but I think I finally nailed down the difference.

In the Call to Action, we have determined what congregations are vital based upon three criteria: congregational growth over five years, significant engagement of members in ministry and the mission of the church, and an outward focus by making new disciples and giving generously to the needs of others (Call to Action Study Guide, page 8). Now… if our mission as a church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world – then we are looking for churches that are growing in the number of disciples and are engaged in transforming the world. Fair enough. The Call to Action then suggest that we need “to redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration to foster and sustain an increase in the number of vital congregations making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” (Call to Action Study Guide, page 10).

An assumption was made at some point in the process that we should look at what characteristics those vital churches have and then encourage others to implement those drivers. Throughout the reports and materials, the metrics used to determine effectiveness are: professions of faith, worship attendance, # of small groups, # of people engaged in mission, and money given to mission. Pastors, bishops, annual conferences, general agencies are refocusing on these things. What we have not heard in the process is how those resources get redirected. Does it go to those who are already successful? Does it go towards implementing conference wide strategies for growth like our New People for New Places or Co-Missioned or Path One or Healthy Congregations? Does it go to the churches who are failing in order to help them get back on course?

With that in the background, I want to describe a little bit about my involvement with Iowa Safe and Supportive Schools. There is an awareness that “No Child Left Behind” was in large part a failure in its attempts to reform the educational system. In my work with the School Improvement Advisory Committee, we have talked some about how the goals set out for them in that process in many ways creates impossible demands. There are specific goals and metrics that schools must meet and it is not always possible for this to be done. I cannot remember some of the specifics, but an example would be that we need to have 90% of students testing at grade level in reading. We can work with students, we can prepare them, but if in a small school like ours even one student has a bad day or doesn’t test well, then the goals cannot be met. Schools with high achievement scores are rewarded, those that struggle are punished, and the focus of classrooms has to shift to prepare students for tests, rather than education. The measure of a good school is based on student achievement and so academic results are the measure. Teachers are stressed, students are stressed, and it simply is not working.

Iowa Safe and Supportive Schools takes a different approach to the whole thing. The goal in many ways is the same – we want students to learn and succeed – that is the mission of schools in general. But instead of setting goals for testing, this evaluative process asks the question: what is it that helps students to learn and succeed? What are the conditions that need to be in place for real learning to take place? Through research, studies, etc. they have determined that safety, engagement, and the school enviroment are all background factors in student achievement. If a student does not feel safe, they will not succeed. If they are not engaging with other students and adults, they will not succeed. If they do not have a consistent and welcoming environment at the school, they will not suceed. So using this criteria, schools were evaluated in the spring of 2011.

Based on student surveys and hard data from the school, schools were evaluated as to how safe and supportive they were. Then, schools who scored poorly in these areas were invited to recieve funding in order to improve school conditions of learning. Our school district had low scores specifically around engagement and environment and gratefully accepted the grant in order to work on these areas.

But here is the real kicker. The state department of education, in similar ways to the Call to Action, is putting money where their mouth is. They are providing these grants to help create more safe and supportive schools. And in the process, they have provided each district with trained resource people who are walking with us through our particular data sets so that we can determine a particular plan of action for our district. That is why I am pouring over data and statistics. We are trying to determine what are the next steps in our district, which areas we can really focus on, and which will make the largest difference in the success of our students.

I realized as I compare that process with the Call to Action that our denominational iniative feels a lot more like “No Child Left Behind” than it does “IS3.” I look at the drivers and I look at the indicators of effectiveness and I see a lot of ways to measure fruitfulness and results. I see test scores as a measure of success and nowhere do I see the deeper question of “what are the conditions necessary for discipleship?”

What helps someone to take up their cross and follow Jesus?

What are the background factors that transform someone from a mere member to a disciple?

The Call to Action Study Guide at least lays out some of these things from a Wesleyan perspective – lifting up the importance of the means of grace as a practice of daily surrender and obedience to God… but then we head back to the perils of membership decline, worship attendance decline, decline in offerings and a fear decline in mission engagement.

My take from the Call to Action is that I need to create more programs for young people, train and mentor more people to be leaders, stick around in a congregation for a long time, and have vibrant worship. But do those things really help us to surrender to the will of God in our lives? Do they really help us to participate in the redemption of the world? Some of them are… but many of the things that are layed out are fruits… and I’m not sure that they need to be our focus if we want to see lasting change.

I believe we need to back up and focus on what makes us disciples. I believe we need to get to the root of what we believe a Wesleyan disciple is. I believe we need to work on the things that create the conditions for discipleship and like the IS3, let the fruits naturally follow.

And, a key learning from the IS3 process, I think that as we redirect resources back to local churches, we need to focus on those churches that are not vital and help them to discover what are the ways that they can improve the conditions for discipleship in their local places. Telling a small church they need to add a contemporary service or make a Sunday school class for kids is pointless. Walking beside them as they discover that people are having a hard time believing in God when the factory in town has just shut down and jobs are gone is another. Because in the latter – the solution is contextual, it meets us in our real situtations, and invites the Holy Spirit to imagine with us creative possibilities for community, sharing our resources, prayer, and trust as we depend upon the grace of God to get us through.

GC01: Call to Action Study – Part 2

Posted on March 2, 2012Leave a comment

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this post, I am going through the Call to Action Study put out by the Council of Bishops with my congregation. In our first session we covered sections 1-3 and in the second session we examined 4-6.

The call to grow more vital congregations. My folks noticed that the definition or criteria for being labeled as a “highly vital” congregation was based on the three things mentioned: 1) cong. growth over 5 year period, 2) engagement of members in ministry/mission, 3) outward forcus by making new disciples and generous giving. Many of them said that they absolutely agree with those second and third critera because engagement means that members are taking a role and living out their discipleship, but they are not sure that growth in numbers is a good indicator for vitality in this day and age. In any case, they were confident that growth would not occur if engagement and outward focus were not also happening.

A large chunk of our conversation around this point was asking if growth is possible when the culture at large is working against us. We are fighting sports, working parents, family time, school activities, and on Sunday mornings at least, we are losing the battle. We live in a community that has not experienced any real growth according to census figures at large. The folks who are not currently involved in church seem to have little interest in being involved. We believe we have something important and vital to offer, and can share that, but people do not always respond. Does that mean that we are not being faithful? Is our faithfulness being based on the response/hardheartedness of the culture surrounding us? Tis lead us into questions about how we can help to change the culture around us. What is it that we offer? Fellowship, ways to actively live out our faith, studies, we are the body of Christ and don’t have to be on our own, we share with our brothers and sisters and find value in that kind of community centered around Jesus Christ. I found a tension in their answers that ranged from a firm desire to get more kids in Sunday School to an emphasis on saving souls; from reclaiming/changing culture to being a set-apart entity that might NOT be popular, but still can be faithful.

This section also included five ways that the “adaptive spiritual challenge” is defined – aka, the problem behind the numbers. They sensed that division and mistrust is a problem – not so much on the larger levels, but they experienced how they lost people in their church when there was conflict amongst themselves. They agreed that we are not comfortable with setting goals, because then that means we might have to actually do something about it and follow through. They absolutely feel like they are not always connecting with the nominally and non-religious people in their community, but in many ways struggle to imagine what they might have to do differently. They see the issue as a two-way street. We need to invite and connect with new people, but there are also many who are burnt out from continually asking and inviting and always being told no.

Then, this section layed out the challenge: to grow more vital congregations. We really liked the definition here of a vital congregation as a community of believers under the lordship of Christ – but we weren’t sure how that connected with the other things that were mentioned earlier in the section. It seemed like that piece came out of the blue and it was the first time that was mentioned! We had talked earlier about the need to get back to basics – talking about salvation, following the Holy Spirit, prayer, and that if we did that, everything else would fall in line, so we liked that it was part of the expanded definition in this section. But we also really dove into the idea that we have to live that out in our lives. We have to participate in the redemption of the world. We have to smile more, greet people more, be a Christian every moment of the day. We have to forgive a little more and be people of grace in everything thta we do. Someone told a story about how their son had a bad experience with another church and came back saying – “if those are Christians, I don’t want anything to do with them.” Someone also made note that it was ironic there were pruning shears on the picture – if we are pruning back in order to grow, sometimes that means people who aren’t committed will leave the church, and sometimes that is a good thing for the overall growth and spread of the gospel.

16 Drivers of Vital Congregations I was disappointed there was NOTHING to explain the drivers, how they were arrived at, what they meant in the context of this study. Knowing what I do from our orders event and reading I have done for General Conference, I explained that these 16 drivers were characteristics that those 15% of congregations that were vital had. So compared with other churches they had more of this, and more of that, and these were descriptors that pointed at what made them vital.

We looked at them by sections, starting with children and youth. Someone asked if having a preschool helped a congregation to be more vital and connect with the community. We talked about our youth group at the church and outreach into the community in that area. In a small church, we don’t have the people to have a lot of programs – so will we always struggle with vitality? Does it count when we are doing these things in partnership with other churches?

Lay leadership we found to be very important. Our congregation has not had a history of lay leaders understanding their roles very well and this is something we are working to change. We also have not challenged our lay leadership to really grow in their personal faith journey and are trying to focus on that as well. They were astonished at number 7 which said 20% or more of their worship attendees describe themselves as current or past leaders. I pointed out, however, that since our average worship attendance is only 50, that would mean only 10 people see themselves that way. We currently have 12 on our church council, which is more than that.

We had a lot of discussion in the “pastors” category about how long the pastor stays being an indicator of effectiveness. This is a congregation that has had a lot of short term pastorates and feel like when they finally get something going with a pastor, he/she is pulled away. They feel like longer appointments would help them to have a better cohesiveness. Someone compared it to dating and talked about the importance of chemistry. When you find the right fit, you can’t always replace that right away, if ever. There also is sometimes a lame duck time. They are used to pastors leaving after a few years and expect them to move and give up working and expecting things to change.

In the last category of worship, we talked about the reality of small churches. We do not have multiple services, so is a blended service okay? The drivers only talk about contemporary OR traditional. We do have wonderful multi-media capabilities in our church and celebrated that.

As you can see… we had a lot of conversation! And so with the time constraints, we skipped ahead to what is the Call to Action for laity in the church. I wanted them to see where they specifically were being challenged to grow/act. Their initial perception was that it sounded good and really called them to take action. We felt like a lot of what we are already doing with our “Co-Missioned” process fit into this naturally (we are finishing up a two year church revitalization and missional focus process thingy). Several talked about how they felt like they need to personally take action. They realized that coming to church and sunday school is fine, but that they need to get up and do more in the church. One person said that they would if they knew what they could do, if someone personally asked and invited them to do something. We talked about how we need to encourage and ask people to serve more. This is something that has been a natural outcome of that Co-Missioned process for our church and in fact is the next step on our journey, so it was good for them to hear we are already working on that.

As I process what they have said, one of the realizations I had is that there was a lot of explaining and background work that I needed to do. We do not do a good job of talking about the structure, mission, vision of the church, the four areas of focus, the larger goals of the denomination, new people and new places, etc. When we can make those connections, great, but it is not something that is readily known to every lay person. It can all get very confusing because there are so many different things to focus on. But people were eager to learn, connect, and overall were very supportive of our denominational connections. The level of mistrust we sometimes talk about between local churches and the denomination just wasn’t there. This is a congregation that is on the cusp of “vitality” – they are growing spiritually, they are deepening in their engagement with the church and community and are extraordinarily generous… yet, compared with these drivers and indicators and definitions, they aren’t sure quite where they fit. They know they haven’t arrived and aren’t sure if they will ever grow in the way this is asking them to. They know they will never be a large church, but they are determined to be small but mighty.

GC01: Call to Action Study – Part 1

Posted on February 13, 20122 Comments

I am leading my congregation through the Council of Bishop’s study guide on the Call to Action.

We started last week with sections 1-3 and an overview of how the United Methodist Church is actually set up.

It was important for me to bring this big picture and important discussion to my rural county seat congregation. It was important to hear what they are thinking, hoping for, and what they, in fact, simply don’t care about. None of what we decide at General Conference will make any difference if the folks who make up our church have no idea what is going on and no ownership of the process.

So to start with, here are some of their responses to the questions the study guide raises:

What do you experience in the world and the church that calls for urgent action? Declining membership, need to have young people and kids in the church, political unrest – especially in the Middle East, and to be the hands and feet of Christ to a hurting world.
What is the role of the congregation in helping United Methodists practice personal piety and the means of grace? attending local worship, bible study, to pass on the word about opportunities to grow, a reminisence about the song “I Surrender All”; the conference? education opportunities, district leadership events, retreats, resources and support (financial and persons), connection points to ministries we do together; the denomination? we hear about the controversial things that GC discusses and how they take a stand on issues of justice, they give us rules and guidelines for how to live, resources and support, Upper Room
What church leader do you know today who has been a turnaround leader and what did they do? They talked about how in our local church people ARE stepping up to lead. They were a bit dismayed by the piece in the study guide that said “the next anticipated significant decline is in the field of mission giving and mission engagement.” This is an area where they have seen HUGE growth as a congregation because we are taking risks and stepping up. They credit me with this because I have brought some energy and have been willing to take risks, but it also has to do with laity taking up the reins on those projects. They also mentioned that we are not afraid to show the community we are in it for the long haul and to dedicate ourselves to projects. Someone asked what would happen if we worshipped outside in the park for a whole month during the summer and built relationships with folks who were unchurched – great question and one we are going to look into! The conversation drifted to how to engage younger folks. Someone asked if there was a way to encourage youth to give back – musically, in worship, etc. so that they could get to know them better. While I think there are, I also lead into the next question…
What should we sacrifice to embrace God’s unfolding mission for the church? I asked what they could sacrifice to in turn reach out to the youth? joining them for dinner on Wednesdays? going to their events outside of church? We talked about sacrificing our comfort with worshipping inside the church in order to meet people out in the community.

Overall, they are grateful for the opportunity to think about these things and really looking forward to continuing on to the second half next week.

One of the frustrations that I had with the first part of the study guide is the focus on “turning around” the sinking ship. While sections 1 and 2 call for deeper discipleship and re-claiming our mission as the United Methodist Church, section 3 shifted the focus to what they see the biggest problem is: decline in people and money. Down-ward sloping numbers… that is what the Call to Action is all about. It is not framed in terms of the true missional need in our communities – ie: the number of people around us who don’t know Christ. It is not framed in terms of the great opportunities for ministry around us. No, the urgent call is in direct response to decline.

: photo by: Svilen Milev

I actually think it is kind of trivializing to compare our reductions in people and dollars with the “stiff winds of oppression” that Esther and Mordecai were confronted with facing the genocide of their people. The “stiff winds” of indifference and fatigue and a lost sense of purpose are NOT the same as massacre.

Yes, we need some forward-thinking leadership.

Yes, we need adaptability.

Yes, we need courage.

And yes, we need to make sacrifices and take risks in the process.

I know that the declining numbers are not the problem in themselves, but merely symptoms of larger “spiritual and systemic issues.” But I wish that this study guide and in fact, the Call to Action in general, would talk more about those larger spirtual and systemic issues and less about the numbers. (if any of you can point me to a resource that does address what CTA thinks those larger spiritual/systemic issues are… please tell me!)

Instead, we are left with the impression that the problem is that people aren’t coming to church and that people aren’t coming to worship and that people aren’t giving enough. And at least my congregation doesn’t know what it is going to take to change that. They can’t necessarily give more. They keep asking their neighbors and friends to come and they won’t. They are working on building relationships and reaching outside of the walls of our church and my prayer is that as they do that… as they are the hands and feet of Christ in this world… that people will come to know Jesus through them and will find a place within our church family.

Preparing for our Lenten study on Romans 12 (our vision scripture) I came across Chip Ingram’s work on the text. In this segment, he answers the question: if God doesn’t measure faith by activities, why do people and churches?

I think it’s a good question. We are called to make disciples. And I suppose that if we are making something, we want to see numerical growth. But I understand discipleship as a process. A process that requires inward growth, deep growth, lifelong growth. If I can take the 50 people who regularly attend my church each week and spend my whole life working with them and at the end of that time those fifty people have learned to follow Jesus more closely, to surrender their lives to him, to serve others through him, and have planted seeds in the lives of others, have I done my job? I tend to think so… but I’m not sure that CtA would agree I have been very effective.