process – Salvaged Faith

Reflections a week after General Conference… #umcgc

Posted on May 29, 20162 Comments

As Psalm 146 reminds us: human leaders and human institutions aren’t everything. They won’t save us.

We are finite and we make mistakes.

Only God is forever faithful.

Yet, any denomination or tradition comes from God’s followers attempting to live out their faith and their discipleship together.

Fully knowing that we are not perfect, we nevertheless seek to do the best we can to respond to God’s movement and calling in the world in a given place and time… based on where our forefathers and mothers have led us and based on where the Holy Spirit is calling us anew.

That is what we tried to do at General Conference. Over 10 days, we attempted to be faithful to God’s leading and yet we are not God and our plans are just that… ours.

Over these last two weeks, we very nearly split our denomination into pieces. Our differences are stark. Our life together is marred by conflict as much as collaboration. And I’m going to be honest… I’m not quite sure yet what comes after General Conference.

We asked our Bishops to help us find a way forward out of our predicament and that way forward is still vague.

So rather than making predictions, maybe it would be better to share who we are and how we got to this place. I think fundamentally, there are three key things to keep in mind as we wrestle with what it means to be the United Methodist Church.

First, I think it is helpful to understand that the United Methodist Church is a global church.

We are the only protestant denomination that is worldwide. Our churches span from Manila to Legos to Moscow. And, while the church in the U.S. has been declining, the global church is growing exponentially.

In the last ten years, the U.S. has declined in membership by 11%, while the church in the Africa Central Conference grew by 329%!

42% of United Methodists now live outside of the United States.

One of the most important things we do at General Conference is listen to one another, try to understand more about our contexts, and find ways to help ministry flourish all across the world. And that is not an easy task.

But because of our global partnerships, we can do amazing things like Imagine No Malaria and our United Methodist Committee on Relief is the first to arrive on the scene of disaster and the last to leave.

And we can learn from one another.

I remember listening to a committee four years ago debate the process for closing a church. A woman from Liberia stood and said that she was extremely confused as to what we were talking about… not because of a language barrier, but because she simply couldn’t comprehend why we would close a church. The church in the United States needs that passion for the gospel that is growing so fast we can’t build enough churches!

As we continue to debate the inclusion of LGBTQI people in the life of our church, I also heard clearly from our African delegates, like my new friend Pastor Adilson, that their contextual struggle is not with homosexuality, but with polygamy. Rather than asking if same-gender marriages are allowed in their churches, they are struggling with how to welcome and include a man who has four or five wives. Does the church ask him to divorce all but one? What happens to the other wives? Or the children? How is the entire family welcomed?

We are also learning to reframe our conversations to be more global than United States centric. One of our debates this year was about a resolution for health care that referenced the Affordable Care Act. When 42% of United Methodists live outside the United States, these kinds of statements need to be broader in scope. It was hard to be talking about a system that only applies to some of us, when so many people in that room had little to no access to care, much less health insurance.

One of the realities of being a global church is that multiple languages play a role in all of our meetings. While we have four official languages as the UMC: French, English, Portuguese and Kiswahili, we had simultaneous interpretation in Russian, German, Spanish, and many others.

An ever present reality is also that in many of these global areas Christianity arrived along with colonialism. “Most Africans teach their children that Jesus and other biblical characters are muzungu (Kiswahili, “white”) notwithstanding the fact that Jesus would likely have been dark complexioned because he was born in the Middle East.” (http://unitedmethodistreporter.com/2016/05/11/are-africans-grown-a-response-to-bishop-minerva-carcano-dealing-with-wounded-united-methodist-church/)

We, as a church, have tried to combat colonial impulses by allowing the conferences outside of the United States to adapt our Book of Discipline to their local contexts. However, that means that 42% of the church doesn’t have to abide by all of what we vote on… and that we need their votes in order to make changes to the rules only we follow.

Second, it is helpful to know how we make decisions.

The roots of our church lie in England, but we were born during the American Revolution. And our polity, our government is modeled upon our national government.

Just like the government, we have a judicial branch and a Judicial Council.

Our Bishops function as the executive branch.

And the General Conference itself is the legislative branch… just like Congress.

864 of us were elected as voting delegates to represent the worldwide church and we were half clergy and half laity.

The General Conference is the only body that can speak for the United Methodist Church and everyday people like you and me are the ones who make the decisions.

So those of us gathered there had the responsibility of pouring over legislation and making changes to our structure, rules, and positions… four years worth of work condensed into two weeks.

I believe that to discern the Holy Spirit, one has to be humble, empty yourself, and allow other voices to influence you.

The first week of conference is largely spent in legislative committees and in those smaller groups some of that discernment could happen. I had truly transformative experiences in my committee and the work felt good and holy.

But all of those relationships and trust falls apart when an item comes to the floor of the plenary session. There, the decision making process moves away from consensus building and instead creates winners and losers.

On the FIRST DAY of conference… we spent hours debating the rules that we would use in order to debate. We used and we abused Robert’s Rules of Order.

And when we were presented with an alternative decision making process (what you might have heard as Rule 44) to use for particularly contentious issues, we debated it for two days and then voted not to use it.

But we did accomplish some things. We approved the creation of a new hymnal for our church. We strengthened our process for the affirmation of clergy. We created new pathways for licensed local pastors. And we added gender, age, ability, and marital status to the protected classes in our constitution.

Third, it is helpful to understand that while it appears that our conflict as a church is centered around the inclusion of LGBTQI people, our division is deeper.

Our church is a very broad tent and the likes of both Dick Cheney and Hilary Clinton call our church home. This is one of the things that I love about the United Methodist Church.

But I think what came into focus for many of us at this General Conference is that our disagreements may no longer be sustainable.

Perhaps fundamental to our conflict is how we interpret scripture. For some, scripture is absolutely central and the only tradition, reason, or experience that matters is that which scripture can confirm. For others, scripture is absolutely central and yet we have to interpret scripture through the lenses of our tradition, reason, and experience. That shift might seem subtle, but it can make the difference between allowing women to be ordained or not in our church.

We also fundamentally disagree about whether we are a church of personal piety or social holiness. Of course, John Wesley thought it had to be both… but where we place our emphasis determines how we engage with the world and the moral stances we choose to take.

All of this difference is floating beneath the surface of any conversation about how LGBTQI people are included or not in the life of our church.

If you asked me a month ago what was going to happen at General Conference I would have been full of optimism. You see, I’m a bridge builder.

And so I went to General Conference with all kinds of hopes about how we would make decisions to benefit the church all over the world and how in spite of our differences we would find a way forward together.

I don’t think it was naïve to believe this going in.

But in the midst of our gathering in Portland, something shifted. Something shifted in my own life and in the hearts and minds of countless other delegates.

We realized that we could no longer keep doing what we have been doing together as a denomination.

We realized that our differences were tearing us apart.

And in Portland, we made a very conscious choice to avoid the end of our denomination through our votes. We voted to seek unity, to try to find a way to remain together for the sake of God’s mission in the world. But there is a phrase we kept using that I think is important. Unity does not mean unanimity.

As we look at our differences, particularly in the three areas I named, for many, we avoided the end, but are only delaying the inevitable.

Maybe our global structure is unsustainable.

Maybe our decision making process has to change.

Maybe our fundamental disagreements will only continue to allow conflict to rule our work together and we would be better to split amicably and allow each part of our church to be the most faithful it can be to God’s will.

The next four years as United Methodists will not be easy. We have asked the Bishops of our church to lead us in discerning a way forward and that might mean that in the next two or three years we will call a special gathering to decide how to move forward… on what it means to be a global church, on our structure, on our polity, and on our stances regarding human sexuality.

I have about 45 more minutes of things I could share with you and I’m happy to continue to have conversations about our work. But I want to leave you with this one request.

Pray for our church.

Pray for God’s will to be done.

Pray that we might follow the one who is faithful forever, who as Psalm 146 reminds us…

defends the wronged, and feeds the hungry. God frees prisoners— God gives sight to the blind, and lifts up the fallen. God loves good people, protects strangers, takes the side of orphans and widows, but makes short work of the wicked.

In spite of all the good and all of the mistakes that we made at this past General Conference, I take comfort in the knowledge that God’s in charge—always.

What can we learn? #rule44 #umcgc

Posted on May 12, 2016Leave a comment

In plenary this morning, we decided not to pass #Rule44.

I’m disappointed.

I’m disappointed that we won’t get to use the process, but even more disappointed that so many didn’t know what the process was.

And I’m not talking about the content of #Rule44… I’m talking about the information about how it would be implemented.

As I wrote in the wee hours of this morning, I was asked to be a small group leader and ONLY last night were we given the details of implementation. I rushed home to blog, because it was information that was NECESSARY to understanding the process, clearing up confusions, dispelling fears and rumors, and the information simply had not been shared.

So, I’m frustrated and disappointed.

I walked into the break and met a new friend and shared with him the process. The information likely would have changed his vote. I’m emailing him the content when we finish.

My summary is here

So, how did we not have it?

And what can we learn… What needs to happen differently in 2020 or in our annual conferences if we want to try something like this?

INFORMATION
All of the information about process needs to be available. It didn’t need to be in the rule, but the small group and facilitation process should have been included as a supplement with the ACDA

Where there is a void, anything and everything else will seek to fill it… Including fear, doubt, speculation, and hesitation.

EXPERIENCE
We could have used it as a tool with delegations as they met to prepare to familiarize them with the process. In that way, the kinks could have been worked out through amendments based on lived experience.

LOGISTICS
At last night’s training, I heard some among the small group leaders express that the content and the process were good, but that we didn’t have the logistical infrastructure in place to implement it.

If you are going to do something new, you need to think of every detail. The room space. How assignments are communicated. The availability of interpreters.

And that means a well oiled machine working together.

We provided lots of feedback last night, but the reality is, there were uncertainties about whether the changes would it could be implemented in time and if they weren’t, that the process would suffer as a result.

Without this process, we’ll proceed in other ways. Business will be accomplished (I pray).

But I also pray that we will learn and grow and get it right next time.

We have to learn that the logistics are just as important as the process.

A (mostly) unbiased, detailed explanation #Rule44 #umcgc

Posted on May 12, 20161 Comment

Tonight, I was trained to be a small group leader if Rule #44 passes and I had a lot of questions answered. I shared my perspective in another post, but thought it might be helpful to share the process as taught tonight by Terrance

This is the process we would actually use if Rule #44 is approved (pending changes brought to the floor after the referral back to Rules of Order)

We vote on approving Rule 44 (or not… the body decides)

We vote on whether or not to use the process this year for any given piece of legislation

If we choose to use it (no matter the legislation… although the materials are prepared for our conversations around human sexuality and the church) the following process will begin:

1) There will be an orientation to the process for all delegates in a plenary session

2) We will move into our small groups on Saturday and work the process. And guess what… for many, the small groups are the exact same small groups you were in for the conversation on the worldwide nature of the church (some were better organized than others, utilizing the group assignments, but that is a separate issue), which means that for many there has already been the establishment of a relationship and the beginning of trust.

3) Small groups are assigned based on a) legislative committee assignment, b) seeking diversity of cultural , geographic, gender, clergy/lay, etc. experiences, while at the same time c) grouping participants together so that ideally there are no more than two languages in each group (to allow for better use of translation).

The small group process (what I’m calling phase 1):

1) Centering with 2 questions: 1) As you come into this discussion how are you feeling? 2) What are your hopes for the UMC as it makes decisions about _______ (in this case, LGBT people in the life of the church)?

2) Here, we have conversation, but do not record answers. If instead of speaking you want to signal that you agree with what someone else has said, you can indicate that by raising a card.

The small group process (phase 2):

1) We examine a group of petitions about the same subject (or paragraph in the Book of Discipline) by focusing on ONE petition in that grouping that has been chosen as a focus petition. It was selected because it represented the most changes or issues to discuss given the varying petitions. Everyone begins with the same grouping/topic

2) Three questions are asked: 1) as you consider this petition, what is important to you and why? 2) Does this petition express what the church needs to say at this time? 3) At this stage, can you see anything that needs changed to make this more helpful for the church? We have conversation, but do not record answers and can again indicate that we feel the same as someone by raising a card.

The small group process (phase 3):

1) For each proposed change in the petition (deletion or addition) we ask the following two questions and answers are recorded: 1) Do you support the change? (no spoken answer, simply raise card to indicate yes,no, or abstain… the results are recorded), 2) Do you have an alternative to what is suggested? (this is where amendments can be made… and each is suggested and then the group records support via: yes, no, abstain).

2) This is done for each portion of the petition, then there is a final question: Is there anything that would be helpful for the GC to say to the church on this subject? Suggestions are recorded and we discuss and take votes of support: yes, no, abstain).

3) The report contains the record of yes, no, abstensions for every piece of the legislation as well as suggestions and their support. This is what is reviewed and turned in.

When the first topic/group is complete, the group decides which topic/grouping of petitions to address next and repeats phases 2 and 3.

Facilitation Process:

1) The facilitators are elected by the General Conference from a slate and serve as servants of the delegates. Their role is to compile and to develop the focus petition into a piece of legislation that mirrors the will of the body and will bring forth a report based on what we have recorded on the small group sheets. This report will contain recommendations like: Keep the addition of this word because 68% of small group participants indicated support of the addition. Do not delete this phrase because only 22% of the small group participants favor deletion.

2) The facilitation group will also incorporate the suggestions of the small groups that were included on the sheets if there might be some ownership of that idea. One group might support a suggestion with only 30% yes votes, but if it comes up in a few other locations too, the facilitation group might include it. What they are doing is giving us the opportunity to test if that is the moving of the Holy Spirit by allowing the whole body to discuss the suggestion.

3) The goal is to help the whole body see the voice of the whole body. The focus petition might look different when it comes before the plenary because a) the pieces were not supported by the small group votes, b) suggestions were made and had some support (even like 15%, are incorporated, c) division in support in various parts of the pettion might cause the facilitation group to divide the petition into separate sections.

The Facilitation Group will present

1) They will bring the compiled petition to the body and it will come before us like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, with the addition of the report including our % votes and rationale behind the inclusions or exclusions.

2) Like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, we can vote to amend, discuss, table, divide, etc.

The four groups/topics if we vote to use this process on the topic of human sexuality are (based on a sorting of roughly 60+ petitions) :

1) Human Sexuality (paragraph 161.F ) – All groups will do this one to start.

2) Marriage – divided into three subgroups: Definition of Marriage ( paragraph 161.B), Unauthorized Conduct (paragraph 341.6), and Chargeable Offenses (paragraph 2702.1)

3) Ordination (paragraph 304.3)

4) Inclusion in the Church (paragraph 4)

The rationale behind allowing the small groups to choose which topic they want to discuss second is that it allows for them to determine focus. If no small group chooses to complete one of the topics, that says something about our willingness to engage in those petitions. The various small groups will choose the ones that are important to them.

Hi, I’m your small group leader AKA why I’m voting for #rule44 #umcgc

Posted on May 12, 2016Leave a comment

I started my day at 7am with the Committee on Reference and when everyone else was done for the evening, I joined a group of 50+ folks for a three hour training session for a process we might not even choose to implement.

I’m exhausted. It was a 14 hour day and I’m spent. So I apologize for any typos.

But I have to tell you… if we don’t pass rule 44, we are missing out on an opportunity to listen to one another and to let the Holy Spirit move in our United Methodist General Conference.

I was really challenged by the Episcopal Address this morning… particularly Bishop Palmer’s words that we can get all of the words of a petition right, but if we don’t get the process right, then we have failed in our witness as a church.

And I’m going to be honest. There was not a lot that has been shared before this conference about what the process would actually look for Rule #44 like that was helpful. A lot has been vague. Rule 44 doesn’t actually talk about how the small group process will work OR the facilitation team. It only sets out the foundation for the process. So no wonder there has been speculation and misinformation and fear and trembling.

Because we didn’t know!

I was invited to be a small group leader (they were nominated by heads of delegation/bishops and then chosen by the Commission on General Conference) and I didn’t know what it would look like.

So twitter and facebook and tables conversations are blowing up with #rule 44 (seriously, it has its own twitter account – @RuleFortyFour) commentary that has no basis in reality.

Tonight, I was handed a packet full of the complete process. And I was trained in how to use it. And because it isn’t a secret (and it never has been… it just for some reason was never actually shared) I feel obligated to share. I feel like someone has to put out the information about the process we would actually use if Rule #44 is approved.

We vote on approving Rule 44 (or not… the body decides)
We vote on whether or not to use the process this year for any given piece of legislation
If we choose to use it (no matter the legislation… although the materials are prepared for our conversations around human sexuality and the church) the following process will begin:
1. There will be an orientation to the process for all delegates in a plenary session
2. We will move into our small groups on Saturday and work the process. And guess what… for many, the small groups are the exact same small groups you were in for the conversation on the worldwide nature of the church (some were better organized than others, utilizing the group assignments, but that is a separate issue), which means that for many there has already been the establishment of a relationship and the beginning of trust.
3. Small groups are assigned based on a) legislative committee assignment, b) seeking diversity of cultural , geographic, gender, clergy/lay, etc. experiences, while at the same time c) grouping participants together so that ideally there are no more than two languages in each group (to allow for better use of translation). /ol>
4. The small group process (what I’m calling phase 1):
  1. Centering with 2 questions: 1) As you come into this discussion how are you feeling? 2) What are your hopes for the UMC as it makes decisions about _______ (in this case, LGBT people in the life of the church)?
  2. Here, we have conversation, but do not record answers. If instead of speaking you want to signal that you agree with what someone else has said, you can indicate that by raising a card.
5. The small group process (phase 2):
  1. We examine a group of petitions about the same subject (or paragraph in the Book of Discipline) by focusing on ONE petition in that grouping that has been chosen as a focus petition. It was selected because it represented the most changes or issues to discuss given the varying petitions. Everyone begins with the same grouping/topic
  2. Three questions are asked: 1) as you consider this petition, what is important to you and why? 2) Does this petition express what the church needs to say at this time? 3) At this stage, can you see anything that needs changed to make this more helpful for the church? We have conversation, but do not record answers and can again indicate that we feel the same as someone by raising a card.
6. The small group process (phase 3):
  1. For each proposed change in the petition (deletion or addition) we ask the following two questions and answers are recorded: 1) Do you support the change? (no spoken answer, simply raise card to indicate yes,no, or abstain… the results are recorded), 2) Do you have an alternative to what is suggested? (this is where amendments can be made… and each is suggested and then the group records support via: yes, no, abstain).
  2. This is done for each portion of the petition, then there is a final question: Is there anything that would be helpful for the GC to say to the church on this subject? Suggestions are recorded and we discuss and take votes of support: yes, no, abstain).
  3. The report contains the record of yes, no, abstensions for every piece of the legislation as well as suggestions and their support. This is what is reviewed and turned in.
7. When the first topic/group is complete, the group decides which topic/grouping of petitions to address next and repeats phases 2 and 3.
8. Facilitation Process:
  1. The facilitators are elected by the General Conference from a slate and serve as servants of the delegates. Their role is to compile and to develop the focus petition into a piece of legislation that mirrors the will of the body and will bring forth a report based on what we have recorded on the small group sheets. This report will contain recommendations like: Keep the addition of this word because 68% of small group participants indicated support of the addition. Do not delete this phrase because only 22% of the small group participants favor deletion.
  2. The facilitation group will also incorporate the suggestions of the small groups that were included on the sheets if there might be some ownership of that idea. One group might support a suggestion with only 30% yes votes, but if it comes up in a few other locations too, the facilitation group might include it. What they are doing is giving us the opportunity to test if that is the moving of the Holy Spirit by allowing the whole body to discuss the suggestion.
  3. The goal is to help the whole body see the voice of the whole body. The focus petition might look different when it comes before the plenary because a) the pieces were not supported by the small group votes, b) suggestions were made and had some support (even like 15%, are incorporated, c) division in support in various parts of the pettion might cause the facilitation group to divde the petition into separate sections.
9. The Facilitation Group will present the compiled petition to the body and it will come before us like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, with the addition of the report including our % votes and rationale behind the inclusions or exclusions.
  1. Like ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION, we can vote to amend, discuss, table, divide, etc.

home #gc2012

Posted on May 6, 2012Leave a comment

The processing of what exactly happened these past two weeks will take time. My brain is still too full and jumbled to even begin to dig deep.

But in response to some initial thoughts by the chair of our Iowa delegation, I started to think about some things that I am bringing home:

1) a reminder that we cannot legislate trust
2) the amazing experience of working together with people who are so different from myself and loving one another
3) knowing that all of the things we do… in the grand scheme of things what really matters is that people have a place at the table in our local communities.
4) a desire to learn French
5) a deeper understanding of the process and the people who lead our church – and a recognition that we are all just people… people who care, who make mistakes, who put make-up on in bathrooms and drink coffee and say the wrong things and the right things, who deeply desire what is best for our church and yet might disagree on what that is. It is humbling and inspiring and beautiful and messy.

what you may not realize about the loss of guaranteed appointment #gc2012

Posted on May 4, 201215 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.