A New Look For A Methodist Movement

In my last post (The Good, The Bad And The Ugly) I put out there my hope that the upcoming General Conference would result in a mitosis because unity is an impossibility.  I do NOT hope for this mitosis out of any anger or bitterness toward any person or group.  And this hope does NOT come out of despair or weak resignation in my heart.  Should this mitosis happen, as it should, I would pray that both cells, or all 3 cells (I know a 3-cell mitosis violates the laws of biology, but we’re talking about the movement of God through the Holy Spirit–and they are not controlled by the laws of biology), would move forward by bringing the Good News of the Kingdom of God to all people living in darkness and who are broken.  I pray that each “cell” would bring sight to the blind, a dance to the lame, a song to the mute, and the release of all prisoners so that all might experience life as God intends.

Here is the vision that I have for all of those “cells”.  Without a clean break from the “old” cell, we simply replicate what has been now described and dysfunctional and powerless.  If you have other ideas or vision for these new “cells”, feel free to share them in the comment section below.  So, at this time, would everyone please buckle your seat belts as we prepare for take-off.  Here they are, in no particular order of importance:

1.  Organized Networks

Currently we call them Annual Conferences.  In the new “cells” I would call them Networks because of the negative connotations that have come out of our current system.  I believe the Body of Christ is connected to and not independent of each other.  My spirit groans when I see the word “independent” in a church name.  Paul said we are the body of Christ, deeply connected to each other.  There are times when there is frustration, much frustration in numbers, there is also great strength in numbers.  These “Networks” would be based on geography so that we could work closer together.  Each Network would determine how many Regions or Clusters (now called Districts) are necessary to fulfill the Mission (see Point 3).  These Networks would also be given the task of reviewing those seeking to become pastors of local churches.  Both laity and clergy would vote on those seeking to become pastors.

2.  Shared Core Values

We don’t have this now, but in a new cell, we could.  Determine ahead of time what is the essentials, so that there can be liberty in the non-essentials and in all things live a life of love.  This is not limited to the arena of human sexuality.  That being said, each “cell” should have an undeniable understanding of what is and is not acceptable to God.  The “cell” I would align with will be the one that views the sexuality God established before The Fall.  One man and one woman faithfully together in life, uniquely revealing the image of God.  It would also allow as a core value system, what Peter preached in Jerusalem on that Feast of Pentecost–that young and old, men and women are equal in Christ.  Well, I could go on, but I will stop here.

3.  A Clearly Defined Mission

That mission must be about people rather than institutions.  The Mission must be about helping people experience life the way God intends life to be experienced.  This is what Jesus meant when He said, “I have come that you might have life to the fullest.”  This means we get to know the people around us; where they are hurting, what they are missing, where they are struggling.  The Mission will not be about committees or buildings or programs.  It will all be about people who are not yet in the Kingdom of God.

4.  Elimination Of The “Trust Clause”

For my non United Methodist Readers, allow me to explain as best I can, this “Trust Clause”.  The real property and all other assets of each United Methodist congregation is not their own, but held in “trust” by the Annual Conference under which they exist.  Currently, if they want to leave, they have to give up their real property and all other assets to their Annual Conference, OR, negotiate a fair and equitable settlement with that Annual Conference (i.e. pay an agreed upon amount of money).

This Trust Clause has been used to keep member in line with the leadership of an annual conference; or pay the price.  These Networks of new cells would have no such clause.  Each local congregation would maintain ownership of all their assets.  If they do things contrary to their “Network”, then the Network simply removes them from the list of congregations of their Network and the local congregation is then free to pursue God as they believe He is leading them.

5.  Elimination Of The Episcopacy

This is perhaps the most radical part of my plan.  Again for my non United Methodist readers, the Episcopacy is another way of saying “Bishops”.  Currently bishops are elected at the Jurisdictional Conference level and appointed by the Jurisdictional Conference and they are bishops until they die.  The episcopacy has in the past, served us well.  But take the time to read about Bishop Francis Asbury and how he led.  Or read about Bishop Thomas Coke’s leadership style.  This office was important then, but not so much now.  The title of “bishop” is a leftover remnant of the mitosis of the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church.  In a time when educating the masses was difficult, even unheard of, such an office was necessary.  But today people have more opportunities and the means to inform and equip themselves to our Holy Task.

In lieu of the office of bishop, I would propose a “Presiding Elder” (from our old terminology) or a “Presbyter” (from the New Testament).  This CEO type leader would be selected from pastors serving in local congregations within the local “Network” to serve for a period of 6 years.  After that 6 year period, they would make the commitment to go back to serving congregations at least 6 more years; barring illness, disability or death.  Leadership would remain within the local network, rather than a select committee outside the geographic network.  Thus, the office of “Bishop/Presbyter” would not be a lifetime title, but a time of servant leadership.  And if that isn’t controversial enough, this next one will be even more controversial.

6.  End The Use Of ‘Deacon’ and ‘Elder’ as a title for clergy and specialized ministry.

On this point I fully expect a severe backlash from my fellow UMC pastors.  As I read the New Testament, I see that the primary leadership offices of deacon and elder were from among what we would call the laity.  The clergy class, and it is a ‘class’, came much later.  I assert that this ‘class of clergy’ has outlived its usefulness.  By the emphasis on ordination as deacon and elder, we have declared the laity, in essence, impotent without us clergy types.

This new Wesleyan Methodist movement goes back to our roots.  Further back than John Wesley, but back to another John (and Matthew and Peter and Andrew and….you get the point).  Most agree that we have created a top-heavy institution.  The New Wesleyan Methodist Movement will be a grass-roots up movement.  Geographical Networks (now called Annual Conferences) would be structured to serve the local congregations, not the other way around, as it is now.  Clergy would be clergy–preaching, teaching, and ordering the life of the local congregation around The Mission.

Now, my next point may offend the lay folks,  Who am I kidding?  It will infuriate some.

7.  Continue the itinerant system, but each appointment would be for 4 years at a time, rather than 1 year at a time

For you non United Methodist readers, let me explain the itinerant system.  It is a system where pastors are sent and received, directed by a group known as the Cabinet.  Some of my lay friends would hope that I would advocate eliminating itineracy and thus give them more power to choose their pastor.  I remind you what Winston Churchill once said:  “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.”  I believe that itineracy is the worst way to match churches with pastors, except for all other ways.

Back to the Network.  Each Network decides how many Regions/Clusters are needed.  Each Region/Cluster would have a Leader, who along with the Presbyter and local churches, work together to make appointments with pastors and congregations for 4 years at a time.  This encourages partnership between pastor and congregation.  It would discourage pastors from seeking their next appointment before God is through with them at their current appointment.  It would discourage congregations, for at least 3 years, not to think about how to get rid of their current pastor.  I believe this would change the focus from what’s next to what’s now.

8.  Entirely New Structures

Our current structure is Annual Conference every year.  Jurisdictional and General Conferences every 4 years.  I am now being reminded of the truthful adage:  The definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over while expecting different results.  The New Wesleyan Methodism would have different structures.

1.  First eliminate Jurisdictional Conferences. The “big thing” at Jurisdictional Conference is the election of bishops.  Since the New Wesleyan Methodism empowers each geographical area select its leadership, this gathering would be moot.

2.  Change from “annual” conference to Biennial Gathering.  Business would be planned and approved once every 2 years.  Every church sends 1 delegate and all pastors regardless of their current classification would be allowed to vote on all matters; no exceptions.  This is radical I know.  One reason I would hear against this is the balance of having equal number of clergy and lay delegates.  If this balance is necessary, it’s a sign of distrust.  Another objection would be that only “qualified” clergy should vote on clergy matters.  Talk about class elitism; this practice needs to end.  Then in those “odd” years we don’t meet for business, we gather for worship, praise and a variety of studies designed to help local congregations engage in their Mission.  I would liken these odd year gatherings to that of the New Room Conferences.  If you’ve never been to one, you should!

3.  Change ‘General Conference’ to Global Gathering.  Here our polity, rules, and doctrine are established.  Each Network (now called Annual Conferences) would send 12 delegates, 6 lay people and 6 pastors, to represent their area Network.  The meetings would be presided over by the collective Presbyters of each Network.  At the end of this Global Gathering, each delegate and Presbyter would affirm their commitment to support and uphold the established polity and doctrine.  After the report is shared with each congregation, they would make covenant also to support and uphold the decisions made.

Well, I know this is a big dream.  I know it is also controversial for some.  But then, big dreams are like that.  Jesus came to the Jewish Community with a big dream, a God-sized dream.  It was indeed controversial to some.  It was even considered to be foolish.  But to those of us who believed the Message of this Kingdom, it is the power of salvation.

Feel free to add to or take away from anything I’ve written.  I freely admit that I do not have all the answers–but I do know, and walk with the ONE who has those answers.

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

 

We are a little over 3 months from what many consider to be a historic General Conference.  Its purpose is to respond to the Commission on a Way Forward’s Report, and any other petition “in harmony” with the stated purpose of this Special Session.  Harmony, now here’s an out-of-place word used in the context of the United Methodist Church.  Our Tribe has been everything, but “in harmony” for decades.  This lack of “harmony” may very well account for our steady decline.

On May 18, 2016, the majority of the Council of Bishops managed to “guide” that General Conference into accepting this notion of forming a Commission (fancy name for Committee–well, that certainly sounds like Methodists…) to study the issue on human sexuality.  This Commission would meet and develop a report to be presented at a called special session of the General Conference that would result in Unity once and for all.

It was a motion formed from the notion rooted in emotion, that 2 opposing views could find common ground and develop a solution to make everyone happy.  Allow me to say that I followed the advice of our Bishop:  Wait, Pray, and Be Hopeful.  Since she was selected to be a part of this Commission/Committee, I followed her counsel.

I made no decision about leaving or staying in this Tribe.  I prayed every day and encouraged others to do the same.  And for a season, I remained hopeful…until this season of waiting, praying and being hopeful began to speak into my heart the reality we face as United Methodists.  These spiritual disciplines I practiced are now giving birth to a new, call it “insight” into our current dilemma.  And this post I started over a month ago, has taken on an entirely different direction.  What started out as a post about the hopelessness of this special General Conference, is now a post about the results of these past 2 years.  Thus, this title of “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly”.  I am NOT labeling ANYONE good, bad or ugly.  I am not judging others; I am looking at this process and what it is capable of doing.

Here is what The Spirit has helped me understand through the spiritual disciplines of waiting, praying and being hopeful through that resolution to form the Finding A Way Forward Commission and their resulting work.

The Good

The Good is that our governing body has realized that this “recurring every 4 years” issue needs to be resolved, once and for all.  Since 1976, we, meaning the General Conference, Jurisdictional Conferences, Bishops, Annual Conferences and members of the United Methodist Church, have been kicking the can down the road.  I say “we” because all of us bear guilt in the failure to address this cultural issue.  “We” would rather ignore, whine about or disobey this issue rather than resolve it.

Right now I’m thinking about that “rich young” man who came to Jesus with that powerfully poignant question:  “What must I do to have real life that never ends?”  He had been “kicking the can down the road” for God knows how long; putting his hope in rules and rituals.  And when Jesus came to town, somehow he knew the futility of kicking that can down the road and presented his issue to the One that knew the answer.

Though we want life to be both simple and easy, it is neither.  Life requires difficult choices.  Life, as God designed it to be before The Fall, also requires we make decisions that are not popular.  But it is those difficult and unpopular decisions that most often determine if we are serious about our desire for life that works now and lasts forever…or not.  Though such choices are painful, as it was for that rich young man who came to Jesus with his dilemma, life will force us to make those choices.  So, it is good that come February 2019, we come to make a decision that will determine whether or not we will have a life worth living now, and for eternity.

The Bad

The stated purpose of this Commission is to find a way forward where both sides can peaceably work together and live in unity.  Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not a doom and gloom prophet.  Truthfully, I wanted this Commission to be successful.  But then….then I read again their purpose and goal.

As time is quickly winding down, I can see clearly now that this Commission on a Way Forward was doomed for failure.  Before their first meeting.  Before the first member of the Commission was named.  Before names were presented for consideration on this Commission.  Even before the vote that set in motion this notion of moving forward as a single body was doomed.  It seems my Tribe has chosen a road that cannot be navigated, and was never meant to be navigated.

“The Bad” isn’t the issue surrounding human sexuality.  “The Bad” is that all 3 sides on this issue are using different and incompatible values as the basis for finding a model where all 3 sides can peacefully coexist.  In order for people to move forward, there must be an agreement on the foundation of that movement.  And….heavy sigh….no such foundation exists.  Here is how I understand the 3 sides and their foundation of unshakable Truth:

1. The Writers of the Bible misunderstood God.  We have become more evolved and enlightened as a species, and thus understand more than they did.  Thus our contextualization demands we change the ancient views to views that fit into our culture.  Literally, the Bible is wrong on the issue of human sexuality, thus we can no longer guide our lives by its teachings on sexuality.  And if we cannot allow it to guide our teachings about human sexuality, it is no longer reliable for all other matters of faith and life.  Only those who have had the blinders of orthodoxy removed can determine what is right or wrong.
2. Unity can be built through contextualization.  This is the path that Adam Hamilton, Michael Slaughter and, according to the secret ballot, the majority of Bishops, have chosen.  One place determines that it is right.  Another place determines that it is wrong.  And we can both be correct because of our context.  Accept each view as being right in its own context.  If we all surrender our theological understandings and embrace contextualization, then we can move forward again in unity.  There is no ultimate right or wrong; only contextualization.
3. The Bible has the final authority on all matters of life and faith.  We cannot faithfully follow Jesus as His disciples unless we model a life of holiness built upon the truths found within the Bible.  The lines of ethical behavior, of moral right and wrong, are found only in the context of the Sacred Writ.  We are not free to ignore, or even adjust, these ethics found within the Bible.  Though some have taken those Truths out of context, and others have misapplied them to social situations, the Bible remains the foundation.  Truth is neither subjective nor culturally contextual…Truth is absolute.

Reading what I have just written, it looks like I’ve oversimplified these deep and divisive issues facing our Tribe.  Complex issues cannot always be explained in terms of the simple.  Yet I am convinced this is where each of the 3 sides are–and hopefully you can see, as I have seen, that it is impossible for these 3 sides to be unified and united…and why this Commission was doomed before it began its important work.  That is indeed, The Bad.

 The Ugly

And this leads us to The Ugly.  We will never be able to form unity in this current state.  The ones in the middle think they have the answer–let’s coexist peacefully.  But the other sides disagree.  And rightfully so.  You cannot have it both ways.  It’s like mixing water and oil.  In the realm of the chemical world, bonding of molecules is necessary to create unity within 2 or more components, thus creating something different.  At their deepest core, the molecules of oil and the molecules of water cannot bond together.  It is a violation of the law of chemistry and thus, an impossibility.  Mixing progressives and the orthodox together is a human and spiritual impossibility.  Their molecules will simply not bond together, which bonding must happen in order to produce unity.

I liken our current impasse to John Wesley and the Church of England.  Unity could not happen at the spiritual molecular level which was needed for unity.  The decisive moment occurred in 2 steps.  First, when he commissioned and sent Francis Asbury to America to organize the movement.  Second, when he commissioned and sent Thomas Coke to consecrate Asbury as a “superintendent”.  But Coke went further by consecrating Asbury as “Bishop”.  Even though Wesley didn’t like that, yet he would not stand in the way of this new Awakening.

In both cases, Wesley did not have the permission of the Church of England nor the authority to do such.  I strongly suspect that Wesley knew that such actions would result in a “divorce” from the Church of England.  To do this, Wesley was in a real sense, commiting “divorce” with the Church of England.  Yet he moved forward with those decisions, even with what might have been a sadness in his heart.  Somehow he knew though, that it wasn’t a “divorce”, rather a mitosis that would extend the influence of the Kingdom of God.

The Ugly does indeed offer hope.  Remember the story of the ugly duckling?  It grew up to be a beautiful swan.  To do that it had to give up its “duckiness”  and embrace a new future of being a swan.  What is needed now for the United Methodist Church is a “mitosis” (read 7 Major Benefits from the Mitosis of the UMC and The Two-Church Vision: Spiritual Mitosis Rather than Angry Schism).  The result would be 2, maybe 3, unique expressions of the Wesleyan Movement that would not share a name, but a spiritual DNA:  The Body of Christ!  The only solution is for all 3 sides is to end this thing called United Methodists and to part ways as each seeks the Kingdom of God.  While this may be considered ugly (and it probably is), it is the only healthy way to handle this impasse.

Back to this title.  I will say it again, so as not be be misunderstood.  It is not that one side is good, another side bad, and the last side ugly.  Truth is, each side has the good, the bad and the ugly.  The Good is that we we long to see the Kingdom of God.  The Bad is that sometimes we are wrong, but HE is always right.  And The Ugly?  Well, think about a cocoon,  It is indeed ugly, but my oh my, what comes out of it.  Let’s be patient with each other, ourselves and the Holy Spirit as through mitosis, that part of the Lord’s Prayer becomes a reality in our time:  “Thy Kingdom Come.  Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  The ugly comes through making tough choices and right decisions.  But God always transforms “the ugly” into “the beautiful”.  Do you doubt that statement?  Then remember the Cross!

I am still waiting.  I am still praying.  And because I have faithfully been doing the first two, I am NO LONGER hopeful for unity.  I am, however, more hopeful than ever, for another Great Awakening in our world.

In my next post, I will share what I could see, as a life long Methodist, this new church coming out of this mitosis, looking like.