What Do You Think ReThink is Thinking?

The prefix “re” usually implies “again,” — return, turn again; review, view again; regain, gain again; reframe, frame again — so in the case of ReThink Church, the implication is that we have thought church through at least once. (It doesn’t work so well with regret, gret again?, rebate, bate again?, rebut, but again???) Upon reflection, some believe it is time to rethink church — to take a careful look at what we’ve got and ask the question, “is this the best we can do?” rethinkchurch_logo_ The deeper question is, “are we really re-thinking or just dressing up the same old thing so it looks different?” As with most things in life, the answer is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

ReThink Church is a branding package — a promotional ploy to update and/or replace the problematic “open hearts/minds/doors” sound bite of Igniting Ministry — designed to get more people to want to join The United Methodist Church. To this extent, it is simply same-old, same-old — nothing new, just a retread. If it becomes nothing more than a pleasant website and a logo on a bumper sticker or a coffee mug, then we’re no further along than we’ve been with whatever Ministries we’ve Ignited over the past eight years. Each time I visit the website, I come away dismayed that there really isn’t anything new or innovative. It seems to me to be a fresh coat of paint on the old, familiar structure. To me, and I emphasize that this is (as always) just a personal opinion, it smacks of the tired “Venus fly-trap” approach to snagging young people to bolster the sagging attendance stats of the UMC. So much is geared to getting people in our doors — the main foundation of the “institutional preservation paradigm” of our denomination.

This calls to mind the business book battle of the 1980s and 90s between “re-engineering” vs. “reinventing.” The United Methodist Church cannot afford re-engineering in a time demanding reinvention. Our denomination accepts as given the historical and traditional practices of itineracy, connectionalism, governance, judicial review, episcopal oversight, appointive orders, apportionments and disciplinary obligations, and resourcing. None of these should be summarily dismissed, but all have more validity for 18th, 19th, and 20th century realities than relevancy in the 21st. It sometimes seems that we are trying so hard to be a Sony Walkman church in an iPod world. This is more than an “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” thing — it’s more an “I’m a Mac, I’m an IBM Selectric” (with self-correcting ribbon cartridge!) distinction.

The idea that The United Methodist Church might actually be doing a new thing falls apart under close scrutiny. ReThink Church, at least what has appeared so far, is the same old institution parading around in a new suit of clothes. Unfortunately, like the emperor of the children’s tale, this new suit is imaginary and what is underneath is shining through — the church we’ve always had, unaware that it’s not fooling anyone.

We need a new United Methodist Church — drawing from its strengths, its theological roots, and its commitment to transformation — to create a Christian presence in the world that is different. The key to this difference is that we stop focusing so much on “Methodist” and we start focusing more on “United.” Rather than airing all of our grievances, disputes, controversies, and conflicts, we need a witness to the world that unity in Christ is greater than our petty squabbles. Instead of fixating on our sins, failures, losses, and weaknesses, we need a vision for God’s healing grace, inclusive justice, unmerited mercy, and boundless love. We need to get up out of our pews, stop hiding in our sanctuaries, drop our clergy-laity competitions, and take our faith into the world — especially the ugly, dirty, broken, diseased, and hopeless corners and crannies. We need to stop believing we are the gravitational center of the Church, and become the presence of Christ reaching to the fringes, the margins, and the boundaries where the children of God are disenfranchised and ignored. We need to break from the “mainline” to and draw a “newline” that encompasses more of those on the outside — increase our definition of “us” while significantly decreasing the number of people we marginalize as “them.” Perhaps what we need most is to stop listening to those calling for revision and pay a little more attention to those crying out for a revolution. It’s not too late. Let’s rethink our rethinking before all we end up with is a repeat of what we’ve already done.

Rate this:

43 responses to “What Do You Think ReThink is Thinking?”

Scott

April 29, 2009

BUT don’t ya think the red shirts are better than the black Open Hearts ones?? This campaign might have a positive effect, who knows?

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 29, 2009
  
  Oh yeah, the fashion sense has definitely improved. And I like the coffee mugs better, too.
  
  Reply
Billy Reeder

April 29, 2009

A friend of mine forwarded me a link to your blog, curious of my thoughts…In all fairness, I figured I’d post them for you to read as well. In one breath I want to agree with every thing you wrote. In the other breath I want to disagree. Let me explain…

I’m actually someone who came back to the church after I saw the Open Hearts, Minds, Doors material. The thought occurred to me that the UMC might have actually gotten serious. Since that time I’ve been around. A lot of around and I’ve walked through the doors of countless churches across the country and world for that matter. So here’s where I agree with you.

Most will never get it. Most simply cannot or will not allow themselves to view our faith in any form other than what it has been the for past hundred years. In many if not most cases they are simply the walking dead. They just don’t know it yet. It’s something I told my own conference years ago, that unless some monumental shift occurred the UMC as we know it will implode upon itself. Those words fell on deaf institutionalized ears. Just look at the numbers and the size of our infrastructure and project a decade into the future and see what comes up.

Simple catastrophic implosion. I used to grieve that notion. I don’t any more. The organization that is the UMC wants the magic pill that makes everything go away, that all will be sunny and warm. It’s not going to happen…at least not for most.

But not for all. And this is where I start to disagree. There were a brilliant few within UMCom who came up with this phrase of Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors and the organization of the UMC cheered it on as a magic pill and its critics ripped it apart as lunacy. But the part that people seemed to miss was that it was really a cry that broke through the institution that begged the masses to do something different, to make love a verb and find a way back to not just our Wesleyan orthodoxy, but equally as important our Wesleyan orthopraxy. Those brilliant few knew that there would be some who really understood what was being said with those simple words and would work to make this denomination something better while the rest were busy yelling at each other.

So here we find ourselves again arming ourselves on why Rethink Church is hypocrisy, heresy, lunacy, or isn’t post modern enough. It’s just a new verse to an old song.

But it could be a new song. What if we actually took it to heart? What if we just accepted the fact that most of our congregations simply will die in a very short time and realize that this is an amazing opportunity to envision what will emerge from the ashes? Right now I’m involved in a new church start and Rethink Church has become our rallying cry. What if we moved our ministries to the worst parts of town instead of the wealthiest? What if we gave the finger to notions of multi-million dollar buildings? What if our clergy would be offended at the notion of a bigger salary? What if our music didn’t suck? What if we remembered that our orthopraxy tells us to be evangelical without shoving an American Jesus down somebody’s throat? What if we stopped complaining, took Rethink Church as permission to rethink our presuppositions of what church should be and stepped up to a new found conviction?

That’s the church that will emerge from the ashes. That’s the church that’s pretty fippin’ awesome. I think that’s what it means become an organic church, a new Wesleyan. You may disagree, but that’s the beauty of this. You’re allowed.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 29, 2009
  
  I appreciate your perspective. I am glad that Igniting Ministry was profound for some people. Any conceptual frame has the power to trigger real change. I believe the problem with our current approach is that changing a culture and worldview won’t be achieved by a marketing campaign. Too many of our congregations operate from a program/campaign mentality. The power of “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” is severely limited if it is nothing more than this year’s theme. Unless we adopt this slogan as a strategic objective to redefine our identity and purpose, it is probably a waste of time. Look at Vision 2000. A survey of 1,100 V2K congregations asked them to list the lasting changes and impact that resulted from this intensive promotional program. Only 13% of churches could name current changes grounded in V2K, and none identified a positive impact that made a substantive difference to the church. Of the 87% that couldn’t name anything, three-quarters don’t even really remember much about it. My concern (and prediction) is that a decade from now, “OH, OM, OD” will have made no more lasting impact that Vision 2000… and it won’t matter because we will have moved on to something equally superficial and short-lived.
  
  Reply
2. Karen Gordy-Panhorst
  
  April 29, 2009
  
  Preach it, Billy!
  I couldn’t express it any better than you have!
  
  Reply
Jay

April 29, 2009

Dan, look at where the program originates from — the institutional structures that are trying to justify their existence. It isn’t that UMCom (the originator of this latest ploy) doesn’t want to see the best for our church. Rather most of our institutions are staffed with folks who have been rooted too long in the structures, and don’t have the vision to move to new territory.

However, at the risk of sounding harsh, I think a continuing problem with all of these programs is that they are designed by marketing/branding gurus with little recognition of a deeper theological framework nor much active participation in the lives of actual people seeking after God. While I believe that we need a revolution of structure, I continue to believe that our Wesleyan theological framework which balances personal piety and social holiness, and which holds in tension love of God and love of neighbor, is a a gift in a postmodern world which is looking for honest and authentic relationships with God. Our United Methodist theology doesn’t provide easy answers to hard questions, but rather provides a framework for theological searching and conversation leading toward an understanding of God worked out in community. The folks who come up with Igniting Ministries or ReThinking Church or whatever the hell they come up with next have little to no understanding about what it is that makes United Methodism a vital faith, so they focus on structure and program and lead us down the same damn path we’ve seen before.

All I can say is Oy Vey!!!

BTW, I know you are on your way to Wisconsin, but when are you coming to see me?

jv

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 29, 2009
  
  Man, I hope people read your comments. You have summed up the problem and solution in a short, elegant statement. We don’t add value to our church by heaping on layers and levels of “stuff.” The commitment to balance works of mercy and piety, with the equally Wesleyan balance of the personal and communal spiritual formation, gives the basic framework upon which a relevant church can thrive — pre-modern, modern, post-modern, uber-modern, or whatever. This secular-centric starvation for brand and message is a sad commentary on a lack of vision and leadership. It seems that our gospel isn’t good enough — we need to improve it. (God needs an image consultant?) Thanks for sharing your incisive and insightful thoughts.
  
  Reply
Joe Hamby

April 29, 2009

Thanks again for your thoughts on “Rethink Church.” Nothing is happening in our conference at a leadership level that signals we are ready to “draw a newline.” I wonder what event/action will constitute a tipping point that will galvanize our Council of Bishops to truly rethink church? Or will the United Methodist Church be like the frog that is boiled alive as the water slowly gets hotter and hotter? Personally, I’m presently attending a UM church that reaches a remarkably diverse population in our city led by pastors who lead the way in radically grace-giving ministries. For that I am deeply grateful.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 29, 2009
  
  I think this is a “think globally, act locally” type thing. The United Methodist Church cannot afford to wait for leadership to step up and lead. Every congregation should be rethinking church — or at least carefully examining and evaluating the church we have to find key leverage points for change and improvement. I need to be careful not to focus too completely on what isn’t working — the seeds of change are sprouting all around. Glimmers of hope abound. Too many people are experiencing a troubling discontent with the status quo. I believe God is stirring hearts and minds throughout the world. The church we’ve had is not the church we need. Our future does not lie in reconstructing some dimly remembered past. The Holy Spirit of God works throughout the body of Christ to do a new thing — but things that are truly new and different are scary. I think that denominationally we are more governed by fear of what we might lose than we are guided by faith in all that we have to gain. Keep striving where you are, and don’t give up. The worst thing that can happen to United Methodism is that the people who care the most get disenchanted and head for greener pastures.
  
  Reply
eric pone

April 28, 2009

It really doesn’t matter what the program is. Unless there is a heartfelt desire from disciples (note I did not say congregation) and pastors and leadership to make mission unique to the contexts they are in this will fail. It isn’t a slogan but how we draw in people who are seeking Christ of all types. Can the Bishops and DS’ though embrace missionary work when their salaries are at risk? How committed are they to it when they have to turn their staff to the field and they have to make their own copies? What if we drop the number of DS’ altogether? What if commissioned is something far simpler and accessable than the Board of Ministries view it? How will the General Conference Ministries react when apportionments drop dramatically because the investment is now local versus institutional?

I think the institution itself with its table 1 2 3, and conference staff, and apportionments counter mission work locally by sapping time, talent and funds and keeping small congregations in a constant state of crisis. In an ideal situation you would substantially decrease the size of these institutions. For example why is it that we have the number of Bishops we do? Do we honestly need the numbers we currently have? Is the concept of the full time DS obselete? What about Ordination? Do we need most or even 10% congregations to have a seminary trained pastor? If seminary trained pastors are so useful why do most fail in the basic job of creating disciples? If we are to truly rethink this we need to be willing to question every aspect of the barriers impacting the local church and keeping it from looking outward to the community itself.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  April 28, 2009
  
  Right on, Eric. We are trapped by our trappings, and I believe you have listed yet more illustrations of how we really aren’t ready to rethink much of anything. Preserving the institution — and particularly our piece of it — still feels too important to too many. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
  
  Reply
mikeoles3

April 28, 2009

I recently read a book on church marketing. The whole point of the book could be summed up in a few lines; “Most churches shouldn’t market because they are so screwed up and don’t have much to offer somebody new.” Or something like that.

And that is my fear with the “rethink church” theme–because most umcs aren’t rethinking church. if people do show up expecting something different and promising chances are they will find just more of the same.

Reply
Pam

April 28, 2009

AMEN to revolutionizing the church and not just the message, doroteos2!

I used to work in an advertising department which served a large number of stores. All of the stores were represented under the same logo, but each individual store was privately owned and could operate in whatever way it wished. Some were in tiny old buildings, some didn’t do much for the customer but open the doors and expect them to come, others were state-of-the-art or service-oriented. As my boss said, “The ads might get them to come in the door, but we can’t make the stores follow through.”

Re: the “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” message, I think it was a wishful-thinking kind of corporate advertising. We hoped we would tell people about the kind of church we wanted to be, AND hoped that if the people already in the pews heard it that maybe they would want to BE that church!

When all that changes is the message, we lose all credibility with the “unchurched” if they come in and see that the church doesn’t live up to what is advertised. So, does that mean we shouldn’t advertise? No, but the church needs to CHANGE and become that true body of Christ before we put out the communication that it is doing something new!

Reply