Make-No-Wave United Methodist Church

I received an interesting email from a pastor today who “followed my advice” and raised questions about expectations and accountability in the church. He asked the “what is the church?” and “what is the church for?” questions, and zeroed in on what our membership vows really mean. He was shocked when the chair of the church council responded by saying, “well, we don’t have time to talk about this now. We have church business we need to deal with.” Later that evening, the chair of SPRC (Staff-Parish Relations Committee) called to schedule an appointment — “We need to talk. As soon as possible.” The pastor was surprised early the next morning when the SPRC chair, the Lay Leader, the church Council chair, and the head of Trustees all showed up together. The conversation went something like this (church leadership in bold; pastor normal type):

We need to know what’s gotten into you?

What do you mean?

This kick you’re on to push; to make us feel bad about not doing enough?

I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad. I’m just trying to offer people something better. I want to help people grow in their faith.

Well, that’s fine, but a lot of people are perfectly happy where they are.

I know they are, but that doesn’t mean they should be.

See? That’s exactly the kind of pressure we’re talking about. Who are you to judge what kind of Christians people should be?

It’s not a matter of “judging” anyone. It’s a matter of helping people grow in their faith.

You made a lot of people uncomfortable last night. You made it sound like we should be doing more.

We SHOULD be doing more! I brought up the issues for a reason.

But that’s not why people come to this church. People come here because they know they will be loved and cared for, not judged and made to feel guilty.

Being loved and cared for and becoming faithful disciples are not mutually exclusive. People should want both.

In your opinion. None of our previous pastors said any of this stuff.

But it isn’t just my opinion. It’s in the Bible. It’s in our Book of Discipline. I didn’t make this stuff up.

No, you said you pulled it off the web and we all know how reliable things are you can find online.

You’re kidding, right? You’re saying because I got the articles off the web that we shouldn’t pay attention to it? All I raised were three questions: what is the church? what is the church for? and how do we hold people accountable to the promises they made to God and one another. That’s all. These are good questions to ask.

But they’re unnecessary. We’re not trying to be super-Christians. We’re just normal people who love God and need to know that God loves us. That’s all. We don’t need you telling us how we ought to live our faith. It’s none of your business if we pray or not or read the Bible or even how often we attend church. You are here to be our pastor, not our conscience.

But I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t preach and teach from the Bible and challenge people to be the best Christians we can be.

Look, you’re young and we want to support you, but you need to be reasonable. People are busy — we have full lives. We don’t have time to be saints. We need you to do your job — lead worship, visit church members, teach confirmation, pray for us, and try to grow the church. We just don’t need you making things harder than they ought to be.

I don’t know what to say. You tell me you want me to do my job, but when I do my job you don’t want me to. This is impossible. I didn’t do anything wrong last night. In fact, I did exactly the right thing.

The pastor received a call later in the day from his district superintendent. Hoping for support, he was irritated to discover that his DS sided with the congregation’s leadership, asking that he “back off.” The DS told him that he needed to make this appointment work, and that he couldn’t afford to alienate key leadership. Again, he heard that he needed to be “reasonable.”

What am I missing here? I was called to ministry. I am part of a church whose mission is to make disciples, but when I bring up acting like disciples I am told to back off. If we can’t even have discussions about what it means to be the church in the church, we’re in big trouble. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that your “basic” questions are not “simple” questions at all.

This is one of the more dramatic responses I have received, but in no way is it rare or unusual. Some of our United Methodist churches are held hostage by low expectations, complacency, lack of vision, and a distinct aversion to anything remotely disciple-like. What are we going to do about it? When mediocrity becomes the standard, it is only a matter of time until we cease to exist. No relevancy, no urgency, no commitment = no church. Unless it is safe and even encouraged to rock the boat, makes some waves, and shake things up, we may be looking for a new church real soon.

Rate this:

124 responses to “Make-No-Wave United Methodist Church”

Taylor Burton-Edwards

October 6, 2010

Jeff,

I think Easum’s advice is inflammatory and divisive– and misses the nature of worship. It’s not starting a new service that matters– it’s creating a parallel culture, whether inside or alongside the congregation. Starting a new service presumes that worship generates discipleship. That’s just about backwards. Worship reflects discipleship and perhaps shapes it, but rarely (if ever) actually generates it.

Reply
1. Tony Mitchell
  
  October 6, 2010
  
  I agree with Taylor on this. My present church started a second service which was “modern” in style. I wasn’t presented at its creation but I have always received “vibes” that it was done in protest to the more traditional service.
  
  There is virtually no cross-over between the two services and there are many who refuse to participate in the “other” service (and that reads both ways). When we combine to one service in the summer, many people attend elsewhere when the service is one style or the other. Hardly the setting for rebirth and a refocus.
  
  Reply
Jeff Uhler

October 6, 2010

So, like Bill Easum says in his “Hail Mary” approach, provide a chaplaincy ministry for those who are already part of the church while developing the new via a new worship service targeted for those who are ready. As you start the new, build in the new DNA that includes intentional discipleship development of all – lay and clergy alike.

It’s interesting, Dave, to compare the current institutional UMC with the Sandhedrin. I hadn’t considered that idea before….

Reply
1. David Kueker
  
  October 6, 2010
  
  It’s not an exact match to compare a local church or a denomination with the Sanhedrin.
  
  But there are lots of people who are relgious but not interested in following Jesus; the seed is sown everywhere, but it is reaped where it is ripe, in the people who are ready. Jesus works with those people just as easily in the wilderness away from the temple as within the temple. (Much like Wesley worked inside and outside the Church of England.)
  
  The Structural Principle: The problem is not to change or replace structure but to utilize existing structures for disciple making.
  
  The primary value of the comparison to me is that the current approach to church renewal or revival would involve Jesus operating as a change agent in the temple, equipping temple leaders for change, bringing hospitality for outsiders to the temple, preaching at temple worship services, revamping the curriculum of the rabbis, working to gain influence for and positions of authority within the temple governing structure for his followers, becoming the acknowledged spiritual leader of the priests, running for election as a delegate for General Conference, redecorating the temple so that it will be more attractive to the gentiles and introducing new worship forms – gentile music with Old Testament lyrics. You won’t find this in the gospels or the book of Acts; it’s not what Jesus did.
  
  We forget that the believers of the church of Acts attended worship in the temple without any seeming desire to lead that worship or change it, even to the point of it glorifying Jesus. They made disciples within a discipleship system … much like Wesley’s societies … that operated in small groups alongside the temple system’s programs, events and large group worship services. The same pattern is repeated in the gigantic third world cell church and other disciple making movements.
  
  It’s the likely introduction of new worship forms or an attempt to change the institution that results in the end of that golden age in persecution (Acts 6:7).
  
  We say that our focus is making disciples for the transformation of the world … but an audit of our energy shows that our focus is actually the the attempt to make disciples for the transformation of the institutional church.
  
  Reply
David Kueker

October 6, 2010

One thing that’s amazing is that there is no conflict with the Book of Discipline, which added the following phrase to ¶ 126 in 2008: “Every layperson is called to carry out the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20); every layperson
is called to be missional.”

The obligation of all Christians to make disciples is incredibly rare in books on being a disciple outside of the church planting literature. The one major exception is The Purpose Driven Life. And now the second is our Book of Discipline.

I don’t suggest that we dismiss the questions that began this thread. It seems to me that the Gospel record reflects Jesus asking them of people who were willing to follow, and not bringing these questions to a meeting of the Sanhedrin and asking for changes in the Temple.

In our world as then, the people who are ready for spiritual change are usually not running the institution. It’s not wrong to ask them to change, in my opinion; it’s just poor judgement.

Reply
Jeff Uhler

October 5, 2010

Taylor, I agree that UM pastors have a responsiblity to the Discipline, and, therefore the dollars, etc. However, I don’t think that dismisses saying what needs to be said when it is needed.

I also agree that discipleship ceased being a focus many years ago – so what do we do when a pastor focuses on our “primary task” of making disciples and makes folks unhappy? Do we decide that pastor is ineffective? Do we move that pastor to a different congregation until that congregation is no longer happy?

Asking the questions that began this thread seems to be greatly needed. If all the institutional church is about these days is making the folks who are already members happy, then I’m certainly in the wrong place!

Speaking the appropriate word at the write time doesn’t mean neglecting all of the other areas of pastoral ministry the Discipline assigns us. But it also doesn’t mean that our focus is solely on making the current membership happy all the time.

For clergy and laity to dismiss the questions that began this thread seems a great error to me.

Bill Easum makes a statement that frames this for me: “In the national park, you needed mission statements. In the jungle, there’s really not time.” I think we’re now living in the jungle. What do we really have time for?

Reply
Taylor Burton-Edwards

October 5, 2010

Jeff,

Jesus was not leading a congregation, and indeed not anything like what congregations have become as institutions.

He was a prophet. He was not a pastor.

Institutions such as congregations do have needs… including needs for money and people to continue to do whatever they were founded to do.

So I guess I’d say that those saying pastors need to give attention to issues of dollars and donors aren’t entirely wrong. Indeed, they’re largely right, at least as long as UM pastors, by discipline, are the chief administrative officers of congregations. This IS a significant driver of our and the congregation’s fiduciary responsibility.

I think people may be more likely to bring this up and become more insistent about it when they come to believe the pastor thinks this is not at all the pastor’s role, or at least not an important and legitimate part of it.

Congregations essentially quit focusing on discipleship for all members in the sixth century or earlier. That means its leaders did, too… and still do.

We Methodists were folks who organized outside of congregations to engage disciple formation and deployment in mission. In time, our presence in congregations sometimes helped congregational culture to be at least a bit more friendly to this work, if still not ready or able to engage it well themselves.

Reply
1. Dave Whitman
  
  October 6, 2010
  
  So is the Wesleyan tradition best lived as a para-church movement?
  
  Reply
  1. Taylor Burton-Edwards
    
    October 6, 2010
    
    Not parachurch– that implies that things other than a congregation are not church.
    
    Wesley’s approach was to understand and enact church as a network– in which congregations, societies, class meetings, and other institutions (diocese or synod, plus conference) together, as a network, each doing its own thing well, embodied the fullness of church.
    
    It’s not either-or. It’s both-and.
    
    The “mainstream” Methodists dropped the class meeting and an understanding of the society officially by 1844 (the necessity of regular attendance in a class meeting was dropped from the Discipline), and probably, in actual practice, a decade or two before that.
    
    I don’t think the answer is to try to replicate EXACTLY what Wesley did in the 18th century. But the concept of church as a network, with various formats of Christian community (including intentional discipleship systems probably outside of congregations, as well as congregations themselves) each doing its own thing well and each staying connected to each other– that seems to be a good recipe for revival in any age.
  2. Dave Whitman
    
    October 6, 2010
    
    Yes, parachurch is the wrong word. Your ponit re: discipleship systems is well taken, particularly with the emphasis on discipleship. The focus on discipleship is where I’m investing my pastoral energy. My hunch is that if I take the time to teach/reacquaint the people with joining God in God’s will for each person, then we can better understand joining God in God’s work as a church.
Jeff Uhler

October 5, 2010

There are very few times when the “prophetic” word has been well received – Jonah was one. Yet that is the method that God has often used to get people’s attention when they are going the wrong way… worshipping other gods, etc. Is our mainline denomination going the wrong way? Many would say a loud “YES!” But there are many, including many of our lay members, who would say “NO!”

I’ve had lay members tell me they would not participate in a Bible study because they “know enough about God and don’t want to know anything more.” I’ve had folks tell me that my job is to make everyone in the congregation happy and keep the money givers content. I’ve been told that my job is to be in the office from 8 to 5 and visit door-to-door in order to get new people in the church. I’ve had District Superintendents tell me that I should cool it and just make the givers happy and I’ve had District Superintendents tell me that I needed to get the church turned around and growing.

Some will say that we need to balance the prophetic with the pastoral. I don’t see Jesus as balanced in this regard. He spoke what needed to be said when it needed to be said. Some responded. Others walked away (rich young ruler, for instance). Even those who responded didn’t always get it. But the basis for those who responded – and for us – remained the same – love God with all you are, and love others as you love yourself. From this base, Jesus’ ministry went forth – and I believe it is this base which serves as the catalyst for our pastoral and prophetic ministries.

Reply
dave werner

October 5, 2010

Thanks to Dan for raising this matter, which clearly stimulates discussion!

I find agreement with much of what David Kueker (and others) write. I like Keuker’s comments at #48 and #53. ISTM that there are indeed different “churches” within any congregation, and leaders need to acknowledge and work with that situation. I also like the idea of managing the congregation–that change comes better from within the body rather than from the top (so to speak). (Sorry if these statements do not fairly represent the original intent.)

I also appreciate Taylor Burton-Edwards’ discussion of the “12 year” issue in #7 and others.

I’m confident that God–however “God” is understood–will work with the “Church,” but I’m unsure whether we are adequately offering “Church” to the world. For many folks, “Church” is building (and capital campaigns to pay for it and its preservation) or pastor-as-representative-of-God/Jesus and people as “sheep” or an important element of our culture which helps keep the culture on the (very) straight and (generally) narrow or…. To work within the present institution developing a parallel culture, etc., is surely a good thing to do, but would it also be fair to suggest that maybe an entirely new thing–or almost new thing–might be a worthwhile effort too?

I’m wondering if the natural ambiguity and the future-oriented stance of our faith necessarily calls for less certainty and less professionalism than we often long for. In my mind, management of a congregation is not limiting, but rather freeing. It offers permission and companionship on the adventure of seeking wholeness (abundant living) for individuals, congregations, and world.

Clear like mud, I suppose.

Reply