A Call to Auction

Let’s just put it out there to the highest bidder. We obviously don’t know what to do with it. The new Call to Action report came out saying what we already know and offering the same old tired suggestions for “widespread reform.” What a short memory we have. We studied our church in the 80s and recommended the same thing (remember Vital Congregations/Faithful Disciples?). We studied in the 90s and recommended the same thing. I studied in the 00s (Vital Signs) and saw the same things (though made some different recommendations). Now we’re in the 10s and we’re devoting tons of time and money to finding out, wait for it, THE SAME THINGS.

Part of what is so sad about all this is that the insidious church growth, professionalism, service industry mentality that got us into this mess in the first place is at the heart of the solutions we seek for the future. The thinking is that if we do the wrong things better, it will all work out fine. Good luck with that. Making more of what we don’t do well is no solution. Getting more people to connect with a dysfunctional system won’t fix the system, it will simply mess up the people.

I have the same problem with what I am reading in the Call to Action report that I have with the Rethink Church marketing campaign — they are driven by institutional preservation, not missional transformation. Reducing the number of agencies, realigning structures, refocusing message — these are symptoms, not root causes. This isn’t a political campaign or the roll-out of a revamped “product” or the “positioning of a brand.” Until we grow up and adopt a more systemic approach we will merely get a whole lot more of what we’ve already got.

Our short term future is going to be a continued loss of members. The main decision we have to make is this: do we lose those with a heart for Jesus Christ and a desire to become Christian disciples by pandering to the less engaged and try to attract more warm bodies (hopefully will warm wallets), or do we raise the bar, get serious about transformative discipleship at the risk of losing the Sunday pew-sitters and the Christian consumers and the “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, what-will-you-do-for-me-next” pay-as-you-go, spiritual but not religious crowd?

Harsh? You betcha. I am tired of being sold-out. We have a church of one million highly motivated, giving, loving, serving, sacrificing Christian men and women propping up a dinosaur of an additional 6.5 million people along for the ride. We do not have the courage to challenge people with a “are you serious about this or not” message, because the 6.5 million hold assets we want and need and we cannot risk losing more money. Well, discipleship isn’t that simple. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Discipleship has costs. If we don’t want to pay them, that’s fine, but let’s stop looking for “disciple-lite” alternatives. Watering down the Christian faith is not the answer.

Don’t get me wrong. We need A Call to Action. We need to Rethink Church. But we also need Common Sense and Historic Perspective. We need to Wake Up. We need to stop hiring outsiders to tell us who we ought to be and what we ought to be doing. We need to rally the community of believers called United Methodist and answer some simple questions: who are we — really? why are we here – why do we exist as a church? what is our witness — what are we trying to do as the body of Christ? what is our impact — what difference are we making in the world and in the kingdom of God? Out of this discussion we can begin to discern what our witness needs to be, what impact we want to make, and what the future of The United Methodist Church can be.

I say this with deep respect for the people I know who are involved in all the processes of research and discernment in the church. I think many of the people involved have nothing but the best interest of the church at heart. But I think we are missing something. I hear the public statements, then I have the hallway conversations, and we’re not all on the same page. The “been here before, done this before, nothing changed” attitude is pervasive. I pray that from all this chaos a new order emerges. I think there are enough people who are going to fight and fight hard for the reformation and renewal of The United Methodist Church. I’m one of them, and I am in regular contact with hundreds of others who share my concerns (and hundreds of others who think I am full of holy hooey…). I’m concerned by the latest reports, as I have been for the better part of the past three decades, when essentially the exact same report was released each and every time. May we find the wisdom to break this cycle.

Rate this:

54 responses to “A Call to Auction”

Rex Nelson

October 28, 2010

Make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
How do the following serve that purpose?
Clergy/laity distinction.
Polity, episcopal or congregational.
The Bible, specifically, how we use it.
Denominational distinction.
Distinction among religions.
Organizational perpetuity.
Organizational hierarchy.
Property.
Law, canon and civil.
Unless we are able to examine these and others, our assumptions will block our understanding, and, ultimately, our progress.

Reply
Taylor Burton-Edwards

October 28, 2010

Adam,

You offered a phrase that I hear often, but that may not apply in the way it is often thought to by many in US culture: “bloated bureaucracy.”

Bureaucracy I get. General Agencies, Annual Conference and Episcopal offices, District Offices, Jurisdictional entities, and even, in many congregations (and the larger they are, the more important it actually becomes!) bureaucracy is the way things get done. Generate any sufficiently complex system, and then you need to standardize and routinize some functions and resources so that the system as a whole can continue to function to fulfill its mission.

So I don’t see bureaucracy as a bad word. I see it as a way every large human organization manages its increasing complexity.

The problem I see is the word “bloated.”

And the specific problem I see is the assertion that that applies to every part of the bureaucratic life of the denomination in the same way.

Now, I think that every bureaucracy can and should at some point be asked whether its ways of organizing its work to accomplish its particular functions are efficient. And sometimes some changes need to be made internally so that it does perform its functions better and more efficiently.

Some of those changes could deal with administrative process or communication issues, rather than programmatic or resource delivery issues per se.

But even here, there’s only so much “streamlining” that can be done before you actually start offloading administrative tasks onto people you’re hiring to accomplish programmatic and resourcing functions that are vital to the mission.

Most of the general agencies and many of the conferences have significantly downsized over the past quadrennium. And part of that downsizing has already been an offloading of a number of administrative and communications and even marketing tasks directly to program staff.

I think it’s a judgment call– not an obvious one– to decide when even administrative support tasks and structures have been “de-bloated” to the degree that the structures begin to digest their own muscle and bone.

I’m not saying there’s not room for better alignment, consolidation of many “back office” functions, and a greater sense of collaboration rather than turf on some key projects. That’s clearly called for– and the second of the two research reports commissioned by the Call to Action Committee described that very well.

But I am saying let’s be wise here. Let’s not assume that because we have a bureaucracy, it is therefore necessarily “bloated” or “inefficient.” Let’s instead look at what makes for the best (and not necessarily the smallest!) organizational structure we can design so that we can actually deliver the front line programming, leadership and resources with minimal constraints, which means also providing for the best administrative, communications and even marketing (that is, communication that motivates those who can most likely benefit from the wisdom, programming, or resources on offer) we can muster so that those doing programming, leadership and resourcing can actually focus intently on those functions and therefore, in the end, deliver more and better support to the church for its mission in the world.

Reply
Adam Estep

October 28, 2010

Change definitely needs to happen. We run with such a bloated bureaucracy and infrastructure that how can we ever be efficient without change? Change needs to happen not just at the upper levels, but at the congregational level in terms of organization. How can we effectively and efficiently impact our communities when we have 5 churches going separate directions within 5 miles of each other? The multi-point charge in addition to guaranteed appointment system needs to be examined. How is this giving our best to God?

The whole system has signs of trying to please everyone from the number of “special sundays” at the denomination and conference level to maintaining a church of 10-15 people. What are we about anymore?

Reply
Anonymous

October 28, 2010

THANK YOU. I understand that many people are constrined from speaking the truth in love because their pay checks depend on preaching the party line, but thank God we have some clear thinkers who will shout that the emperor is wearing no clothes. You blog has been a true call to action since you started writing it, and having sat through endless meetings at our general boards and agencies, I can tell you that you are right on the mark. Anytime anyone questions what we are doing or the way we are doing it they are patiently listened to, then ignored. Please know that there are many people who share your misgivings — even those who are working on the project. You hit the nail on the head — we are constrained by the “institutional preservation” mentality. There is nothing “missiological” (I love that word!) about what we are doing at the end of the day. It is all about survival and self preservation.

I hope people don’t come down on you for this commentary. We need more people like you courageous enough to speak up and hold our feet to the fire to do a better job. I, for one, commend your brave spirit, and I understand that you criticize because you love the church and want to see it do the right thing.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  October 28, 2010
  
  Knowing who you are, I can understand why you commented anonymously. I do wish though that those of you in key positions could come forward publically to witness to the fact that not all of our leaders are buying into (or are comfortable with) the conventional wisdom.
  
  Reply
Brian Miller

October 28, 2010

Dan, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and agree in part. The answer is nothing short of full participation in the mission of Jesus. I also understand that some of these answers are decades old. What if part of our continued problem, though, is that we have not held ourselves accountable to our very own findings? Perhaps pervasive action in this way two decades ago would have forced us to deal with the deeper issues of which you speak. The kind of missional transformation that is necessary is like the refiner’s fire. We probably will not choose to enter it on our own.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  October 28, 2010
  
  I agree fully that we haven’t held ourselves accountable. I feel that we have assessed the problems accurately for decades — a sort of foundational dry rot — but have applied cosmetic solutions — dabbing on another coat of paint — then patted ourselves on the back for awhile until the problems become so blatant we cannot ignore them any more. I believe we lack the radical courage to make the necessary changes, and the changes proposed are cosmetic at best. The General Boards and Agencies, while costly and wasteful, are not the problem, and eliminating or consolidating them won’t solve much of anything. Holding the leadership of these agencies accountable to tangible missional goals and objectives could offer much greater benefits than getting rid of them. Removing those ineffectual leaders who hire outsiders to tell them how to do their jobs would be a fine place to start. But even this is just tinkering. We have an identity crisis. We don’t lack “branding,” we lack courage to pursue our mission and purpose. As long as we pander to the lowest common denominator of cultural consumerism, materialism, individualism and the entitlement mentality we will continue in the current downward spiral. I think you and I are in complete agreement. We say the right things, but we cannot commit to do the right things.
  
  Reply
Greg F

October 28, 2010

Dan, thank you for confirming some suspicions I’ve had.I’ve been involved with the UMC at the Conference level since I was a teenager and my parents served as core leaders and even staff at my local church. I remember the Vision 2000 documents and how exciting they seemed to me as a teenager but as I began hearing about the Call to Action I wondered if it wasn’t just something similar.

Reply
Dalton

October 28, 2010

I have seen the CTA report described as “creeping congregationalism.” In terms of how we deal with congregations, I am not sure that is right. But as far as it relates to how we deal with general agencies and conference staff, I am inclined to agree. Part of the problem–part, not all–is that we are cutting programming staff left and right and relying more on clergy in the local church for programming, keeping them from fulfilling the primary duties associated with their charges. And then, as you have noted, we hit them with the same old church-growth nonsense, as if maybe this time it will work.

What I am not willing to do is support a warmed-over “focus” on church growth and also consider fixing the guaranteed appointment problem. If we are going to deal with guaranteed appointments–which I am open to!–we need to fundamentally look at our mission and change how we do it. Until we really ask and answer the question’s you’ve identified, Dan, we aren’t getting anywhere, and clergy effectiveness–while needing to be addressed–is not the quick fix for this one.

Reply