The answer to the question, “what’s wrong with us?” is that we are fixated on the question “what’s wrong with us?”  Doom, gloom, decline, conflict, controversy, division, discord — all addressed with a cheery irrational rah-rah attitude.  National events that bludgeon participants with “Death Tsunami’s” and calls to action that lament our imminent demise are not going to motivate us to true systemic change.  Scare us?  Depress us?  Horrify and mortify us?  Certainly, as does every other abdication of leadership.  Were ministry primarily about problem-solving this might actually work, however, we are not merely managing a mess, but are charged with creating a future.  Focusing on what we aren’t, what we lack, what we’ve lost, and all the ways we are not what we once were is no way to envision new possibilities and potential.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out.  What we were in 1968 is not going to help us figure out who God wants us to be in 2018.  Our focus needs to be on who we are, what we have, and how we can most effectively live into the future.  We need vision, not vapid angst.

We used to have 12 million plus United Methodists (once we merged two declining denominations to make a new declining denomination).  So what?  Now we have 7.5 million.  Do we strategize ways to mobilize a spiritual community of 7 1/2 million to transform the world?  We do not.  We gripe and moan about the 5 million we lost and we dump resources into trying to capture a million more — with some silly delusion that the next million will be qualitatively superior to those we lost and those we’re left with.  Hey, if we don’t know what to do with the 7.5 million we’ve got, what makes us think we’re going to do so much better with the next million — or the next ten, for that matter.  Hundreds of books, DVDs, seminars, webinars, articles, etc., are aimed at helping us attract new “members” — all grounded in a fear-based message that “if we don’t get new people, we won’t survive.”  This survivalist message is “bad news” not “good news.”  We sold out our “gospel” to “drosspel.”  (Dross – waste matter, refuse…).  Where is our faith?

The Institutional Preservation Paradigm is impressive.  The momentum of 100+ years of growth, conquest, competition, acquisition and dominance exerts a terrible inertia.  We know how to exploit the system we have.  Real change would be costly — both personally and collectively.  We want things to get better, but not at our expense.  So we talk.  We rant.  We rally.  We put ads on TV.  We “brand.”  We form teams and task forces.  We do anything and everything but change.  The buildings we have were essentially designed, constructed and equipped for a church that no longer exists.  They now serve as beloved millstones around our necks, dragging us down and draining valuable resources that could be used for actual ministry and mission.  Professionalized staff ministry absolves laity of the need to step up and BE the church.  Interest payments on loans for bigger buildings is fast becoming the big-ticket item on many budgets — when the churches we already have are too big for the remnant congregations that occupy them.  Many of our conferences have more retired clergy than active clergy.  Our system is no longer tenable, but that’s okay — we’ll set up another committee, team or task force to study this 50-year-old problem again at the next General Conference.

Here’s an idea: let’s rethink our church.  No, let’s remake our church.  Let’s quit trying to make it something it used to be but isn’t anymore, and let’s make something… BETTER.  Let’s deconstruct some of the pieces and parts that no longer function well, and use those resources to… oh… I don’t know… maybe, make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world…  Let’s quit rehashing old, tired church growth concepts and instead of thinking about how to get people to come to us, we mobilize to be the body of Christ in the world.  Let’s quit “updating” what we already know (do no harm, do all the good you can, attend to the ordinances of God — which is a much more compelling vision than ‘staying in love with God…’ didn’t get improved by its most recent “trotting out;” nor did our disciplinary primary task — reach out and receive people in the name of Christ, help people build relationship with God, nurture and strengthen them in their discipleship and stewardship, and send them forth equipped to live transformed and transforming lives — receive any substantive boost from radical hospitality, passionate worship, intentional faith development, extravagant generosity, and risk-taking mission and service.  All different language for the same old story.  The problem isn’t the story, it’s the way it gets used.  If we commit to our primary task/mission/5 Practices to do God’s will, we’re in great shape.  It is when we do them merely to preserve the institution that we get in trouble.  When it is all about us, it ceases to be about God.  One cannot serve two masters…

There is a growing movement away from “church” as we have known it to true Christian community not tied to location, denomination, or institution.  In this spiritual enlightenment paradigm, old rules not only don’t apply, but they alienate, divide and disillusion.  Creating something that changes lives, that inspires, that elevates, and generates beauty and hope — this is what more and more people seek.  Can’t we offer this?  Can’t we work together to make such a vision a reality?  I don’t think it will happen through petitions and votes, through debate and Discipline, through committee meetings and Robert’s Rules.  If we want a future, then let’s create it — but let’s create the future we believe God wants us to have, not merely some shadow of our bygone glory.

36 responses to “What’s Wrong With Us?”

  1. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    I meant to say the less good people will assume they deserve the power.

  2. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    Do you honestly believe that the UMC denomination CAN change? Really?

    I don’t but perhaps I am too cynical. Real change would cost too many powerful people their power and position. People in power very rarely give up that power willingly. Even good religious people. Good people will justify this by all the good they can supposedly do with their power and less good people won’t bother to justify because they will assume they the power.

    1. Dan R. Dick Avatar
      Dan R. Dick

      I don’t think the “change or die” path we’re on will get us anywhere. Thye Hebrew people lived in captivity in Egypt for centuries and they never got going until there was a Promised Land to move toward. We need to create a vision that draws us into the future, not keep dwelling on escaping a future we don’t want. If our leaders will lead instead of merely manipulate our emotions, we will change — but only if we truly seek to do God’s will and stop serving our own will.

  3. Katie Z. Avatar

    if we don’t know what to do with the 7.5 million we’ve got, what makes us think we’re going to do so much better with the next million

    AMEN!!!

  4. Ben Gosden Avatar

    Dan-
    This is just wonderful! You said what so many of us have wanted to say and didn’t know how to say it. Great stuff. As a young clergyperson just beginning a career as a Methodist pastor, this gives me hope that all is not lost and that we’ll actually be around in 25 years. Contrary to what many who are my elders are saying…

  5. Daniel James Dick Avatar

    When people had a complaint, Martin Luther King had a “Dream”. He had a vision. He knew what the dream would look like when it began to happen, and he spoke of the dream in such clear terms that anyone could understand it, feel it, desire it, hunger for it, and even give their lives for it if necessary.

    Our vision should always be to love God and man and to do the will of God. But, that core value is too often hijacked by those who would enslave others into compliance with their pet desires by making their desires “God’s will for them”. “You’re a hot, gorgeous lady, therefore it’s God’s will that you marry me.” “I’m trying to do something I call a ministry and since I need money, you are utterly satanic if you don’t give it to me to support my cause.” “God says you must speak in tongues or you’re not saved.” “God says you must not speak in tongues or you’re a cult member and are not saved.” Etc. If it were possible to find a proof text, that would settle the matter and prove the demand to be valid even if taking the scripture honestly in context together with other scriptures prove the proof-texting to be dishonest, inappropriate, and unrepresentative of what the Bible was actually saying.

    So, to settle the score and obtain peace and unity, we just agree to disagree. Perhaps it’s only an outward display to give ourselves a momentary appearance of civility or cooperation and maintain that we are reasonable and sincere Christians who are more interested in love and unity than proving ourselves right. But, moments later, the fight’s on and the fur is flying faster than ever before.

    Truth is people don’t respond to demands well. Nor do they respond to unreasonable demands. And people especially hate dishonest, unreasonable demands. Yet we cannot become liars and cowards for the sake of peace and artificial friendship either. Our love has to be sincere enough to tell an inconvenient truth. And when someone tries to pass off a lie and manipulative trick as an inconvenient truth presented in love, we have to have the courage and boldness to call a lie what it is and to hate the lie without hating the individual.

    There are times when the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God is appropriate. And that time is all the time. All the time, but used honestly, faithfully, without guile, manipulation, cruelty and hatred.

    For example, Rev. 21:8 states that liars, cowards, sexually immoral, etc., will find their place in the lake of fire. The Bible also says homosexuals, the effeminate, and such will perish into hell. That may be inconvenient and unpopular, and the government and even some churches may have become so unloving, insincere, spineless, and foolish as to militate against such a statement, but truth is if your love for the homosexual is sincere at all, then you won’t betray that person into hell with comforting lies after Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for that person’s sin just as surely as Jesus died for you and me. He did not die to keep us in sin, enslaved to sin, proudly proclaiming our love for our sin, and dancing and displaying it stripped half nude on our city streets before men, women and children. God called us to leave behind the life of sin, to give it up, to surrender, to repent. Otherwise, what does it even mean to be a Christian if Jesus Christ is not Lord over our lives?

    Some divisions are justifiable. Some are empty contentions over things of no value at all. If a woman wants to wear a hat in church or not, she should do as she wishes and believes God would have her do. Dress or pant suit? Same. Should men only wear suits and ties out of respect for God? I understand that mindset, but it angers me a bit because to me there seems to be a disregard for those who may not be able to afford a suit or a tie–a snobbery–a filtering out of the poor, perhaps in hopes of maintaining an affluent congregation who can make the pastor rich. But, that does not seem to be very Christian in the sincere meaning of the word. Others wear jeans and a coat with shirt-tails hanging out and have highly contemporary music to reach out to the younger generations. And that’s great. But, even some of them may fall into worshiping “coolness” or “this generation”, and this battle degenerates into a disagreement over which generation to worship and faithfulness to God is secondary if it is even in view at all.

    Some churches cater to the seeker. They won’t speak of sin in church and may choose to hold off and let that be addressed in the home cell groups where people can be more accountable within a small group of friends. And that’s OK as long as the issue doesn’t get overlooked. Sooner or later and preferably sooner people will need to come face to face with our need to be saved from sin. Otherwise church degenerates into nothing but a social clique where some are accepted and some are rejected and nobody is truly loved. For how can you love someone faithfully and let them fall into hell without a single prayer? Or how can one love someone and lie to them and comfort them into hell with false comforts assuring them of a salvation they don’t truly have? And how can one gripe and complain and question whether we should be judging or not when the purpose is not to judge or condemn but to save, and by save, I mean really save? I artificial salvation so much better? Is that more civil? More loving? More faithful? More the sign of a real friend? Was the Bible lying when it spoke favorably about the blows of a friend than the kisses of an enemy? Is it for nothing that the Bible tells us to warn our brother who falls into sin so that they may be saved?

    We need peace, love, and friendship, but not at the cost of integrity and salvation.

    1. Wesley White Avatar

      Might we also need integrity and salvation, but not at the cost of peace, love, and friendship?

      I find all of these words work best together rather than set up in opposition, even when that makes my tendency toward judgment of others more difficult. I would hope that integrity was a key part of friendship without being domineering and that peace is a part of salvation without meaning submission. And love, well, John Wesley said it well in his conclusion of a sermon On Zeal, “But of all holy tempers, and above all others, see that you be most zealous for love.”

  6. Rex Nelson Avatar

    Do the ideas of small group and connection become transformed and have meaning in the new reality of “unchurched” Christians? Should our task include adapting institutions like UMCOR to the “unchurch”? Congregationalism evolved as independent communities with partitioned polity and limited hierarchy. Do we now have the right technology to completely flatten any hierarchy, allowing the benefits of association while limiting doctrine to the individual? I think it’s worth gathering a few friends and discussing it over a Wisconsin beverage. Wouldn’t that be a small group?

  7. Wesley White Avatar

    A recent sermon by a friend reminded folks who were preparing to vote to become a Reconciling Congregation that their work was based on four (4) easy to remember United Methodist basics that could be counted off on fingers. Folks in the congregation easily joined in this review, giving evidence that these we intentional teachings/learnings:

    1 Community in Christ
    2 Great Commandments to Love God and Love Neighbor as Self
    3 General Rules to Don’t Hurt, Do Good, Journey with God
    4 Discernment Tools: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, Reason

Leave a reply to Amy Cancel reply