The latest wave of announcements about our future are dismaying.  Not because they are negative, but because they are pedestrian.  We are not “rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic,” as some assert; we are strategically planning and designing a Titanic upon which to rearrange deck-chairs.  The short-sighted, defensive, U.S.-centric, survival-mentality, institutional preservation teeny-tiny vision being presented is embarrassing in its narcissism.  It is all about us, and not in a good way.  Couched in rah-rah language, it is about money and property and power and control — not mission, ministry, God and Spirit.  I have been in communication with bishops, district superintendents, conference leaders, pastors and laity from over thirty conferences who are reading my blogs and encouraging me to continue raising the kinds of questions I do — but to what end?  The majority commend me for doing something they don’t feel comfortable or safe to do themselves.  People working on these study reports tell me about their misgivings, but they don’t raise them with those in power.  Hundreds of people are uncomfortable with the direction of the church, but we just keep moving down the path to same-old, same-old.

Tinkering is not the same as change.  Our need is for a new system, a new ethos, and a new vision.  Our hysterical need to hang onto “things” limits our potential to become something better.  We chose to become property and building bound, displace worship with performance, evangelism with marketing, and discipleship with membership — and until we decide to rescind these choices we are deluding ourselves.  Our assimilation and accommodation of popular cultural values at the cost of Christian spiritual integrity is the issue — not our structure and form.  Form follows function — until we decide to be a church again instead of “in the religion business,” not much is likely to change.  We can form all the task forces and study groups we want to, but this is symptomatic of our root problems, not a likely solution.

I recently observed an interesting event in microcosm that illustrates for me the larger problem.  A member of our Call to Action team presented and defended the report to a room full of United Methodists.  As more and more people voiced concerns, displeasure, and thoughtful questions about the report, the presenter got more and more defensive and evasive — actually refusing to answer some questions.  I raised the point that the recommendation isn’t even constitutional.  The person finally concluded comments with “you don’t understand what the Call to Action is actually proposing.  You need to just wait and see what happens and trust that we know what we’re doing.”  I came away with a clear message: don’t question, don’t challenge, don’t worry — just trust that those who have created our problems are the right people to solve them, even though the solutions being offered address the wrong problems.

These are merely my opinions — nothing more.  I have been told that I have not been invited into any of the studies in the denomination because people simply don’t want to hear what I have to say.  My reputation is that I “slow things down” because I am not “a team player.”  I can live with that — basically because I am in contact with dozens of people throughout our system who are in positions of influence who are seeking my counsel because they think I am asking the right questions.  What a weird situation.  I may not be popular with those at the top, but I am not alone in my concerns with what we are saying and where we are going.  This gives me hope.  Maybe enough of us will ask the right questions in enough places that real change will occur.

I close with an excerpt from an email I received from one of my colleagues at Vanderbilt Divinity School:

Thank you for your assessments of the ministry study, the call to action report, and the report on the global church — I shared them with my classes.  You seem to be one of the very few critical thinkers analyzing the long-term implications of the proposals and recommendations.  It is encouraging to know that there are people who can cut through all the rhetoric to clarify what really needs to be done.  I just wanted to let you know that I am spreading your good work, and teaching my classes not to take at face value the reports from the church.  Your critiques are invaluable.  Keep up the good work, and keep our feet to the fire.

31 responses to “United Methodist Preservation Society”

  1. Dan Dick is not a team player | John Meunier Avatar

    […] Dick: United Methodist Preservation Society I recently observed an interesting event in microcosm that illustrates for me the larger problem. A […]

  2. John Meunier Avatar
    John Meunier

    Dan,

    I tried to forward your name to my jurisdictional delegation as a bishop candidate, but they said they were only considering candidates from Indiana.

    1. Jim Searls Avatar
      Jim Searls

      John, it is very likely that the North Central Jurisdiction WILL NOT elect any bishops in 2012. We need to reduce by one and with only Bishop Lee retiring there is no room.

      1. John Meunier Avatar
        John Meunier

        Yeah, I know Jim, but my conference’s delegation asked for candidates, so I sent some names in. I figure I should at least use what process I have access to.

    2. Dan R. Dick Avatar
      Dan R. Dick

      John, I appreciate the thought… and I would love to hear the conversations of those considering the thought of me in the episcopacy. Or, maybe I wouldn’t…

    3. Holly Boardman (@halehawk) Avatar

      Some years ago, Leontine Kelly was elected bishop by a jurisdiction she was NOT a member of. Is that still possible? Or has a “loophole” been closed that makes that impossible?

  3. Nora Ortiz Fredrick Avatar

    I expect that you have more support than you imagine, and I respect whatever decision you make about naming names. I do think it would be helpful as we approach GC if you could suggest ways that all people (clergy, GC delegates, and laity) might speak out or advocate for a more effective way to move into the future – perhaps naming the particularly promising legislation, leaders or information sources.

  4. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    I disagree with the call for names, especially names of antagonists. I think it would appear as if Dan is becoming embroiled with church politics. My opinion, of course. Pros and cons either way.

  5. Nancy Smith Avatar
    Nancy Smith

    Thanks, Dan! I encourage you to name names IF that will help bring needed and appropriate attention to the concerns you express that so many of us share. Reading your blogs help me to feel less like I must not “understand what the Call to Action is actually proposing [and] need to just wait and see what happens and trust that [“they”] know what [they’re] doing.” You’re right on in my book.

  6. Holly Boardman (@halehawk) Avatar

    Thank you so much for your challenge of the Call to Action. I share your concern. I have been in conversation about the Call to Action with the clergy delegates to GC2012 from Florida since I have submitted my own petition to GC2012. My petition is a challenge to the “folks at the top”, so naturally, I wanted to discuss it with them. If it is passed it will shake things up in what I think is a very positive way.

    Many years ago, I remember reading a statement in one of Richard Foster’s books to the effect that money has taken over the role of the Holy Spirit in the church. That statement has haunted and bothered me for years. I believe that my petition, entitled, “A More Equitable Salary” will help to transform the UMC so that it may begin to operate more like a church than a Wall Street corporation focused on efficiency and profit.

    My petition amends paragraph 625 of the Book of Discipline on equitable compensation. I am proposing that in addition to setting a minimum compensation level, annual conferences should set a MAXIMUM compensation level which will be no more than twice the minimum. My proposal also states that if a church votes to pay their pastor more than the maximum compensation (which they certainly may do), the church will also pay the same amount over the maximum to the equitable compensation fund. The annual conference may then use the additional money it receives to support the compensation of pastors who are serving congregations that cannot pay the minimum level. The annual conference may also choose to give money from the equitable compensation fund to other annual conferences (such as central conferences) where there is greater need.

    Unfortunately, money is power—even in the church. If the general conference adopts my petition, I believe we can restore some holy sanity to the climate of our church. I believe we will see some different people sitting in the seats of power in 2016. Pastors may be freed from the pressure to become corporate CEO’s and may focus on proclaiming the Gospel message.

    The Call to Action IS getting all of the attention right now. My petition is not well known yet. However, it DOES have significant support from several African bishops. I believe there is a chance that it will pass since more than 40% of the general conference delegates will be from outside of the United States.

    If you would like to see a copy of “A More Equitable Salary” please send me your email address via a direct message on Twitter.

    The folks at the top need to be stopped—or at least reigned in. When you read my petition, I hope you will have another reason to hope.

    1. Nora Ortiz Fredrick Avatar

      It sounds like a luxury tax on effective clergy. As a layperson and chair of my conference’s EC Commission, that sounds like a plan to drive the best and the brightest clergy and then the laypeople out of the denomination. Hasn’t the guaranteed clergy appointment demonstrated that all clergy do not provide the same quality of pastoral leadership? United Methodism is already squarely on track toward a future of decline. A 2x maximum salary will merely make sure we continue down with the leadership of the lowest common denominator.

      1. Shannon Avatar
        Shannon

        But it’s not actually a maximum compensation level as Boardman has described it here. Any congregation that can afford to pay their clergy twice the minimum salary can also afford to help clergy in struggling areas and church plants.

        I think it goes very well with the idea that we need to get away from $$ as the measurement of success.

        There is a balance to made between clergy deserving compensation and a living wage–which they do–and clergy who are seeking more $$. I don’t think the latter is a huge problem, but I also don’t buy the idea that a pastor of a very large church is “worth” more than the pastor of a smaller church.

      2. Holly Boardman (@halehawk) Avatar

        I hope clergy enter the ministry as a faithful response to a call from God. My own call is connected to two scripture texts. “Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus” (a paraphrase) and “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Because of this call to self-denial, I was willing to serve in appointments that paid minimum salary. At one point I even had the sad responsibility of closing a church the year after I arrived. In that sad circumstance, my ministry bore some real, solid fruit. I was asked to baptize 4 adult converts that year, and two infants. I considered that to be a successful year of ministry even though the church closed.

        I do not believe the megachurch model with the CEO type pastor is the direction our church should be heading. I do not think it is sustainable in the long term. When the superstar pastor retires, or dies, or leaves, for whatever reason, the ministry is in danger. A better model may be in the Roman Catholic Church. Clergy actually take vows of poverty! The church then has money to hire administrators and laity as staff members if they want to. Perhaps the “brightest and best” should remain laity and serve the church that can bid the highest for their talents. My proposal does NOT expect clergy to take vows of poverty. Rather it assures a reasonable standard of living for all clergy and their families.

        It is interesting to note that the United Methodist Church is growing the fastest in our central conferences. In some of those conferences clergy receive little or no compensation. One bishop from Africa who enthusiastically supports my petition mentioned that some of the most effective pastors in his conference currently earn about $50 a month as they work in the most challenging of circumstances–in the jungles of the Congo.

        I am disturbed by the way we seem to be defining “effective” as it relates to pastoral ministry. Some of the most effective clergy are serving for very little money in the most challenging circumstances.

      3. John Meunier Avatar
        John Meunier

        Nora, what is the theological or Wesleyan justification for our system of clergy compensation as it is now constituted?

      4. Nora Ortiz Fredrick Avatar

        Wesley’s Sermon on Mammon might not be an exact fit but close.

      5. John Meunier Avatar
        John Meunier

        John Wesley on mammon:

        Let us consider now what we are to understand, on the other hand, by serving mammon. And, First, it implies the trusting in riches, in money, or the things purchasable thereby, as our strength, — the means whereby we shall perform whatever cause we have in hand; the trusting in them as our help, — by which we look to be comforted in or delivered out of trouble.

        It implies the trusting in the world for happiness; the supposing that “a man’s life,” the comfort of his life, “consisteth in the abundance of the things which he possesseth;” the looking for rest in the things that are seen; for content, in outward plenty; the expecting that satisfaction in the things of the world, which can never be found out of God.

        And if we do this, we cannot but make the world our end; the ultimate end, if not of all, at least of many, of our undertakings, many of our actions and designs; in which we shall aim only at an increase of wealth, at the obtaining pleasure or praise, at the gaining a larger measure of temporal things, without any reference to things eternal.

  7. Jim Searls Avatar
    Jim Searls

    Dan
    I seem to be one of the first replies you get on posts. I wonder if it is time to start naming names of those “folks at the top” who won’t let you participate. By doing so, it would become easier for those of us who agree with you to let our voices join the chorus of concern. If the so called leaders begin to hear more from the grassroots it might make change happen quicker.

Leave a comment