Reform or Refunction?

Well, what do you know, I basically agree with the General Secretaries of our General Boards and Agencies (with a few exceptions): we should be very clear about the missional outcomes we are trying to produce before we determine the best structure to adopt.  Amazing.  There are some in the church that actually believe that what we are trying to accomplish should impact how we structure to do our work.  Knowing who we are, why we exist, and what we need to do all precedes the discussion of how to do it!  Brilliant.  A history of tinkering with a broken system and then trying to figure out what to do with it may actually come to an end…  Nah, that’s hoping for too much.  We won’t actually change the system — we will merely rearrange what doesn’t work into new configurations that don’t work, then wonder why.  That, my friends, is the Methodist way.

Not that it has always been the Methodist way.  We actually are only a generation removed from a denomination-wide exploration of systems thinking, critical analysis, theological reflection, and missional focus.  It has only been in the few years since we hired secular consultants to tell us what our “brand” ought to be that we lost our minds and determined that downsizing and best practices are the solutions to all our problems.  The ray of hope that systems thinking brought us quickly dimmed however for two simple reasons.  First, we would have to actually change and make some hard decisions.  Second, it would be hard work and we would have to take our faith very seriously.  Making disciples would displace keeping believers happy and comfortable.  We would have to share power with our southern neighbors.  We would actually have to resolve some differences around theology and the authority of scripture.  We might have to even change General Conference from a legislative policy process to a missional discernment and visionary engagement process.  When faced with the hard work, we opted for the path of least resistance.  Now, once again, we are faced with hard realities, and instead of being prepared, we are operating in our traditional reactive mode.  All so unnecessary.

It has been fascinating to watch the response of our invested leaders in critique and complaint about the work of the Connectional Table, The Call to Action, The Ministry Study, and our ruminations on a global church.  Open dialogue vs. defensive posturing.  Critical thinking vs. mindless endorsement.  Public praise vs. private contempt and despair.  A growing consensus that none of this will fly vs. an irrational defense of the quality of the proposals.  Censorship and denial of negative voices vs. a hyper-elevation of the random pockets of praise.  Where is there an openness to working together to come to a synergistic and sustainable improved solution?  What will the atmosphere be by the time we convene in Tampa?  Will all sides and opinions be committed to raising the bar and working together for a true solution or will we be arranged in competing camps with fragmented agenda and turf to protect?

I keep using the metaphor of the Emperor’s New Clothes and I have been in regular dialogue with bishops retired and active, associate general secretaries, lay leaders, conference counterparts, and seminary professors who are all in agreement with the basic sentiment and who are all raising a similar question: why are we allowing clearly inadequate solutions and proposals to be crammed down our throats?  When did this become about political posturing and weird territoriality?  This is all our church.  It is in trouble.  It needs the best and brightest working together.  It needs to show the business consultants the door.  And it needs to knuckle down and do the hard work of envisioning a viable and sustainable future.  We do not need to be asking what form should we take until we answer the question why are we here?  Assuming the old answers suffice is not enough.  Where is the leadership?  Where is the vision?  Why are we not being asked to spend serious time on our knees in prayer and deep contemplation?  Why are we not drawing our metaphors and images from our scripture instead of marketing firms?  Why are we not fasting?  Why is our conversation all about cutting and reducing and downsizing and denying voices and races and generations.  Why is all our focus on what we are not, and what we have lost, and what we cannot do?  We are fixated on the wilderness and surviving in the wilderness and getting through the wilderness, but there is no talk about a Promised Land.  We are committed to our own survival without any good explanation why our survival is worthwhile.

Should we eliminate waste?  Should our boards and agencies make some serious cuts in the short-term?  Should we be working constantly to become the best church we can be?  Without question.  I have never opposed the need for a Call to Action, a Connectional Table, or any of the other reports and recommendations we are working on.  My criticisms have all been along the lines of noting that people say our boat is sinking and that our solution should be to give it a new coat of paint.  Wrong solution to the problem… or sometimes good solutions but applied to the wrong problems.  We have been looking to those outside our church for counsel on how to be our church and we have been steered down some interesting pathways.  When faced with critical issues about our identity, we hired marketing firms to focus us on our image.  When faced with poor results and dismal outcomes, we hired consultants who focused us on our product instead of our processes; our structures instead of our systems.  In so many ways it feels like our church had a heart attack and has been sent to a plastic surgeon for treatment.

A few years ago, our bishops starting talking about “a Methodist way.”  I wonder what they meant?  If by the Methodist way, we mean a systemic commitment to live the means of grace and to equip people to live in a stable balance of works of piety and acts of mercy, I think we have the basis upon which to build a future.  But if the Methodist way is to be reactive to the whims of our secular culture and to set our missional priorities and our performance goals on the basis of the money available and the number of people attending worship, then we have already determined our fate.  Branding and dashboards and defining health in terms of size give me little hope that the Methodist way means the former.  And if we waste any more time on the latter there won’t be anything left to “re-form”.

28 replies

  1. ps. In addition to thanking you for your recommendation of Paradoxy as your “Book of the Month” for February 2012, I also want to thank you for reminding me of how much I love Bruce Cockburn. I still remember how captivated I was by his song “Wondering Where the Lions Are” when it came out in the early 70′s (I know… I’m dating myself). – Ken Howard (author, Paradoxy)

  2. This is a tough one …. but, what comes to mind is the “What Will Church (and specifically the UMC look like (if it survives))
    in 80 Years” video recently released by the GBOD.

    Br. Taylor’s commentary about what the model of church is right now/is “expected” to do — and how that’s just not possible; the concept of congregation as network; the inability or impossibility of this model to sustain itself, or BE sustained; and how Wesley worked out of a different model — THE Wesleyan Model — of class, society, and renewal structures should be our focus. This Wesleyan Quadrilateral that Br. Jim mentions ………. and, Dan, with all due respect, your comment about what “the Methodist way is” — makes me think this is a defeatest/sell-out posture — very uncharacteristic for you, IMHO. What’s up? Did your Wheaties get soggy? …………….j/k just a bit of levity as we struggle with all of these gigantic issues ………..

    • Todd,

      I need you to tell me what part of “If by the Methodist way, we mean a systemic commitment to live the means of grace and to equip people to live in a stable balance of works of piety and acts of mercy, I think we have the basis upon which to build a future.” you think is such a sell-out.

      • Br Dan

        Methinks you mis-interpreted, or, perhaps I made muddy waters on this …. the sellout I was referring to was with respect to the statement: “we will merely rearrange what doesn’t work into new configurations that don’t work, then wonder why. That, my friends, is the Methodist way.”
        This is NOT the Methodist way I was brought up with/in, and I daresay not that of several generations of my Methodist family. I didn’t read/understand that you were being facetious when you made that statement, thus my “sell-out” branding.

        Br. Taylors commentary on what we’re trying (very ineffectively) to do in congregations — as Taylor says “the congregational model” — versus what we should be doing (THE Methodist Way) in modeling after the vision of Fr. John is that forementioned Methodist Way of my heritage.

        Does this clarify? (and, am I still on your “Favorite Church Musicians” List) heh heh heh

      • The point being made in the first paragraph is a statement of what has become our norm. I dare you to read the CTA report and deny that the current Methodist way is the path of least resistance.

      • Br Dan I believe we are preaching the same sermon — you in perhaps Greek, and me in Latin.

        I agree — the CTA is a path of least resistance — and what has become our “norm” is UNACCEPTABLE in the Wesleyan Understanding of What Must Be Done.

      • Yep, sorry my initial sarcasm was so well masked. What the Methodist way has become versus what it could and should be are miles apart. The only hope is that some of our quiet, passive leaders will step up and begin to speak publicly the opposition they voice privately.

      • Sarcasm is my 2nd middle name — wait make that 3rd after RADICAL.

        So — how can we be quiet, passive leaders and step up and begin to speak publicly the opposition ?
        a) Rent Billboards
        b) Start (yet another) Methodist Renewal FB page ?
        c) Stop supporting the structure that’s broken and continues
        to reguritate the same old, ineffective solutions and exists
        primarily for institutional survival rather than missional
        ACTION ?
        d) CRASH GC in Tampa? FLASH MOB Style?
        e) Go back to the “Mother Faith” (Anglican) >?
        f) All of the above
        g) None of the Above
        h) ????

        An Ordinary Radical

    • Todd – interesting video. Two words jumped out at me “inertia” and “comfortable”. I’d like to add malaise. In the congregation that holds my membership, I think there is more malaise – a “just to tired to try something new” feeling that is part inertia and part of being comfortable in the way that trying something new would just be uncomfortable.

      What’s the solution – what force do we need to break the inertia?

      • Princess Zuhleika
        As to the congregation of GOATS you reference (which BTW is also the congregation to which I am “attached”) and as to their malaise and “too tired to try something new” attitude — an esteemed colleague recently branded this attitude with the characteristics of FAT, COMPLACENT, and LAZY
        I would suggest “we” collectively

        –ACQUIRE the apostolic hope
        –RECLAIM our Wesleyan understanding of how we are to walk our earthly journey–INCLUDING the entire “PERFECTION” concept
        –INSIST on effective leadership — from within, and from outside. This MUST BE non-negotiable and a non-starter.

        In His Grace, Peace, Mercy, + Service
        Todd Anderson
        An Ordinary Radical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s