Hacking Christianity

Is the Church too big to fail?

Oklahoma clergy have been assigned to read "Restoring Methodism" by Drs. Molly & James Scott in preparation for a retreat with them in late September. Given that I was previously from a different area of the country, I happen to have attended the Scotts' seminar before and am familiar with their arguments and recommendations.

In re-reading the book during some idle moments today, I noted one argument that I'm unsure is valid.

On page 31, the Scotts write about why it is important to restore Methodism to its roots and originating practices:

Restoration is the answer because it is unthinkable that God would abandon the institutionalized churches in America, as they compromise the vast majority - up to 90% - of the Christians in this country.

I am unsure this as "unthinkable." God has done this before. God had abandoned the Chosen People to decades of attrition (the 40 years post-Exodus), disowned the stubborn nations (Jeremiah 3:8), and allowed its assimilation into other cultures (Pharisaic Judaism v. Roman Hellenism). God also allowed the destruction of the Temple and the Jews found much meaning and refocus in the Diaspora that they wouldn't likely have found otherwise.

God has done this before, taken away what we thought was "too big to fail." Can we really dismiss the horrifying thought that the Church as an institution has a time limit as well?

Perhaps the Scotts meant that numerical decline is not in God's plan for the Church. That's a valid interpretation, I think. But Jesus had multitudes following him, was an icon for church growth...but after his hard sermons, he was left with 12. Failure, right?

Further, the Scotts counter their own argument themselves on page 53:

It was not unusual for Mr. Wesley to examine a Society with 800 members and leave them with 400 members.

So it is OK for the institutional church to shrink but not be destroyed? But isn't restoring Methodism about reversing the shrinking trend? Huh.

To be clear, I'm not advocating a burn-it-down-and-start-over reform...this blog would be called "Reformatting Christianity" if I did. I'm as committed to righting the institutional church as the next pastor.

But I do have to assume that it could be God's plan that the church burn to the ground and be risen from the ashes in a fiery Phoenix. And I have to wonder how best I could be an instrument of grace in the interim.

God is sovereign. Let's not place anything (even the unthinkable) beyond God's possibilities, and seek instead to be instruments of God's grace no matter what may come next.

Thoughts?

"Methodism = the University of Phoenix of religions"

It's a rough week to be a Methodist.

First, Jesus Needs New PR snarked at Methodists, saying they would be left behind (#6). Now yesterday Jon Stewart took some potshots at the characterization of Methodists as "not standing for anything" followers of Christ. Start out at 4:20 then watch for at least 30 seconds:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Wedding of the Decade of the Century of the Millennium

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Transcript:

Stewart: Being a Methodist is easy. It's like the University of Phoenix of religions: you just send them 50 bucks and click "I agree" and you are saved.

Ha! Then again, you look at John Wesley's requirements for membership and compare them with today's and he may not be far off the mark.

Time to break up the UM Discipline?

One of my professors from seminary is now blogging...which scares me because I was completely disrespectful in his class and he may still want to tell the world about it. Anyway, his post today is a doozy: let's break up the Discipline into more palatable parts for lay and clergy alike.

The United Methodist Discipline has grown from a small paperback to the 1.5 inch thick mind-numbing document that it is today...and yes, a substantial portion of it is important! We have a large free-wheeling church and it is important that our diversity be exhibited. But given the book's size, it does not tend itself to light reading and thus it has become less and less a part of the average UM lifestyle. To Wesleyan purists, this is a problem.

Boston University's Dr. Glen Messer rejects the notion that it is good to have a large tent book that people of most every persuasion can find themselves in its various and contradictory doctrines.

The Discipline began as a document about the essentials of how to be and live like a Methodist. I reject the notion that it should be the church equivalent of a fraternity house ‘garbage can drink’ into which we can pour whatever each of us brings to the party and then we all partake of the unpalatable (and spiritually toxic) concoction.

"Discipleship is the Heart of the Discipline (Or Should Be)"

To Messer, the Discipline is not an encyclopedia to turn to and see yourself. Rather, it is a tool for daily discipleship...and by tool, he doesn't mean a replacement leg to keep your bible bookshelf steady! Its current incarnation is prohibitive to it being a part of our daily rhythm.

To push back against big-tent Methodism with a hands-off approach to the Discipline, Messer suggests we split it up into three different books:

Let us consider doing the following:
Take the core historic doctrines and teachings of The United Methodist Church, a modernized (and doctrinally faithful) version of The General Rules, and a skeletal description of the basic ecclesiology of the denomination and collect them into a small volume to be renamed The Doctrines and Discipline of the United Methodist Church;

Take the necessary extrapolations upon The Discipline, those that are more organic and subject to necessary, more frequent change, and gather those together with the assorted rules and procedures for the administrative and property concerns of the denomination. That book we can call The Order of The United Methodist Church, and;

Take the miscellaneous teachings and declarations of the church (not included in the two other volumes) that are responses to contemporary issues and concerns and gather them together in a volume entitled The Teachings of the United Methodist Church.

[snip] Thus, we would build a written understanding of who we are as a church by providing a foundation, a frame, and then an outer structure.

Read his whole post...it is informative as well as evocative in its imagery (particularly how being UM these days is like Twister where we theologically twist ourselves around to stay in the game...ha!).

What do you think?

Ought we prioritize what it means to be United Methodist, clarify by different books what our essentials are and our contradictory non-essentials are and do serious soul searching...and buy a slimline copy of the Discipline for every church member to support Cokebury?
Or is this another drift towards United Methodism that is more doctrinal than missional, one that places Doctrine as the essential part of the church (his proposed book one), rather than the heart for ministry exposed in different contemporary contexts (proposed book three)?

Thoughts?

Passed

Passed my full Ordination interviews

in the United Methodist Church!

Ordination Date: June 1st, 2010 | Tulsa, Oklahoma

Longer post later but for now...woohoo!

Ordination Interviews...again!

As loyal readers know, last December I had my ordination interviews for Full Connection in the United Methodist Church.

Quick summary: Ordination in the UMC is a multi-year process where we are first commissioned to ordained ministry as provisional ministers, evaluated over a 3-5ish year process, and then finally voted in by our peers as full ordained clergy (called "full connection"). I am at that final stage.

I passed most of my doctrinal questions, but the Board of Ordained Ministry (the evaluating body in the UMC regional conferences) deemed it necessary for me to further reflect on three doctrinal questions and be re-interviewed at a later date. While I was a bit miffed at passing 85% of the questions (which is good enough for the Bar Exam and medical school), I did learn a lot from reflecting further on these questions:

(5) How do you understand the following traditional evangelical doctrines: (a) repentance; (b) justification; (c) regeneration; and (d) sanctification?

(7) What is the meaning and significance of the Sacraments?

(9) What is your understanding of (a) the Kingdom of God; (b) the Resurrection; (c) eternal life?

Why remind you of this?

Monday morning 3/22, 11:00am CST is my interview. Yow!

I'm at another turn on the long winding path to full ordination. Thanks for being on this journey with me. And thanks for your prayers, karma, happy thoughts, butterfly kisses, and whatever else at around that time.

Welcome umc.org! Let's talk about Justice!

My friend John Meunier is holding me accountable...I can't write anymore on Glenn Beck than I already have:

Unfortunately, UMC.org has us linked on their front page (see attached image) and I've already had a surge of comments in the past few hours, including some unfortunate ones whose authors have received prayer and comments have been deleted.

However, I hope the blogosphere will forgive me if I don't really want to talk about Glenn Beck, or his sources, or who misinterpreted what. Let's instead talk about Justice. Here's some great links to read:

Kevin Watson has written an extensive article "Prooftexting Wesley" that comments on usage of Wesley's mantra "no holiness but social holiness." He accurately calls us to accountability when we prooftext Wesley...including this blogger! We had a further conversation about social justice v. social holiness where Watson makes this important comment:

I also do not see social justice as antithetical to social holiness. My point is that social holiness is prior and broader. In Wesley’s understanding, I think social justice would come out of social holiness. It would be one part of it, but not the entirety. Or, as we become more holy we become more just. In some ways it may help if we remove “social” and think about holiness and justice. I think most people would agree that these two are not the same thing. However, most people would also agree that a holy person would not be unjust. Likewise a holy society would be a just society.
Commenter Rev. Jeremy Peters unearths this article about John Wesley's historical interactions with the prison system that exhibits both care for spiritual concerns along with physical concerns:

Just how familiar John Wesley was with the prisons of his day can be gauged from the fact that in a period of nine months he preached at least 67 times in various jails -- institutions that he had been known to describe as nurseries of "all manner of wickedness." Indeed, it was because of Wesley's often fearless criticism of prison conditions that he was sometimes banned from visiting inmates there.
...
In 1759, Wesley walked to Knowle, near Bristol, to see a company of French prisoners of the Seven Years War. His report was revealing. "About 1,100 of them, we are informed, were confined in that little place, without anything to lie on but a little dirty straw, or anything to cover them but a few foul, thin rags, either by day or night ...," he said. "I was much affected and preached in the evening on 'Thou shalt not oppress a stranger; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.' (Exodus 23.9)"
Slacktivist has an important perspective on why "social justice" is an oxymoron:

Justice is, by definition, social. Justice, by definition, is something that exists only between and among individuals and groups of individuals and groups of groups. One might argue that "social justice" is redundant, but one cannot oppose "social justice" without opposing justice itself.
...
Let me be clear: When Glenn Beck asserts that justice is incompatible with the Gospel and with the teachings of Christ, he is not following the Pauline/Augustinian argument that perfect love transcends justice ("Justice that is only justice is less than justice," in Reinhold Niebuhr's phrase). He is, rather, saying that justice itself is a bad thing.
Finally, being linked to again is Eugene Cho whose comment here still echoes in my mind:

But [Cho's church] Quest does speak (and attempts) of pursue mercy, justice, and humility not because they are code words for some sort of agenda but because they are central to the Triune God. How can you read the Scriptures or examine the life and ministry of Christ and not sense that mercy, justice, and compassion – particularly to those who are marginalized – aren’t dear to the heart of God?

Please don’t leave your churches just because they have the words “social justice” on their website. If you want a good reason to leave your churches: Leave if the gospel of Christ isn’t being preached and lived out. And thankfully, justice is an integral part to the gospel of Christ.

So, that's a smidge of justice. It's an inherent part of the Gospel, and an inherent part of Wesleyanism, an inherent part of practically every swath of Christendom, and an inherent part of every form of interpersonal interaction.

And I'm thankful for this whole situation so we can all better articulate what justice is and why it is important.

Welcome to our visitors and thank you for your comments!

The Impact of Status, Education, and Age on Clergy [umc]

The Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church has an online version of their "health and wellness" report. It has mostly to do with pensions (Zzzzzz wake me when it's over), but there are at least three interesting nuggests of demographic data that could spark discussion. Credit goes to my ministry colleague Rev. Sarah (blog) for noticing some of these.

First, after the polling and lifestyle data, there is this information about Elders (fully-educated and ordained clergy) versus Local Church Pastors (no education or ordination requirements outside of training classes).

Elders are less likely than licensed local pastors and deacons to have experienced the presence and power of God in the ordinary, sensed the presence and power of God in their thoughts and feelings, consciously practiced discerning the presence and power of God, and felt that events were unfolding according to God’s intent.

In addition, licensed local pastors are the most likely to have felt that they have a vital relationship with God.

Executive Summary, page 10

Um...ouch! That seems like a damning dismissal of the spiritual makeup of the "fully-ordained" clergy and an affirmation of the "non-ordained" ministry of the local pastors. While I certainly affirm the latter, I can't see this solely as an indictment of the clergy represented.

Having not been in ministry very long (currently in my fourth year of ordained ministry) and seeing the wide diversity of pastoral appointments, I won't agree with the findings but even if they were true, it would seem like an indictment of appointments not clergy. Let me explain. Full Elders are often appointed to larger churches with larger bureaucracies. In larger contexts, it is little wonder that the minutiae of ministry may drag them down, as well as being appointed somewhere that may be out of their comfort zone.

Thus for local church pastors, who are often in smaller churches (though with LOTS of minutiae...I know that much!) but also in contexts closer to their comfort level, then it is little wonder they report being more spiritually connected. Any pastors reading this can chime in and let me know if I'm on the right track with this.

Second, but in the same area, education has much to do with these results as well:

There are also differences in experiences based on education. Those with a course of study or bachelor’s degree are more likely than those with more advanced degrees to sense the presence and power of God in their thoughts and feelings, felt God’s grace and love as they are, felt their prayers have been answered, felt that events were unfolding according to God’s intent, and felt that they have a vital relationship with God.

Detailed Report, page 47

Huh...all the questions had to do with feelings and then they are judged based on academic achievement? Weird. I know this is pounced on as an indictment of the inadequacy and spiritual stuntedness of our seminary system. BURN! So again, I will redirect, but in the opposite direction.

It seems more that academia focuses the pursuit of God in a different direction. I'm academic in a lot of ways in the way I think and I would have a hard time answering enthusiastically to those questions. But looking back at my writings and musings from college, I would have enthusiastically affirmed them.

So perhaps the real indicator here isn't spiritual growth or stuntedness, but that our understanding of God progresses and grows as we do. People with higher education see and experience God very differently (but not worse) than those without because they may have a better grasp of the theological concepts of God in all their diversity in academic. This sounds mean, but it's easy to drill a deep spiritual well when you don't have to interact with the rest of the field (ie. having to wrestle with different well-constructed theologies in higher education).

Third and finally, there's this note less about ministry status/education and more about age groups engaging in prayer and bible-reading:

Full time clergy and those in extension ministry are more likely to say that they spend less than one hour a week in prayer and those who are less than 44 years of age spend less time praying than those who are aged 45 or older.

Slightly more than half of respondents say they read the Bible or other devotional literature, not in preparation for sermons or other work‐related tasks, at least once a day. Similarly to prayer, those less than 44 years of age are less likely to read the Bible daily.

Executive Summary, page 10

This is a tough one...I really don't have a response. Anyone else want to take a crack at why bible reading habits have changed for the under 45 crowd? I would simply say reading the bible devotionally instead of utilitarianally (ie. what sermon or bible study can I get from this?) is a constant challenge for me.

Even though I'm not and you may not be in the Virginia Conference, these same issues affect clergy everywhere. What thoughts do you have about them?

Does status in ministry affect spiritual outlooks?
Does education affect spiritual receptiveness?
Does daily practices affect spiritual effectiveness?

Discuss.

Methodist History in Claymation

An excellent claymation (stop-motion video made outta clay) that outlines Methodist history. Some funny moments and overall it's pretty decent!

(h/t "Dear Candler" via J.P.M. on Facebook)

Open Hearts Lead to Open Doors (or vice versa?)

One of my seminary colleagues posted his new sign outside the Unitarian Church that he pastors in the UK. While the language is familiar to us Methodists, the punctuation is not. What do you see that is different?

My friend's church:

The UMC's slogan (click to enlarge):

That's right, the colon, which grammatically means that the antecedent qualifies or completes the precedent.

In my friend's church, they might be affirming (at least linguistically!) that Open Hearts are what lead to Open Minds.
In the UMC's statement, they might be affirming (again, at least linguistically), that the UMC has all of these separate qualities.

This started me wondering that if my friend is onto something and let's apply it to the UMC's statement of Open Hearts, Minds, and Doors. Which comes first: Open hearts or open doors?

Open Hearts lead to Open Doors if a congregation has a conviction that Christ welcomes all to their church. That conviction might lead them to open the doors for all (in the whole spectrum of what that means in their missional context). Conviction leads to experience.
On the flipside, Open Doors leads to Open Hearts if the congregation is forced to deal with diversity and the spectrum of the human condition by opening their doors. These shared experiences with people different from themselves might lead them to have Open Hearts and truly experience change. Experience leads to Conviction.
In the middle is the Open Minds, which perhaps is the key to the whole deal.

I think it's important that any understanding of church be transformational: that one value leads to another leads to another.

I actually like my friend's sign better than the UMC's because of the articulation of a progression rather than a listing of static values. In a world that is more savvy to hypocrisy, perhaps we ought not focus on values but how our values shape and inform other values. Maybe consistancy and webs of interconnected affirmations become as important as the values themselves!

So which direction do you think transformation happens in this context? From conviction to experience, or from experience to conviction? Or are they inseparable?

Discuss.

Followup: The long winding road of Ordination

You know there's never such a thing as a clear answer in church work, right? Case in point: as a followup to yesterday's prayer request for my ordination interview, here's the results.

I submitted 20 doctrinal questions and a sermon for review.
I passed 17 of those questions and my sermon passed.
The Board APPROVED me for Ordination BUT places that approval CONTINGENT ON me re-answering those errant three questions and those to be reviewed in the Spring.
So, if I pass those three questions in the Spring, I'm approved for Ordination in the United Methodist Church.

Woohoo? Yea? Sorry? Yeah, I'm honestly so fresh out of it that I can't really decide what my response is. But given it's a few days past thanksgiving, here's what I'm thankful for:

I'm thankful for passing 17 outta 20. 85% isn't a bad score in any profession...even Surgeons pass with an 85%! But not Methodist pastors! Ha!
I'm thankful for the grace given to me by the Board that they have me rewrite 3 questions rather than submitting them all again. That was in their realm of possibilities so I'm thankful.
I'm thankful for good clergy friends who waited for 2 hours for me to emerge. Love you folks!

So, in short: I've got another hoop ahead of me and have a few months to discern and wrestle with and study those questions. I'll be talking about them on this blog, so stay tuned. Thanks for walking this journey with me.

~UMJeremy

Prayer/Karma Request: Ordination Interview

As faithful readers know, I don't publish much about my current personal life outside of anecdotes about ministry setting or past exploits. But in this case, I'd like to make an exception. Feel free to scroll on if you are bored.

I'm a United Methodist pastor. Fulfilling a call to ministry via Ordination in the United Methodist Church is about a decade long process from clean start to final finish.

I began my call to ministry process in June 1998. I met with all the mentors and committees, got the education (Bachelors in Religion and Masters of Divinity), interned/worked at five churches, and I was commissioned into the ordination process in June 2006. After four years of pastoral ministry, I am now at the final stages of that process, called "full connection" for those with the team jerseys reading.

My Ordination interview is tomorrow (December 1st). Here's what will go down on that date:

Interviewing Committee: At around 9am CST, I will meet with a group of 6-8 clergy and laity who are thoroughly familiar with my materials, gifts, and personality. They interview me and issue a recommendation to the full board as to whether to ordain me as a full Elder or not.
Executive Committee: Afterword, I will meet with the Executive Committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry (12 people in various forms of Board leadership) to reflect on the process, answer further questions, and satisfy the leadership that the interviewing committee has judged me thoroughly.
Full Board: Later that afternoon, the full Board of Ordained Ministry (I think its between 40-60 people) will receive the recommendations, debate, and vote. I will receive a phone call late in the day on Tuesday telling me the results.

While that isn't the utter end of the process (there's a vote by the full amassed clergy in the Conference in May along with the Ordination service), this is the final step that is the hardest and most stressful IMO.

So...prayers, good karma, smoke signals, kind thoughts, and meditations on the Force would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

(pictured is fellow Methoblogger Will Deuel being commissioned...it came up on Google Images as I searched for "United Methodist Ordination"...neat huh?)

Open Communication

I suspect the world's typical perception of church communications is secretive and unwilling to acknowledge wrongdoing. This perception existed long before the scandals in the Catholic Church, and long before prominant evangelists were brought down by charges, but clearly events in the past 15-20 years have done it no good.

It was refreshing, then, to see the head of United Methodist Communications blog about transparency in the UMC. One of the greatest hacks for a system is establishing integrity and reforming secretive processes.

That said, there's been some tensions lately between the news and the leadership.

The UMComm and the Bishops had a row over whether to report on the UM Amendments defeat before the international conferences had taken place. This blog wrestled with some of that and continues to wonder about the line between openness and empowerment.
And apparently there's some foo-wah (a technical term) over reporting allegations of misconduct against a former bishop and outgoing head of a bureaucratic agency. When rumors swirl, one can choose to ignore their lack of substance or to acknowledge the truths of the matter. I applaud Bishop Stanovsky (whose area is dealing with the allegations) for her openness in her pastoral letter to the area.

The important part of the church communications is trust. When allegations and rumors swirl, it is a responsibility of (a) a news service to report trustworthy facts, (b) the leadership to establish and encourage trust in the process and (c) faithful legislative persons to watch and correct problems in the process at appropriate venues. Only when those three are in line will we strike a new journey for the church with openness and integrity. I hope the UMC (and all denominational systems) can put those words into action.

Thoughts?

United Methodism in 1,2,3,4,5 (ah ah ah)

Bishop Coyner from Indiana wrote the following piece (PDF) which is unusually succinct way to describe Methodism. Thought I would pass it on!

It's his writing, but loooong quotes look weird at HX so here it is full-text.

===============

“Being a United Methodist is as Easy as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5” – July 6, 2009

Sometimes I think we make it too hard to understand. We throw around words like “connectional” and “itinerancy” and a hodgepodge of alphabetical terms (like UMC, UMW, GBGM, GBOD, BOOM, etc). Sometimes we make it hard for our own United Methodist people to describe how we United Methodists are followers of Jesus.

So here it is, in simple 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ways to describe how we United Methodists live our Christian faith:

1. We have ONE mission statement: “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” We have all agreed on this statement, it is Biblical, it is in our Book of Discipline, and it is the mission statement of our new Indiana Conference.

2. We believe in TWO forms of holiness: personal holiness and social holiness. That is why we United Methodists work to bring individuals to a Christian way of life, but we also work to change our society.

3. We try to live by the THREE Simple Rules: do no harm, do good, stay in love with God. John Wesley gave us those rules, all clergy agree to them when they are ordained, and all United Methodist people are called to follow them.

4. We believe that truth is found by the FOUR sides of the Wesley Quadrilateral: Scripture is primary, and it is interpreted by Tradition (what the church has taught), Reason, and Experience. We are a Biblical people, but we also see the importance of learning from the Christian teachings of the past, using our minds to think through our faith, and bringing our own experience of God into our understanding.

5. We know that our congregations flourish when we engage in the FIVE Practices of:

Radical Hospitality
Passionate Worship
Intentional Faith Development
Risk-Taking Mission and Service
Extravagant Generosity

There it is. Five steps to being faithful United Methodist followers of Christ. Those FIVE describe what is unique about being followers of Jesus in the Wesleyan Way . Once a person has committed to follow Jesus, these Five Steps are the hallmarks of The United Methodist Church .

Maybe those of us who lead the UMC, both laity and clergy, would do well to focus on those Five steps and to use that common language. I plan to do so, and I invite you to join me.

from Bishop Michael J. Coyner
Indiana Conference of The United Methodist Church

The Press and the UM Amendments Debacle

NOTE: when I say "UM Amendments" I'm referencing specifically the Amendments dealing with the Inclusiveness of the Church and the Worldwide Nature of the Church.

Two days ago, this blog reported on a story published by USA Today that reported that the Amendments had been defeated even though not everyone had voted yet and some Annual Conferences had yet to vote. I wrote and called them "dumb" because the UMNS story it was based on didn't say that. In retrospect of me and other bloggers, our ire perhaps should have been directed elsewhere.

Per my request, Daniel Burke from the Religious News Service (which syndicates to USA Today) contacted me regarding the accuracy of the article. He explained the UMNS had changed the article that RNS had referenced since publication. Further, he explained how the reported voting tallies yielded an impossible passage of the UM Amendments and thus the reported facts in the article are accurate. I thank him for his candor and response and apologize for my complaint against RNS.

In other words, UMNS had reported the Amendments defeat, RNS had reported on the UMNS report, UMNS had changed the story because of the Bishop's concerns, RNS refuses to change the story even though the reporting by UMNS has changed, and now we are stuck with it all.

Sigh.

So let's be clear about the facts regarding the numbers of the UM Amendments. I appreciate the work of HX reader Chuck Russell who posted a comprehensive evaluation of the numbers here. His work is fair and should be read. It basically says that even though the numbers are not all in yet, and indeed the total numbers are unknown, it would take a statistical improbability for their passage. I'm not a person who sticks their head in the sand, so I'm inclined to accept his conclusions. Done.

However, the result of all this reporting is that Annual Conferences (primarily international conferences) that are yet to vote feel a bit like Hawaii on voting day: unimportant and irrelevant because they vote late. For the caucus groups who take such pride in care and concern for the international community, it is unfortunate that their repeated requests for voting tallies have yielded that the international community feels again like they are at the kids table and irrelevant.

This situation didn't have to take place. Before the voting began, the Council of Bishops agreed to not disclose the vote totals until after most of the conferences had voted. This was so that early voting didn't influence votes in upcoming conferences. I publicly supported this because, like them, I didn't want people to feel irrelevant in the process. Afterword, Bishops and/or annual conferences decided to buck this agreement and disclosed the numbers...at that time, I heard plenty of tweets and comments about a "lack of transparency" if the numbers were withheld. Those voices apparently prevailed at the annual conference level.

It makes me wonder how in a democratically-influenced church that this situation might have been avoided that the international community has been left out of important conversations. This will change in 2012 when the international conferences will have 40% of the vote rather than their current 20%, but for the moment, disenenfranchisement served cold. So I understood where the Bishops were coming from in promoting non-disclosure because of the presumed effect on the international community.

I write a lot about transparency and accountability, so it may come as a surprise that I supported non-disclosure on this. Here's why: even though we are structured like the US Government, we don't have to operate like them and value transparency above individual dignity. We don't need to idolize transparency above all other concerns when accountability is in place. We can opt to non-disclose so that out of mutual admiration and care for one another that all feel welcome at the table. We opted not to do this, to our shame.

Is it any wonder that in the very process of voting down the inclusivity of the church that we expose that we are not inclusive in our voting process? Irony served cold.

Thoughts on this process, or ways that we can be better in the future?

Maybe USA conferences should have voted last and let the international community lead us in voting?
Maybe there should be an official counting service which tabulates the results rather than individual conferences leaking the votes to their glory?

Thoughts?

No, USA Today, the UM Amendments haven't lost

Update: this article is inaccurate and out of date. See updated article here.

Dear USA Today...you are dumb.

USA Today has ran an erroneous story about the United Methodist Church and the state of the amendments. Here's what its lead says:

United Methodists have defeated amendments that would have made church membership open to all Christians regardless of sexual orientation and furthered the creation of a new, U.S.-only governing body, according to the denomination's news service.

But the original UMNS article, which USA Today based its source on, clearly says this:

United Methodists in the U.S. have largely voted against 23 proposed amendments that would change the structure of the church, but voting is ongoing in Africa, Europe and the Philippines...

The church has 73 conferences in Africa, the Philippines and Europe. Since they hold their annual meetings at different times throughout the year, the final outcome of the voting won’t be known until spring 2010.

So no, there are 73 conferences that have yet to vote, more than half of the total number of conferences. So no, the voting is not done yet.

But don't feel bad. Even a fact-checking religious service Get Religion didn't check the original article either. And other pastors seem to point to UMNS instead of realizing that it was USA Today that got it wrong.

But on the bright side...alongside the erroneous facts is a quote by the Institute on Religion and Democracy. So thank you for again linking bad facts with the IRD...they are bedfellows after all.

Kisses, ~UMJeremy

Two Track Methodism: Doctrinal and Missional?

These days, the Episcopal Church (as a part of the Anglican Communion) is a bellweather for the rest of denominationalism and their strife is played out in many denominations that are not homogenous or self-affiliating.

One interesting nugget coming from the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the possiblity of a two-track understanding of the Anglican Communion. Tracks like the image to the right where multiple audio tracks are spliced together to create a musical whole.

Check it out and see what they can learn from us United Methodists as well about making two tracks become a harmony.

Anglican "Two Tracks"

...there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.

In other words, one of the principle areas of difficulty with people who disagree on doctrinal issues is that they have to be in "full communion" with those they see as less-than-faithful to their understanding of the faith. By placing the church in two tracks, then those who are not game with all the aspects of the Anglican communion can call themselves Anglican and part of the crowd, but they are not part of the formal decision-making structure.

Sounds a bit like a tiered system? Well, that's a hierarchical understanding that Archbishop Willams is pushing back against here:

This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.

While at first OK, this brings it out a bit more: covenantal relationship means those who accept everything the Anglican church says...and the other folks who decided that for their context or locality that some doctrines are unacceptable, and they only loosely affiliate. Two tracks of being Anglican: one holding doctrinal purity as above all else, the other holding missional relevance as strong enough to accept a different "track" of being Anglican.

Finally,

It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion...The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency.

Is this a viable idea? Archbishop Williams seems to be shooting for the unhappy medium: keep the church together by making it into Anglican and Anglican Lite. The doctrinal purists can sit at the decision making table, and the Anglican Lites sit at the kids table...but hopefully happily because they still get the gold star by their name that says "I'm Anglican." IMO.

Maybe they can learn something from us Methodists about what two separate-but-equal tracks looks like...

 Methodist "Two Tracks"

One of the great things about Methodism is that we already embody these two tracks of existence in our ordination structure. We understand Elders (who have full sacramental authority) and Deacons (who are often in church/world intersections) to be two ecclesial tracks, neither above the other. Deacons and Elders can serve on the same committees and can be elected to the same clergy positions (though I don't think Deacons can become DS or Bishop because those are church-oriented positions). Through both clergy tracks working together, ministry is harmony for the most part.

The question is can this approach be made to entire churches or denominations.

For the United Methodist Church struggling with gay equality, is a two-track system a solution: One valuing doctrinal purity and the other missional relevance?

The only way I can remotely see it theologically sustainable is if it is split up along the same lines as ordination: presiding and serving.

Doctrinal Methodists would preside over church functions and structures, maintaining the tradition and doctrinal relevance and faithfulness. Churches, districts, or even clergy can be classified as these kinds of "appointable" positions. They can comment on Missional advances, certainly, but not enforce secondary doctrines (like social principles) on them.
Missional Methodists would serve the contexts they are in, held in tension between doctrine and relevance, at the intersection of church and world. Churches in areas of the country with gay equality would be able to act and speak with authority to those contexts only. They would get to justify missional advances in open forum with the DMs (omg, DMs in Methodism! Do you defrock him? ::rattle dice:: yes.).

It's an interesting idea. I'm not proposing it or supporting it, but if two-tracks becomes part of the conversation, then I think the UM way of splitting up Elders and Deacons as separate tracks would be a helpful contribution to the discussion. Is the UM system perfect? Golly no! But it is helpful for discussion.

Thoughts? Welcome to our visitors and thank you for your comments!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Seeing Communion Again for the First Time

Breaking of the bread.

Image via Wikipedia

As you know, I've recently changed church jobs and ended up in the Plains. Sunday was my first Communion Sunday in a new place. And the culture shock that I had been waiting for finally set in during the Communion liturgy.

You see, in my old parish, we would do communion weekly. While the pros and cons are good to talk about, one negative consequence is that no one wants to read the full UMC liturgy every week. So I would write my own...retaining the proper elements and form for a liturgical sacrament, of course! And since I wrote my own liturgies, I could tweak the theological substance to better reflect the worship message or my parish's theological struggles that I, as the pastor, knew about. I did this for three years.

So imagine my surprise when I read through the United Methodist liturgy in full yesterday. There were several glaring differences between three years of liturgy and the "orthodox" liturgy in the UM Hymnal. I was so struck by it that I thought I would share. While I am a relatively new pastor (three years in my first parish, and seven years of church administrative experience prior to that), I would like to offer the following radical points of departure between what I had been doing and what the "orthodox" liturgy is.

NOTE: Given that I am part of the UM ordination system, I send these liturgies for evaluation yearly. So read them in confidence that while they may not be your theology or "orthodox" theology that they are being reviewed by my peers...which is more than most pastors can say!

Confession and Pardon

UM Hymnal: We confess that we have not loved you with our whole heart. We have failed to be an obedient church. We have not done your will, we have broken your law, we have rebelled against your love, we have not loved our neighbors, we have not heard the cry of the needy.
Hacking Christianity (HX) Liturgy examples: "When we fail to love one another, we obstruct the flow of God's grace given to us to be given to others." "When we fail to love our neighbor, we shut the door in the face of Christ the beggar." "We confess we have not always played our part in confronting the darkness, and bringing the light of Christ to troubled places."

Reflection: There's a conflict between "being" and "doing" in this section. In the UM version, "we have" and "we have not" are statements of being, of existing in a state of sin. In the HX version, "when we" and "we have not always" are statements of doing, of when we do these things, these are the consequences. While I recognize the restrictive nature of writing a communion liturgy for every time and place, I worry about focusing on the "being" and not making connections between "doings": thoughts and effects, actions and consequences, doings and becomings.

Your turn: does the universalizing tendency of "being" in the Communion liturgy or the focused "doing" in the HX Liturgy speak to you more? Why?

Masculine Language

UM Hymnal: Holy Holy Holy Lord, God of Power and Might. Heaven and Earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the Highest.
HX Liturgy: Holy Holy Holy One, God of Power and Might. Heaven and Earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is the One who comes in the name of our God. Hosanna in the highest.

Reflection: In the UM Hymnal liturgy (full version W+T 2), there are 24 references to God as Lord and "He." While I respect the Hymnal is from 1989 and not every church values inclusive language, that's a very high gender:text ratio. There's no need for that in contemporary inclusive churches. Even in the quoted above section that clearly references Christ, there's liturgical ways to do it that keep the reference clear but don't use masculine language.

What do you think? Is there a need for better gender inclusivity in the communion liturgy? Or are those words sacrosanct and women (and men) need to suck it up?

Blood Imagery

UM Words of Institution:
On the night in which he gave himself up for us, he took bread, gave thanks to you, broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
"Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." When the supper was over, he took the cup, gave thanks to you, gave it to his disciples, and said: "Drink from this, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
HX Liturgy: "On the last night that Jesus had with his disciples, the women and men who had been with him for so many days. He took bread, gave thanks to God, and broke it. He passed it around saying "take, eat, for this is my body." Maybe by that he meant that his body may be broken, and our bodies may be broken, but so long as there are disciples and followers, the body is never truly broken.
When the supper was over, Jesus took the cup, raised it up and gave thanks, and passed it around and said "this is my blood." Maybe by that he meant that he would not be with us in body much longer, but whenever we love one another, forgive one another, do acts of mercy with one another...then Jesus' lifeblood flows through our veins and we are truly incorporated into Jesus' body. Jesus says "every time you do this, remember me."

UM Epiclesis:
"Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood...All honor and glory are yours, Eternal Father, now and forever. Amen."
HX Liturgy: "Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and fruit of the vine. Make them be for us the bread of life, and the quenching cup of blessing poured out for one and for many for the forgiveness of sins. May they nurture us, may they sustain us, until we gather as broken people around the table again. All honor and glory is yours, O God, now and forever. Amen."

UM Hymnal: "The body of Christ, given for you" and "The blood of Christ, given/shed for you."
HX Liturgy: "the bread of life, given for you" OR "the body of Christ, broken as our bodies are broken" and "the cup of God's love that we share" OR "the love of Christ, given for you"

Reflection: As is perfectly clear here at HX, blood atonement and I are not bunkmates or pen-pals. But what happens if we fudge it in the communion liturgy?

A reflection by Cheryl Magrini at the GBOD questions accommodating children by using non-blood imagery. She acknowledges that children do not have a reference for weird imagery and blood language, but neither have they developed understanding for metaphorical language like "bread of heaven" etc. And if we understand this as a re-enactment, then giving the cliff-notes version of the liturgy is not being authentic to the original giving of bread and cup. She concludes that we should use the traditional language but offer education as to the diversity of what it means.

Those are both powerful critiques but neither point to the underlying pervasiveness of blood atonement in the communion feast. Even though John Wesley clearly supported blood atonement, his atonement theology is much more nuanced and contains elements of ransom and exemplary atonement as well. Why then does the communion table reflect only one?

What do you think? Is there room in the liturgy to create a more nuanced understanding of what Jesus meant by "this is my body" and "this is my blood?"

In closing, let's be clear: I write the above not to say one is better than the other. I'm a simple pastor...the UM Hymnal was written by professional spirit-filled people! I am fully aware the hubris in writing the above as if they can be compared: they are apples and oranges as far as I am concerned.

I'm writing about my experience as a pastor. And so far in my new ministry, nothing is so drastically different as communion. Here's the problem: In my theology, liturgy is the work of the people. While I respect Magrini's statement that different people can get different things from the same evocative liturgy, as the UMC moves closer and closer to weekly communion, it can feel rote and impersonal because it is not the people's language (especially those who value inclusive language and imagery). If liturgy is the work of the people, then does the communion liturgy include the people in it? When will the sabbath be made for humans, and not humans for the Sabbath?

Tough thoughts, and I anticipate some heated discussion about liturgical sacrosanctity (is that a word?) and cafeteria theology. If so, let's discuss the essential issue: can the communion liturgy be made more personal to the congregation? What theological "laws" are broken in doing so? And if the result is absent of masculine language and offers a nuanced understanding of atonement...is it still communion?

Discuss. Welcome to our visitors and thank you for the comments!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Worst Camp Sign Ever [humor]

There's just so much wrong with this sign from FAILblog:

(1) Terrible way to shorten "Methodist Bible Campground"
(2) It's a "dead end"?

Sigh.

Oklahoma Annual Conference

I'll be twittering from Annual Conference in Oklahoma this week. I may blog a bit, but those will not be on-the-fly unless it can't wait.

So, to keep up with methodist-nerdom...follow me on twitter!

And follow the "official" twitter hash tag: #okumc for at least 10 clergy twits at conference (is that the right term?)

For the non-Methodists reading this blog...I apologize for this week in advance!

Call for a People-Powered Hymnal [UMC]

The United Methodist Hymnal is now the musical equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the age of Wikipedia where grassroots unorganized labor can come up with an entire encyclopedia, it is little wonder that the Hymnal Revision Committee, a top-down structure that nonetheless faithfully solicited feedback, has become a victim of the economy and the new Hymnal shuttered.

And yet there is still HUGE potential...a Facebook group with 1700 members? Thousands of churches and music ministries? A UM committee that actually understands how to use a mailing list [Ruach]? How can we not let this opportunity fall by the wayside?

A loosely knit group that organized now could form the nucleus of a people-powered hymnal that could make this work for possibly pennies on the dollar and every ounce of passion that the committee could do. The creative energy and vigorous debate in this area needs channeling now that the Committee's primary focus (a new hymnal "book") is on hold and its staff presumably whisked away to alternative projects.

How do we move forward? Summarizing the alternative avenues before us, which of these would be most helpful to the Hymnal Revision Committee and its input not thrown to the wayside? How can the UMC equip and empower people who want to see this project through?

In the same way that Wikipedia is not just people inserting facts but includes editors, catalogers, and spell-checkers...I see at least three areas of opportunity that groups of people who are so impassioned could contribute to a new hymnal if their work was honored by the United Methodist Church:

1. Identification and diverse selection of hymns

Selecting hymns that are faithful witnesses to Christ in general, and the United Methodist tradition in particular. We did a survey of favorite and least favorite hymns. There's tons of conversation in this group about particular hymns and their inclusion/exclusion. Bring out the nets and the scalpel and choose or reject hymns.

IDEAS: Why not have a loose-knit groups of people give temporary blessing to set lists of hymns and see what people think? People can come up with their own mix lists like the "the golden oldies" list or "the African Spirituals" list or narrative lists that try to tell a story from one hymn to another. The most used hymns in all lists can be easily identified and given weight in final inclusion, if there needs to be a "final inclusion." Give them a prize week to week to spur participation.

2. Appropriation and inclusive adaptation of hymns

By posting the full-text of hymns online or in contained digital groups, people could try out alternative language in established hymns. People and professionals could then see what happens when we replace "Lord" with "Love" and sing it themselves. Some hymns could be unchanged, of course.

IDEAS: Post the full-text of hymns, allow them to be set to music after the words are changed (simple for computer programs, just match background image of notes with text), and let people try them out. Evaluation can be done by either voting or simply giving feedback to the final powers-that-be.

3. Alternative distribution channels for a hymnal

Online, powerpoint, mediashout, the Amazon Kindle, smoke signals...why should we choose which one when people may be willing to digitally "translate" hymns into the various programs? Let them do it and equip them to do it. If the UMPH still wants to make money off of this, then make a subscription that every church could purchase to obtain access to all the versions (not unlike Cokesbury's digital Book of Discipline). Heck, people could make money or a percentage of their contributions' downloads.

IDEAS: this group could be in charge of "translation" of selected and adapted hymns [from groups (1) and (2)] into various media programs, guitar tabs, or simply formatted to print off in a bulletin. Give them a financial incentive, if need be.

===========================================

I haven't been involved with this conversation yet, but now that a paper hymnal is on hold and the entire project in danger, I'm more enthused to participate and see a people-powered hymnal take off.

A truly people-powered hymnal is...

RELEVANT to this generation
It honors the GIFTS of our varied music professionals and lovers
It build a BUZZ far beyond this already successful group.

The creative possibilities are endless if the infrastructure will just LET.IT.HAPPEN.

So, this is a call to conversation about what possibilities are there for a people-powered hymnal. Thoughts? PLEASE don't nitpick the particulars...is the IDEA worth it or viable?

Discuss. And join the facebook conversation in the Hymnal Revision Group.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blogger Template © Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP