Today’s post is by Rev. Lynette Moran. Rev. Moran is an ordained deacon in the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Pittsburgh. This is the first of a three-part series.
In my doctoral work, I study grief, first and foremost—what is common about grief, how we grieve social problems, what impacts our grief experience. The United Methodist Church is the primary field where I’ve dug into these questions.
I bring to this work contemporary perspectives on grief that stress relationship and narrative. Those two umbrellas often overlap. Concerning relationship, grief studies now recognize that grief is often ongoing because our connections to others don’t just go away, even after death or the end of a relationship. I would argue this applies to all types of significant loss.
The second umbrella centers around narrative—around meaning-making or constructive grief. We construct meaning as part of the grief process. We are always updating our narrative. We make meaning from our memories; we make meaning in new events; we make meaning in real time and over time.
With those framing approaches in mind, I’d like to turn to the UMC.
The UMC is a kaleidoscope of grief right now with multiple dynamics happening. I can note a few ways grief is manifested—most of which apply to both local church closures and potential denominational schism.
Right now, we mourn unmet expectations: what we thought the UMC was or was not, what we thought our local church was or was not.
We also mourn our relationships. We mourn the tension in our relationships as people take a stand for this or that. This manifests itself from seemingly silly arguments over the church furnace to darker, troublesome arguments about who really is or isn’t Methodist or Christian. Sometimes we take a stand out of moral principles. Sometimes we take a stand out of emotion, including grief.
We have anticipatory grief. What we see happening in the future—we’re already grieving that. We mourn what our future UMC and relationships will lose. If my friends stop coming to this church or I start going to that church, relationships will change. We mourn how our sense of community will shift.
I think we also feel almost suspended in time—whether you’re talking about church closures or denominational schism, it’s been years, if not decades, in the making. The anticipation weighs heavy on our shoulders.
There are also griefs we bear based on our position and place in society. We aren’t all grieving the same exact thing. The one I must underscore is the pain the UMC has caused many in the LGBTQ community. As people who “first do no harm,” much harm has been done. The LGBTQ community is the precarious frontline that endures while the UMC decides ‘what to do about them.’ Their grief is substantial and unique.
Having said that, many of us feel particular pains. We all have a context by which we experience loss. Provisional clergy or recently ordained clergy have invested years of education and money and effort into a system that is on the precipice of a significant shift in identity.
There are life-long United Methodists, people who feel forced to leave due to their beliefs, people who are angry that we can’t “all just get along,” people living in different geographic regions of the world.
And again, grief doesn’t happen in a bubble. Grief now attaches to pain in our past. Some of us have been injured by the church in the past and may still carry that. This is us constructing our narratives. In Pennsylvania I talk to people who still hold feelings from when the EUB church merged to help form the UMC. That experience and perspective folds past narrative and grief into the present.
Finally, grief related to the UMC ties into the pains of our daily lives. We are also coping with the pandemic, job loss, loss of loved ones, children passing through milestones like graduation, divorce, political tensions, and so on.
So many things impact how we experience grief in the moment and long-term and how we experience this grief as Methodists, both individually and collectively. The things I’ve mentioned get to the bulk of factors, but a full account of our denominational grief certainly can’t be contained to this post or this moment.
In my next post, I will suggest theological resources that can help us cultivate a sense of hope, even amid this multifaceted church-related grief we bear.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Monday, November 8, 2021
Friday, November 5, 2021
The UMC and Institutional Decline: What About Membership Decline?
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
In response to my series on the UMC and Institutional Decline, reader (and United Methodist Professor of Mission) Rev. Dr. Jack Jackson writes:
“Hello David, thanks for these articles. You are bringing up some important issues. I wonder if you plan to address the underlying problem which, if not addressed, will make all these other renovations irrelevant? Namely, the current collapse of the United Methodist species. We simply aren't reproducing ourselves in the West. Clearly the denomination is reproducing in the Philippines and a handful of countries in central Africa. But apart from those 6 or 7 countries (so much for being a global church) the UMC is in the midst of species collapse. Will you address the need [for a] new vision regarding mission and evangelism that centers on making disciples for Jesus? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.”
Given the significance of Rev. Dr. Jackson’s question, I wanted to spend an entire post responding to it, rather than trying to do so within the confines of the comments section.
The Relationship between Membership Decline and Institutional Decline
First, in his comment, Jackson gets at what is absolutely an important truth: It doesn’t matter what denominational institutions look like if there are no denominational members left to be part of them. Decline in denominational membership (especially among white Westerners) is an essential bit of context that shapes and shades all other discussions of the UMC’s future, including discussions of its institutions.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that because membership decline has the potential to make institutional decline irrelevant that we should focus entirely on membership and not on denominational institutions (not that Jackson is saying so). Such an argument would only make sense if membership and institutions were unconnected, but there is a relationship between the two.
The sorts of institutions that we have as a denomination can influence how effective we are at inviting new members through evangelism, retaining our current members through discipleship, and developing the next generation of members through Christian education. Rightly conceived, updating institutions can be a means to better equip the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
A football analogy may help. The only undefeated NFL team in history was the Miami Dolphins in 1972, incidentally the same year that many of the institutions of the UMC achieved their current form. Obviously, that team knew how to win. But if we were able to bring that team and their equipment, strategies, and training regiments to the present, the 1972 Miami Dolphins would likely struggle in the 2021 NFL season, where rules of the game have changed, game strategies have changed, technology used to help players play their best has evolved, offensive and defensive lines are much larger physically, and the season is three games longer. We can’t assume that just because the 1972 Dolphins knew how to win, none of the rest of these changes would matter.
In a similar way, evangelism (and discipleship and Christian education) is not just about knowing how to win people to Jesus in some ahistoric sense. It’s about knowing how to win people to Jesus in our present time and contexts, as Jackson’s writings highlight, and then developing the systems of rules, equipment, strategies, etc. necessary to support that approach. And our rules, equipment, strategies, etc. should be updated from their 1972 versions, just as the 1972 Dolphins would need to update if they played in the 2021 NFL.
The importance of church structure for the growth of the church is something I have addressed in several other posts (http://www.umglobal.org/2018/03/mission-structure-and-innovation.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/05/structure-financing-and-early-methodism.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/05/movement-vs-institution-choices-and.html).
Tracking Membership Trends
Second, as Jackson points out, there are important differences across The United Methodist Church in terms of how the church is doing in reproducing itself. Assessing the danger of “species collapse” and responding appropriately requires good information about where The United Methodist Church is and is not growing, how those trends compare to other forms of Christianity and population demographics, and the group-specific trends within the whole.
Over the years, developing this sort of data that can help United Methodist leaders discern where the church is and is not doing well, including in comparison with others, has been a major effort of my writing on this blog and elsewhere:
In addition, I have suggested a variety of explanations for these trends that try to look not just at The United Methodist Church but at other forms of Christianity and wider societal contexts, especially in the United States.
I have tried to enumerate factors influencing church growth (http://www.umglobal.org/2019/05/factors-influencing-church-growth.html) including organizational and cultural explanations (http://www.umglobal.org/2021/04/organizational-vs-cultural-explanations.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2016/04/coming-to-terms-with-numeric-decline-in.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/03/are-there-too-few-mainline-denominations.html) and the role of the witness of the church amidst suffering (http://www.umglobal.org/2018/06/is-suffering-cause-of-umc-growth-in.html).
I have examined the role of empire in the fate of Christianity in the West: http://www.umglobal.org/2020/06/secularization-and-collapse-of-empire.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2020/12/what-is-imperial-religion-and-why-do.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2020/12/american-christianity-as-imperial.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2020/12/routes-forward-from-imperial-american.html
This work is not the same as developing a theology or method of evangelism, but I do see it as important background for such work. Since evangelism must be contextual, United Methodists must understand the contexts in which they evangelize.
Evangelism
Jackson suggests that the UMC needs a “new vision regarding mission and evangelism that centers on making disciples for Jesus.” I wholeheartedly agree that evangelism is an essential part of mission and that the UMC should be engaged in evangelism.
That is an important part of why I developed the definition of mission I use in my book on mission for congregations, Crossing Boundaries: Mission is “cultivating relationships across boundaries for the sake of fostering conversations in word and deed about the nature of God’s good news” (http://www.umglobal.org/2019/03/a-new-definition-of-mission.html). By emphasizing conversations about God’s good news, this definition of mission is intended to include evangelism as a core component of mission.
This conviction that evangelism is an essential part of mission means that evangelism is among the subjects that UM & Global covers, even if I don’t always write those articles myself. You can find UM & Global articles about evangelism here: http://www.umglobal.org/search/label/evangelism.
Given my background as a social historian, I tend to write about areas that I feel I am uniquely qualified to analyze and that others are not writing about extensively (such as organizational theory and demographics). I then try to lift up the voices of those who are more insightful than me on other topics. Evangelism tends to fall into that latter category, not because I don’t believe it is important, but because I recognize the insights that others have go beyond my own in this area. I believe I can better contribute to furthering evangelism by doing some of this background work that I hope others will draw upon.
In response to my series on the UMC and Institutional Decline, reader (and United Methodist Professor of Mission) Rev. Dr. Jack Jackson writes:
“Hello David, thanks for these articles. You are bringing up some important issues. I wonder if you plan to address the underlying problem which, if not addressed, will make all these other renovations irrelevant? Namely, the current collapse of the United Methodist species. We simply aren't reproducing ourselves in the West. Clearly the denomination is reproducing in the Philippines and a handful of countries in central Africa. But apart from those 6 or 7 countries (so much for being a global church) the UMC is in the midst of species collapse. Will you address the need [for a] new vision regarding mission and evangelism that centers on making disciples for Jesus? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.”
Given the significance of Rev. Dr. Jackson’s question, I wanted to spend an entire post responding to it, rather than trying to do so within the confines of the comments section.
The Relationship between Membership Decline and Institutional Decline
First, in his comment, Jackson gets at what is absolutely an important truth: It doesn’t matter what denominational institutions look like if there are no denominational members left to be part of them. Decline in denominational membership (especially among white Westerners) is an essential bit of context that shapes and shades all other discussions of the UMC’s future, including discussions of its institutions.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that because membership decline has the potential to make institutional decline irrelevant that we should focus entirely on membership and not on denominational institutions (not that Jackson is saying so). Such an argument would only make sense if membership and institutions were unconnected, but there is a relationship between the two.
The sorts of institutions that we have as a denomination can influence how effective we are at inviting new members through evangelism, retaining our current members through discipleship, and developing the next generation of members through Christian education. Rightly conceived, updating institutions can be a means to better equip the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
A football analogy may help. The only undefeated NFL team in history was the Miami Dolphins in 1972, incidentally the same year that many of the institutions of the UMC achieved their current form. Obviously, that team knew how to win. But if we were able to bring that team and their equipment, strategies, and training regiments to the present, the 1972 Miami Dolphins would likely struggle in the 2021 NFL season, where rules of the game have changed, game strategies have changed, technology used to help players play their best has evolved, offensive and defensive lines are much larger physically, and the season is three games longer. We can’t assume that just because the 1972 Dolphins knew how to win, none of the rest of these changes would matter.
In a similar way, evangelism (and discipleship and Christian education) is not just about knowing how to win people to Jesus in some ahistoric sense. It’s about knowing how to win people to Jesus in our present time and contexts, as Jackson’s writings highlight, and then developing the systems of rules, equipment, strategies, etc. necessary to support that approach. And our rules, equipment, strategies, etc. should be updated from their 1972 versions, just as the 1972 Dolphins would need to update if they played in the 2021 NFL.
The importance of church structure for the growth of the church is something I have addressed in several other posts (http://www.umglobal.org/2018/03/mission-structure-and-innovation.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/05/structure-financing-and-early-methodism.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/05/movement-vs-institution-choices-and.html).
Tracking Membership Trends
Second, as Jackson points out, there are important differences across The United Methodist Church in terms of how the church is doing in reproducing itself. Assessing the danger of “species collapse” and responding appropriately requires good information about where The United Methodist Church is and is not growing, how those trends compare to other forms of Christianity and population demographics, and the group-specific trends within the whole.
Over the years, developing this sort of data that can help United Methodist leaders discern where the church is and is not doing well, including in comparison with others, has been a major effort of my writing on this blog and elsewhere:
- In a co-written article from 2011, Dana L. Robert and I looked at UMC demographic trends relative to other Methodist and closely related denominations (https://www.methodistreview.org/index.php/mr/article/view/48), and I very briefly touched on a similar comparison this year (http://www.umglobal.org/2021/04/us-membership-decline-and-rhetoric-of.html).
- I crunched the numbers to analyze worldwide UMC membership growth or decline relative to the overall population (http://www.umglobal.org/2019/05/umc-membership-growth-and-decline.html), and I have encouraged United Methodists to be more specific in their thinking about global growth or decline (http://www.umglobal.org/2016/11/getting-specific-about-global-umc.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/02/making-sense-of-umc-membership-numbers.html).
- For another perspective on growth and decline, I put together an analysis of worldwide UMC clergy numbers relative to laity membership (http://www.umglobal.org/2021/01/clergy-vs-laity-membership-numbers.html).
- I have examined the racial components of membership trends in the United States (http://www.umglobal.org/2017/03/american-umc-decline-is-white-people.html) and compared membership decline to contextual economic factors (http://www.umglobal.org/2013/07/middle-class-methodists-and-church.html).
- I have put together comprehensive data on where Methodists from all denominations are located around the world (http://www.umglobal.org/2018/02/resource-maps-of-locations-of-world.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/04/resource-more-world-methodist-maps.html) and have looked at how these maps highlight historical factors influencing the spread of Methodism to date (http://www.umglobal.org/2018/02/analysis-of-locations-of-world.html).
In addition, I have suggested a variety of explanations for these trends that try to look not just at The United Methodist Church but at other forms of Christianity and wider societal contexts, especially in the United States.
I have tried to enumerate factors influencing church growth (http://www.umglobal.org/2019/05/factors-influencing-church-growth.html) including organizational and cultural explanations (http://www.umglobal.org/2021/04/organizational-vs-cultural-explanations.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2016/04/coming-to-terms-with-numeric-decline-in.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2018/03/are-there-too-few-mainline-denominations.html) and the role of the witness of the church amidst suffering (http://www.umglobal.org/2018/06/is-suffering-cause-of-umc-growth-in.html).
I have examined the role of empire in the fate of Christianity in the West: http://www.umglobal.org/2020/06/secularization-and-collapse-of-empire.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2020/12/what-is-imperial-religion-and-why-do.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2020/12/american-christianity-as-imperial.html; http://www.umglobal.org/2020/12/routes-forward-from-imperial-american.html
This work is not the same as developing a theology or method of evangelism, but I do see it as important background for such work. Since evangelism must be contextual, United Methodists must understand the contexts in which they evangelize.
Evangelism
Jackson suggests that the UMC needs a “new vision regarding mission and evangelism that centers on making disciples for Jesus.” I wholeheartedly agree that evangelism is an essential part of mission and that the UMC should be engaged in evangelism.
That is an important part of why I developed the definition of mission I use in my book on mission for congregations, Crossing Boundaries: Mission is “cultivating relationships across boundaries for the sake of fostering conversations in word and deed about the nature of God’s good news” (http://www.umglobal.org/2019/03/a-new-definition-of-mission.html). By emphasizing conversations about God’s good news, this definition of mission is intended to include evangelism as a core component of mission.
This conviction that evangelism is an essential part of mission means that evangelism is among the subjects that UM & Global covers, even if I don’t always write those articles myself. You can find UM & Global articles about evangelism here: http://www.umglobal.org/search/label/evangelism.
Given my background as a social historian, I tend to write about areas that I feel I am uniquely qualified to analyze and that others are not writing about extensively (such as organizational theory and demographics). I then try to lift up the voices of those who are more insightful than me on other topics. Evangelism tends to fall into that latter category, not because I don’t believe it is important, but because I recognize the insights that others have go beyond my own in this area. I believe I can better contribute to furthering evangelism by doing some of this background work that I hope others will draw upon.
Wednesday, November 3, 2021
Darryl Stephens: The UMC and Institutional Decline: Commissions and Omissions
Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens, responding to a recent series on UM & Global by Dr. David W. Scott. Rev. Dr. Stephens' post originally appeared on his personal blog, Ethics Considered, and is republished here with permission.
Why is The United Methodist Church in decline? And what can be done about it? These questions are the focus of a series of articles by David Scott, webmaster of UM & Global. The theme of the series, “The UMC and Institutional Decline,” is complicated. Scott presses his readers to consider the issue from many perspectives. The problem is not just a result of failed leadership, he argues, but also antiquated structures that no longer meet the needs of the institution.
Scott leverages his analysis to provide constructive ideas for moving forward. In a recent post, he suggested that the impending breakup of the UMC is an opportunity for denominational rebuilding. Boards, agencies, and the general way of doing things in United Methodism need to be overhauled. A breakup is an opportunity not only for cleaning house but also renovation.
“General Conference could create a series of commissions to work on denominational revamping,” suggested Scott. For this approach to be effective, I argue, we must learn from past and current efforts. We must examine the institutional history of United Methodist commissions and omissions.
Omissions
Not so long ago, General Conference approved a major piece of overhaul legislation. “Plan UMC,” as it was called, was celebrated wildly on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. “Finally,” thought many Methodist leaders, “General Conference has broken its pattern of gridlock.” Plan UMC was a bold blueprint for renovating the structures of the general church. The next day, the Daily Christian Advocate headline read, “Delegates approve a new structure.” One delegate from Susquehanna Annual Conference was quoted prominently: “The time is now. The world is waiting to see what we are going to do.” The article was accompanied by a confident picture of Bishop Janice Riggle Huie presiding over the previous day’s session.
Bishops, general agency executives, and delegates from across the connection immediately busied themselves. The full ramifications of the new restructuring plan were still being discovered. Power brokers filled the hallways and conference rooms. Who would occupy the seats of influence on the newly created “General Council for Strategy and Oversight”? General agency staff (I among them) scurried to learn what was left of program offices and mandates. Meanwhile, in other meeting rooms, the legality of the plan was under intense scrutiny (by me and others).
The bottom fell out of this botched renovation job within 48 hours. In a decision announced in the afternoon of Friday, May 4, Judicial Council ruled the entire plan unconstitutional.
There was a clear precedent for ruling Plan UMC unconstitutional. In a sad situational irony, the crux of the Council’s ruling echoed a very similar judicial decision rendered forty years earlier (Decision 364). Why did this flawed renovation plan captivate and entrance so many church leaders? And why were so many General Conference delegates so unfamiliar with denominational polity that they failed to notice this legislation’s inherent incompatibility with the UMC’s constitution? Perhaps the delegates’ desperation for renovation was fueled by a mounting sense that the denomination was veering out of anyone’s control.
Commissions
General Conference 2016 picked up where the previous legislative session had left off: amid chaos and division. Within days, the plenary ground to a halt on the issue of human sexuality. An immediate meltdown was narrowly avoided through an appeal to the Council of Bishops to establish a study commission and to call a special session of General Conference.
From an institutional renovation standpoint, however, this was not the only item of business referred. General Conference referred no less than nine major legislative initiatives to various commissions and other entities.
Nine Referrals by UM General Conference 2016
These items were referred to seven existing and four newly created entities of the UMC for the 2017–2020 quadrennium. New commissions included the Commission on the Way Forward, a Jurisdictional Study Committee, Missional Collaboration Group, and Study of Ministry Commission. The creation and work of the new commissions were overseen variously by the Council of Bishops, Connectional Table, and General Board of Higher Education and Ministry—the Inter-Jurisdictional Committee on the Episcopacy was also a consultative partner. The other five referred items were the responsibility of the following additional entities: Committee on Faith and Order, Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, General Council on Finance and Administration, and the General Board of Church and Society.
Thus, the UMC already has plenty of commissions to test Scott’s theory that “a series of commissions” will help the UMC “to work on denominational revamping.” Will these commissions succeed in renovating United Methodist denominational structures?
Renovation or Renewal? General Conference offered little guidance as to how the diverse work of these eleven different commissions, councils, boards, and committees would be coordinated. What is the likelihood that these pieces of legislation will be developed in concert? The debacle of reports and results from the Commission on a Way Forward at the special session of General Conference in 2019 has shaken my confidence in “a series of commissions”—or even one commission—as a viable means of renovating this denomination.
For a church desiring unity, the work of revisioning and restructure requires a comprehensive plan. The Plan of Union prepared for the creation of The United Methodist Church in 1968 was years in the making, involving much more than hurried power plays scribbled in the hallways during a contentious legislative assembly. Supermajorities of delegates from both churches approved a new constitution guaranteeing rights and responsibilities. It was not a perfect structure, but it lasted for more than a generation. Scott is right in asserting that United Methodism has outlived the usefulness of that structure. But where do we go from here? Renovation or renewal?
As a church, we should repent of our previous commissions and omissions, seeking not renovation but renewal. Perhaps this denominational edifice, this structure-become-stricture, needs to be left behind in order to grow into the church God would have us become.
Why is The United Methodist Church in decline? And what can be done about it? These questions are the focus of a series of articles by David Scott, webmaster of UM & Global. The theme of the series, “The UMC and Institutional Decline,” is complicated. Scott presses his readers to consider the issue from many perspectives. The problem is not just a result of failed leadership, he argues, but also antiquated structures that no longer meet the needs of the institution.
Scott leverages his analysis to provide constructive ideas for moving forward. In a recent post, he suggested that the impending breakup of the UMC is an opportunity for denominational rebuilding. Boards, agencies, and the general way of doing things in United Methodism need to be overhauled. A breakup is an opportunity not only for cleaning house but also renovation.
“General Conference could create a series of commissions to work on denominational revamping,” suggested Scott. For this approach to be effective, I argue, we must learn from past and current efforts. We must examine the institutional history of United Methodist commissions and omissions.
Omissions
Not so long ago, General Conference approved a major piece of overhaul legislation. “Plan UMC,” as it was called, was celebrated wildly on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. “Finally,” thought many Methodist leaders, “General Conference has broken its pattern of gridlock.” Plan UMC was a bold blueprint for renovating the structures of the general church. The next day, the Daily Christian Advocate headline read, “Delegates approve a new structure.” One delegate from Susquehanna Annual Conference was quoted prominently: “The time is now. The world is waiting to see what we are going to do.” The article was accompanied by a confident picture of Bishop Janice Riggle Huie presiding over the previous day’s session.
Bishops, general agency executives, and delegates from across the connection immediately busied themselves. The full ramifications of the new restructuring plan were still being discovered. Power brokers filled the hallways and conference rooms. Who would occupy the seats of influence on the newly created “General Council for Strategy and Oversight”? General agency staff (I among them) scurried to learn what was left of program offices and mandates. Meanwhile, in other meeting rooms, the legality of the plan was under intense scrutiny (by me and others).
The bottom fell out of this botched renovation job within 48 hours. In a decision announced in the afternoon of Friday, May 4, Judicial Council ruled the entire plan unconstitutional.
General Conference’s attempt to innovate outside of normal legislative processes backfired. Backroom dealing and high stakes compromises had resulted in fundamentally flawed legislation. In an aside, Judicial Council noted that “the adoption of Plan UMC by the General Conference came through a tortured course, and outside of the established legislative processes.”We have reviewed the plan to determine whether any part, portion, or all of Plan UMC can be saved and conclude that it cannot. The broad delegation of legislative authority and the commingling of the role of oversight so inextricably permeate the Plan as to render it constitutionally unsalvageable.
UM Judicial Council Decision 1210
There was a clear precedent for ruling Plan UMC unconstitutional. In a sad situational irony, the crux of the Council’s ruling echoed a very similar judicial decision rendered forty years earlier (Decision 364). Why did this flawed renovation plan captivate and entrance so many church leaders? And why were so many General Conference delegates so unfamiliar with denominational polity that they failed to notice this legislation’s inherent incompatibility with the UMC’s constitution? Perhaps the delegates’ desperation for renovation was fueled by a mounting sense that the denomination was veering out of anyone’s control.
Commissions
General Conference 2016 picked up where the previous legislative session had left off: amid chaos and division. Within days, the plenary ground to a halt on the issue of human sexuality. An immediate meltdown was narrowly avoided through an appeal to the Council of Bishops to establish a study commission and to call a special session of General Conference.
From an institutional renovation standpoint, however, this was not the only item of business referred. General Conference referred no less than nine major legislative initiatives to various commissions and other entities.
| Issue (petition no.) | Referred to: | Working Entity |
| Human sexuality (“A Way Forward”) | Council of Bishops | new “Commission on the Way Forward” |
| Ministry for the worldwide Church (60509) | General Board of Higher Education and Ministry | new “2017-2020 Study of Ministry Commission” |
| Revision of Our Theological Task (60676) | Committee on Faith and Order | Committee on Faith and Order |
| World-wide Social Principles (60062) | General Board of Church and Society | General Board of Church and Society |
| General Book of Discipline (60276, 60277) | Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, in collaboration with others | Committee on Faith and Order, Study of Ministry Commission, and Connectional Table |
| General Church Council (60815) | Connectional Table and Council of Bishops | new “Missional Collaboration Group” |
| Restructuring General Agencies (former “Plan UMC Revised,” 60945-47, 60950) | Connectional Table, Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, General Council on Finance and Admin. | Connectional Table, Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, General Council on Finance and Admin. |
| U.S. bishops (60932) | Council of Bishops, in consultation with Inter-Jurisdictional Committee on the Episcopacy | new “Jurisdictional Study Committee” |
| Study of Ecclesiology Document – Wonder, Love, and Praise (60033) | Entire denomination, as well as ecumenical partners | Committee on Faith and Order |
Thus, the UMC already has plenty of commissions to test Scott’s theory that “a series of commissions” will help the UMC “to work on denominational revamping.” Will these commissions succeed in renovating United Methodist denominational structures?
Renovation or Renewal? General Conference offered little guidance as to how the diverse work of these eleven different commissions, councils, boards, and committees would be coordinated. What is the likelihood that these pieces of legislation will be developed in concert? The debacle of reports and results from the Commission on a Way Forward at the special session of General Conference in 2019 has shaken my confidence in “a series of commissions”—or even one commission—as a viable means of renovating this denomination.
For a church desiring unity, the work of revisioning and restructure requires a comprehensive plan. The Plan of Union prepared for the creation of The United Methodist Church in 1968 was years in the making, involving much more than hurried power plays scribbled in the hallways during a contentious legislative assembly. Supermajorities of delegates from both churches approved a new constitution guaranteeing rights and responsibilities. It was not a perfect structure, but it lasted for more than a generation. Scott is right in asserting that United Methodism has outlived the usefulness of that structure. But where do we go from here? Renovation or renewal?
As a church, we should repent of our previous commissions and omissions, seeking not renovation but renewal. Perhaps this denominational edifice, this structure-become-stricture, needs to be left behind in order to grow into the church God would have us become.
Monday, November 1, 2021
Sung Il Lee: The Missiology of the "Middle Wesley"
Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Sung Il Lee. Rev. Dr. Lee is a missionary of Global Ministries and Missionary Practitioner in Residence at Candler School of Theology.
Extending W. Harrison Daniel’s concept analysis of the mission theory of the “young Wesley” (pre-1938) (Daniel 2000), I would like to examine the missiology of the “Middle Wesley” (1738-1765).
After he returned to England, Wesley had a warm experience at Aldersgate on 24 May, 1738. This experience helped to intensify and organize the middle Wesley’s Methodist movement. In this period, Wesley’s mission was consistently evangelical. I argue we must think of Wesley’s understanding of mission in the living context of his vital renewal movement.
I would like to see Wesley first as a proclaimer. As a proclaimer, Wesley considered “preaching the principal means by which converts are gathered into Christian fellowship and nurtured in faith and holy living” (Carder 1994, 82) and was convinced that “God had raised up the Methodists as means of reforming the nation and the church” (Carder, 81).
Wesley’s understanding of preaching was very missiological. He viewed preaching as “serving two basic purposes: to convert and to nurture” (Carder, 82). Wesley believed it was “God’s will that all should be saved, redeemed, and shaped by God’s grace revealed and mediated in Christ” (Carder, 82). Yet, his field preaching was “not a ‘hit and run’ operation; instead, it was re-enforced by the societies and class meeting in which converts were taught the faith, nurtured, admonished, and held accountable” (Carder, 83-84).
Wesley’s evangelical preaching and his organizing skills resulted in a group of the people called Methodists. Wesley was convinced that this people was called to do extraordinary rather than ordinary ministry. He pondered the meaning of Methodism as “spiritual churches within the Anglican Church” (Snyder 1996, 128) and as “little churches within the ecclesia” (Snyder, 128). Most importantly, Wesley viewed Methodism as a dynamic movement and “noted with great interest the depth and intimacy of community that developed in the Methodist societies, classes, and bands” (Snyder, 127).
As a renewal movement within the church, the Methodist movement has great missiological implications. “Wesley regarded Methodism as a movement of authentic Christianity within the larger church, which was largely decadent” (Snyder 1996, 128). Snyder continues, “The Methodists did not want to be a separate sect living only for themselves. They existed for the health and renewal of the whole body” (Snyder, 128) .
Through this renewal movement, Wesley wanted to “‘renew the church’, ‘spread scriptural holiness’, and ‘reform the nation.’” (Hunter 1986, 24). Hunter argues that Wesley’s “more apostolic goals are not as widely recognized” (24). According to him, Wesley “sought no less than the recovery of the truth, life, and power of earliest Christianity , and the expansion of that kind of Christianity. He single-mindedly managed the movement for fifty years primarily by that objective” (24) and “communicated this objective to the growing ranks of Methodists” (24). To Wesley, mission meant spreading scriptural Christianity throughout the lands and nations.
Wesley saw “the call to parish ministry and the call to mission as one” (Daniel 2000, 452) not “separated” (453). He observed painfully how the presence of “nominal Christians without experience of the new birth” in Savannah (455) hampered Indian and Black missions. Just as he needed mission before being born again, Wesley accepted the call to parish ministry (home mission) and the call to mission field (foreign mission) as an “indivisible unity” (453).
The Savannah mission experience made Wesley maintained a synthetic view that regarded the parish (home mission) and mission field (foreign or cross-cultural mission) alike as both mission field and parish (Daniel, 455). Wesley argued, “Suffer me now to tell you my principle in this matter. I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty to declare unto all that are willing to hear the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God has called me to.” (Letter, possibly to John Clayton, generally dated from March of 1739 in Baker, Letters, 1:616).
Though Wesley was a “home” missionary, he saw foreign mission as a “natural extension of the apostolic and extraordinary ministry by which the unchristian of his own nation were to be reached.” (Campbell 1992, 56). Campbell argues that “this ‘home’ work, in Wesley’s sense, was inseparably linked to the broader prospect of global evangelization. Wesley did, in fact, engage in evangelization beyond his ‘own nation’ (using this term in a strict sense) in the Evangelical Revival” (Campbell, 57).
Nonetheless, Campbell criticized Wesley as too captivated by the “sense of the Christian message as radiating out from a central core (i.e., where the Revival was occurring) ” (Campbell, 60) to encourage “the thought of mission (such as the proposed mission to Africa) in places that were not contiguous with the Revival” (Ibid.). Campbell shows Wesley’s cautious approach to foreign missionary work, stemming in part from his refusal to start missionary ventures without a sense of providential opening.
In the expansion of the scriptural Christianity, Wesley’s strategic approach to the task in England was the same as Paul had in the Roman Empire. Paul worked with Pauline mission teams to spread the gospel through a network of people undergirded by the prayers and financial support of house churches. In Paul’s strategy, he selected the great cities of the Roman Empire with several characteristics in common: Roman administration, centers of Greek civilization, Jewish influence, and trade and commerce. From these centers he sent his younger helpers to radiate out to the smaller cities of the region. (Sung Il Lee, 2 )
Wesley, who aspired to restore scriptural Christianity, learned Paul’s missionary methods and developed them in his contexts . Wesley tried every means available such as Methodist societies, bands, class meetings, itinerary preachers, lay preachers, etc. to bring “a consistent version of contiguous proclamation, that is, revival beginning in one place and spreading from thence to contiguous areas until the world was saturated. It was the model suggested, in general, by the Acts of the Apostles” (Campbell, 60). Campbell illustrates that “Wesley’s understanding of the mission of the Church laid the heaviest burden on his own people. For there to be a ‘core’ from which evangelism could radiate, it was necessary that his own people should be truly converted, and should display the fruits of Christian faith which, he believed, would be the strongest testimony to the world on behalf of the faith” (Campbell 1992, 60).
In relation to spreading scriptural Christianity, Wesley’s mission was guided by his radical recognition that “his own people, their society and their culture, were not themselves Christian, and thus stood as much in need of the Gospel as any foreign people” (Campbell 1992, 54). Campbell argues that Wesley’s mission was contingent upon bringing others to real Christianity, beginning “in the nominally Christian lands of Western Europe, followed by the conversion of Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and finally the rest of the world” (Campbell, 56).
In other words, his basic recognition of the unchristian character of his own world directed the goal of the Methodist movement and shaped Wesley’s evangelistic outreach. The middle Wesley expanded his missionary experience in Georgia and established himself as a missional reformer by transforming nominal Christians and their churches in England into a missionary constitution that opened the Great Century of Protestant missions, which began with William Carey only two years after John Wesley died (Campbell, 61).
In brief, Wesley believed that “proclaiming the gospel of grace … faces no less formidable obstacles that were confronted by Paul in the first century” (Carder, 93). “To fulfill the Great Commission in our generation, in order to proclaim Christ to the modern pagans who surround us, we must ask the kinds of questions that vexed John Wesley between 1736 to 1739: ‘What kind of Christianity do we now have to offer the world?’” (Campbell 1992, 62). Do we really want people of foreign lands to become something like modern-day North American or Korean Methodists? “Can there be any authentic global evangelization today that does not proceed from a recognition of the failures of our society and culture to follow Christ, and that does not begin with the evangelization of our own people?” (Campbell, 62).
Works Cited:
Campbell, Ted A. 1992. “John Wesley on the Mission of the Church.” In The Mission of the Church in Methodist Perspective: The World is My Parish. Ed. by Alan G. Padgett. 45-62. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Carder, Kenneth L. 1994. “Proclaiming the Gospel of Grace.” In Theology and Evangelism in the Wesleyan Heritage. Ed. by James C. Logan. 81-94. Nashville, TN: Kingswood.
Daniel, W. Harrison. 2000. “The Young Wesley as Cross-Cultural Witness: Investigations into Wesley’s American Mission Experience And Implications for Today’s Mission.” Missiology 28(4): 443-457.
Hunter, George. 1986. “John Wesley: A Church Growth Strategist.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 21(1-2) Spring-Fall: 24-33.
Snyder, Howard A. 1996. The Radical Wesley and Patterns for Church Renewal. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Extending W. Harrison Daniel’s concept analysis of the mission theory of the “young Wesley” (pre-1938) (Daniel 2000), I would like to examine the missiology of the “Middle Wesley” (1738-1765).
After he returned to England, Wesley had a warm experience at Aldersgate on 24 May, 1738. This experience helped to intensify and organize the middle Wesley’s Methodist movement. In this period, Wesley’s mission was consistently evangelical. I argue we must think of Wesley’s understanding of mission in the living context of his vital renewal movement.
I would like to see Wesley first as a proclaimer. As a proclaimer, Wesley considered “preaching the principal means by which converts are gathered into Christian fellowship and nurtured in faith and holy living” (Carder 1994, 82) and was convinced that “God had raised up the Methodists as means of reforming the nation and the church” (Carder, 81).
Wesley’s understanding of preaching was very missiological. He viewed preaching as “serving two basic purposes: to convert and to nurture” (Carder, 82). Wesley believed it was “God’s will that all should be saved, redeemed, and shaped by God’s grace revealed and mediated in Christ” (Carder, 82). Yet, his field preaching was “not a ‘hit and run’ operation; instead, it was re-enforced by the societies and class meeting in which converts were taught the faith, nurtured, admonished, and held accountable” (Carder, 83-84).
Wesley’s evangelical preaching and his organizing skills resulted in a group of the people called Methodists. Wesley was convinced that this people was called to do extraordinary rather than ordinary ministry. He pondered the meaning of Methodism as “spiritual churches within the Anglican Church” (Snyder 1996, 128) and as “little churches within the ecclesia” (Snyder, 128). Most importantly, Wesley viewed Methodism as a dynamic movement and “noted with great interest the depth and intimacy of community that developed in the Methodist societies, classes, and bands” (Snyder, 127).
As a renewal movement within the church, the Methodist movement has great missiological implications. “Wesley regarded Methodism as a movement of authentic Christianity within the larger church, which was largely decadent” (Snyder 1996, 128). Snyder continues, “The Methodists did not want to be a separate sect living only for themselves. They existed for the health and renewal of the whole body” (Snyder, 128) .
Through this renewal movement, Wesley wanted to “‘renew the church’, ‘spread scriptural holiness’, and ‘reform the nation.’” (Hunter 1986, 24). Hunter argues that Wesley’s “more apostolic goals are not as widely recognized” (24). According to him, Wesley “sought no less than the recovery of the truth, life, and power of earliest Christianity , and the expansion of that kind of Christianity. He single-mindedly managed the movement for fifty years primarily by that objective” (24) and “communicated this objective to the growing ranks of Methodists” (24). To Wesley, mission meant spreading scriptural Christianity throughout the lands and nations.
Wesley saw “the call to parish ministry and the call to mission as one” (Daniel 2000, 452) not “separated” (453). He observed painfully how the presence of “nominal Christians without experience of the new birth” in Savannah (455) hampered Indian and Black missions. Just as he needed mission before being born again, Wesley accepted the call to parish ministry (home mission) and the call to mission field (foreign mission) as an “indivisible unity” (453).
The Savannah mission experience made Wesley maintained a synthetic view that regarded the parish (home mission) and mission field (foreign or cross-cultural mission) alike as both mission field and parish (Daniel, 455). Wesley argued, “Suffer me now to tell you my principle in this matter. I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty to declare unto all that are willing to hear the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God has called me to.” (Letter, possibly to John Clayton, generally dated from March of 1739 in Baker, Letters, 1:616).
Though Wesley was a “home” missionary, he saw foreign mission as a “natural extension of the apostolic and extraordinary ministry by which the unchristian of his own nation were to be reached.” (Campbell 1992, 56). Campbell argues that “this ‘home’ work, in Wesley’s sense, was inseparably linked to the broader prospect of global evangelization. Wesley did, in fact, engage in evangelization beyond his ‘own nation’ (using this term in a strict sense) in the Evangelical Revival” (Campbell, 57).
Nonetheless, Campbell criticized Wesley as too captivated by the “sense of the Christian message as radiating out from a central core (i.e., where the Revival was occurring) ” (Campbell, 60) to encourage “the thought of mission (such as the proposed mission to Africa) in places that were not contiguous with the Revival” (Ibid.). Campbell shows Wesley’s cautious approach to foreign missionary work, stemming in part from his refusal to start missionary ventures without a sense of providential opening.
In the expansion of the scriptural Christianity, Wesley’s strategic approach to the task in England was the same as Paul had in the Roman Empire. Paul worked with Pauline mission teams to spread the gospel through a network of people undergirded by the prayers and financial support of house churches. In Paul’s strategy, he selected the great cities of the Roman Empire with several characteristics in common: Roman administration, centers of Greek civilization, Jewish influence, and trade and commerce. From these centers he sent his younger helpers to radiate out to the smaller cities of the region. (Sung Il Lee, 2 )
Wesley, who aspired to restore scriptural Christianity, learned Paul’s missionary methods and developed them in his contexts . Wesley tried every means available such as Methodist societies, bands, class meetings, itinerary preachers, lay preachers, etc. to bring “a consistent version of contiguous proclamation, that is, revival beginning in one place and spreading from thence to contiguous areas until the world was saturated. It was the model suggested, in general, by the Acts of the Apostles” (Campbell, 60). Campbell illustrates that “Wesley’s understanding of the mission of the Church laid the heaviest burden on his own people. For there to be a ‘core’ from which evangelism could radiate, it was necessary that his own people should be truly converted, and should display the fruits of Christian faith which, he believed, would be the strongest testimony to the world on behalf of the faith” (Campbell 1992, 60).
In relation to spreading scriptural Christianity, Wesley’s mission was guided by his radical recognition that “his own people, their society and their culture, were not themselves Christian, and thus stood as much in need of the Gospel as any foreign people” (Campbell 1992, 54). Campbell argues that Wesley’s mission was contingent upon bringing others to real Christianity, beginning “in the nominally Christian lands of Western Europe, followed by the conversion of Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and finally the rest of the world” (Campbell, 56).
In other words, his basic recognition of the unchristian character of his own world directed the goal of the Methodist movement and shaped Wesley’s evangelistic outreach. The middle Wesley expanded his missionary experience in Georgia and established himself as a missional reformer by transforming nominal Christians and their churches in England into a missionary constitution that opened the Great Century of Protestant missions, which began with William Carey only two years after John Wesley died (Campbell, 61).
In brief, Wesley believed that “proclaiming the gospel of grace … faces no less formidable obstacles that were confronted by Paul in the first century” (Carder, 93). “To fulfill the Great Commission in our generation, in order to proclaim Christ to the modern pagans who surround us, we must ask the kinds of questions that vexed John Wesley between 1736 to 1739: ‘What kind of Christianity do we now have to offer the world?’” (Campbell 1992, 62). Do we really want people of foreign lands to become something like modern-day North American or Korean Methodists? “Can there be any authentic global evangelization today that does not proceed from a recognition of the failures of our society and culture to follow Christ, and that does not begin with the evangelization of our own people?” (Campbell, 62).
Works Cited:
Campbell, Ted A. 1992. “John Wesley on the Mission of the Church.” In The Mission of the Church in Methodist Perspective: The World is My Parish. Ed. by Alan G. Padgett. 45-62. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Carder, Kenneth L. 1994. “Proclaiming the Gospel of Grace.” In Theology and Evangelism in the Wesleyan Heritage. Ed. by James C. Logan. 81-94. Nashville, TN: Kingswood.
Daniel, W. Harrison. 2000. “The Young Wesley as Cross-Cultural Witness: Investigations into Wesley’s American Mission Experience And Implications for Today’s Mission.” Missiology 28(4): 443-457.
Hunter, George. 1986. “John Wesley: A Church Growth Strategist.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 21(1-2) Spring-Fall: 24-33.
Snyder, Howard A. 1996. The Radical Wesley and Patterns for Church Renewal. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Friday, October 29, 2021
Recommended Reading: Lovett Weems on Demographic Changes and the Mission of the Church
Lovett H. Weems, Jr. of the Lewis Center for Church Leadership recently published a piece entitled, "What Might the 2020 Census Mean for Churches?" In it, he examines what transformations in the nation's demographics, especially around race and age, mean for the mission of the church in terms of evangelism and church growth. Weems writes that these demographic changes should "upend the working assumptions of most congregations about the future of their churches." This is especially true for predominantly white churches (and, one might add, denominations). He notes bluntly, "There is no future for predominantly white congregations that cannot reach the growing people-of-color population." Yet, he also warns that these demographic transitions have the potential to bring forth white racism, a "blatant disregard for Christlike values [that] will make a mockery of our witness unless it is countered by churches that exemplify love of God and love of neighbor without reservation."
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
The UMC and Institutional Decline: A Call for Denominational Renovation
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
In a series of previous posts, I have depicted United Methodist denominational institutions as declining, crumbling even, beset by a host of long-term pressures from both within and beyond the denomination, all of which have been compounded in recent years by crises of denominational division and the COVID-19 pandemic. I have argued that these pressures towards decline are far beyond the ability of these institutions to manage through an approach of incremental and inward-focused maintenance.
Instead, the time has come for major denominational renovation. Renovation is a process in which an organization undertakes extensive rethinking of its institutions, their purposes, and how they go about achieving their purposes by trying to produce certain types of regular behavior. The last time the UMC substantially renovated its institutions was in 1972, in the wake of the merger of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church. Nearly 50 years later, it is far past time to do so again.
The need for institutional renovation stems from the nature of the forces producing institutional decline in the UMC. I have argued that the decline of institutions in the UMC is a result of decreased institutional relevance, the delegitimization of institutions by special interests in the denomination, a decreased ability of members to pay the time and effort costs associated with denominational institutions, and the failure of denominational institutions to respond adequately to moments of crisis.
Maintenance, however, has led to institutional complexification, amplifying opportunities for elite capture of institutions and a decreased ability by average constituents to participate in those institutions. Maintenance cannot address questions of institutional relevance. Since maintenance is internally focused, it is a poor strategy to address external challenges, such as the time squeeze limiting members’ ability to give of their time and money. Finally, the failures of denominational institutions in recent crises are further evidence that a more significant response to institutional decline is required than further maintenance.
We are past the point of maintenance. We need substantial renovation.
Yet in this regard, the UMC is fortunate. A division with the Global Methodist Church represents an opportunity for the remaining UMC to enter a process of institutional renovation. Mergers have consistently been an occasion for Methodism to periodically revamp its institutions. Having missed the chance to do that with the merger with Cote d’Ivoire in 2008, the UMC will have to content itself with a division as an opportunity to reassess its institutions.
And an opportunity it is. Traditionalists recognize the opportunity they have to revamp denominational institutions by establishing a new denomination; those remaining in the UMC should not miss the opportunity they have to make overdue changes while there is fluidity in the denomination.
Yet to recognize this division as an opportunity, those remaining in the UMC must avoid scapegoating their anxieties about and frustrations with denominational institutions in either of two ways.
First, they must avoid scapegoating Traditionalists for the dysfunctions of denominational institutions. As previously described, Traditionalists have de-legitimized denominational institutions, but they are far from the only force pushing those institutions towards decline.
In this regard, it is important to avoid thinking of the division itself as the thing that will relieve pressures on denominational institutions. While division will alleviate one current crisis and will reduce some of the pressures from special interests, it will by no means solve most of the challenges of the denomination’s institutions, which result either from external societal forces or from having a system of denominational institutions that has not been substantially updated in a half century. Division creates a window of opportunity for changes to strengthen the denomination; it is not itself the solution to all the problems in the denomination.
Second, those staying in the UMC must avoid scapegoating leaders for the dysfunctions of denominational institutions. It is easy to attribute the current situation of institutional decline to a failure of leadership. While not without truth, such a view can be dismissive of the magnitude of challenges facing denominational institutions and the extent to which denominational institutions are geared towards maintenance as a primary strategy.
The biggest failure of institutional leaders in the UMC has perhaps been too great a fidelity to the institutions of the church as they currently exist. In this regard, they are caught in a paradox: They are selected to care for and maintain institutions as they are, which by design are supposed to be consistent and not change much. Yet, by resisting changes for the sake of institutional preservation, leaders subject those institutions to on-going pressures that, over time, have substantially weakened them, making them more vulnerable to collapse.
Moreover, focusing on the culpability of leaders misses a significant point. Whoever may deserve blame for the current situation (and I have suggested that it is a broad group), determining blame is not the same as determining a strategy for how to address institutional decline. Regardless of the errors up to this point, right now it is time to rethink our institutions.
If those remaining in the UMC are convinced that denominational renovation is necessary, there are a variety of ways to go about it. Work on the Global Book of Discipline could become a platform for rethinking the church’s structures.
General Conference could create a series of commissions to work on denominational revamping, as the 1968 Uniting General Conference did. There could be an extra session of General Conference to support the work of those commissions, as there was in 1970.
General Conference could even pass an amendment at its next meeting (to be approved in annual conference voting) to allow for a future General Conference to function as a constitutional convention, which could allow major changes to be passed more efficiently than the normal one-resolution-per-paragraph method and perhaps with less possibility of judicial review blocking any major denominational revisions.
My point here is not to advocate for one strategy for implementing the work of systemic and extensive renovation of The United Methodist Church’s denominational institutions. My point here is simply to insist that that renovation must happen, by whatever means possible. The alternative is further institutional decline. Those who love the church must be willing to let it change or risk condemning it to a slow death.
In a series of previous posts, I have depicted United Methodist denominational institutions as declining, crumbling even, beset by a host of long-term pressures from both within and beyond the denomination, all of which have been compounded in recent years by crises of denominational division and the COVID-19 pandemic. I have argued that these pressures towards decline are far beyond the ability of these institutions to manage through an approach of incremental and inward-focused maintenance.
Instead, the time has come for major denominational renovation. Renovation is a process in which an organization undertakes extensive rethinking of its institutions, their purposes, and how they go about achieving their purposes by trying to produce certain types of regular behavior. The last time the UMC substantially renovated its institutions was in 1972, in the wake of the merger of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church. Nearly 50 years later, it is far past time to do so again.
The need for institutional renovation stems from the nature of the forces producing institutional decline in the UMC. I have argued that the decline of institutions in the UMC is a result of decreased institutional relevance, the delegitimization of institutions by special interests in the denomination, a decreased ability of members to pay the time and effort costs associated with denominational institutions, and the failure of denominational institutions to respond adequately to moments of crisis.
Maintenance, however, has led to institutional complexification, amplifying opportunities for elite capture of institutions and a decreased ability by average constituents to participate in those institutions. Maintenance cannot address questions of institutional relevance. Since maintenance is internally focused, it is a poor strategy to address external challenges, such as the time squeeze limiting members’ ability to give of their time and money. Finally, the failures of denominational institutions in recent crises are further evidence that a more significant response to institutional decline is required than further maintenance.
We are past the point of maintenance. We need substantial renovation.
Yet in this regard, the UMC is fortunate. A division with the Global Methodist Church represents an opportunity for the remaining UMC to enter a process of institutional renovation. Mergers have consistently been an occasion for Methodism to periodically revamp its institutions. Having missed the chance to do that with the merger with Cote d’Ivoire in 2008, the UMC will have to content itself with a division as an opportunity to reassess its institutions.
And an opportunity it is. Traditionalists recognize the opportunity they have to revamp denominational institutions by establishing a new denomination; those remaining in the UMC should not miss the opportunity they have to make overdue changes while there is fluidity in the denomination.
Yet to recognize this division as an opportunity, those remaining in the UMC must avoid scapegoating their anxieties about and frustrations with denominational institutions in either of two ways.
First, they must avoid scapegoating Traditionalists for the dysfunctions of denominational institutions. As previously described, Traditionalists have de-legitimized denominational institutions, but they are far from the only force pushing those institutions towards decline.
In this regard, it is important to avoid thinking of the division itself as the thing that will relieve pressures on denominational institutions. While division will alleviate one current crisis and will reduce some of the pressures from special interests, it will by no means solve most of the challenges of the denomination’s institutions, which result either from external societal forces or from having a system of denominational institutions that has not been substantially updated in a half century. Division creates a window of opportunity for changes to strengthen the denomination; it is not itself the solution to all the problems in the denomination.
Second, those staying in the UMC must avoid scapegoating leaders for the dysfunctions of denominational institutions. It is easy to attribute the current situation of institutional decline to a failure of leadership. While not without truth, such a view can be dismissive of the magnitude of challenges facing denominational institutions and the extent to which denominational institutions are geared towards maintenance as a primary strategy.
The biggest failure of institutional leaders in the UMC has perhaps been too great a fidelity to the institutions of the church as they currently exist. In this regard, they are caught in a paradox: They are selected to care for and maintain institutions as they are, which by design are supposed to be consistent and not change much. Yet, by resisting changes for the sake of institutional preservation, leaders subject those institutions to on-going pressures that, over time, have substantially weakened them, making them more vulnerable to collapse.
Moreover, focusing on the culpability of leaders misses a significant point. Whoever may deserve blame for the current situation (and I have suggested that it is a broad group), determining blame is not the same as determining a strategy for how to address institutional decline. Regardless of the errors up to this point, right now it is time to rethink our institutions.
If those remaining in the UMC are convinced that denominational renovation is necessary, there are a variety of ways to go about it. Work on the Global Book of Discipline could become a platform for rethinking the church’s structures.
General Conference could create a series of commissions to work on denominational revamping, as the 1968 Uniting General Conference did. There could be an extra session of General Conference to support the work of those commissions, as there was in 1970.
General Conference could even pass an amendment at its next meeting (to be approved in annual conference voting) to allow for a future General Conference to function as a constitutional convention, which could allow major changes to be passed more efficiently than the normal one-resolution-per-paragraph method and perhaps with less possibility of judicial review blocking any major denominational revisions.
My point here is not to advocate for one strategy for implementing the work of systemic and extensive renovation of The United Methodist Church’s denominational institutions. My point here is simply to insist that that renovation must happen, by whatever means possible. The alternative is further institutional decline. Those who love the church must be willing to let it change or risk condemning it to a slow death.
Monday, October 25, 2021
Recommended Viewing: Meet Bishop Patrick Streiff
As part of the "Get Your Spirit in Shape" podcast series, Joe Iovino interviewed Patrick Streiff, Bishop of the Central and Eastern Europe Central Conference. Their conversation included Bishop Streiff's experiences growing up in Switzerland, his intellectual influences, his study of John Fletcher, and his work as a bishop in one of the most nationally, linguistically, and culturally diverse parts of The United Methodist Church. The interview provides an interesting glimpse into some of the experiences of European United Methodists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)