Tear Down the Silos

The Call to Action proposal is getting support from across the United Methodist Church. With just a few more days before General Conference 2012 begins, people across the denomination are publishing their positions regarding this proposal focusing on restructuring the Agencies of our  Church.

Adam Hamilton (pastor of  the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas) has sent an open letter to the delegates of the 2012 General Conference in Tampa, Florida.  The signatures had reached 454 as of this writing. I am signature 445.

Not everyone will be signing this document. Some are creating their own platforms aand issuing their own challenges and questions. One of these statements comes from the Wisconsin Annual Conference Delegation to General Conference.

First, let me say that I understand that reasonable people can disagree and faithful disciples of Jesus Christ can stand on opposite sides of an issue. I do find that some of the statements could be answered with a more generous read of the Call to Action. For example, the first statement reads:

Decisions about structure should be based on missional priorities and outcomes: form must follow function and it is currently unclear what outcomes the proposed structure would enable us to achieve more effectively.

I understand the need to establish missional priorities. The problem here is that our denomination is trying to do everything when the financial realities of ministry are changing in drastic ways. Now that we are having to pick and choose, or at least are facing that distinct reality, the real issue here is “What will we be funding now that our resources are limited?”

In my mind, the General Board efforts to reach people for Jesus Christ would be far better accomplished by an empowered laity.  This seems to be the thrust behind the merging of these several agencies. What isn’t as clear is the relationship between the theological stances taken by some of these agencies and the reasoning behind their diminishment.

As some of these agencies go away or are folded under the authority of other leaders, some of the more liberal social issues are less likely to be addressed. Few get the attention of local congregations, especially in some parts of the country. The reality of the situation is that if we leave the liberal social issue to the churches, then they will not be addressed at all.

This begs the question: If the local churches and pastors are not actively pursuing these in numbers that achieve critical mass, then why should agencies expect to be funded by these same individuals, churches, and pastors?

I can hear some of this question in this paragraph:

The absence of a spiritual center to the process of determining our future is troubling – we would encourage a greater emphasis on prayer, fasting, Christian conference, reflective discernment, and scriptural study.

Are we suggesting that the Call to Action was not born out of the efforts of faithful disciples? Or is this a suggestion that the process requires more spirituality than the team can bring to bear? Perhaps it is because two studies were commissioned, leaving us with a secular and commercial taste in our mouths. I don’t fault my Trustees for getting good information from experts and then praying before they act on it.

If the call here is for more prayer, then so be it. But I have a problem with suggesting that the men and women on this team have left out the spiritual center. As long as we are casting doubts, one might ask if the center is simply not “of the spirit that some wish it to be.”

There is not a clear explanation of how the proposed cuts will truly benefit the church in the long-term, just an assumption that we can do more, better with less – we would like to see more strategy and less assumptions.

The idea isn’t to do more with less. The idea is to tear down the silos and start working across the denomination. One could make a good argument  that some agencies are acting with a near independent mandate, joining their voices with groups and organizations that support beliefs that are clearly contrary with United Methodist doctrine and principles.

Core questions of identity and purpose are being ignored in favor of structure, policies and image; the assumption seems to be that systemic change isn’t necessary as long as we can rearrange parts of the existing system – we would encourage a clarity about our identity and purpose guiding our decisions about what to keep and what to eliminate.

Perhaps this statement, more than any other, points back to the notion of identity and purpose I raised at the outset of this article. Whose identities and purposes are at stake with this restructuring?

Let’s do this by the numbers:

• A hierarchical, non-representative structure seems antithetical to the values and nature of The United Methodist Church – how we work must reflect who we truly are.

Agreed. It seems antithetical to assume that we need a black woman to represent black women or a Native American to represent Native Americans or a white man to represent white men. Why can’t a black woman represent me, a middle-aged white male? Is my culture so different that she cannot represent me?

• The issues of guaranteed appointment and ordination process are symptomatic of deeper dysfunction in our leadership credentialing and support system; creating conference level positions and a culture of call do not adequately address deeper issues – we must improve our processes of discernment and assessment rather than seek remedial solutions.

This is not an ‘either/or’ situation. There are numerous pastors who are difficult to appoint not because they are socially awkward or out of step, but because they are bearing doctrine that is faulty, skills that are atrocious, and professional ethics that are neither professional nor ethical.

I, for one, am willing to take the risk of operating without these institutional protections if it will move us closer to adequately meeting the spiritual needs of the churches that we are supplying.

• Our current trends toward counting – worship attendance, professions of faith, numbers of small groups, etc. – provide an unbalanced approach to evaluation and confuse size with health.  Qualitative metrics and holistic definitions of health and vitality are needed. Confusing “people who attend worship” with “disciples” is deeply problematic.

That’s why Call to Action contains plenty of room for the trained clergy to provide these definitions. Some are even defining new ways of providing this information that go well beyond numbers. Rev. Rebecca Clark has written eloquently on the subject of providing a narrative for the task of evaluating and measuring the success and faithfulness of the local congregation. I was not surprised to see that this was allowed for at the Vital Congregations website. They specifically ask for stories and narratives (look in the lower right hand corner: You can upload video or share an article or blog).

If there is some problem with our ability to define that at the local level, then the need to rescind guaranteed appointment is even greater than I thought.

• “Discipleship” is lifted as our focus and goal, yet most of the recommendations do nothing to help define what we mean by discipleship or how the changes will equip our congregations to create sustainable and effective systems for disciple-cultivation.

Why do we need a new definition? Call to Action isn’t designed to redefine discipleship. Call to Action bears as its primary purpose the goal of removing extraneous and redundant efforts to do the ministry and be the Church that we have built up over decades. Local congregations are more than equipped. They need leadership in DOING the ministry, not surrogates and professionals who will do it for them. That is not the vision of the Kingdom that Jesus brought to us.

I would prefer to fail for lack of training and resources than to pay someone to do ministry for me. The questions asked by this delegation indicate a lack of faith that the local churches can accomplish viable ministry on a regional or national level, even if they are functioning connectionally. That may well be.

The alternative is to continue to extract funds from local churches for Agencies that no longer adequately, and some might say, faithfully,  represent the local churches.