We’ve Lost Control. I don’t say this like it’s a bad thing, but more like my wife and I say it as we watch our four young children run amuck at the house. It is a banal statement of the obvious. It is simultaneously flabbergasting and liberating. It is nice to know kids do eventually grow up and losing control is a requisite part of the process. You can either curse it or relax and toast it, preferably with a nice glass of cabernet.

Our colonial United Methodist Church is growing up too. Oh, remember the good ol’ days when the kids did what they were told? Remember when they believed everything we told them and let us do the hard “grown up” work for them? Just as the young church in America left the British church behind, it is increasingly obvious that the church outside the US has grown to a point where they expect to be a part of the conversation, not just a part of the colony.

In short, we now have a three party system: “Liberal,” “Conservative,” and “Africa.” (No, I know, it is not this simple. I will blog more about this later.) Each is reaching out for Christ in fundamentally different mission fields: Post-Modern, Modern, and Pre-Modern. We have not done the hard work of holy conferencing to learn how to engage one another, so there is neither consensus nor trust. On the issue of homosexuality, we absolutely could not insert language that we “agree to disagree.” On this issue, it was Rev. Dr. Steve Wende, Senior pastor of First UMC, Houston who rose to the microphone and declared we must speak “God’s truth without compromise.” (To which the whole post-modern world utters a collective “huh?”) And so, despite many young conservatives joining an effort to be pastoral to the “liberals”, the old school conservatives in the US teamed up with Africa and voted down compromise. 

Then on Friday evening at 4:30 pm, only minutes from our dinner break and only hours from adjournment, it was announced that the Judicial Council had struck down the structural reorganization, Plan UMC, as unconstitutional. There was audible disbelief. I was sitting on the floor of GC when this monumental bomb dropped out of the sky. A ten minute break was called to get everyone’s jaws off the floor. When we reconvened, the dinner break was called early so everyone could re-group. This Judicial Council decision was no political power-play; it was unanimous and the JC has broad representation.

Restructuring is about power and control, and there is NO consensus on who should have it. Four years ago, a whole bevy of Constitutional Amendments were passed at GC to allow room for restructuring. The Annual Conferences refused to ratify them, so they all failed. There is a cry from some that the general agencies are too big and too autonomous. So over the last three years, several attempts at change were hatched.

At first, there were three: a centrist IOT report, a left-leaning MFSA report, a right-leaning Plan B. None of these were able to find consensus, all died in committee. Then the GC passed the hastily written Plan UMC that was an effort to do anything. But the attempts to restructure without addressing the constitutional (read: colonial) foundation of the church ultimately failed. One delegate declared the Judicial Councils refutation of Plan UMC as the Holy Spirit at work. Bishop Scott Jones tweeted “some see the Judicial Council decision as Holy Spirit showing up. Others who want change saw it as humans blocking the spirit.”

After the dinner break, the authors of Plan UMC asked that it be referred to the Council of Bishops and the Connectional Table. Everyone was tired and fried after two weeks of work and very little change. Debate ensued, and then it happened. Rev. Dr. Wende came to the microphone and told the conference “if you want to be ignorant, don’t vote to refer.” Boo’s cascaded down from the hall, everyone as fried as he. The presiding bishop chastised him. He immediately began to backpedal and apologized profusely, and I believe genuinely. But coming from one of the leading voices of the old school conservatives, the message was clear: we’ve lost control.

Ultimately, Plan UMC was tabled, and there it still lies; we adjourned GC without taking it back off. The GC downsized the boards of the existing general agencies but there was no structural change at all. We shouldn’t be surprised. Representatives of post-modern vs. modern have been battling the last 4 consecutive General Conferences. There has been no commitment to authentic holy conferencing, just the victory of the majority over the minority, with no pastoral concern for those who feel left out. Now add to this unhealthy mix those representing a pre-modern world view and who have 41% of the vote. We need holy conferencing more than ever. As long as we stick with winner-take-all majority rule we will be hard pressed to live out the changes our colonial church structure desperately needs.

I don’t begrudge Rev. Wende. I have scolded my kids too. I have scolded them when they are disorderly or defiant or ungrateful. I especially scold them when I am tired and frustrated. I have apologized too, and will need to again I am sure. But we have four years to take inventory as to what really matters. Is God calling us to further entrench and scold everyone with whom we disagree? Or is God calling us into the authentic holy conferencing that John Wesley considered a means of grace? I believe the latter, because friends, we really have lost control. So, let’s raise a glass of fine wine, and say together, “Cheers! Here’s to four more years in the wilderness.” Thanks be to God.

Mark

 The General Conference machine is built to grind out majority, not Holy Conferencing. There were some GC attempts at small group dialogue around tough issues. These were rushed by the agenda, poorly attended, and not well moderated. In short, dialogue is not a priority. The committees offer the best hope of consensus building under the current system, but any consensus found in this first week can be thrown to the wolves when it hits the General Conference Plenary. We need to re-build the machine.

The General Conference actually has broad consensus on most of our polity and practice. But when we cannot reach consensus on divisive issues, rather than taking the time to work towards consensus, we digress back to majority rule. The results of these decisions have left the church fractured and broken. 51% is the kiss of death for church ministry. Successful leaders know that consensus is much healthier and much harder. Consensus is not unanimity (which is impossible and even suspect). Consensus is building broad agreement under which we can all live and work. No pastor would launch a capital campaign with a 51% majority. During the debate yesterday around “agreeing to disagree” on the issue of homosexuality, Adam Hamilton spoke eloquently when he said (paraphrased), if any pastor had 45 percent of his/her church struggling with an issue, he/she would do something about it.

We need to do something: we need Holy Conferencing. When the only forum for dialogue is legislative, majority voices become harsh and minority voices become shrill. The paradigm of 51% does not give the majority any motivation to listen and dialogue. The paradigm of 51% does not give the minority a real voice to express pain and suffering—because these are messy and do not fit easily into a 3-minute speech for or against.

I believe the General Conference needs to set aside two full days at the opening of the next General Conference for Holy Conferencing around human sexuality. Why? Because 45% of the church is broken—and even if it were 10%–the brokenness is so deep it demands action. It needs to be well structured. It needs to be well moderated. It needs to be unrushed. It needs to be artfully translated. It needs to be built for consensus.

If we can build relationship and trust in these holy conversations, we can delegate any lost work to staff who are better informed and better equipped to operate the church. Our legislation takes too long because of the lack of trust between the majority and minority. This dialogue could begin healing the church.

What are we waiting for? Mark

Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter presented a thoughtful petition that would have added to the Social Principles more language in the preamble to the section on Human Sexuality.  It would not have changed the UM stance on gay marriage or ordination.  It only states that this is a real issue.

I forget how far apart we stand.  An African delegate stood up and equated homosexual practice with loving animals.  My God, we live on different planets.  I am humiliated that there are individuals representing the UM church who are proclaiming this as Biblical truth.  The mission field in Africa and America are so different that words fail me to describe it.  The speeches from the US delegates who opposed this fell along the lines of, “We must be clear on where we stand, this is sin.” 

Here is the speech I would have given if I could have been on the floor and recognized.  The church used scripture to justify slavery, segregation, divorce, and the denial of ordination to women.  It was wrong all four counts.  The church is currently wrong on homosexuality.  It is the only Levitical law that anyone pays attention to.  My invitation is that when everyone here has achieved fidelity to the whole of the Levitical code—and not just the portions that apply to others—that we read again Galatians 2:21 “If we are justified by the law, then Christ died for nothing.” 

It is very interesting that this failed on a vote of 54% against and 46% in support.  When we realize that 41% of the delegates are from outside of the US, this vote shows how far the US church as a whole has come.  In fact, if this had come 4 years ago, when the percentage from outside the US was lower, it may well have passed.  My guess is that if only the US delegates had voted, it would have passed 75% to 25%.

Below is the whole of Hamilton and Slaughter’s subversive text that could not pass: 

Please pray for the church, Mark 

Proposed Amendment by Substitution for

Calendar Item 513 (DCA page number 2367),

Petition Number 21032 (ADCA page number 270)

English

The following amendment would replace the proposed amendment contained in the original petition:

Homosexuality continues to divide our society and the church. All in the United Methodist Church affirm that homosexual persons are people of sacred worth and are welcome in our churches, but we disagree as a people regarding whether homosexual practice is contrary to the will of God.  The Bible is our primary text for discerning God’s will. We read and interpret it by the light of the Spirit’s witness, with the help of the thoughtful reflections of Christians through the centuries, and assisted by our understanding of history, culture and science. 

The majority view through the history of the church is that the scriptures teach that same-sex sexual intimacy is contrary to the will of God. This view is rooted in several passages from both the Old and New Testament.  A significant minority of our church views the scriptures that speak to same-sex intimacy as reflecting the understanding, values, historical circumstances and sexual ethics of the period in which the scriptures were written, and therefore believe these passages do not reflect the timeless will of God. They read the scriptures related to same-sex intimacy in the same way that they read the Bible’s passages on polygamy, concubinage, slavery and the role of women in the church. 

United Methodists will continue to struggle with this issue in the years ahead as a growing number of young adults identify with what is today the minority view. The majority view of the General Conference, and thus the official position of the church, continues to hold that same-sex intimacy is not God’s will. We recognize, however, that many faithful United Methodists disagree with this view.  It is likely that this issue will continue to be a source of conflict within the church. We have a choice:  We can divide, or we can commit to disagree with compassion, grace, and love, while continuing to seek to understand the concerns of the other. Given these options, schism or respectful co-existence, we choose the latter.

We commit to disagree with respect and love, we commit to love all persons and, above all, we pledge to seek God’s will. With regard to homosexuality, as with so many other issues, United Methodists adopt the attitude of John Wesley who once said, “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may.”

Submitted by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter

I is for Ineffective! This is the new scarlet letter that the United Methodist Church hangs on clergy. In 1850, Hawthorne explores public shame on the adulteress Hester Prynne. She wears a scarlet letter “A” as a public sign of her sin. Does anyone remember if the man was punished? Hester was the visible face of the broad immorality of her time.

Clergy are the visible face of the decline of the US church. Countless initiatives have been enacted in the last decade to fix the clergy. The implication is that if the clergy were effective then the church will grow. The GC has done away with the guaranteed appointment to move ineffective clergy out of the church. I agree we need our clergy to be effective; but there is a much larger picture.

The Post-Modern, Post-Christendom US culture is the elephant in the room. When my great-grandfather was ordained in the ME South church 1920, he went on to serve 22 growing charges is 40 years of successful ministry. When my father was ordained in the ME  church in 1965, any pastor who could tie his (usually his) shoes would still see the church grow. There have always been a percentage of ineffective clergy, but the culture in America was carrying the church. When the culture shifted, the church began to slide.

My passion is urban ministry. I live in Kansas City, Kansas a city of 153,000 people with no ethnic majority. The zip code of my church has a median household income of $33,000; the average home sells for $65,000. The zip code has lost net population during every census for the last 50 years. Furthermore, there are 8 other UM churches within a five-mile radius, representing a pre-war, pre-automobile model of church planting. These churches have a combined attendance of less than 600. Only 2 of these churches have an unsubsidized, full-time pastor. At Trinity I have 150 in weekly attendance; I have done 160 funerals in my 13 years. Five mainline denominations have closed their flagship churches in our city in the last 10 years.

The issues of the church in Kansas City, Kansas are only fractionally about effective clergy. The places we are seeing dramatic church growth are predominately in areas growing in population. In areas of stagnant or declining population, we have NO vision for consolidating churches and little vision for revitalizing existing churches. The United Methodist Church has always been good at planting churches in growing areas. We are not good at revitalizing churches. As Adam Hamilton has said, giving birth is an easier miracle than raising the dead.

The mission field in the US has changed dramatically and there is a clear shortage of superstar pastors who are transformative against all odds. Being effective is not the same as being a superstar. If we require superstars to grow churches in dying areas…I am afraid there will be little growth. I agree that we must continue to push the efficacy of our clergy. But we must do so with the humble understanding that this is but the face and not the body of the problem.

“Now you are the Body of Christ and individually members of it.” I Corinthians 12:27