Thursday, November 29, 2007

Some sort of renewal may be coming . . . (views expressed are my own)

Ahem!

I been doing some reading, phone calling, and talking to folks face-to-face about some of the stuff we've started to hear . . . about some actual renewal of the UMC being led by the Council of Bishops.

And I have to say . . . I like what I am hearing. Cautiously so . . . but it is starting to sound promising. Some of the new and younger bishops, whose hearts are for evangelism and not administration, are speaking up, and following up what they are saying with some constructive ideas and suggestions.

My personal suggestions for renewal of the UMC, offered in love and in the hope for us to return again to the values of the Wesley's, have always been the following, similar to what many of you have suggested when we talk at district and conference gatherings:

1) Eliminate all denominational level program commissions, boards and agencies. Replace these groups with similar but leaner and meaner teams in each jurisdiction, whose focus would be narrower and based on more easily recognizable geographic needs. In my opinion, this would provide for better stewardship, with more funds going to the ministries that need them.

2) Replace the title "District Superintendent" with the older title of "Presiding Elder". Require that 80+% of their efforts be concentrated on helping and equipping the pastors and churches in their districts to become more effective. And yes, holding us pastors accountable is part of that.

I believe in my heart that these two suggestions alone would bring about some good.

3) Place our focus again on people, and not on structure. All that we see and do needs to be focused and viewed through a Wesleyan theological lens. Fringe groups who for years have caused division in our church, along with I don't know how many needless and completely fruitless programs, can either accept that we are going to return to taking the gospel to the people, building schools, churches, help centers, and engaging societal sins head on . . . or they can leave and start their own church.

From what I am hearing . . . each of these suggestions, in part or in whole, are being considered. I think eliminating commissions would need General Conference approval, but the other two could occur through leadership of the bishops.

The question will be this . . . how important is power to those who now have it, or want it . . . and will they surrender their needs for the needs of the Kingdom?

I'm better than I deserve! That's a good thing. ><>

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brother Rick, I like your ideas! They resemble others I've heard around the connection. A couple of comments/questions:

1) Could the jurisdictional groups be "leaner" but not necessarily "meaner"? From online discussions, especially related to the stalking horse of "pastoral effectiveness," there's enough meanness going around to be a major cause of the UMC's decline.

2) How would we facilitate our connectional relationships without denominational-level boards, agencies and commissions? I think the Internet would play a major role in this.

I'm eager to hear what other UMs have to say.

A lifelong UM in Dallas, TX

Anonymous said...

Of course, they will not give up power. What a strange idea. Pride and vanity everywhere including the church.

Rick said...

By "meaner," I was trying to say "more efficient." I agree with you . . . no more meaness necessary.

I remember reading something by Lyle Schaller on facilitating connectional relationships regionally through the jurisdictions. I believe most businesses are organized in regions or in districts. Perhaps slicing the pie in to more pieces might increase communication.

I don't feel dressed without having a pen, pencil and notebook with me!

I'm at the age where I pretty much know what I like to have with me in terms of every-day-carry.   I like 4"x6" sized notebook...