John Meunier

Richard Heyduck has a novel position on Amendment 1 to the UMC constitution. Heyduck believes that once passed, the amendment will be used by some to try to force changes in UM rules and doctrine regarding homosexuality. But, that alone is not going to determine his vote.

Knowing then, that consequences I think wrong might flow from passing this amendment, I’m still inclined to vote for it. I’m not basing this on my confidence on the maturity of discourse and argumentation in the UMC. I’m afraid my confidence in that is very low. I’m also not basing my position on a commitment to the gospel of inclusion. While I think there is a proper biblical concept of inclusion, I cannot see that what goes by that name in most discussions today has much connection with such an account. Rather, the gospel of inclusion, as I hear it preached, sounds much more like a version of modern individualism than the gospel of Jesus. …

Instead, my inclination to vote for it is that as far as I can tell from my submission to the authority of the bible and orthodox Christian theology it is simply true. We United Methodist Christians do believe that Jesus died for all. We do believe that God calls all people to die to sin and live to holiness.

In a debate dominated by politics and suspicion of the nefarious motives of those we call our brothers and sisters in Christ, I find Heyduck’s position quite a witness of faithfulness.

Has there ever been a serious discussion United Methodism about clergy salaries?

I suspect the conversation is usually about how poorly clergy are paid compared to “other professionals.” But, I’m wondering if we don’t need to talk about a ceiling.

The Get Religion blog had a post recently about a pastor of a Manhattan church. A New York paper stirred up controversy by saying he would be paid $600,000. It turns out, he “only” gets paid $250,000 a year. That may be a pittance by Manhattan pay scales, but it boggles my mind that a minister would make that much.

Leaving aside the grotesque excess of TV preachers who own private jets and live in mansions, I find myself wondering how much is too much for a pastor to earn without risking damage to his ministry?

Would it not be a powerful witness if pastors adopted as a matter of church policy a reasonable ceiling on salaries?

This is a post about various paragraphs of the Book of Discipline. Those averse to such topics might save themselves some trouble by clicking away now. (You have been warned.)

Dan Dick wants the church to pay more attention to paragraph 122 of the Book of Discipline. In case you don’t have that one memorized, here it is:

¶ 122. The Process for Carrying Out Our Mission—We make disciples as we:

—proclaim the gospel, seek, welcome and gather persons into the body of Christ;

—lead persons to commit their lives to God through baptism by water and the spirit and profession of faith in Jesus Christ;

—nurture persons in Christian living through worship, the sacraments, spiritual disciplines, and other means of grace, such as Wesley’s Christian conferencing;

—send persons into the world to live lovingly and justly as servants of Christ by healing the sick, feeding the hungry, caring for the stranger, freeing the oppressed, being and becoming a compassionate, caring presence, and working to develop social structures that are consistent with the gospel; and

—continue the mission of seeking, welcoming and gathering persons into the community of the body of Christ.

It is a good list. Of course, the Book of Discipline is always a problem for me because there are probably half a dozen or more paragraphs that give guidance on what it means to be the church, and while they do not conflict, they certainly are difficult to unify into a useful and narrow guide.

Dick, however, does not mince words about the importance of these five ways to make disciples.

We need to take into account that some people have limited capacity. We take into consideration such factors as age, education, cognitive capacity, years on the spiritual journey, etc. But – and this is critically important to our contemporary United Methodist Church – it is unacceptable for any full member of a congregation to be a passive spectator, a coddled customer, a Christian consumer, or a pew potato. These relationships are not aligned in any way, shape, or form with the mission of “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” The leaders and members of every congregation need to challenge anyone who comes to church merely to be served. United Methodists, by definition, are engaging in all five aspects of the core process (¶122), or they are not really Methodists!

Despite my complaints about the Book of Discipline, I think I share with Dick an admiration for it as s guide to us. I myself am challenged by the idea of holding people accountable. For good reasons and not so good reasons, I find myself uncertain what to do to make the accountability called for by our Discipline a reality.

The book itself offers some guidance.

From paragraph 128:

The Church has a moral and spiritual obligation to nurture its nonparticipating and indifferent members and to lead them into an active church relationship. … The pastor in cooperation with the church council may arrange the membership into groups. … If a professing member residing in the community is negligent of the vows or is regularly absent from the worship of the church without valid reason, the pastor and the membership secretary shall report that member’s name to the church council, which shall do all in its power to reelist the member in the active fellowship of the church. It shall visit the member and make clear that … the member is requested to do one of four things … reaffirm the baptismal vows and return to living in the community … request transfer to another United Methodist Church … arrange transfer to a particular church of another denomination … request withdrawal.

How often do we do that?

Is your church in a “static, declining, or changing population” area? You can have your congregation request the district superintendent appoint a study task force  to “do an extensive study of the past, present, and potential ministry of the local church.” (paragraph 213)

Do you have members who will not respond to pastoral leadings and counsel to amend their behavior? Turn to paragraph 2702:

A professing member of a local church may be charged with the following offenses … immorality … crime … disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church … dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church … sexual abuse … sexual misconduct … child abuse … harassment … racial or gender discrimination … behavior that underminds the ministry of persons serving within an appointment.

I once asked about whether this paragraph had ever been invoked with regard to lay members. People thought I was nuts. But – and I’m sure some people will disagree with me – if we really believe in accountability, these parts of the Book of Discipline should not be passed over.

I’m not advocating widespread church trials. But how many of our churches actually take paragraph 128 seriously? How many of our church councils – if brought a list of names by the pastor – would take actions prescribed by our Discipline? If a member refuses pastoral counsel to desist from immorality or the spreading of doctrinal beliefs that conflict with United Methodist teaching, would we consider a judicial proceeding to remove that member?

Ever?

To talk about accountability requires we consider consequences. I am not sure I am ready to do that. But it seems to me that we cannot avoid it if we really believe that membership carries with it responsibility.

And if we do not believe that and are not willing to act on it, shouldn’t we just chuck the whole idea of membership?

John 10:11-18

When I preached last year on John 10:1-10, I did not notice how this passage is set within the wider story of the healing of the blind man and the Pharisees struggle to understand the meaning of Jesus and his miracles. I’m not entirely sure what to do with that or how to understand that, but it seems an unavoidable issue in dealing with this text.

This passage seems ripe for mis-interpretation or overly broad application.

Who is the hired hand? Who is the wolf? What does it mean that God commands him to lay down his life, but he does it on his own? Is this a statement about choice being a true sign of love?

Much to ponder. If I could just get “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” out of my head.

I’ve written a fair bit the last couple days. And almost all of it is grumpy or negative.

I think I need to examine that and pray about it. Something must be troubling my spirit more than I realize.

Will Willimon writes about a recent book that examines how much Christians give of their wealth. The numbers are not good and Willimon writes of his personal disappointments about that. He closes with a strong statement.

No church that expends 90% of its money on itself is a faithful congregation. There is no way to follow Jesus with a closed hand. Jesus’ great gift makes givers of us all.

How faithful are we?

Pastoring a small church by the Book of Discipline is an exercise in absurdist theater.

The rules are clearly written with churches of a certain size in mind. The offices, the fucntions, the committees, and much of the rules and regulations regarding the local church make no sense when applied to a church of 25-50 members. This makes sense, of course, as a majority of UMC churches are small churches but their pastoral leaders and members are not heavily represented at General Conference where the rules are written.

Of course, the awkwardness of the Discipline is not a problem only for small churches. I’ve been a member in bigger churches and the book is not held in high regard there either.  I used to bring it to committee meetings to reference in our conversations and would be openly ridiculed. Most UMC members  have never heard of the book. Even most leaders in congregations probably do not read it themselves.

My experience has been that there are whole swaths of the Book of Discipline that are more or less ignored. If you took out all the parts of the book that were ignored explicitly, not enforced, or of no practical consequence to the actual life and function of the church, how big would the book be?

Adam Hamilton has some thoughts about the parallels between General Motors and the United Methodist Church. It displays his usual thoughtful strategic and visionary analysis of the state of the denomination. But it also seems to betray some misunderstanding of the nature of the current UMC.

One question that comes immediately to mind is:  Does the UMC  have too many “dealerships”?  That is, do we really need 34,000 local churches with a denomination whose number of “customers” and “market share” has shrunk significantly in the last 40 years?

Could we do more to combine some of our churches into larger and more viable regional churches that, like the unified schools, bring communities together and offer services none of the smaller churches could offer? Where this is not possible, could we move to having more “tent-makers” as pastors in a large number of our smaller churches. “Tent-makers” are men and women who have a full time job that provides their primary source of income and health insurance, and then, like Paul (who was the original “tent-maker”) volunteer their time, or work for part time salary without benefits, to provide pastoral leadership for the smaller churches.

These are, of course, not new ideas.  They are being done in a number of locations.  But I wonder if its time to proactively, strategically and expeditiously move towards these models in places that otherwise might not consider it for another decade as a way of increasing the likelihood of creating vibrant and sustainable ministry in these locations?

Ummm … we already do this not just in “a number of locations” but as a primary way of doing business in large areas. At least one source reports than nearly 1/3 of all UMC charges are already served by tent-makers. In Southern Indiana, I was told once we have more local pastors (tent-makers) than elders. The UMC would nearly cease to exist in many areas of Indiana without part-time local pastors.

Now, some may see this as a good thing. There is a line of thought that seems to go this way. All these little country churches within a few miles of each other a waste of resources. They should be forced to close and consolidate. If the people who attend those churches and have supported them for 40, 50, or 60 years do not like that – tough. If they refuse to move to a newly planted church, we don’t care. The new church will have a good preacher, cool music, and great programs, so it will grow. Those stuck-in-their ways folks who don’t get along with the program can go find some other church.

My real problem with this is it clashes so strongly with the very rhetoric that church-growth folks use. We need to reach people where they are, they say. We need to enter the culture of the people where they live and connect to them in ways that speak to their needs. This is the entire logic behind many of the new developments in worship and church programming in the last couple decades.

But this rhetoric rings hollow when it is used to justify taking a strong-arm approach toward the “stuck in their ways” folks at Country View UMC. After all, no one would say that suburban folks who would never attend a church with old gospel hymns and “happy-clappy” blood songs should just “get with the program.” Whole books are written to explain that people who expect certain styles of music and swim in popular culture should not be asked to submit to boring old church traditions. If the spirit of such arguments is true, then it should apply to all cultures.

Suburban culture is viewed as desirable, so the church is advised that it has to change to meet the expectations and needs of these people in the name of the gospel. But rural culture and other small church cultures are not desirable, so we view them as excess baggage and a drain on otherwise valuable church resources.

From a “strategic” point of view, maybe this is all just the truth. Priorities need to be set. Some things are valued more than others. The best people have to be put in places. But I can’t help but feel there is a whiff of hypocrisy in arguing that culture must shape ministry choices while saying a culture that embraces small, hyper local churches should be viewed as “excess dealerships” to be downsized or otherwise served by less valuable church resources.

And finally, there is something of a misunderstanding about the nature of the local church here. I’m not an expert on the Discipline, but my understanding is that the denomination cannot tell a church to close or consolidate. It can encourage. It can counsel. It can offer to support the transition, but the local church charge cannot be dissolved by anyone but the local church.

Of course, churches do close. They become small enough that they can no longer sustain themselves. But I do not believe that is a decision that can be imposed from above – no matter how effecient such a choice might be.

Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye wrote a book I turn back to every now and then called The Educated Imagination. In it, he writes about the use of langauge in the service of visions larger than our immediate needs and social settings.

He writes of literature – of course – but I find myself wondering at times if he speaks to us preachers as well.

There’s something in all of us that wants to drift toward a mob, where we can all say the same thing without having to think about it, because everybody is all alike except people that we can hate or persecute. Every time we use words, we’re either fighting against this tendency or giving in to it.

Do we too often resort to cliches and stock images or phrases? Do we reach for the old reliable illustration that saves us from discovering a new one? Do we endorse folk wisdom because we don’t have any wisdom of our own to offer? Do we accept what “everyone knows” because to do otherwise might put us on the wrong side of common sense?

These are my questions, not his. But like George Orwell’s classic essay on the English language, I think Northrup suggests rightly that when we get lazy with language we do more than deliver saggy sermons, we cheapen the word itself. As those who come as witnesses to the Word, we pupliteers should be especially cautious of that.

Scott Parrish comments on a report that people no longer have as much confidence in church leaders as they used to.

One more nagging thought to have bouncing around my skull while getting ready to preach.