Michael Slaughter, too.
Several months ago someone pointed out to me that our bishops are not the most recognizable figures in the denomination. Our megachurch pastors are. And in some ways, pastors such as Adam Hamilton are starting to act like superintendents of the church. Hamilton has made it a mission of late to go around the country to annual conferences providing workshops about effective church leadership. I can barely open my e-mail box without getting another pitch from Cokesbury for his latest book. Is this not the teaching ministry of a bishop?
The pastors of our largest churches clearly feel that they have learned many valuable things about effectively carrying out the mission of the denomination. They are teachers and leaders. They have extensive adminstrative experience and skill.
Why do these gifts and graces not suit them well to be bishops or district superintendents?
I saw Adam Hamilton say in a sermon that he does not want to be a bishop, but that hardly seems important to the discussion. The question is whether he is called to do so.
Our UMC megachurch pastors have created powerful churches. How much more could they do if they turned their energies to building up entire conferences or supervising the several score pastors in a district?
It would be a new and risky thing. It would involve stepping way outside their comfort zones, but I bet every one of these pastors has preached a sermon or two to his thronging congregation about that very thing.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God; and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
oh man…you didn’t.
i’ve been wondering some of these very same things. i think you bring up some interesting points for the UMC to think about, especially those in higher levels of leadership.
My first thought was ugh. I hate the cult of personality that gets built around large churches. But then I kept reading and you have some really good points. Our bishops should be those who are building up the leadership of our pastors and churches. They should be providing the teaching and inspiration to take risks and try new things.
Definately some food for thought.
Wasn’t it Ambrose who had to be dragged to the altar for ordination as priest then bishop (all in the same weekend!)? The best bishops are the ones who don’t want to be…and in our system now you have to want it bad to get elected.
And his greatest achievement (in a dramatically faithful successful episcopacy) was catechizing a minor figure named Augustine.
See you at SCJ conference in 2012…
Yes, forced ordination used to be the standard method. I say we bring it back.
What if they have greater influence on the denomination where they already are? Would Adam or Mike (let’s add Kirbyjon to the mix) have the kind of cross-conference influence if they were “bishoping” somewhere?
Willimon, probably our most recognizable bishop, seems to be doing some creative things. What has that done for his conference?
Matt,
Please add to the list all you like. My knowledge of UMC megapastors is rather thin.
My standard isn’t whether they have “greater influence,” which I think is pretty hard to quantify. My point is that they have demonstrated gifts and graces in the areas of leadership, spotting and developing gifted people, teaching the faith, administration, managing change and growth, and creating enthusiasm for a vision. Why would we not want these qualities in a bishop?
Yes, they do have cross-conference influence because bishops itinerate, too. Plus they cross-polinate by picking up ideas from each other and talking together at the bishop level. And they can still write books and produce other materials.
As for Willimon, it is probably too early to know the fruit of his episcopacy, but that is no argument against my idea – at least to me.
The challenge here is that being a bishop is different from being a mega-church pastor. There is much administrative responsibility for bishops. Hamilton et al’s strength is in preaching. Unfortunately, the bishop only preaches at special occasions.
To me, the important thing is not who we elect to the title of bishop. Instead, we need to focus on how best to “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” I would focus less on how to get Hamilton et al elected bishop and more on how to get bishops actively involved in making disciples. Perhaps they could take lessons from the mega-churches.
Imagine this, what if bishops had internet campuses. If bishops and conference staff moved more in this direction, perhaps the differences between conferences and mega churches would blur.
Let’s not forget that pastors like Hamilton, Slaughter, and Caldwell would likely be taking a pay cut to be elected bishop (heck, the current U.S. bishops are taking a pay cut next month!). We live in a capitalist society where our clergy have not taken vows of poverty, and usually expect a raise with every job change. I don’t fault them for that; I’m just pointing out one facet of the episcopacy’s lack of allure for some.
That said, I think it would be great fun to see if our discernment process leads us in a direction like that by the time we meet for SCJ Conference 2012.
Pingback: Mega-Church Presents Model of Connectional Congregations « Deacon’s Word
I appreciate the leadership offered by Adam Hamilton, Mike Slaughter, Kirbyjon Caldwell and others. The difference that they are making in their communities and across the denomination is admirable. However, I am haunted by the statement that Mike Slaughter made at the 2009 Congress on Evangelism. Following his workshop during Q&A, one pastor asked how Slaughter’s topic could be integrated into his small membership church. Slaughter’s response was “I’m sorry. But I don’t know how to answer that question.”
No matter what anyone thinks, we are a denomination of small churches. Many of these small churches are doing their best to recognize and meet some of the needs in their community. Many of them, however, are just existing with no influence, good or bad, in their setting. Until we can find a way to translate the message that the UMC superstars bring to us into a language that works in the local church, we are just spinning our wheels. Perhaps any of the three that I have named could find that means of translation if they didn’t have the responsibility of a local church to attend to. I don’t know.
Remember that many of these mega-church pastors started there when the congregations were small or non-existent. Of course, they were in growing or otherwise highly populated areas. I would be interested in seeing statistics on their satellite congregations. How are those able to grow? What are they doing to connect with the community?
Another point to note is the different types of small churches from rural to urban and suburban. The needs are different. I’ve been a member of small churches in both rural and suburban communities and also attended small urban congregations. Each has different ministry needs.
Two points from a Resurrection Staff Member:
1. Someone said that Adam’s greatest strengthy is his preaching. While I agree his preaching is awesome, I would say that his greatest strenghth lies in organizational leadership. You wont find a person on staff who cant both cite and utliize the mission and vision statements in their every day decision making, for example. I have never worked for a more well run, well managed, and mission focused organization.
2. Someone said that Adam would have to take a pay cut to be Bishop. While I do think this is true, I dont think it would be a presiding factor for him. Adam’s children are grown, he has significant book revenues etc etc, and he is already giving more than 20 percent of his income away. I just dont think it would matter to him at this point in his life.
3. Having said all that – you cant have him!! Selfishly that would not be a happy thing!
I admire Hamilton, Slaughter, Cadwell and other mega-church pastors, though I sincerely doubt they would make very good bishops. The office of bishop within the UMC has long ago stopped being a teaching, pastoral position and become a political one. Most of the time what I hear coming from bishops are carefully worded statements designed to offend as few people as possible. I don’t see the forementioned pastors having that ability nor the desire to acquire it.
Interesting that most of the comments from those opposed to the idea cite the imperfections in the current system as reasons Hamilton et. al. would not be good bishops. Perhaps if they were bishops the nature of the episcopacy would change back into what it should be. Of those mentioned, I am most familiar with Adam. The majority of principles he talks about can be incorporated into churches of any size. Most importantly, he has a keen ability to listen to the Spirit and know the direction that God is leading. As a member of the Kasnas East Conference where COR is located, I’d hate for him to leave but he would immediately be one of the better bishops we have.
Preaching, leadership, a rare combination of evangelism and social justice in ministry, passion and strength — Adam Hamilton’s strengths are so refreshing. I wish he would lead a task force to revitalize our schools of theology, especially in the Western US. As a Bishop, he would succeed, but I think he would eventually want to be in a role where his talents would be better used to help make disciples of Christ.
“…perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it.” Albus Dumbledore to Harry Potter in the final HP novel, The Deathly Hallows.
Hamilton is a universalist. He said from the pulpit that Jehovah’s Witness will go to heaven because they TRY to love Jesus as much as they can….
Be careful of what you wish for.