My wife had her gallbladder taken out last week.
On Monday, she came down with sudden nausea and abdominal pain. It persisted through Tuesday when we got her some medical attention. On Friday she was on the operating table. She is recovering now and feels better each day.
The surgeon said there were signs of previous attacks – scars on the organ – and two small stones, which caused the last attack.
The evidence of previous attacks was a bit like a light bulb going off. She had had over the last several months some days where she just felt bad – a bit queasy and sore – but not bad enough to seek help. It turns out, her gallbladder was acting up but she did not know it. And – in the end – the only cure was to take it out.
Okay, so now the analogy/metaphor to justify the post: The United Methodist Church has been experiencing chronic and repeated “attacks” for many years now. We try to tweak it by cutting the fat in our diet or improving our exercise routines. What if the real issue is that we need to go under the knife?
We have treated the problems of the denomination something like a smoking problems or a weight problem. We act as if a better lifestyle, healthier habits, and some willpower will fix what ails us.
Could we benefit from thinking of our problem more as a case in need of surgery?
If you were going to suggest a painful but precise change that would cut out the diseased organ(s) in the UMC, what would it be?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
Prayers for your wife, and I hope everything is well!
Hope she’s feeling better!
Thank you, Will and Pam. Day by day.
I’ve been wrestling with this kind of thought process for a while now. It seems as a lot of the church movement these days can devalue the rural church, as one example. For the past couple years I argued strongly with my classmates that the UMC should start combining small rural churches in an effort to form an “effective church.” Yet recently I’ve been drawn back to the parable of the tree that’s not producing fruit (Luke 13:6-9). The tree is given another year. And there’s nothing to suggest the tree won’t be given another year after that one, and so on. If that’s how grace works, then is it really our place to decide when to cut?
Sooner or later, it seems we do have to make such a choice. Wesley often wrote of bearing with things for a season and then turning them over to God. I don’t think he had a rigid time scale, but he did see a need – which I agree with – to acknowledge that sometimes a dead tree is dead.
I’m glad to hear that you wife is feeling better. May that continue every day.
So – what “diseased organs” would I cut out? One is the district superintendency (Please note that I am not saying district superintendents are diseased organs). I think the district superintendency is unnecessary and oftentimes enabling (in the not-so-good sense of the word). I think that often the district superintendency can become an easy place to scapegoat for congregations. I just think it is unnecessary. And according to the Discipline (as I read it) we only are required to have one district superintendent per conference. Let’s employ some lay people and retired clergy if there is something that we can’t do without in the tasks that the superintendency oversees currently.
There is an interesting and more and more public debate going on about guaranteed appointment that I think is well worth having. I wonder if our aging buildings are something we need to consider getting rid of. I spent some time last week with a lay person who used to work for a general agency and who now teaches at a seminary and who is from the continent of Africa. He raised the idea that we could jettison our buildings if we could imagine “church” in a new way — the more I thought about it, I realized (even as I’m not sure it’s a good idea) that it would certainly force some thinking in a new direction.
Perhaps we could consider the cutting away of all church programming. Programming isn’t bad – but we have certainly done a whole lot of it, and if what we are concerned about is being effective (i.e. – actually losing weight, getting healthier, etc…) – you could certainly argue that programming hasn’t been the answer (we have more books, trainings, other resources for programming than anything else). What would be left, in such a case, would be worship and covenant discipleship groups (though one could argue that the latter is programmatic in and of itself). (What would then be encouraged is the actual discipleship of the people of our parish, in the living out of their faith in the world)
Thanks, Michael for the comment.
Let’s see, superintendency, buildings, and programming. You think big.
The comment about the district superintendents in some way is the one I was least expecting. I often hear about the need to reform or improve it, but not cut it back. Indeed, I’ve heard a fair amount of comment in the last year or so about the districts in Indiana being too big now.
My DS said she wants to worship at every church in the district. It will take three years if she never skips a Sunday or repeats a place of worship. It is hard in such a situation to do much oversight. I suppose what you are saying is that we should acknowledge that and come up with new models.
John, perhaps we can solve our “diseased organs” problem by thinking small – but if we continue the analogy that you began with gall bladder surgery – if the problem can’t be solved with diet or exercise (or drugs?) any more – then the cutting begins!
I think that the problem with what we did with the district superintendency in Indiana was we made the areas bigger and instead of “re-imagining” the job differently – we added to it! Yikes! I think the people who are superintendents do, for the most part, a really good job. This is no reflection on them – it is a reflection upon us. This is not “their” problem. It is “our” problem.
I think also what I’m saying is that I’ve given up on the idea that we will come up with new models. I think we had the opportunity for that with the creation of the new conference. Perhaps we haven’t missed the boat. But it looks like we have, to me.
I took your comments about the superintendency exactly as you meant it.
Maybe conference-wide or top-down development of new models is not going to work for us. Maybe it needs to bubble up from the ground.
Of course, for me, the trick to that is remaining true to our roots while creating the new.
As for my “diseased organ” analogy, I was reading a book about Early Methodism recently that noted that the “languages” of the movement in America became quickly muddled as Wesleyan and generally evangelical concepts and languages were grafted together with the language and structures of episcopacy. The three never really fit well together and created problems from the first.
I’m not sure what that means for the discussion I raised, but you get “stream-of-consciousness” from me sometimes.
John,
We will be lifting you all up in prayer. My own family experience was that this was not easy. The surgery went well but there was a lot of follow-up.
As to the church analogy, perhaps that is the key. The surgery may solve the immediate problem but it is the follow-up that determines the effectiveness of the recovery.
Thank you, Tony.