So in this post I want to talk about connectionalism in the United Methodist Church, specifically bringing up problems and solutions as pertains to the Tennessee Conference. In 2012, an outside committee was asked to come to our churches to evaluate our conference to see what obstacles we faced as we move into the future of our church. (You may follow this link to see the report for yourself: http://www.tnumc.org/f-a-c-t.html ) This committee identified one obstacle of concern to be that clergy do not know one another in the conference and therefore do not trust one another. Obviously, many of us are friends, and I know that there are definite connections for everyone, but too often we do not know the pastors serving churches down the street from us!! This might not matter for other denominations, but as for United Methodists, connectionalism is a vital component to our theology and way we do things.
By and large, there are only two types of systems that organize churches, and all churches will generally fall into one category or the other. One system is known as "congregationalism", which places the authority of the church within the local congregation. Leaders are ordained and affirmed by local church; theology and the Bible is interpreted for that community; and connectionalism exists only casually or by chance, i.e., two pastors went to seminary together who end up in the same town, resulting in two churches working together. The other system is known as "episcopal", which places the authority of the church outside of the local congregation. Leaders are ordained and affirmed by leadership outside of the local church, such as a bishop; theology and the Bible are intepreted for a wider community and is "regulated"; and all churches within the system are connected by way of this episcopacy. The United Methodist Church operates as an episcopal system, but too often we act as if we are congregationalists. We do not select our incoming pastor, for example; we consult with the bishop's representative, the district superintendant, who works with the bishop to assign one. We do not act independently of other churches; our work in the community is in tandem with one another, and the witness of one church is connected to the witness of another. Love it or hate it, the United Methodist system of episcopacy is one of our hallmarks, and is the way we share in Christ's work together in this alien world.
So annual conference arises out of this connectional, this episcopal system. And it's great--already I have met new friends and seen old ones. I even saw the pastor who baptized me nearly ten years ago, for the first time since 2008. But this leads me to my main point--annual conference is not the only four days when we ought to see one another and work together; its purpose is to help encourage more work between pastors, churches and lay people the other 360 days of the year. The problem is that our lives and schedules get so busy at the local church that we feel that we don't have time or energy left to foster connectionalism among the churches in our community. And this is the problem that this outside committee identified for our conference; we must change our attitudes and rethink how we do ministry in order to move forward on a better foot.
I don't know exactly where the problem lies, but I can imagine several forces at work in preventing the collegiality between pastors and churches that we ought to have as we work for the Kingdom of God in our world. One problem may be that as we work together, pastors and churches fear losing their congregants to other churches who offer different ministries and services. This problem is simple, because it only requires a reorientation of our minds! If people from your church come to mine, or my congregants move to your church as a result of our working together, then there must be a good reason, as opposed to a bad one! Maybe one church offers children's ministry where another one does not; maybe one church worships in a different way that appeals to the family more. At the end of the day, the world is our parish, and we should celebrate all of the congregations meeting in our community as God's gift, and see each person as our brother or sister regardless of their church membership. If I hold a revival but seven new families begin attending the church down the road, then glory to God; there must be a reason for them to attend that church instead of mine. Does the fruit not still please God? Is that not our purpose, to bear fruit for God?
Another problem I've thought about is how busy pastors can be, particularly at churches where they have been serving several years. Many churches are very pastor-centered, where a large percentage of the daily affairs are regarded to be the responsibility of the pastor. The United Methodist Church does not function this way; all congregants are needed to reach out to the community, to help take care of church administration, and do God's work to visit the sick and homebound. Too many times people complain that the pastor doesn't take enough time with a particular group of people, ministry or task; the problem is that such churches are keeping the pastor so busy that he or she does not have enough free time to engage in relationships outside of the local church. Worse still, these churches may even feel that they pay their pastor to work only for their interests; but the truth is that, while we do maintain the local church as our top pastoral priority, we are also responsible for ministering to people throughout the community, not only to those already in the church. And don't you want us to do so? How else does the local church increase its connection with the community and serve its people with renewed vigor and attention? This includes working with other pastors and churches as well; together we can be more effective and amplify that fruit that God is producing in our lives. In fact, working with other churches can actually help sometimes to reduce our workload, providing us more time to give quality time in ministry with our local congregations.
Finally, we pastors have part of the responsibility of connectionalism ourselves. At the end of the day, if a pastor doesn't go to meet another pastor, if no one takes the initiative to engage in conversation, then naturally we won't be working together. We have to be intentional in working with one another, in meeting each other and working our schedules around one another so that we can enter into holy conversation and work toward our common ministry. We must also be intentional in maintaining collegial relationships, responding to calls and emails, and attending meetings with one another. It doesn't happen all by itself; connectionalism requires effort. It is just this simple.
We find Jesus to be an excellent example of someone who was intentional about entering into relationships with people he didn't know. In our Savior we have someone who was interested in other people even when it wasn't easy, automatic or socially effortless. It's easy to stay in touch with people at work, our own churches or in our neighborhood; it's difficult and requires a lot of work to build more relationships and maintain those over the course of years. As United Methodists we move around a lot, and every year there is a new pastor somewhere in the neighborhood. But shouldn't there be someone who will be willing to reach out to the new pastor to invite him or her into the community? Shouldn't there be an effort made to make sure that the people of our churches remain connected and working together to bring justice and peace to the lives of those in our communities?
In my current appointment in North Carolina, sadly I have experienced little to no such outreach. I engage with other pastors only when I went to meet them, and rarely did I get any response. My prayers are that in Tennessee we have begun to live with greater intention to work together in our shared ministry, particularly in Coffee County, where I will soon be serving the lovely congregation at Bell Springs United Methodist Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment