Annual Conference and Connectionalism

Today we have begun our Annual Conference here in the Tennessee Conference of the United Methodist Church!  We gathered this afternoon at 2:30PM at Brentwood UMC to light the candle which officially begins this gathering which occurs, as you might imagine, once per year for about four days.  This is a time set aside for all of the clergy, and an equal number of laity delegates, to gather and reconnect, plan for the upcoming year, and reflect on the past.  Essentially, it functions as a time when all of us come together to share, pray, talk and love.

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.

Transition in the United Methodist Church

It has been a while since I have posted on my blog, but I pray that it has been helpful to those who have read it.  I have had 1,300 total views so far, which is very uplifting!  I pray that it has breathed new life into the situations in those whose lives have been touched by it.

Today I wanted to reflect on transition, which is something I have been dealing with heavily at the moment.  It is with great sorrow and excitement, at the same time, that I will be leaving my two churches in Greensboro and will be appointed to a new church in Middle Tennessee.  It is sorrowful because I love my churches here; the congregations at Moriah UMC and Holmes Grove UMC have taught me very much about God, ministry and the kingdom of heaven.  It is exciting because I have been appointed to a wonderful church in Manchester, Bell Springs UMC, where God is clearly on the move in exciting ways, and the congregation has been cordial and welcoming.  

I wanted to speak on some of the ways God has been at work as I begin to transition out of my current appointment.  This is both to serve as a witness to God's magnificent graces and to uplift my brothers and sisters who are clergypeople who may be having a difficult time in their transitions.  It is also so that my congregants at my current appointment know that even though we are going to miss one another dearly, that God is yet with us more than ever and will continue to sustain us as we move forward in time.

First, I have learned that there is no magical transition formula that we can follow as we transition out.  Even though I have yet to fully experience even one pastoral departure, I can tell already that my experience will be very different from that of others around me.  In fact, my departure will be different from my predecessors' departure, and the way that I need to respond to our churches' environment will be different from that of my successors' transitions in the future.  We received, for example, a book from the conference on some best practices for transition.  While it has served as great food for thought, there are many items in the book which either do not pertain to my unique environment, or would even be unadvisable.  One critical distinction is that my churches have known the date of my departure since before my appointment, as I am a student pastor here serving one and two years at my two churches.

We must not think of transition as a recipe or formula because transitioning out of a congregation as pastor is not purely a bureaucratic or organizational event; United Methodist polity has deeply embedded within it a connectionalism that is tied directly to the concept that the church is the body of Christ.  Transition is primarily God's doing, not our own doing, and is evidence of God's grace upon us and our churches.  Transition can almost be considered a sacrament in that the transition is a unique opportunity for us to experience another dimension of God's grace, certainly in a way we do not experience when we are not planning or intending a pastoral transition.  While we are deeply saddened by the departure of a pastor we love, or excited about the pastor we are receiving into the congregational life, God is allowed the unique opportunity to impact our lives in new ways.  Through transition, we come to experience God's presence as we mourn, God's assurance as we are anxious, and God's grace as we turn a new page.  Churches who do not experience pastoral transitions more than once per two generations are missing out on so much of God's graces brought to us by the change of the ecclesial environment.  We miss out on all of the gifts our current pastors do not offer (as none of us has all of the gifts of the Spirit).

So this leads into my second point, that since transition is a unique time in which we have access to God's grace, transition must be given great attention both by the pastor and the congregation--not because we desire to maintain stability, but because we desire to focus on how God is moving and changing our direction before our very eyes.  The books and articles that I have read on transitions get this terribly wrong--in fact, I have had both professors and mentors who insist that bringing change to a congregation in the first year is a particularly bad move.  I argue that this is misled in that we are focusing too much on the activity of the pastor and not enough on the activity of God who reigns in our churches.  Just like we claim to do in other times of the church, during a period of transition we must be open to the redemptive change the Holy Spirit is bringing about in our lives.  If we were convinced that human beings had no need to be changed, no need to be sanctified and made holy through repentance, or "turning around", then we would claim a need for great stability and preservation of the status quo.  But God has already determined that change is needed in the local church!!  Why else would we need to experience transition?!  So why do we freak out and insist on keeping everything the same for a year after arriving to a new church placement?  Or have we cultivated churches who believe that "the way we do things around here" is the highest echelon of human evolution?!

Transition can "feel" bad, particularly when we love a church or a pastor deeply and do not want the transition to take place.  Transition generates all sorts of anxieties, confusion, and other powerful feelings.  As much as this is normal and healthy, we are capable of recognizing that sometimes God works through painful emotions to create even stronger, healthier Christians.  It is not as if transition is inherently a "bad thing"; again, we Methodists believe in itinerancy as critical to maintaining a healthy connection of churches.  In the same way as we do not always prefer to exercise, live within our financial means or endure a root canal, doing so almost always results in growth that strengthens us for the rest of our lives.  In the same way, healthy transition can strengthen our church!!

So what would I call a "healthy" transition?  To begin, recognizing the above facts about transition and focusing on God's activity in our midst is absolutely primary.  My third point about transition is that, as God is using transition to initiate positive change in our churches, we must receive transition as a gift which we must properly steward in order to conform to God's purposes for it.  I have never experienced transition discussed as a gift connected to stewardship, but I believe that it is the only natural conclusion we may draw that can help us handle our transitions in our churches, both exiting and arriving.  Just as we have already affirmed that no two transitions are alike, and no "recipe" for transition exists that can be followed in all churches, we can use the theological concept of "stewardship" as a guideline for all of our transitions.  

We Methodists live in covenant with one another that we will offer our "prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness" as a life offering to God and one another, stewarding our lives for the glory of God and the coming of the kingdom of heaven.  Using stewardship language around transition will only help guide our actions properly as we interpret the specific situations we encounter in our localities.  We will then think about how to properly administer our time and presence surrounding the transition; we will consider the role of vigorous and intentional prayer; we will not deny the use of financial and non-financial, tangible resources to guarantee smoothness in the move.  

You might be reading this thinking, "we already do consider these issues around transition in our church/ministry!"  I do not deny this!  This article is not here to scold United Methodists for poor transition skills!!  In fact, few denominations are as skilled as we are in ensuring faithful transitions, since we simply have a lot of experience in this area.  But my prayer for this article is to provide more theological and practical language around the issue to help churches and pastors who are struggling in their current transitions.  I know that for me, it can be daunting--if not frustrating--to find the perfect "formula" regarding the issue.  I find peace when I consider that my transition is located in a particular time and space in God's creation, and that God has indeed already provided the tools for me to interpret God's activity, inviting me to faithfully respond in God's love and graces.

What is it about transition that makes it difficult for you to interpret the last two or three months you live out in a pastoral transition, whether you are clergy or laity?  What is the most difficult part of experiencing transition for you, and what do you find most rewarding?  Most importantly of all--and never let us forget to consider--where is God moving in this transition, and how can we plug into God's activity so that all of us are more faithfully responding in sync with the dance of the Holy Trinity, our God who is one in three and three in one?

Why Stewardship Matters

One of the more awkward sermons pastors preach during their tenure is on the theme of stewardship. It seems that no one enjoys talking about stewardship--not pastors, and not congregations.  And for good reason.  Talking about stewardship in a capitalist, consumer economy demands that we talk about the real issue at stake, money.  "Remember that pastor we had so many years ago...he would talk about money for a month straight in his sermons!  What business does he have about my personal life?  What I do with my money is my business."  This sentiment is totally normal and is considered acceptable in United Methodist churches all over the country, not to mention churches of all denominations.  This sentiment is why stewardship is such a headache for pastors as well; we know we need to talk about it, but we're afraid to infringe upon the strongly-held beliefs of our parish, and we understand that unity of the Spirit is more important than discussing details of money management.

Or is it?  

It seems that all of us are to blame, including myself, when it comes to this "unmentionable topic".  I'd rather have a sex talk with my (future) kids than face preaching a sermon series about stewardship, and I know I'm in good company.  And of all issues that the pastor brings to the pulpit, issues about stewardship tend to be one of the least-enjoyed topics by congregations everywhere.  This must be why so many books are being published today that center on congregational stewardship.  The Cokesbury catalogue even dedicates two to three pages in every issue to stewardship resources.  Why do we never see a section on "Holy Spirit resources" or "social justice issues"?  Not only do we loathe the issue of stewardship--it's one of our biggest struggles as a church, as a people of God.  The fact is, laity and clergy alike, our wallets has become a sacred space that we declare off-limits to God, and therefore the topic of stewardship falls on deaf ears for another year.  

The problem is one of enormous consequences, and we've already felt these consequences for some time now.  In America, we typically spend one hour twice per month (or more, if we're especially devout) at church, and much of the rest of our time engrossed in service and worship to the almighty Dollar.  We work hard to earn more dollars, we spend time exchanging those dollars for goods, and we save dollars for the future.  Many of us borrow more dollars for more power to buy more goods, and we have a lot of places we'd like to see those dollars being put to good use.  A bigger home; a new car; trendy clothing; more entertainment options; advanced technology; eating out more frequently; the list goes on, and it never seems to end.  All the while, "essential" spending has increased to include all kinds and types of insurance, greater and greater education savings, bigger and better stock portfolios, and naturally enough "mad money" to spend on whatever strikes us in the moment.  

Entire seasons are dedicated to Dollar worship.  Christmas, which in theory is a Christian holiday, has become overwhelmed with a spirit of mass consumption.  Easter is no longer complete without plenty of chocolate, an Easter egg hunt and cute pastel decorations.  Valentine's Day gifts are bigger and more expensive, and restaurants have doubled their incentives for you to come and dine to celebrate the fact that it's a Friday.  Every day of the year is a celebration for America, calling for ever-increasing consumption which is literally clogging our arteries, bankrupting our grandchildren and destorying the earth.  

If money remains a topic which is sacred and off-limits in the pulpit, then how will we ever be able to address our dangerous system of endlessly increasing consumption?  If we can no longer talk about stewardship of our resources, given that most of our resources can be monetized, how will we ever be able to work towards social holiness and healing of our communities where thousands upon thousands of people live in dire poverty?  If we cannot allow Jesus Christ to enter into our finances, why on earth would we trust him with our salvation?

At this point, we could talk about how often Jesus speaks about money and stewardship of other resources (such as food, valuables, etc.).  Certainly we could see some good fruit from such a discussion, because Jesus talks about money a lot in the four gospels.  And, perhaps unbeknownst to the majority of Christians, Jesus incessantly urges us to be generous to the point of total self-sacrifice with our money.  Yet, as pastors, our knees begin to knock when we think about preaching the concept of the tithe, or an offering of 10% of income.

Since most Christians--scholars, pastors, and congregations alike--will agree that Jesus was radically generous and challenges us to be more generous in his footsteps, I will not digress into a Scripture discussion here.  We need to talk about why we're holding back and how we can move forward to allow this Scripture to truly change us and how we live our lives.

1. First and foremost, everyone needs to understand the simple fact that money is not a personal matter where God is unconcerned.  I think most people would agree, but many do not act upon it.  Some people are only interested in their personal benefit, like guaranteed salvation or a nurturing environment for their children, but as Christians we are called to live a life of personal sacrifice in accordance with the will of God.  The Bible is very clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God is very concerned with the proper cultivation, collection and use of all resources which we possess, and goes so far as to claim that all of our possessions belong to God.  They do not belong to you; you did not earn them (from God); they are merely entrusted to you to use properly.  

2. Next, we all must embrace the fact that in our baptism, through Jesus Christ, we have become one body, one family, and we are no longer our own person.  Now that Christ has paid everything for us to be restored and reconciled to our Father in heaven, we are God's own; our identity, our self, our person, and yes, our resources are all fully God's.  What's more is that because there is one baptism, because there is one loaf which we break together at the Lord's table, there is one salvation through which we all receive, together.  Therefore we are to be like-minded; we are all to conform to the one will of God; and we are called to pull our resources together to carry out God's mission here on earth.  To be fair, it's not the same as socialism, but you might think it looks similar.  Socialism is a form of human-inspired government where all members of society are required to pool resources together to ensure the welfare of all.  Christian stewardship properly understood is a God-inspired plan whereby all members of the body of Christ together pool resources together to help carry out God's mission to show love to a broken world.  Whereas socialism is motivated by fear for survival, Christian stewardship is motivated by hope for the kingdom of God.  As Christians we reject the idea of limited resources because we have faith that God provides in incredible ways; if only we allowed ourselves to live without all of the comforts of modern America, we might see God's miraculous works more often.

3. Stewardship of our resources is properly connected to our calling as Christians to love one another and our neighbor as ourselves.  I Peter 4:7-11 provides a brief "recipe" of holiness in the Christian life, with three basic summarizing principles: to love one another, to show hospitality without complaint, and to share resources.  If we say that we love one another and offer hospitality, but we do not give with a heart of total trust in God and a spirit of generosity, then we are making claims without following through.  God's call for us to love one another deeply and unconditionally includes providing for one another's needs, whether they be financial, emotional, spiritual, educational, etc.  As one example, imagine a parent who claims he or she loves their child, but then does not provide the child with the support he or she requires, as best as that parent is able to provide.  It would sound like the parent is speaking on one hand but dishing out something completely different on the other.  Non-believers are especially attune to this discrepancy among Christian people.  They are keenly aware that Christians claim to love people unconditionally, but then use their resources to effectively judge the world through withholding and targeted offering.  It is critical for the church in America and around the world to be a salty witness to Jesus Christ through sacrificial giving as we have been called rather than the attitude of "I'll give what I have left over" to those in need.  God has NOT called us to give our leftovers; we are called to give our firstfruits.

4. Generous stewardship is a lesson which the church must teach in order to remain relevant, fruitful and on fire for God.  As I've stated earlier, pastors generally loathe preaching or teaching on the topic of stewardship because it is seen as a fundraising campaign rather than a fundamental part of our lives as Christians.  As pastors, we must teach stewardship with a deeply-held conviction that there is no holiness without social holiness, and there is no holiness without stewardship.  All areas of our life need and must come into the conformity of God's will, by the cross of Calvary.  When we engage in debates over tithing and giving of money, too often we are pushing back asking ourselves, "how little may I give to God to maintain a minimally desired relationship in good standing?"  No matter how we respond to these debates, whether we accept the tithe, a portion thereof, or even if we claim a larger amount of giving as "mandatory", we have completely lost the point of stewardship and therefore are not pursuing true holiness.  The proper amount of money, time, knowledge, wisdom, love and service to give is as much as you are able to give, with the goal of giving more whenever possible.  Our entire lives need to be given as an offering to the Lord, just as our Lord gave us everything he had to save us from the shackles of sin.

5. Finally, it's worth mentioning the church as the place to give to God, or not.  For too long Americans in particular have been suspicious of the church's power or authority and have been nervous to give their full gifts through the church.  Many pastors, they fear, seek greater financial offerings in order to increase their own salaries and leave an unforgettable legacy in the churches they serve, as a boost to ego and career prospects.  I do not deny this as a possibility, or that fact that it has happened in churches before; but in the United Methodist Church, we do have courses of action against such leadership, for we have episcopal oversight that can eliminate much of this drama.  Even if this may be the case in isolated scenarios, the proper course of action when you feel there is financial mismanagement in your church is not to withhold your offerings, but rather to hold the leadership accountable as brothers and sisters in Christ.  When we withhold our offerings to God because we fear the church, then we are as guilty as anyone we might be accusing, rightfully or wrongfully.
If we believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we affirm the presence of the church as evidence of the Holy Spirit in our midst, for the church cannot exist without the Holy Spirit.  It's true that some churches may "have" the presence of the Holy Spirit more than others, but that does not mean they are unfruitful churches necessarily.  God's ways, movements, ebbs and flows are constantly mysterious to us, and are based on our "performance" or good or for ill.  Rather, God's presence in a church is based entirely upon God's own will and not our works or desire for God to be with us.  Quite frankly, God is going to be close to those who are weary, brokenhearted, alone, and lacking whether we like it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not.  So if you know of anyone in this situation in your church on Sunday, you can rest assured that God is with you, and that your church is truly a place fitting to give offerings to God.
While I absolutely affirm the validity and fruitfulness of many other places to give offerings to God outside of the church, it is essential for our work together as saints in the church that we pool many of our resources in our local congregations, where the majority of our prayers, presence, witness and service take place.  These ministries require financial and other physical resources, and withholding financial giving is almost always out of fear, spite, anxiety or greed--none of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I pray that you take time to examine how you exhibit stewardship in your life.  You may take the Wesleyan model as a beginning guide by considering your prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness and critically examining how you are giving--or not--everything unto Christ.  But this is only the start; remember that all resources are to conform to the will of God, including our spiritual gifts, our secular education and skills, our wisdom, our worldviews, our time, our bodies and our minds, to name only a few.  What a fantastic gift it will be to you if you were to consider each area of life and analyze your giving to grow more deeply in the Spirit!  I pray that in doing so you would gain assurance of the peace of Christ, the love of the Father and the mission of the Holy Spirit.

The Itineracy of the United Methodist Church

What is itineracy?  It is the practice of moving pastors from church to church by the bishop and cabinet's oversight.  The United Methodist Church practices itineracy, and we are one of the few denominations that does.  This means that as a pastor, my bishop has the authority to move me to a different appointment, within the conference, at his decision.  This practice, however, has come under fire in the past few years as a possible problem for the UMC.  People cite problems from all around, and they have good intentions and reasonable observations.  Let's look at the itinerant system's pros and cons, and then see if we can think about where we ought to stand in relation to this subject.

The cons of itineracy

Since the more recent discussion has alluded to the problems of itineracy, let's start here.  A starting point for local churches, especially smaller churches, is that the itinerant system undermines stability in the local congregation.  In most other denominations, pastors are hopeful to stay in one church for ten to fifteen years.  The average for a United Methodist is around seven, with many pastors leaving a church after one to three years.  I know here at Moriah UMC of Greensboro, NC, if we analyze the history and statistics over the past thirty years, church growth and flourishing almost always coincide with a pastor who remained for more than one or two years.  Stability of leadership is difficult to maintain when the bishop and cabinet have plans for clergy to move to other charges after short periods of time.  Also, since we are guaranteed appointments in the church, if a pastor does not like his/her appointment, he/she may request a move in any given year, and frequently such a request is honored in a timely manner.  For small churches to thrive, the intinerant system sometimes works against them as pastors seeking to "move up" in the world, to move to a more desirable location, or simply to move to a church better suited for them, are able to be replaced easily.

Itineracy can be very difficult for pastors and their families.  If a pastor moves five to fifteen times during his/her career, you can imagine the stress, expense and change the family must deal with.  Especially when pastors have school-aged children, uprooting from one school system to another can be very challenging indeed.  In today's world spouses are unable to stay at home without working, and while the future shows that spouses may be able to work from home via technology more easily, this has not yet become the norm with UMC clergy families.  Packing and unpacking, never knowing if the church secretly wants to get rid of you, and the annual looming of a future move add uncertainty and instability to the clergy and his/her family.  And with fewer churches opting for building parsonages, more pastors have to buy their own homes, which adds another layer of difficulty for those frequently moving.

The General Conference of 2012 narrowly approved a vote to end "guaranteed appointment" for clergy, which is a counterbalance to itineracy to ensure some stability for clergy.  However, this has recently been attacked as a source of complacency and lack of excellence among clergy in the UMC.  While the judicial council voted this down as unconstitutional, and we still have guaranteed appointments, we can see the issue of itineracy and appointments being at the forefront of our minds in the UMC.  If our system has a bit of instability so that we need guaranteed appointments as a counterbalance, perhaps we ought to rethink the entire system and allow local churches to hire (as in a "call system")?  This way mediocrity would be kept in check as the "best" might naturally rise to the top, as merit-based thinking dictates.

Finally, anti-establishmentarians who distrust the bishops and their cabinets feel that the itinerant system simply neglects the needs of the local church, since a bishop who may be hundreds of miles away cannot possibly know the ins and outs of each and every church, even with help from the District Superintendants.  In the past, many appointments were made based on ranking, merit or other career advancement logic, not based on the gifts and graces of the pastor and local church.  Today the cabinets do strive to "match" clergy with churches more to prevent frequent shifting, but still many churches, especially smaller ones, feel that they are dealing with clergy "leftovers" because they are not big and flashy appointments.  Besides, what value does the bishop bring to the table anyways?  How could he/she know best for so many churches?

The pros of intineracy

Many would argue that oversight from the bishop and cabinet is critical for the local church to thrive.  In a "call system", where pastors are hired locally by the church members, you might have the choice of three to five applicants; whereas in the itinerant system, each clergy could be placed at any church, thereby opening the door to hundreds of possibilities for any given church.  This allows for much greater consideration of the gifts and graces of clergy and churches, even if they are not known as intimately as the local church knows themselves.  And with the many years of experience between the bishop and his/her cabinet, they are likely to know a lot about compatibility between pastors and churches, since they themselves have participated in this system for decades.  Another key is that the bishop and his/her cabinet have theological training and years of study, allowing them to make selections (potentially) based on deeper insights from God.

The itinerant system protects against a very common trend in American religion, known harshly as the "cult of personality".  That is, in many churches here and around the world, a particular charismatic pastor might be sought out more than God due to his/her preaching, teachings, care, etc.  In churches, however, where clergy move around every few years, this "cult of personality" is never really able to take off to dangerous levels.  Sure, a church might adore their pastor, but they know that before too long, their pastor will be called to shepherd others, and the local church is never able to deify one particular person.  Often we in the UMC do not realize how big this problem is in megachurches today, especially among those labeled "evangelical" in persuasion.

For the families of pastors, itineracy can be exciting!  Some people prefer geographic stability, but not everyone!  For children to have stability in their formative years, it is far more important that there be a cohesive, stable family life where the parents are loving, nurturing and promote all-around health.  It seems no one is having this debate among military families, and despite the hardships on transfer every four or fewer years, no one seems to question whether "military brats" are able to grow into healthy, functional and productive adults.  Moving every few years can add tremendously to a family's life together, weaving a narrative of places and people that almost no one else will ever be able to experience.  For a family in this intinerant system, they must realize that no matter how much they love (or hate!) their current context, it is not going to last forever--and the opportunity for God to work in new ways in a new place is always on the horizon.

Finally, many have argued that the itinerant system provides greater justice and equality for minority groups of pastors, including women.  Our "guaranteed appointment" system with oversight means that female pastors, African-American pastors, Hispanic pastors, etc. will always have a ministry, even if local churches are reluctant to accept change.  Theologically this is a solid argument for the bishop's oversight, forcing churches to be formed in the vision of Revelation 7:9-10: "After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and languages and peoples, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white with palm branches in their hands."  The idea that churches should be of one ethnicity, led by a married man with a family is not healthy; and sometimes, churches need that extra push to see the biblical vision of equality among God's people.  God has called some people into ministry, and in the UMC this calling is more heavily scrutinized than perhaps anywhere else in Christian history!  We can be certain that God is doing something with this pastor, even if it is not apparently or readily obvious to us.

The reality of our debate

All of these issues above are real issues with the itinerant system.  They are cited by God-fearing people, typically discussed in depth by clergy.  These folks have their hearts set on Jesus Christ, no doubt, and they are trying to figure out the future of the UMC where we can be a church of salt and light once again (since 1968 we have declined in membership across the USA, every single year).  However, the problem with our debate is the evidence we bring to the table to support both sides.  If you notice, with all of the above arguments, there is very little mention of Scripture or theological conviction.  Even I had a hard time citing Scripture writing the above list of pros and cons; even though I could cite Scripture, if I forced it, biblical convictions on the nature and mission of God are rarely central in the debate over itineracy.  More often than not, we are missing the mark by discussing itineracy's gifts and pitfalls in a more tangible, earthly way.  That is, we are considering how itineracy has actually manifested in the past rather than keeping sight on where God is taking us in the future.

Now I don't want to get into the theological discussion over the itinerant system and the call system; both systems appear to be biblically sound, and in the UMC we are itinerant due to our tradition and heritage.  Sure, itinerancy developed out of practical concerns, but these were concerns for the kingdom of God and the good of the mission, not concerns for either the churches or the clergy.  Most of our debate, as you can read above, deals with what is "best practices" for churches or for clergy.  And most people, when they defend their views, cite real-life experiences as evidence of their particular persuasion.  As Methodists we allow experience to shape our theology, but not prior to Scripture and the tradition!  For our discussion to advance beyond mere lists of personal preferences based on such-and-such church a long time ago, we need to restructure the debate in terms of God's kingdom, rather than churches OR clergy.  Our debate must be firmly grounded in biblical principles, specifically eschatology (the study of the consummation of this world; the "end").  Only then should the practicality and utility of certain strategies be fleshed out, in light of these theological principles.

Either way we go, we have to make absolutely certain that we are supporting a system that serves others for the sake of Jesus Christ rather than serving ourselves.  We all do it--we slip into a pattern of acting upon self-interest or the interest of those close to us, rather than acting upon self-denial and the interest of those who are furthest from us.  Not to sound too harsh, but clergy in the UMC accept itineracy upon their ordination, and have made a covenant to continue this tradition, both its theological foundation and practical implementation.  We clergy need to own up to our vows and serve where we are sent, without complaining, for the harvest is very ripe, and we harvesters are fewer and fewer.  The other side of the coin is also true: churches need to come to grips with the fact that they do not and cannot know who the "best" clergy for them will be.  In fact, there is no such "best" person for the job, ever; this is why we move around, so churches may have many clergy over time!  It is possible that you will have a pastor that turns out not to be the best "match" for your congregation--but our system DOES allow for churches to request new pastors and provide input for those incoming.  These are resources at your disposal; the bishop is also called to serve you, and the cabinet will do their best to plan for an upcoming change.

If we are to be salty again, if we are to shine the light of Jesus Christ in our world, we must base all of our discussions and decisions in the Truth, the Word made flesh, and the testimony to him found in the Old and New Testaments.  We must practice, not merely preach, the virtue of self-denial as we seek holiness and renewal.  My guess is, whether we have an itinerant system, a call system, or any number of hybrids in between, we can still be the salt and light of the earth, and work with God to bring justice and mercy to the land.  

The (poor) question of homosexuality

The issue of homosexuality in the church has ignited more passion and division than any other issue since slavery in the antebellum period.  Whether or not the church may bless or marry same-sex couples, and whether or not the church may allow "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" to pursue ordination are the two more specific issues rocking the United Methodist world.  In fact, there are pastors (albeit a small number) who feel that leaving the UMC is the only solution, given that many American members of the UMC are in favor of reversing the status quo.  Currently, the UMC does not allow blessing same-sex unions of any kind and does not allow "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" to pursue ordination as pastors or deacons, and does not allow them to practice as local pastors with a license.  This issue has torn apart the Anglican communion, and we are in jeopardy as well of a great schism.  What is the problem at hand?  How can millions of Christians on both sides be wrong?  I propose that the problem is not the answer we are arriving at; it is the question.

I will get into some deeper discussion of Christian ethics, but please continue reading, as I try to put this into plain language.  When we discuss ethics, we are discussing decisions for the way the church lives out our mission in the world.  The category of "ethics" is fairly broad; some topics might include ecological ethics, or economic ethics.  Ethics deals with social issues in the wider world as well as issues pertinent only to the church, such as virtue ethics of the Bible.  Whenever we discuss how we should live in community with one another, we are talking about ethics.

All ethical discussions use a particular method of discourse in posing the question.  One method is known as "teleological ethics" which emphasizes the end result of a particular course of action.  In other words, these ethical decisions are made based on asking ourselves, "what is the likely outcome of our decision?"  If you use teleological ethics, then you might favor someone like Robin Hood, who steals from the rich because the end result is favorable.  The course of action is understood to be good, or in our case, "righteous", based solely on the ending result.

Another method for ethics is known as "deontological ethics" which emphasizes whether the decision is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", "lawful" or "unlawful".  In a nutshell, this method asks whether the action in question is permissible.  If you favor deontological ethics, you would not favor someone like Robin Hood because his method of stealing is inherently "wrong" or "unlawful".  You would much rather ensure that all decisions and actions in a particular course are lawful based on what you consider "law".  In Christian discourse, we will assume Scripture as our primary source of determining what is "lawful".  

A third proposal for Christian ethics, proposed by R. Niebur and accepted by ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, is known as "character ethics" which emphasizes the character of the Christian as becoming holy during a lifetime through Jesus Christ.  This particular proposal is a unique solution for the Christian community, although it could perhaps be used by people of other backgrounds.  In a nutshell, rather than asking ourselves what is the desired outcome, or what is the most lawful course of action permissible, decisions are based on who we are becoming in Christ Jesus.  Instead of responding to the ethical dilemma, we instead ask ourselves, "who are we?" and seek to arrive at a result which is fitting for our character and our identity as Christians.

With this in mind, we turn to our discussion of homosexuality.  First, I recognize that as I am not a homosexual, I am limited on how I can speak to this issue; just as I cannot speak for women or for people of a particular race/nationality other than my own, I cannot give certain answers as to how the homosexual community has experienced this discussion, although I imagine it has been painful at best for millions of Americans to be so passionate about their very personal decisions.  I continue with the prayer that homosexuals reading this will understand that I am not attempting to put words in their mouth; I am merely adding my voice to the conversation as one of many.

I propose that one of our biggest stumbling blocks in the homosexuality debate is how we have launched our ideological campaigns based almost entirely upon deontological ethics, our second option found above.  It is interesting because in most situations, teleological ethics are used in America today, both by liberals and conservatives.  One example is the war in Iraq which was launched eleven years ago.  Those in support of the war, largely conservatives, argued that bringing peace and stability to the country and removing Saddam Hussein from power would benefit the people by improving human rights and quality of life.  Furthermore, a democracy in a Muslim country would have been a model for other countries to follow.  Those against the war, largely liberals and some libertarians, argued that a war would result in loss of life of coalition forces, cost trillions, and would not bring about peace or stability in the region.  What is fascinating is that very few people argued for or against the war based on the very principle of war--is war permissible to bring peace?  Deontological ethics were for the most part thrown out the door in favor of considering the end result.

Now church politics are much different than national politics; this is merely an example of a situation that you most likely recall clearly.  Church politics are similar in the fact that we rarely look to deontological ethics for regular decision-making.  Why is this true?  Probably because very few things in God's creation are black and white, cut and dry.  When we as God's people use the Law in such a way where everything is clear and absolute, then we are guilty of legalism no differently than the Pharisees of Scripture.  But that doesn't give us an excuse to throw out the possibility of ethical decision-making.  In other words, we can't simply allow an ethical free-for-all either.  

The question of homosexuality has been debated as a deontological question, because nearly everybody has the deontological question in mind: "is homosexuality permissible?"  Whether you say "yes" or "no", this is your implied question, and this is true for nearly the entirety of our American society and the whole of the Methodist world.  Lord help us, for we know not what we do.  

Our current debate about homosexuality is going nowhere because we have selected the wrong question, as an entire society, to ask ourselves.  We need a new question, and we need to let go of our old ways of thinking and debating the issue.  We need a mass repentence from this debacle, and it will take quite a while to do this.  However, it is possible through Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom all good things are possible.  Rather than deontological ethics, which have grievously failed us in this debate, we need to consider character ethics as the Christian alternative.

Character ethics asks us this question: "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?"  It may not at first appear to be the question we need to ask ourselves in association with the homosexuality debate, but without answering this question we are doomed to repeating ourselves until we are completely irrelevant.  What kind of church are we becoming?  If we are repenting of our sins, and we are moving towards deeper sanctification, and we are moving onward to Christian perfection, what course(s) of action would we take on this issue?  What course(s) of action might we not take?

If you are reading this post looking for my silver bullet to the debate, then I apologize as I do not have it.  Rather than focusing on what courses of action we ought to take, I would like to list some courses of action I recommend we not take as the United Methodist Chuch, and as individual members thereof:

1. We must no longer accept the dangerous view that homosexuality has one "right" answer in any direction.  Scripture is complicated, and the church is a testimony to the nature of ethics as messy and diverse.  Currently in 2014, among mainstream Christianity, many people affirm very different ethical views.  Many denominations ordain women into ministry, while some do not.  Most Christians are perfectly fine with divorce, even though it is not permissible except in a few situations in Scripture.  And we have no problem as a church fighting wars to bring peace, which is condemned throughout the Scripture in both circumstance and Christ's ministry.  These are all messy debates, and homosexuality is one of those.  Anyone who can come up with a solid, black-and-white answer is not using responsible ethics.  Of course, I am not damning these people; all of us are in this boat together, and none of us is specifically to blame.  We have stumbled into this false debate unintentionally, and it's simply time for us to repent, turn away from our old ways, and be made anew in Christ Jesus.

2. We must no longer consider our stance on homosexuality as a litmus test for one's faith and adherence to Scripture.  Time and time again, online and in person, those on both sides of the debate claim to have the answer to interpreting Scripture correctly to the exclusion of the other side.  The fact is that both liberal Protestants and fundamentalists are probably not using Scripture the way John Wesley used Scripture, and certainly not the way the early church used Scripture.  However you interpret Scripture, you do not hold the only keys to the heart of God.  We believe in a God who loves all of God's children on earth, and seeks a deeper relationship with them.  To say that someone who feels one way or another on the issue of homosexuality is a heretic is rather judgmental and is certainly not in the character of moving towards sanctification.  Yes, we are using the same Bible to reach different conclusions.  Rather than hate one another, we ought to thank God for making Scripture so rich and full of wisdom, truth and direction, and work together to find answers to our challenging questions.

3. We must not allow the possibility of schism to enter into our hearts, especially in response to the homosexuality debate.  If we are to ask ourselves, "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?" then "a divided church" is certainly not the correct answer.  We must accept the tension that stirs in a church of faithful believers who stick together as a family, as the Body of Christ, despite differing views.  In the American Protestant churches, schism, division, and splitting has been the answer for far too long.  Christ instructed his followers to be "like-minded" in all things, not necessarily "same-minded", but alike as a healthy family is like-minded.  We are a community together, and in the UMC, we are connected to one another deeply.  Anyone who seriously walks down the path of schism ought to be reprimanded at the very least, and ought to repent publically and decisively.  However we interpret Scripture, schism appears to be a far worse fate for the church than any decision surrounding human sexuality.  No, the entire world and heaven are not at stake in the discussion of homosexuality; the world will continue to spin and God will continue to be God no matter what decisions are made.

4. We must never forget that all homosexual people are people, and homosexual Christians are just as worthy to have a seat at the discussion as non-homosexuals.  This may sound like I'm targeting those who are against homosexuality in the church, but it's a key point for our discussion.  If God loves all of his people and Christ is capable of forgiving all sins and all sinners, then why should we ever consider discussing homosexuality without "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" at the table?  The grim truth is that far too often homosexuals are not even consulted through these debates. The result is that homosexuals are even more marginalized, which is silly because they are the focus of the conversation.  They are not the "naughty children" at the dinner table--they are Christians!!  And it's very possible that they hold the best answer to the debate, and certainly they can add much to the conversation.  But we aren't listening to them, and that is the problem.  We need to listen to one another, regardless of how different we believe or interpret Scripture.  We need to remember that the purpose of listening is to understand someone else, not to better be able to attack them soon after.

I urge us all to pray unceasingly for this issue, because it will not simply go away.  We need more than ever a single voice of peace and love to the world, even if that voice responds in millions of different ways to the issues that we deal with.  Jesus Christ has called us to be his disciples, his people of earth, that the gospel might resound in all nations and among all peoples.  We have so much more to do, and the time we spend on this issue has already diverted much of our energy and witness.  We must remain united and "like-minded", we must repent of our past, and embrace the future which is God's kingdom here on earth.  May God grant us the courage and wisdom to swallow our pride and allow conversation where difficult and two-sided, black-and-white, cut-and-dry debates have left us hollow and starving for Jesus.