Ordaination Process

This week I was approved by the Board of Ordained Minisitry (BOM) for probationary membership in the Minnesota Annual Conference ... basically the final step before being ordained as an Elder in The United Methodist Church. As I reflect on the process I appreciate what I like about it. I know that for many people the ordination process can be long and painful, but I think it is a really good idea. I like it the process because I think it realizes that ministry is not just about whether or not you are qualified for the job, but whether this is what you are called to do. The hope in ministry is that you and the churches you work with will suceed. The BOM has not only the interests of the church in mind but also you. Too often a job interview is two sides looking out for themselves, the applicant wanting to know what the company can do for them, and the company what the applicant can do for them. With the BOM I felt that people were truly looking after everyone's interests and not there own. I do not think that ordination is necessary for ministry. In fact I believe a great deal of ministry is done by people who are not and never will be ordained. Thatbeing siad I thhink it is imprtoant that ordination is taking seriously. It should not just be seen like a job interview, where the board only has the interests of the church at heart, nor should it just be a rubber stamp, looking after the immediate interests of the applicants. As it is meant to function it tries to look to the long term interests of both, and this is as things should be.

The Dreaded Meeting

I just finished my church's Charge Conference, the United Methodist annual meeting in which all the "important" nuts and bolts of the church is done. What is potentially wrapped up in the meeting is pastor's salary, updating of membership records, and electing people to committees. Now not all churches do this the same way, but what I have noticed is that the committees that we worry about electing people to are the finance, trustees, personal, and the nominating committee. What happens at the charge conference is largely about sustaining the church. What seems to get left out is the ministry.
I should probably place a disclaimer in here: I love committees and meetings. Perhaps there is a masochistic streak in me that has not been fully diagnosed yet, but I love meetings. What I love though is the exchange of ideas and the push for something new.
So what I am pondering is whether charge conference is a "necessary evil" or an under-utilized resource. I call it a "necessary evil" because I do believe that there is a certain amount of nuts and bolts business that must take place for a typical church to function, but at the same time, it is not the most exciting thing in the world. We end up gathering people in the church together for a meeting where their primary function is to listen and then consent to the process. Except for rare exceptions, the decisions are almost all voted on without a single nay vote. The problem I see is that what the church has done is voted to continue the church for another year, but has not really dealt with the ministry of it.
What I want to be sure of is that churches are giving the same emphasis to the ministry of the church as its corporate functioning. I would rather the large annual gathering of the church to be concerned not just with electing officers for next year, but also with voting on a plan for ministry. I do not think the process as a whole is flawed, but I think there is a tendency amongst people to deal with the nuts and bolts of without thinking about the larger picture and the purpose behind those nuts and bolts. In building up the church it is easy to pave over the real reason we are here, the ministry of Christ.

Loyalty and the Church today

I recently meet with a couple to discuss The United Methodist Church (UMC) and what it stood for. In the course of conversation we talked about what it meant to join the UMC. I pulled out a hymnal and showed them the words that are to be spoken at such an event. The line is something to the effect of "will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries?" Given the way that people move from church to church and denomination to denomination over the course of their life, what does it mean for someone to be loyal to any particular denomination? Certianly the UMC does not expect it members to have some absolute loyalty to everything that it does. The church takes far too many positions for someone to be loyal to all of them. So what does this loyalty mean? How is one's loyalty to the greater church separate from the individual church they are a part of? Is it simply a matter of supporting the greater efforts of the church, so praying for and providing time and money towards the grater church in its efforts to build up churches and help people around the world? What does being part of a denomination mean today? I know a couple that was moving. They had been a part of a UM Church in one town, but when they looked at moving to a new town they did not think they would go to a UM church. The reason they give was a recent vote taken that showed a degree of support for homosexuality by the UMC. They were not ready to leave their home church because of the vote, but given the choice they would not join another UMC because of the same vote. In light of such actions what does loyalty to the church really mean? How much of a disconnect is there between the actions of local churches and the actions of the Church as a whole? Other than as an organizational tool for churches, and as a support system for clergy, what does a denomination mean today? I think for myself and how I present church membership to others the question must be a personal one. Each person must decide for themselves what the UMC means to them, and feel comfortable saying that they will be loyal to it and support it ministries. A universal standard is not practical, nor really in my mind advisable.

Declining Churches or Refining Faith?

Over the last four years I have read too many books, blogs, and articles which rail against the mainline churches, their decline, and how this is proof of their failures and a terrible thing. As I start my ministry it creates a great deal of pressure for me. I was born and raised in a mainline church and I believe my home church and my denomination are not failures but still do good ministry. Unfortunately the way to measure success is often placed in terms of membership numbers. For this reason I feel intense pressure as a new pastor to have new members joining my churches. If only United Methodist churches were growing then we would know that we are doing something right. Now, I certainly agree that churches doing something right can be seen as growing, but I also do not see the loss of membership in mainline churches as necessarily negative. In the 1950's and 60's the church was the social gathering spot. Church membership was not necessarily about devotion to God, but also about climbing the social ladder. For this reason I do not think it is necessarily bad if membership is down. I would hope that it can be a way for mainline churches to work on refining their members faithes. Church membership can easily become a measure of trendiness, rather than faithfulness of members. For this reason I think that every church of every type should be looking not just at how many people are sitting in the pews, but how the church is helping to grow their faith. Looking at myself, and relaixing how I am shaped by the culture around me, I wish the pressure was more on developing the faith of people instead of just getting more people. The conversation about the decline of churches does not focus on the staunch faith of a 80 year old, life long Methodist, it just focuses on the lack of Methodists. I think we need to change the conversation from what to do about declining membership to what we need to do about refining people's faith.

Movements to Institutions

Statement of Purpose:

One of the lasting lessons that I have from my undergraduate experience is the tension between movements and institutions. Methodists and Baptists successfully moved across the United States because unlike the "mainline" churches of the time, they did not have the huge buildings that tied them to the East Coast while the people moved west. Over time however Methodists became increasingly affluent and settled down and the church settled with them. A similar tension can be seen in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Groups like the NAACP and the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadship Council) were established groups with hierarchy and bureaucracy. By contrast the SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) was much more of a grass roots group. As I remember these lessons from history I think about the state of The United Methodist Church today. One of the appealling things about the emerging church movement to me is that it gets back to an idea of grass roots. Rather than trying to work through the burdens of existing churches, it attempts to move with the people to were ministry is needed most. But what are the lessons that can be learned from history on this. Certainly the staying power of the the NAACP can be seen while SNCC is no longer around. SNCC was a powerful movement, largely credited with desegrated lunch counters in the Southeast and with adding in vote registration throughout the South. How does the church today maintain the spirit of movement while living in its existing church structure? The answers are not easy to obtain, and maybe only history will tell us, but through this blog I hope to live in the tension and to consider what the church has to offer to us today.