An Endangered Species

In the most recent movie “Star Trek” (2009), a madman from the future goes back through time to destroy the planet Vulcan, which as any Star Trek fan knows is the home planet of the beloved character, Spock.  After which Spock, as acting captain, enters into the Captain's Log,

Stardate 2258.42. “We have had no word from Captain Pike. I've therefore classified him a hostage of the war criminal known as Nero—Nero, who has destroyed my home planet and most of its six billion inhabitants. While the essence of our culture has been saved in the elders who now reside upon this ship, I estimate no more than 10,000 have survived. I am now a member of an endangered species.”

What would it mean to be a member of an endangered species?  Shall we ask an African Elephant or perhaps a Snow Leopard?  Maybe we should ask a United Methodist?  Stephen Rankin suggests as much in his blog post “The United Methodist Church is Imploding” (Rankin File: January 19, 2013).  He specifically says, “As a number of our leaders have pointed out, within ten years at least half of our clergy leaders will retire or reach retirement age.  Financially, we have all but exhausted our reserves.  We have reached our limits.  Institutionally, we are dying.”

I don’t think I have the heart to argue with him, because I too feel that if not dying, then a change so radical is coming that it will not resemble the original organization.  This is really depressing for me, a United Methodist Clergy, hoping for a long career in the ministry—specifically the pulpit.

I have noticed for a while that it isn’t only United Methodists, but many other Christian Protestant denominations in the United States are also diminishing.  In fact, most of the mainline denominations are losing members.  In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center (“Nones on the Rise: One in Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation, October 9, 2012), it is noted that those who list “no religious affiliation” are an increasing demographic in the US culture.  I believe these “nones” are just being honest.  It has long been noted by those who conduct research on churches that the numbers are decreasing.  It would only make sense as to the decrease in membership and the rise of the population there would be an increase of those who claim no religious affiliation. 

So, the question remains—what do you do when you are part of an endangered species?  There doesn’t seem to be a preserve for the endangered species of United Methodist or even Protestant Christian.  As I look to the future it seems kind of sad and grey.  As I have recently begun my doctorate program, I realize that it isn’t only congregations, but Christian educational institutions as well that are facing downsizing and change.  The future seems bleak.

After General Conference 2012, I determined that it really didn’t matter what all the talking heads (and this includes quite a few respected friends and colleagues) think about the future or what the answers might be.  We really don’t know the future, and I think we certainly have no clue as to what to do about the situation as a whole—although there have been quite a few suggestions.  Great effort and energy is being spent on this issue and I am sure some of the discussions will play into what the future holds.  I do not believe, however, any of the answers are 100%, and there is great polarization occurring.  Unless we can pull together, our extinction will only come about more quickly. 

But I know exactly what to do for me and the congregation I serve—my job.  I am, as found in the example of Jesus, to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed, and to announce that the time of the Lord’s favor will come again (Luke 4:18-19).  I will continue faithfully in that regard, encouraging those in my congregation to grow in their discipleship, to confirm their faith, and strengthen them with love.  I am doing this, and I am letting God take care of the future, that is my personal strategic plan.  May God grant us wisdom in the other work we may have to do.

Effectiveness?

A change that has come about at General Conference 2012 (GC 2012) is that ordained elders are no longer "guaranteed" an appointment.  This came about a little over 50 years ago with the ordination of women to ensure that gender was not a consideration on whether or not an elder would have employment in the local church.  Since then it has been argued that it is an avenue for ineffective clergy to coast because even if they were not effective in the local church they would have an appointment somewhere when their church asked for them to move or they asked to move.  I agree with many who are in favor of doing away with security of appointment that accountability is essential.  Just to be clear I have no argument with this.  I also have known those clergy that might be considered ineffective and understand that there is a need for at the very least a plan for improvement, training and in some cases counseling for these clergy.

The following is a response to a blog post by a young delegate to GC2012 that was present when this decision was made.  See her post HERE.  I appreciate her take on this issue, and feel that as she is speaking from the point of view of a clergy spouse she fully understands the ramifications of today's decision.  Here is my reply to her post:


I appreciate that you “have hope and faith that these committees to evaluate the decisions to terminate appointed clergy will be effective.” Of course, as we have learned throughout history faith and hope in humanity can end in disappointment. Thus to ensure fairness in employment we have many civil laws which regulate employers so that employees will have a minimum compensation, equal opportunity in hiring, and the like. Because, as in many things based on the corporate world, it’s all about the bottom line and the profit margin. If they can get away with paying children $.50 an hour, they will.

The truth is that while there are many who feel doing away with guaranteed appointments will raise the bar as to clergy effectiveness, I fear it will have the same ramifications as the standardized testing in public schools. The teachers teach to the test. Extrapolating that to the clergy, the clergy will then feel a need to appear effective without actually being effective. Those who are ineffective understand how to do this. And the bar that will be set will be based on metrics which have proven to be problematic in the ability to measure the work of God.

In actuality there was already a system in place to do away with clergy who did not fulfill their covenant relationship including effectiveness in ministry. This was not something that was unavailable prior to this decision. There does not seem to be any recourse for churches who are ineffective regardless of the clergy placed there, and there is little done regarding laity who do not live up to the covenant of membership. Deacons and local pastors are not guaranteed an appointment but they were also not required to itinerate. This seemed to be the trade off, yet the itineracy was not addressed in this petition.

Until there is a standard for what ineffective means, it is subjective, and therefore, opens the door for discrimination based on a variety of things not the least of which is gender, race, theology, etc. As I female clergy I can tell you that gender discrimination is not a thing of the past as some would have you believe, and in other parts of our connection women are just now gaining some respect from their male colleagues. As I cannot speak from personal experience as to the minority issue, I will not. I fear that this decision will have unintended and far reaching repercussions that have not been considered, but I pray I am wrong.

I have heard from other clergy and laity who are concerned with this decision as there is no mutuality of accountability.  It seems that ineffective churches and laity, are not being held as accountable for the effectiveness of local church ministry as a pastor that is appointed there.  Further, the Bishops are not subject to this as once you are elected Bishop you are Bishop for life.  (Term limits for Bishops were also discussed and voted down at GC2012.)

With this decision as well as the lack of accountability for local churches and Bishops, I am concerned on the following points/questions?

1.  What about those areas of the connection (including the Central Conferences) in which gender equality as well as other discrimination is still an issue?

2.  What about church's who are not effective historically and, as some have pointed out are considered "clergy killers."  Will they be held to accountability as well?  Perhaps not being guaranteed an appointment of a clergy or even being closed for ineffectiveness.

3.  What are the standards for effectiveness?  How will this be measured?  Since there isn't a hard, firm standard it is still largely subjective, and that is a concern to me.

4.  If a Bishop has a large number of clergy not appointed due to ineffectiveness will that reflect on his or her episcopacy?

5.  If a clergy is deemed to be ineffective in one setting, are they free to seek appointment in another conference?  Or does this equate to a "defrocking?"

6.  Why was the avenue to remove clergy from the ministry currently available in the Book of Discipline not considered adequate for encouraging effectiveness in ministry?

Okay, these are a few thoughts/questions I have on this.  Perhaps you have answers or thoughts you would like to share on this.  Please let me know what you think about this issue.

Membership Has its...Responsibilities

Remember the old American Express commercial "membership has its privileges?"  Well, the United Methodist Church could say "with privilege comes responsibility."  In the book, Restoring Methodism, by James and Molly Scott, it is asserted that according to findings by the National Council of Churches in the book Why Conservative Churches are Growing the "primary reason conservative churches were growing was their clear and strict rules for belief and practice, which translated into membership requirements."  The book further stated that conservative did not necessarily mean conservative in the beliefs and practices they were so strict about, and often these conservative churches were liberal in their social gospel. 

Simply put, the churches required something from their members, and so in order to be received into the membership of the church one would be required to attend classes before taking the membership vows.  I personally take confirmation of the youth very seriously and they are required to attend classes before they can join the church, but I have been admittedly lax in this when it comes to adult membership.  A friend of mind posed this question to United Methodist Clergy on facebook, "Does your church require training in a membership class before a person may join?" I would love to, but would feel the need to apologize for those who are already members who do not live up to their membership vows. 

The book Restoring Methodism also suggests that if members are not supporting their church by their prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness, our membership vows, then we should remove them from membership rolls of the church.  John Wesley was known to hold Societies accountable, but he was also known to allow himself to be held accountable.  What do you think it would be like if United Methodist Churches today removed those members who were not fulfilling the covenant vows made at their membership? 

Since I feel the biggest threat to Christianity today are 'token' Christians, those who are Christian in name only and their actions are far from the ideals and teachings of Christ, I think more accountability is necessary.  But how do we bring this about?  My question is how do we get from here (with low or no accountability) to there (where we hold our members accountable and require membership classes to become a member)?  If you are a member of The United Methodist Church, would you be willing to be held accountable to your membership vows?  Would you be willing to take a class for membership?  And would you be willing to take "refresher courses" as you or your pastor felt was needed? 

Let me hear your thoughts on this subject.