Month: April 2012

Why the American UMC Is Dying a (Somewhat) Slow Death, and Concerned Leaders’ Best Response (Pt. I)

Part 1 of this 2-part post illustrates the problem. I hope you’ll continue to part 2, as part 1 by itself may sound merely depressing or hopeless. I have great hope for change, but I believe it will come in a very different form than most are advocating today.

Last year, I had a front-row seat to a cause of the American UMC’s slow death. I write with the hope that we are not too late for change. My final goal is to give advice and encouragement to others working in the system: those not yet ready to give up; those with a great vision, if not hope, for the UMC’s future; those who believe in God’s powerful work through Wesleyan theology, apostolic evangelism, and discipleship unto holiness.

The Problem

The American UMC is a dying institution. This is hardly debatable. Membership and attendance numbers have steadily declined for a century, only mitigated by mergers. The average age of members has steadily risen. No one believes these are the “glory days” of American Methodism, whether measuring by numbers or by religious experience. Given the most recently reported average age of members (57), our death may come more quickly than expected, as the next generation passes and contributions rapidly decline.

In dying institutions, change only comes from (a) a bold, loud leader at the top, (b) the bottom up, or (c) rock bottom. As the below illustration demonstrates, top-down change won’t work without a bold, loud, and trusted leader supporting it. Unless urged by their leader, such a large majority will revert to status quo. The only other time people will embrace change is when they know they are in crisis. Our majority does not yet realize our crisis. By the time they realize it, will it be too late to change our failing status quo?

An Illustration of the Problem

Two years ago, I was asked to serve on a task force for our conference. I declined. I had spent too much time on too many committees that had no apparent effect. But I was assured that this would be different. We had an opportunity to make significant change to a failing structure in the conference – our college chaplaincies and Wesley Foundations. These consume 8% of the current budget. (Those are failing structures that catch the Bishop’s attention!) The Bishop had acknowledged the inherent flaws in the current structure and commissioned a group to recommend major changes. I saw the opportunity to serve on a committee that would make a difference and accepted the invitation.

Over the next 18 months, we consumed no less than 500 cumulative hours of task force members’ time in meetings, teleconferences, research, document drafting, presentation prep, etc. Some members were already among the conference’s experts in this area: one Wesley Foundation director, three former directors, three former board chairs, a college president, and the conference staff person and chairman, who had each overseen this area for the past six years. All agreed that the existing system was fraught with problems and frustration and must change. In time, we developed a plan that would require significant change but allow for great opportunity. The plan gave us hope for starting new ministries, better resourcing some of our most needy existing ones, and providing real accountability where little had existed before.

Last year, we brought our recommendations to the Annual Conference. Some who were unhappy with the new proposal organized an effort to reject it. People stood on the conference floor and talked about the great importance campus ministry had played in their lives, urging us not to make change that could jeopardize that.

In the end, the members of Annual Conference were presented the choice of keeping a system they understood and have seen work in the past or accepting a new proposal that they could not fully understand in the short time available to present it. They amended the new proposal to the point that it looked like that old, familiar system, with a few minor variations. Then they happily approved it. Their amendments essentially mandated we keep in place our failing system.

I already have some regrets about our approach and presentation (e.g. choosing not to share some of the dirty laundry of the present situation), but I believe we were fighting a losing battle from the start.

This experience was exactly what I needed. I was clinging to the belief that significant change in the UMC could happen from the top down. This vote helped me to fully realize that we are a democracy – a large democracy – unready for significant change. Large democracies do not vote for major change. [See, more recently, the debacle that was GC2012.] It brings too many fears. It moves too far from too many people’s comfort. The majority cannot effectively be educated to the point that they understand the problems that make such drastic change necessary and the reasons proposed solutions might do better.

In the end, fifteen minutes of debate trumped 18 months of work. The majority, with little real awareness of the issues we face, voted against the group of experts who were commissioned to solve those issues. Given equal voice, uncertainty and change will lose to heartstrings and status quo almost every time. This proposal was the only proposal for any significant changes at last year’s Annual Conference. Its death serves as illustration of the slow death we are choosing as a denomination.

The Solution

We cannot expect life-giving, course-altering change to come out of a General, Jurisdictional, or Annual Conference. We have little reason to hope that the right task force or committee decision will set us on a great new path. We must instead embrace change from the bottom up, before we hit rock bottom. The following post will address the potential for that kind of change.

Those reading this may sense some frustration in my own experiences, and this is undoubtedly true. Large expenditures of effort with little result are disappointing. Some who have experienced similar difficulties may be reminded of their own discontent. The goal of this article, though, is not to vent my frustrations and encourage others in their own. Instead, I write expecting that many others have experienced — or will experience in the coming months — similar frustrations and are looking for answers.  Part 2 will attempt to provide encouragement and direction for anyone dealing with similar concerns.

Being fed

feed me

feed me“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” John 4:34

“I’m just not being fed.” You’ve heard the cliché. It tends to mean that someone isn’t hearing things that are comforting, challenging, enlightening, or motivating. Or perhaps that they aren’t enjoying something enough. At its base, it expects a passive reception of something that a church leader or church program should be providing.

What if “our food” were the food Jesus speaks of? If our food, like Jesus’, is to do the will of the Father, “being fed” ceases to be a passive reception and becomes an active involvement in God’s mission. It transforms our understanding of Christianity from a focus on prosperity (“What am I getting?”) to a focus on participation in the will of God (“How am I participating?”).

Unity, Holiness, and the UMC Call to Action

“Unity and holiness are the two things I want among Methodists,” wrote John Wesley in February 1766. At a time when the Methodist movement was rapidly expanding, Wesley’s chief desire and purpose was not greater growth, more money to accomplish the work, more influence in the world, or any of the many other strivings that can so easily distract. Unity and holiness were the two things he wanted.

The emphasis on holiness continued for early American Methodists, as a letter written by the Methodist Bishops in 1824 reveals. Its strong admonitions make it worth quoting at length:

“If Methodists give up the doctrine of entire sanctification, or suffer it to become a dead letter, we are a fallen people… If the Methodists lose sight of this, they fall by their own weight. Their success in gaining numbers will be the cause of their dissolution. Holiness is the main cord that binds us together. Relax this and you loosen the whole system. This will appear more evident if we call to mind the original design of Methodism. It was to raise up and preserve a holy people. This was the principal object which Mr. Wesley […] had in view. To this all doctrines preached in Methodism tend. Whoever supposed, or who that is acquainted with the case can suppose, that it was designed in any of its parts to secure the applause or popularity of the world, or a numerical increase of worldly or impenitent men?”

Such strong statements should force the Church today to ask, Have unity and holiness continued to be our greatest goals? Or have we somewhere along the way supposed that Methodism was designed to secure applause, popularity, or a numerical increase of worldly or impenitent men?

The UMC’s Call to Action proposals are far from encouraging. The Call to Action conducted surveys to find out what its growing memberships (in N. America, only) are doing to keep congregations thriving. The survey identified four “key factors of vitality” that had to do with (1) the kind of programs churches have, (2) their involvement of people in leadership, (3) how inspirational their pastors are and how long their tenure has been, and (4) what styles of worship the churches have. In a recent USA Today article about the CTA, leaders talk about providing opportunities for worshipers to worship casually, with coffee and donuts. One pastor compares worship to “going to a mall,” where “some people like specialty shops [and] some like department stores.” The co-chair of the survey’s steering committee says, “[the survey] gives us great hope” because “there are clearly drivers that are absolutely understandable and actionable.” Nowhere does the article mention, or even allude to, unity, holiness, repentance, faith, or even Christ. It is hard to discern how the survey would look different if it were conducted by Kiwanis or Rotary.

Does this survey reflect who the Methodists have become? How often has our great hope been an understandable and actionable business strategy rather than Christ and Christ alone? How often have we depended on donuts and coffee rather than an honest call to repentance? How often have we banked on an inspirational preacher rather than a legitimate call to faith and holiness for God’s people? Or let people off the hook for their lack of holiness for fear of offending? Have we become so focused on offering the world traditional, contemporary, emergent, and eclectic worship services, that we have lost a focus on offering them Christ? And is it possible that these new focuses are the cause of the UMC’s recent decline, not the solution?

If we follow Wesley and the early Methodists in anything, I hope that we might follow them in seeking unity and holiness above all else. If we desire anything for the Church, if we work toward any goal, I hope that it will be these two things above all else. May holiness, that great grace given to us by God, be the main cord that binds us together.