Threads from Henry's Web

Category: United Methodist Church

  • Way to Go Omaha 1st UMC

    I really like this:

    Why do I like it? Because besides collecting some help for folks in need, this gives kids a taste of the experience of others. Hopefully it will stimulate their thinking and result in many new ideas as the years go by. We need to harness the imagination and energy of the young!

  • Boldness to be Fools

    Sometimes even when I’m way to busy to be blogging, at least on my personal blog, I just see so many things that point the same direction that I just have to write. This post didn’t start with this quote, but it says something I like to read:

    If our denomination has lost the boldness to be fools, then we do not need new initiatives or new advertising campaigns. We need to recapture our lost zeal.

    That’s from John Meunier, a United Methodist local church pastor and blogger.

    This follows on some discussion of radical discipleship over on GenXRising, who says:

    If we, as Christians, are really worried about declining numbers of the faithful in this land, we should practice a more robust form of discipleship.

    Ouch! You mean we have to mean what we say? Say it ain’t so!

    This all relates closely to a book I’m publishing, The Jesus Paradigm by Dr. David Alan Black, a professor of Greek and New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Indeed, it does appear that there are things on which Methodists and Baptists can agree. [Cue the shock and amazement.]

    To go back to the question, however, here’s what I wrote on my company’s blog right after contracting to publish Dave Black’s book, my third of three points:

    Finally, this book hit the spot because I’m frustrated with the professional church. Practically every pastor I know is frustrated as well. They are wondering why church members don’t get to work, why they don’t serve one another, why they don’t share their faith, and why they fill pews (occasionally, even!) rather than getting involved.

    I like to call myself a passionate moderate–just look at the blog header. I’ve discussed before what I mean by combining those two terms. I never mean that we don’t need to really be who we are called to be. That’s going to take some willingness to get radical on at least one point–faithfulness to what we know is right.

  • The Ministry of Complaining

    I once preached a sermon by that title, and my main point was simply that complaining can be a valuable activity. We need people who notice things that are wrong and are willing to point them out. We need critics. I was reminded of that sermon today when I read the post Clergy Haters from Adventures in Revland.

    There are indeed people who are just going to complain. If you’re a pastor, and new members show up tearing down their previous pastor, beware! In some cases they may have an honest complaint and you may do better. But more often than not, the complainer is going to keep on complaining, only now it will be about you.

    I recall coding a small program together with one of the toughest critics I have ever known. We were doing some simulation. I would propose an algorithm, and he would shoot it down. I’d modify it and he’d explain why it just wouldn’t work. From time to time he had suggestions, but he was rarely satisfied even with his own suggestions. I would finally propose something that was close enough, based on both our input, and once he was that close he would polish it off. I must note that he was the better programmer of the two of us. His criticism, however, was one of two most critical elements for the project.

    But complaining is rarely a ministry. Some might even complain (!) about my use of the word “complain” in this context. But I rather like the effect, so words are just going to have to mean what I want them to, nothing more, nothing less, for the duration of this post! Why is it that pointing out faults and failings is viewed so negatively?

    When I have a manuscript to edit and proofread, I will pay people to read and mark the errors in the manuscript. They’re really useful people: proofreaders. What they do is point out faults and failings, much like complainers do.

    So what’s the difference between those folks and the ones you don’t really want in your church or business?

    When I was younger, I was always told that there was a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism. Constructive criticism, I was told, involves having a solution to suggest to the problem, and not just pointing it out and leaving it at that.

    I’ve had a problem with that for years. I can call the power company and point out that the electricity is off without having any idea what to do about it. As an editor, I can point out a section in a manuscript that is unclear, without necessarily giving the proper wording. In fact, in practice how I approach that depends on the particular author. For one person I might rewrite the passage and let them accept or reject it. For another I might just say, “This is unclear. You might want to work on it a bit.” It just depends on what gets creative juices flowing.

    [For those who are wondering, I have neither proofreaders nor editors for this blog. All unclear passages are the product of my own arguably slightly deranged mind.]

    But I’ve found something better to distinguish complaining as a vice and complaining as a ministry: The person(s) to whom you present your complaint.

    In my sermon I held up the “blue book” which was our church directory. I opened it to the section that listed the committee chairs and members. I pointed out that there were people who were charged with the various ministries and activities of the church. “To make your complaints into a ministry,” I told the congregation, “you first have to take them to the right people.”

    You see, I had a great example handy. I had been leading a Bible study group. The chair of the Staff-Parish Relations committee attended because she was interested in joining. (For my non-Methodist readers, replace “Staff-Parish Relations Committee” with whatever group of people deals with the staffing of your church and interfaces between the paid staff and the members.) A massive complaint session broke out in the study group. I can’t even remember what brought it on, but it was something in the passage we were studying that the group members felt applied to their church. They were pretty negative.

    After a bit I pointed out that we had the SPR chair in the room, and perhaps they should address their comments to her. Now in case you’re thinking that the complaint session broke out because she was there, it turned out that nobody else knew she was the SPR chair. I will provide the excuse that she had only been in that position for a couple of months, but still…

    She immediately said that if they had suggestions or complaints that she would be willing to write them down and deal with them. She already had a pen and paper out and was ready to write. But she pointed out that they had yet to provide her with anything specific that she could actually address. She asked for the specifics or offered to meet with anyone who needed to present something in a private setting.

    Silence descended on the room. So far as I know, no appointments resulted from the meeting. You see, those folks wanted to complain, but they were much less anxious to sit down with someone who was ready to hear them and ready to take action. One problem was that they weren’t very clear on what was bothering them. But I think there was also the simple fact that it’s easy to complain in general to people in general, but when you start complaining to the person with the power, you’re putting yourself on the line.

    I don’t want to downplay the usefulness of combining your complaint with positive comments on things that deserve them and with suggested solutions. But you should also be ready to have your suggestions set aside for ideas brought by others.

    I must tell one other story here about taking suggestions and complains. I once discussed the worship service at my church with my pastor over lunch. We were discussing how to improve a particular service, and grabbing a convenient napkin and pen I outlined five ideas I had. There were things I didn’t like about the service and these were ideas to improve it.

    The pastor implemented changes, five for five. Each change was recognizably related to one of my suggestions, but each had been modified and, I must say, substantially improved. They fit better into the worship setting and connected with the members better than what I had suggested. Basically, that pastor took seed from what I said and grew something much better. The congregation started thanking the pastor for the improved service.

    What did he do then? He gave me credit for the whole thing! If you’re a pastor or a leader and you want to improve the “ministry of complaint” in your church, organization, or business, try that approach.

    Turning complaint into a ministry requires courage. One of the things my wife and I determined shortly after we got married was that we weren’t going to answer for each other when we write, speak, or teach. You many wonder why not. Do we not support one another in our respective ministries and calling? Indeed we do! Are we embarrassed by what one or the other teaches? Well, occasionally, but that’s usually because we’re telling stories on one another. More than one weekend seminar at which we both spoke has been generously seasoned with stories of our courtship!

    But we discovered quite early that in places where people wanted to complain, certain folks would come to me to discuss what Jody had to say. It sometimes happened the other way, but it may be a comment on church culture that it was more likely someone was coming to me. In general, it wasn’t clarification they wanted. The undertone was that I needed to straighten my wife out on some point.

    I should note here that one doesn’t straighten my wife out. She’s actually quite teachable, but you better line your ducks up in a row and get them quacking in unison. Then she’ll straighten herself out once she’s fully convinced. But at the same time each of us is quite capable of responding to questions put directly to us. As soon as I perceived that there were people who thought they could tell me that my wife was wrong and that I’d somehow go and take their complaint to her, I made it my policy to simply say, “If you have a question about what Jody said (or wrote) go ask her.” Nobody who first came to me ever has gone on to take their question to her.

    We were having a discussion about that the other night and it brought me to this point of courage. Can you take your complaint to the actual person you want to complain about? Can you explain it to them? Sometimes there are privacy issues. Sometimes there are issues of retaliation. But most of the time, especially when the complaint is about a pastor, I think there are simply courage issues. The complainer wants to get someone else to do the hard work of telling the pastor he’s wrong about something, not to mention avoiding the embarrassment of finding out it wasn’t the pastor who was wrong, but rather the complainer.

    To be a ministry, your complaint needs to be honest, it needs to be brought to the right person, and you need to bring it with the right attitude. It’s a shock, but the complainer could, in fact, be wrong. At the same time, an honest complaint needs to be heard and dealt with. A little bit of courage to face the person against whom one has a complaint will go a long way in improving your own success, and that of your organization.

  • Some Thoughts on a Methodist Experiment

    Kevin Watson has provided an update on his social media experiment with a YouTube video, which I posted here, and frankly I’m a bit disappointed.

    Now I know that many of us in the blogosphere, and similarly in the methoblogosphere, are wary of getting roped in to publicize something, such as Kevin Watson’s book. I also found some weaknesses in the video itself, though I’m hardly an expert on such things. When I make a YouTube video it has me talking, and well, more of me talking.

    Having said that, however, my video Why I Hate the KJV has 3,456 views and 227 comments, despite being much lower quality than the video we were promoting in the experiment. Don’t compare those numbers directly, however, because my video was posted April 8, 2008. On the other hand, about 1500 of those views occurred within the first couple of weeks. If you look at my other videos, however, about 200 views is great, and many stay in the low double digits. But those videos are not subject to an experiment, and lack any quality production–I do them in my office on a home machine.

    My question to the Methoblogosphere is whether we would every be willing to be harnessed just a little bit to discuss a particular topic. The comments could be positive, negative, neutral, or any other adjective (other than abusive, I hope!), but we could really discuss some single topic. I’m not going to start an experiment, but the idea would be to seriously and broadly discuss a single topic as the Methoblogosphere. No, I’m not expecting 100% participation, but it seems like it could be bigger than this.

    I’m also well aware that we won’t agree, and that most of us, including myself, do not wish to be harnessed as a publicity engine for Nashville. On the other hand, if Nashville puts out a program, wouldn’t it be nice if people could get on the web and find comments from a variety of perspectives when they’re deciding whether to use it in their church? (Hint to Nashville: Send me a free copy and I’ll review it!)

    My interest, however, is more in seeing some more elements of community and connection in the Methoblogosphere. Am I nuts, or is there some potential in here somewhere? I have no illusions that I’ve got anything like a fully fleshed and clothed idea here. Let the criticism fly!

  • First UMC ICON Service

    A few days ago I posted a video about the new service being offered at my home church, First United Methodist Church of Pensacola.

    Yesterday I attended the first service. We ran out of standing room and about 80 people had to be sent to the other service. I am very interested in the concept of the service, which combines strong traditional elements of liturgy with technology and contemporary music and art. In fact, one of the characteristics claimed for the service is “art embracing.”

    I will confess that “art embracing” isn’t at the top of my personal list, but I think it must be a priority in a service that will serve the generation after mine, and also people who are more visually oriented than I am in my own generation.

    The preaching continues to be great, and the preaching was one of the reasons I joined First UMC. Dr. Wesley Wachob and Rev. Geoffrey Lentz (who is kind enough to remind everyone that I was his first Greek teacher, even when I forget to!) are both very adept at the sermon form.

    I was most impressed, however, with the was the program came together logistically. It looked to me a great deal like accomplishing several impossible things before breakfast, and then piling on a few more before lunch. The only major issue was one that resulted from the overwhelming success–it was crowded. I’m guessing that the leaders will have their own long list of things to make better; that’s just who they are. But I’m just impressed with what was accomplished.

    Well done!

    PS: I wrote the devotional for my wife’s list this morning, also about this service. She was unable to attend due to work, and so asked me to write a response.

  • Experimenting Methodists

    OK, as this is an experiment, and it involves the United Methodist Church and Wesleyan theology, I’m going to play along. I have serious doubts about the validity of the results. The question is this: If some agency of the UM church put out a video and it wasn’t an experiment, would I be on board to publicize it? The answer would be “maybe.” It would depend on whether I thought the message deserved sharing, and origin in a Methodist agency is no guarantee of value.

    Kevin Watson at deeplycommitted has started an experiment to see how much social capital Methodist bloggers have. This experiment was prompted by the feeling among some Methodist bloggers that United Methodism does not always do as good of a job as it could at getting the Wesleyan message out there, particularly on-line. So, he wants to see how many views a YouTube video can get if Methodist bloggers work together to promote it. The experiment is to see how many hits the video will receive in two weeks.

    If you want to participate you can: First, watch the video below. Second, copy and paste this entire post into a new post on your blog and post it. Third, remind people about this experiment in one week.

    Based on the results of the experiment, Kevin will get in touch with the folks at Discipleship Resources and let them know the ways in which Methodist bloggers are often an underused resource.

    Here is a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ISKTrScpzQ

    HT: Adventures in Revland

  • First UMC to Launch New Worship Service

    There’s a new thing coming at an old church–a worship service featuring contemporary music, embracing the arts, while also celebrating traditions of worship. It’s called ICON. Here’s the 30 second television ad:

    HT: First UMC.

  • On Being a Liberal Charismatic Believer

    I found a new blog (for me) this week via John Meunier—To Him Which is Yes. I was particularly attracted by the post John linked to, Bringing back belief.

    Jack Burden, the blogger, tells the story of how he silenced a committee meeting, doubtless an extremely useful skill under any circumstances, but the point is much more important. In discussing who they thought would make the ideal member for their church, the committee members listed a number of things, all of them good, but the suggestion that the ideal member should be a believer silenced them.

    I think this should strike committed Christians as a problem, but I don’t think that those of us who deal with mainline congregations should be surprised by it. A friend of mine once commented to me that the main attack form of liberals is intellectual ridicule, while the main attack form of conservatives is moral condemnation. I’ve since had several conservative friends point out that many liberals are quite capable of moral condemnation, and I know the reverse to be true as well. Belief often does not stand up well to intellectual ridicule.

    But there is an entire category of Christian church members who are there because they ought to have a church to go to. It’s traditional in their family or community. They want to be known as “church going people.” Now I could expend many words on the notion that “church going” people are better than other categories of people. But there are certainly communities where “church going” is a helpful attribute to have in doing business. Being a true believer? Not so much!

    These people often will, out of duty, attend church fairly regularly, participate in activities, give to the church budget and special projects and many other things. Since I have already noted that I don’t think “church going” necessarily describes a better class of people, these folks may well be doing all of the good and moral things called for by discipleship.

    The open question is this: Why do they do these things in a church?

    I’m sure there are many answers to that question. Liberals are more frequently accused of being unbelievers in church, but I’m not sure this is a liberal/conservative thing. Amongst people that I know, there are very committed believers in both the conservative and liberal camps, but there are also people who are simply checking the right boxes on their checklist in both camps. I have no idea what the proportions are outside of my own experience.

    I’m going to be teaching a Sunday School class in less than two hours (the Tifounden Class at First UMC of Pensacola). I taught this class for a few weeks last year, and I was invited for a return engagement with the specific task of discussing the subtitle of one of my books: Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. In particular they’re interested in the combination of “liberal” and “charismatic.”

    There are so many ways I could go in discussing this. The title “liberal charismatic” was bestowed on me by someone who didn’t like me at all and was looking for a good insult. When I floated it as a subtitle for my book, quite a number of people–friends–said, “That’s you!” Even my wife said it, so it must be true! I prefer “passionate moderate” myself, but one doesn’t always get to choose one’s labels. One should note, of course, that I didn’t fight this one all that much.

    So what, exactly, is a liberal charismatic? I was playing around with many ways of describing what I would mean by liberal, and what I meant by charismatic. The person who first used the phrase to describe me meant that I didn’t accept all orthodox doctrines, and also believed that all gifts of the Spirit were to continue in the church to the end. He was particularly offended by the idea of a prayer language, which is certainly a controversial topic all around.

    But when I read Jack Burden’s post, I realized something else. The label “believer” has never bothered me. In fact, I have insisted on it. I even occasionally use “true believer” of myself. Why? I confess that, unlike some Christian apologists, I cannot prove that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that God communicates to us through scripture. I can’t even match the gentler (and better, in my view) form of apologetics that claims that the evidence is sufficient to make this the best option.

    I’ve made the leap of faith. While I am quite unadventurous physically, in the spiritual sense I looked out over the chasm as did Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, closed my eyes and put my foot down on empty space. I think my foot landed on that hidden bridge; others think they hear the echoes of my screams as I fall. Ah well, it’s my leap of faith, after all.

    I don’t mean that there is no evidence at all. It’s just that there wasn’t enough evidence to make me certain, intellectually, of the destination. At the same time my experience means that I believe in God because I experience him, in a way that differs fundamentally and completely from intellectual assent, I know that there is a God. If that means I’m less intellectually sound, then, well, I’m less intellectually sound.

    But I remain liberal in the sense that I don’t believe this means that I am somehow more right than others about the attributes about God or about a doctrinal system. It doesn’t mean I’m a better person than my friends who believe differently, or not at all. It is simply an honest statement of who I am.

    I was once asked by an agnostic if this meant that, in order to become a believer of my sort, he would have to have his own private hallucination. I told him that bar the slanted terminology (I don’t prefer “hallucination”!) that was pretty much where I was coming from.

    I’ve told the story on this blog before, but let me tell it again. When I joined my first United Methodist congregation, I was attending Bible classes at one church, and attending church at another. I had a hard time choosing. When I discussed membership with one pastor, he told me that he didn’t care what I believed. If I would enjoy their fellowship, feel free to join. What I believed didn’t matter to them. The other pastor asked me what I believed regarding Jesus and why. I joined his church. Belief is very important to me.

    So for me, the “liberal” in “liberal charismatic” means that I’m doctrinally open. I am skeptical of my own ability to know substantial amounts about God. At the same time, for reasons that have so far escaped my powers of rational explanation, I believe that when I know (1 Corinthians 13:12) I will be happy with that knowledge. I’m charismatic because I believe that God’s presence is not variable, but our awareness of it is. God is as present today as he was on the day of Pentecost. (Perhaps I should call myself pentecostal, but that would be much too confusing!)

    That’s it, not in a nutshell, but as close as I get to one–a bit over 1200 words. Is it any wonder I hear this or similar questions so frequently that I decided to write a book just so I could hand it out to those who ask?

  • UMC Prejudice or Inertia

    I’ve watched with some concern the posts by John the Methodist, and more recent commentary by John Meunier on the same topic. There are things I would like to say, but I’m hampered by a complete lack of knowledge of the particulars.

    This morning I read Shane Raynor’s report, and he has some rather interesting things to say. For example:

    Granted, I don’t know every little detail, but I’ve looked at the key documents in John’s case, and at the very least, it appears that there have been some errors in judgment by conference officials.

    Well, OK, in general I’ll take Shane’s word for this. I am also well aware that it is a major blow to be in candidacy for ministry for that period of time and then to be cast aside. It’s the sort of thing that concerns me. The one time in which I was involved in such an issue there was an individual who needed to be told before he [generic-I won’t reveal gender] got too far into the process that success was unlikely. It was the view of various folks concerned that this individual would not make it all the way, but nobody wanted to simply get up and say, “No, this isn’t going to happen.”

    The individual in question withdrew, and I believe one of the reasons was that I told him success was unlikely and why I held that opinion. I was not on any of the committees involved, but would have had to vote on the candidacy in the administrative board.

    The reason I go to that length is simply that I was deeply disturbed that so many people were willing to say privately that an individual would not make it, and yet would not speak out, cast their vote according to their convictions, or simply tell the individual in question, “I don’t think this is your call.” I can tell you that I’m stubborn enough that if I felt a person was called, but would have difficulty with the various stages of candidacy, I would certainly vote in their favor, but we’d have a conversation in which I’d make sure they understood the hardships.

    I don’t know how common it is, but in that case there was a massive failure to take responsibility for one’s convictions, and that can only work to the detriment of a would-be candidate. That disturbed me deeply.

    Now it seems that John the Methodist’s situation is somewhat different. He not only made it through candidacy, but he began to act as pastor, and he is apparently quickly discarded. The sound of it disturbs me. The process had to go through many stages up to that point, and many people have seen a call on this individual’s life, and thought he would make a good United Methodist minister, yet here he is out the door.

    The UMC is so decentralized in organization that it’s hard to hold people in leadership accountable. We are also so decentralized in doctrine, that there is almost no doctrinal accountability. Even where we agree on what the rules are, we cannot enforce. Personally, this decentralization was one of the features that attracted me to the church. I like a great deal of freedom. I like debate. I like people to feel free to express their views and take action.

    But ever since I joined my first UMC congregation, I also see a dark underbelly to all of this. Doctrinal freedom gets carried to the point of incoherence, to a point where one cannot really say just what a United Methodist is. Then freedom gets curtailed not by explicit positions, but by cultural prejudices.

    OK, that last line cries out for definition. I’m speaking strictly from my experience. I’ve noted that one can believe next to nothing, and be a United Methodist. At the first UM church I considered joining the pastor cut me off when I wanted to discuss the belief and practice commitment of the church. “We don’t care what you believe. If you enjoy our fellowship, you’re welcome to become a member.” That’s wonderfully open, but what’s the difference between joining and not?

    While I am generally very tolerant of various beliefs, when one forms a group, there has to be something that defines what that group is.

    But there is a definite “anti-freedom” possibility when one doesn’t define what is expected–the group may expect things that are simply not written down and have informal ways of getting rid of non-conformists. That has been the case in some churches with charismatic members. I have seen the hierarchy exercise much greater concern over the feelings of more traditional members than over those with a charismatic tendency.

    At the same time I have heard both conservatives and liberals express their intention to keep the other camp out of the ministry, and both groups express their intention to keep charismatics out. Fortunately I’ve also observed that they often fail in that goal. But the question is how many people are hurt along the way.

    I personally lean toward the more liberal wing, and I find it quite inconsistent for liberals who desire to celebrate doctrinal diversity to attempt to exclude any wing of the church.

    Now all this presumably has nothing to do with John the Methodist. At least I don’t know that his theology was involved. But the issue of having comprehensible lines of authority and persons who can be held to account by the membership does apply, I think. And that’s where our very limited executive authority in the church comes into play. I like it, but when you want to get something done, it can make things difficult.

    Hmmm. My word count is approaching 1000, and all on a topic on which I said I had limited (read: next-to-no) knowledge. I wish John the (ex-)Methodist all the best. He is in my prayers. I also pray for my church and denomination. If John the Methodist were in my conference, I would certainly contact the relevant committee members to see what might be done.

  • Methodists and Evolution

    I reported some time ago that the United Methodist General Conference had passed some resolutions in support of evolution and opposing teaching faith based ideas in the public school science classroom. There’s a story in the Fort Wayne, Indiana Journal-Gazette about how this happened and the role of a local church member.

    I have observed some people trying to get resolutions passed at annual conferences or occasionally at General Conference and the process is somewhat difficult and I know that the individuals involved put a lot of work into the process. It’s nice to see people willing to be that involved. I do note that it seems that resolutions from general conference have little weight in practice.

    I would say that in the four congregations of which I have been a member, for example, the social principles only played a noticeable role in the most recent, and even there many members would probably be surprised to learn that there are social principles. (For non-UM folks, let me note that the social principles are only one area in the Methodist discipline which I’m using as an example, not the full statement of our doctrine and polity.)

    Perhaps it would be a good idea for Methodist pastors, teachers, and church leaders to refer to the social principles and other portions of the Discipline and Resolutions even when we don’t particularly like what they say, as will inevitably happen.

    Two early experiences of mine in the United Methodist Church come to mind. First, after I had read the relevant portions of the United Methodist Discipline prior to joining my first Methodist congregation, I asked the pastor about the social principles. I pointed out certain ones with which I could not agree. “Oh, the social principles,” he said, “we don’t really pay that much attention to those here.”

    The second was teaching in the same church, when I was asked to teach about the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian Perfection. I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and SDAs have a substantial bit of Wesleyan in background and doctrine, so I was acquainted with Wesleyan theology. I looked up what we had in the Discipline, and included it on slides for the class. I found that of those attending (perhaps 40 or so), only the pastor and I were aware that there was such a thing as the doctrine of Christian perfection.

    It’s the Methodist doctrinal position with which I am probably least comfortable, but I would have thought more people would be aware of it. My guess is that pastors know their members are not comfortable with “perfection” in just about any form and just prefer to let that one slide.

    And just to get back to the topic in the title, I suspect evolution comes under the same heading. Why get into the debate if you don’t have to?