A New World, and Its Detractors

A New World, and Its Detractors

One of the most exciting things I’ve witnessed, in the Council of Bishops, is the bishops’ “Call to Action.” The bishops have heard the plea of the UMC for leadership to do throughout our connection that which has already been done in all of our vital congregations – simplify and focus our structure and realign our resources, so that more emphasis is placed upon mission and upon fruit.

Our Council President, Bishop Greg Palmer (a student of mine at Duke and someone who spoke at our SBC21 meeting last year) states what we hope to achieve through these measures: “To redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”

All of the proposals – a long overdue restructuring of general boards and agencies, shared accountability for ministry by sharing of results from the Conferences (using the North Alabama Dashboard as the model!), a set-aside bishop to coordinate the work of the bishops, and cost cutting measures – have one goal: vital congregations.

I wondered if the Bishops’ proposals went far enough, if were being appropriately rigorous in our focus on mission, but when I read fellow South Carolinian, Tim McClendon’s attack on the bishops’ plans, I realized that we were on the right track.[1] Tim dismisses our dreams as a mere “business model” that “is a smoke screen to hand more power over to the Council of Bishops,” praising our church as organized like the Federal Government![2] Our church is now imperiled, says Tim, by an insidious power grab by the bishops. We’re afflicted with a power-hungry episcopacy who wants a set-aside bishop, a “quasi-pope,” says Tim.

Tim has no proposals for church revitalization other than to require bishops to work more in their annual conferences (failing to note that the Discipline makes us superintendents of the whole church). He shouts that bishops ought “to be set-aside in their annual conferences!” saying, “We all know how little time bishops actually spend in their annual Conferences.”

I’m sorry that Tim thinks his conference has an absentee bishop, but I don’t think anybody would say that in North Alabama. Tim’s prescription for better leadership by the bishops is for us to spend more time staying in the homes of our people and “making personal connections” -- which Tim thinks is the chief requirement for effective leadership.

Note that Tim has little concern for the whole point of the Call to Action: vital congregations. His unfocused, rather predictable plea for the status quo, his unconcern that most of our congregations are in decline, and his disinterest in accountability for fruitfulness is the same sort of resistance we encountered a few years ago in North Alabama. Thank goodness that our conference had people who, unlike Tim, resonated with the bishops’ call to “Make Disciples for Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the World,” or we wouldn’t have gone anywhere. I’m so thankful that when I said that we could do better, that we were going to remove impediments to growth and fidelity, no one trembled in fear at a power-grabbing bishop!

In my eight years as bishop, I’ve heard no one anywhere complain, “Bishops are too powerful.” The complaints, from those who care about our church’s future is, “Bishops have got to step up and lead,” and “Someone must take responsibility for giving our church a different future than the one to which we are doomed through our present way of doing business.”

I am confident that there enough frustrated United Methodists -- who have languished at unproductive board meetings, who have watched helplessly as one congregation after another quietly slips into death, have prayed that someone would cast a vision and move forward – that the Call to Action and its proposals by the bishops will be gratefully received by General Conference. If we listen to those who ignore our plight and protect their status quo, we deserve the bleak future we’ll get.

Of course, I might think like Tim if I had not been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to be in ministry in North Alabama. I urge Tim to see first hand what a conference looks like that takes more seriously Jesus’ mandate to make disciples than it attempts to plod along doing ministry as usual. There’s a reason why our conference was at the top in the percentage of Vital Congregations – the Holy Spirit has helped us to let go of some old ways of doing things, to hold ourselves rigorously, publicly accountable for the actual results of our ministry, and to focus our financial resources on vital congregations rather than on defense of unproductive structures, pastors, and congregations.

We’ve got a long way to go, but at least we are on the way. All that the Council of Bishops asks of the church is permission to go forward, to bless the general church with some of the practices and values that we have pioneered in North Alabama, and to give us what we need to be faithful to your call for us to lead the church.

 

Will Willimon

 

[1] “Restructuring proposal is bad medicine for UMC,” Tim McClendon, United Methodist Reporter, Nov 8, 2011.
[2] “Our polity is based on the separation of powers,” an a-theological view of our polity indeed.

By: William H. Willimon On 2/13/2012
Topics: Weekly Message from the Conference

Comments

1. Wade Griffith wrote on 2/13/2012 2:40:15 PM
Proverbs 29:18 I wonder if the UMC actually believes this statement. I do.
2. Russell Freeman wrote on 2/13/2012 4:47:51 PM
The title of this article could have been "A New World, and Its Detractor (Tim)" My guess is there are others who have issues with the "Call to Action". Perhaps Tim is easiest to single out because he is an episcopal candidate and he has voiced and published his opinion. I am praying that the body chosen to represent the UMC in April will be led by the Holy Spirit. I am also praying that our differences in opinion and vision as we prepare for General Conference do not lead to personal attacks. I would encourage anyone who has questions to check out Tim's website, blog or to contact him personally. http://www.apottersview.com/ http://www.timmcclendon.org/ In Christ, Russell
3. William H. Thrasher, Ph.D. wrote on 2/13/2012 8:59:15 PM
As i read the New Testament, I find plenty of evidence of episcopal authority and a hierarchical oversight of church governance. I do not see congregational governance in Scripture. In fact, there should be no democracy in church or church life; ours is a theocracy of episcopal oversight and direction. I think we need more of such a method of governance and less or congregational rule from the local church up to the Council of Bishops. The Holy Spirit will guy our leaders. He always had guided those who seek him and his leadership. This system is the biblical method.
4. Rev. Joey Reed, OSL wrote on 2/14/2012 4:30:17 PM
I think there's room for discussion here, and for separating some of Tim's ideas, good from the bad. I resonate with his call for "in-house bishops" working within the conference to better understand the issues surrounding appointments, local and regional leadership, and creating a visible connection to the broader church. I do not agree with his assessment of the Call to Action. The Call to Action is a statistical method of emphasizing the need for basic, authentic, disciple-making ministry. The General Church provides the accountability and oversight (as they should) and the appointed clergy provide the work to accomplish the selected goals. Bishop, I am encouraged to hear that you are working in and through your Conference. I hope that there are many others in the episcopacy who are following your example. Tim raises an excellent point there, despite missing the point of Call to Action.
5. Katie Dawson wrote on 2/14/2012 5:05:25 PM
I think it is important for us to not lump all kinds of criticism together and to have a dialogue about these topics. Thanks Russell for posting a link to some of Tim's perspectives - it is helpful to hear what the concerns are from his perspective. But Bishop, I wonder why you are focusing just on this one critique. I don't have major problems with some of the proposals, including the idea of a set-aside bishop. I do think we need more accountability. I agree we need to be risk-taking and creative and adaptive. However, one of my criticisms of the Call to Action is that worry we are not accurately measuring vitality - or rather, I disagree that the measures we are using are the best metrics for the making of disciples of Jesus Christ (not members of the United Methodist Church... but disciples of Jesus Christ). I have been working with my small town/rural church for four years now. We have turned our focus not only deeper into our faith but also further into our community. We are developing strong lay leadership in our congregation. But in four years, our worship attendance has fluxuated and has not grown. Our membership remains the same as it was when I arrived. I know that folks in my church have deepened in their discipleship and their faithfulness to God and can tell you stories about how they are transforming the community we are in, but there are not always numerical ways of demonstrating those realities. So my critique is asking the question - how do we do that? I am asking if the metrics we are using are the most faithful to our mission as the United Methodist Church... are there others we should be looking at in addition to or instead of some of the ones we use. And how do these drivers/metrics reflect urban and suburban realities as opposed to rural congregational realities?
6. Rev. Holly Boardman wrote on 2/14/2012 6:55:43 PM
I too have serious qualms about the Call to Action. I agree that the church needs to undergo some major restructuring, but I question this particular proposal. Many years ago, I read a comment by Richard Foster, to the effect that MONEY taken the role that the Holy Spirit SHOULD have in the church. And sadly, I agree with him. We are scrambling and arguing about money and resources, and the prosperous folks are the ones with power. The proposal from the IOT will hurt MANY people, and congregations. I believe this is the WRONG direction. Instead of looking to coroporate America as a model for our restructuring, I would prefer that we learn from a proven sustainable model for a Christian church. It seems to me that we could learn a great deal from our Roman Catholic friends. In that structure, clergy are primarily priests and pastors--NOT corporate CEO's. Catholic Charities is a great organization, and religious orders make room within the church for radical, devoted Christians. Their model would need to be adapted for Wesleyans but I think it is a better model for us than Kraft foods. I have submitted a petition to General Conference that I believe offers a badly needed reform. If adopted, it will begin to change our value system so that clergy are not constantly working to increase their salary and power. It is attracting a great deal of attention from central conferences, and I believe offers some real hope for reform. Please see my blog posts on A More Equitable Salary, and Choosing to be Middle Class. http://hollyboardman.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/a-more-equitable-salary-petition-to-general-conference/
7. Ed Tomlinson wrote on 2/15/2012 10:32:42 AM
It is personal attacks as this one against people who have honest points of disagreement with the bishops that make me sure I do not want to hand the bishops more authority. The balance of powers in our denomination keep representative voices at the table and affirm our collective wisdom.
8. Nat wrote on 2/16/2012 3:06:35 PM
Bishop Willimon, with all due respect, if you "speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, your are only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Corinthians 13:1). As Bishop, do you really believe that you have no duty whatsoever to teach, model, and practice gracious and civil behavior in HOW you express disagreement with others? Where is your love, Christian integrity, or basic honesty in launching such a mean-spirited, ad hominem, character-attacking, and strikingly dishonest personal attack on someone (who I do not know personally and you do not seem to, either) by declaring that you infallibly know his heart, and have seen that he does not care about vital congregations or about making disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world? Where is your humility, and willing to admit when you yourself have been wrong, taking a break from your vitriolic denunciations of others? How does your stooping to such a level, Bishop, do anything to promote Christian discipleship and more deeply love-knit Christian unity within a denomination increasingly divided by internal walls of hostility, suspicion, and anger? Bishop Willimon, is your intent to try to intimidate United Methodists from having thoughtful discussions of various restructuring options, by sending the message across the church "If you not just blindly follow your bishops, but dare to ask questions or try to offer any alternative ideas--however thoughtful, constructive, or well-intentioned--know that I will come after you with a similarly angry, unloving, condescending, mean-spirited, and above all SELF-rigteous public attack not so much on your ideas but on you as a person and your character"?
9. Nat wrote on 2/16/2012 3:23:27 PM
Bishop Willimon, I note that before when you have been challenged to offer any semblance of leadership in our denomination with regard to biblical faithfulness in the important area of human sexuality, you have repeatedly refused to do so by asserting that you did not have to say much because GBLTQ activism is not very strong in North Alabama. In other words, you seemed to essentially portray yourself as just a diocesan bishop, NOT a bishop of the whole church. Now it seems that all of a sudden you are saying that bishops are to be bishops of the WHOLE church (which indeed is your Disciplinary duty), but only when that supports a plan that would increase the power of bishops. Am I missing something? I think the question a lot of United Methodists have is, before we grant our bishops even more power (which let's face it, our bishops by objectively already have far more power in the UMC, especially with the top-down appointment system, than they do in any other major denomination in this country), is what have our bishops done so far with the power they already have? Have they been courageous in leading us to greater biblical orthodoxy, even if that might offend secular liberals? In their treatment of non-bishop members of the UMC, including articles like this one, how have our UMC bishops modeled Matthew 20:25-28? Does an angry article like this, coming from someone who enjoys a very high salary at the cost of the general church, sound more characteristic of a lord of the Gentiles or a Christian leader, in that passage?
10. William H. Thrasher, Ph.D. wrote on 2/16/2012 7:02:21 PM
Admittedly I am not as involved in ecclesiastical politics as some of you who have posted above this post are involved. I simply rather do the work of a good soldier of Jesus Christ and keep my hands and eyes focused on the goal that lies ahead, and is yet enjoyable even now in this life. From my perspective, Bishop Willimon has focused the resources of our Conference to make us a better Conference and to redirect us on making these disciples. Like the centurion, I have been in authority over people and with people in authority over me. Perhaps some of these harsh remarks aimed at our bishop, and maybe even beyond him and projected onto others, are by people who truly do not understand the principles of authority. I am greatly bothered by some pointing fingers at Bishop Willimon with accusations of a lack of love and having foul intentions. This is a man who lost some of his best friends during the Haiti earthquakes and elsewhere at the same time. Yet, he found the time to call me because a former student (and current friend) of mine was killed in an accident while duck hunting. As I fought from weeping on the phone, Bishop Willimon shared his grief and used our shared emotions and sense of loss to focus our energies on the mission of Jesus Christ, and function of Holy Spirit by comforting others. He is not deserving of this open criticism. Remember 1Timothy 5 and Scripture about addressing episcopal authority.
11. Nat wrote on 2/17/2012 1:42:04 PM
@ Dr. Thrasher. Thank you for sharing your personal story. I am sorry to hear about the loss of your student. I certainly did not say that Bishop Willimon was "unloving" even towards his friends. And for the record, I did not declare that Bishop Willimon had "foul motives" in his intent - rather, his posting such a public article raised some serious questions that I was inviting him to answer. In contrast, note that Bishop Willimon claimed to infallibly know that another clergy leader does not care about vital congregations. Dr. Thrasher, I am honestly confused by your citing 1 Timothy 5. That passage seeks of accountability for church leaders "without partiality" - which I think would mean that how close someone is to us should not let us excuse sin on their part. It says that we should not entertain an accusation against an elder unless verified by two or three witnesses. Are you saying, Dr. Thrasher, that Rev. McClendon's alleged sin (which the bishop tells of was not caring, in his own heart, about vital congregations) was verified by two or three witnesses? On the other hand, Bishop Willimon's writing such an article (where my own criticism focused) was a public act witnessed by countless witnesses. Dr. Thrasher, do your concerns for biblical respect - an avoidance of unfounded accusations - for church leaders extend to elders like Rev. McClendon? Dr. Thrasher, if we are concerned with "harsh" words in disagreement, would you not want leaders like Bishop Willimon to use his lofty position to lead the way in modeling gracious civility in HOW we express disagreement? I also note that in this article Bishop Willimon harshly accuses Rev. McClendon of lack of concern for "disinterest in accountability for fruitfulness." Bishop Willimon, I must ask, do you as a bishop seek accountability for how you exhibit the fruits of the spirit, especially in your treatment of other people?
12. Dr. Lloyd E, White wrote on 2/20/2012 11:58:30 AM
Bishop Willimon should have had a conversation with Tim instead of trying to communicate through a blog. It is apparent that Will has some issues with Tim's thoughts. I believe Will should quit hiding behind his pen.
13. William H. Thrasher, Ph.D. wrote on 2/20/2012 12:34:45 PM
@Nat: my biblical concerns are the exhortations of how to address or redress someone is ecclesiastical authority. The Word says that one who teaches and is a leader will be held more accountable than those who are not. Holy Spirit will deal with the bishop as He deems necessary. If those under authority have issues and disagreements with the one in authority, then those issues should be addressed directly to that person. If this does not work, then petitioning through ones DS for a meeting with the cabinet or for a meeting with the various DS and the bishop, or a tirade of DS and the bishop is the proper and biblical way to handle grievances. To address, redress, and dress-down one in authority in a public forum is not the biblical standard for dealing with such issues. I am under authority and will not publicly correct anyone in authority; I will go to her or him and speak directly. In the local church, we have the SPRC to address issues with the pastor instead of church members publicly calling him or her out on the carpet. This is biblical. So is the same principle in redressing one in authority over us.