by Rev. Kent Ingram, First UMC Colorado Springs
Reserve Delegate to General Conference
How we are structured is important. But maybe not that important. As I read through the many pages of proposals for different structures of the United Methodist Church I had a deep, sinking feeling. This may not make any difference at all. We will spend countless hours debating, perfecting, approving, and implementing a new organizational design. But will it, really affect the way you and I do ministry as laity or clergy in our local churches? I am trying to be not too cynical about this, but…
So I don’t have a grand proposal to organize the church that will cure what ails us. But I do have the beginning of an idea that might force a structural change, and I’d like to offer that as a place to begin another conversation. Before I begin, let me say that I do believe in the connection. I do believe that we can do some things better together than we ever can alone. I do believe that it takes concerted, unified efforts to change systems of inequality and oppression. I am not asking us to abandon our historic social concerns and just focus on ourselves. But I also believe that a hierarchy acting in a disconnected way from the local church will enact little effective or long lasting changes. In other words, we need the local churches to be the “feet on the ground” for significant social change. We can model the change we support.
Having said that, I want to remind us that the Call to Action Committee claimed that the adaptive challenge to the United Methodist church is:
“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.”
Part of me wants to laugh, or perhaps cry, to think that we spent thousands of dollars to figure out that the flow of resources should be directed to strengthening churches rather than judicatories. But any of us in the church at the local church level has understood that often we are treated as if we are there to serve the conferences and not the other way around. But I digress…
So how do we focus on fostering vital congregations? I think it begins with our leadership. I want to ask some hard questions. These questions are not directed at any individuals, but to the system. What happens if out Bishops see as their primary responsibility to pastor, teach and equip “their” congregation? By that I mean the members of their annual conference, particularly the clergy. What if the ministry of the bishop centers on teaching us, leading us in worship, challenging us to grow in our understanding of the faith and to deepen our commitments to the ministry of the church? Sort of like what we clergy do with our congregations.
I have been in the ministry for over thirty years. Not once have I received communion form my bishop. I have been in services where they presided, of course. But never have they looked me in the eye and said, “Kent, this is the Body of Christ broken for you…” I yearn for settings where the Bishop can engage their congregation in deep discussions of the church and of beliefs, so we can better teach our folks. I want to work side by side with the bishop in a mission project, well you get the point. If, as I tried to argue in my last blog, one of the functions of a church in the wilderness is to learn their story, I can think of no more important role of the Bishop than to be teachers of the faith. What if the main job was to pastor the pastors?
As far as District Superintendents go, what if they take seriously their role as the extension of the Episcopal office? What if they are the onsite folks who can help us in specific ways to do our ministry? Here is where the accountability piece comes in for me. I need to be held accountable, but frankly my local church will not hold me accountable for the things that are important. They want to know if people like me, are my sermons interesting, do I get along with older people, do we pay our bills…if so then things are fine. I need to be held accountable for dynamic and transformative worship. I need to be held accountable for mission and outreach opportunities in our community and the world. I need to held accountable for learning and discipling opportunities that are deep and meaningful. I need to be held accountable for the pastoral care of our folks. But this can’t happen with a once a year visit. I need someone who knows our church ministry well enough to point out what we do well, and then help us in our weaknesses.
Here’s one of my heresies. I think we don’t have ENOUGH bishops or ENOUGH District Superintendents. If we want the flow and energy of the church directed to local ministry settings, we need to have enough leaders in place to lead.
I see a place for the larger work of the church being done by our Episcopal leaders. But it’s what they do in addition to their primary responsibility. We have elected wonderful bishops to perform the managing of the church. This idea requires that we elect bishops who can lead, teach, pastor and hold accountable their congregation.
So, if we begin there, how does a structure look that supports this type of Episcopal ministry? Are our leaders serious about redirecting the flow towards the local churches, or will we be concerned about the power, position and prestige of the office of bishop? I am aware of the danger of putting too much power in the hands of the general boards and agencies. I am aware that the bishops would ask me, as one has already asked, what responsibilities do I give up to do all of this? I said, you give up what doesn’t get done!
I know this is sketchy and incomplete. I have no “big picture” to offer that is any better than any of the other plans. But I am convinced that no real and lasting change will occur until our leaders lead theologically and until they lead locally.
I am looking forward to your ideas, thanks for the discussion.
