I tried to watch one afternoon of General Conference online, but I have to be honest – it reminded too much of CSPAN. After about 30 minutes, I had enough. The way we engage in dialogue as a whole in the United Methodist Church is not uplifting. The old adage from Otto von Bismark holds true with General Conference, “laws are like sausages . . . it is better not to see them being made.”

It is disappointing to see a forum where the biggest issues of our church are decided in an arena where debate is limited to three speeches for and three speeches against. No offense, but some of those six speeches are made by people who have no business ever taking the microphone in the first place. One thousand people dealing with the biggest issues in our church for a few minutes every four years – not exactly an effective way to dialogue with one another. And don’t confuse a four hour debate on homosexuality as substantive dialogue. Those hours are filled with amendments, amendments to the amendments, and other parliamentary procedures. No dialogue about the issue. No dialogue on issues of retirement age, candidacy processes, homosexuality, the number of bishops, sacramental authority to deacons, continuing (again) the study of the ordering of ministry. Granted, there are small committees that discuss these issues, but the larger body only addresses major issues a few days every fours years. Is this an appropriate amount dialogue to guide the direction of our church?

Rev. Robert Beckum, General Conference delegate from South Georgia, echoed this thought in a video interview that can be found at the South Georgia Conference website (www.sgaumc.com). Robert feels the nature of the process is flawed. The business is done in three minute sound bites. This is not a good formula for thinking through issues before the church. It may be the way we’ve always done it, but that doesn’t make it the best way to do it. I agree.

We need to create more opportunities for dialogue. Mistrust is fostered when we fail to listen to each other. I have always been an advocate for yearly, pre-Annual Conference discussions in every district. If the floor of an Annual/General Conference is not the place for dialogue, then let us create a space where substantive dialogue can occur. Here is an example: This June, South Georgia will bring a motion to change how we calculate local church apportionments, taking the membership factor out – 100% based on finances. Delegates will have many questions, but no time to address them all. There will be three speeches for and three speeches against. Then we vote to determine apportionments – 14% to 18% of every local church budget.

We must provide forums for dialogue about the issues. Pre-conference meetings, town hall discussions, district and conference days of dialogue, and other meetings on issues are all needed. We need to talk, but more importantly, we need to listen to each other. We should in engage in more holy conversations.

“How long have you been the pastor?” a visitor asks.

“Ten years,” I reply.

They look back at me with a little uncertainty. “You’re a Methodist preacher – I’m sure they will move you soon.”

I’ve been hearing that refrain for six years. People remember the days of moving Methodist preachers every four years. The old Methodist adage was, “After four years, if the pastor is good, it’s time someone else had them. If the pastor is bad, it’s time someone else had them.”

Considering the decline of our denomination, it is clear that our churches need leaders who can manage effective change. A major ingredient in managing effective congregational change is tenure. Let me be clear – tenure without shared vision and shared values is like a pool of stagnant water – it may be there a long time, but it produces nothing. Effective leadership shares an investment of more than time – the leader shares vision and core values with the congregation. As leaders build vision and values over time, trust grows and trust is the key ingredient in the dynamic relationship required to manage change. Serious, fundamental change (described by some as “frame-bending” change) can threaten the identity of the church. Congregations will not take a chance on losing their identity with a leader who they feel is not a stakeholder. They need a leader who understands the identity of the congregation – someone who is invested in that identity. If they feel the pastor is looking ahead to the next move, why would they enter into a time of disruption? Why would a church go out on a limb while the pastor remains on the ground?

Some pastors constantly look ahead to the next appointment – they move every four years. After 20 years in ministry they say, “I have 20 years of experience.” No, they have four years of experience five times. Churches are also guilty of a “four year and out” mentality. One lay person told me, “We are a four year church – even if we like the pastor, we make a change.” Then he wonders why his church has been in decline for 20 years. Pastors and churches with four year mentalities change very little. How can preachers and congregations learn and develop through conflict if they make a change every time the going gets tough? If they part ways when things are difficult, what do they learn? If a pastor moves every four years, where do they gain the leadership skills needed to lead a church through multiple stages of development? It takes more than four years to enact substantive change.

In The Second Coming of the Church, George Barna states, “The average tenure of a pastor in Protestant churches has declined to just 4 years—even though studies consistently show that pastors experience their most productive and influential ministry in years 5 through 14.” A long term relationship (tenure), rooted in vision and values, builds trust. Trust is a required to manage substantive change. Tenure matters.

I’ve been blessed to serve on the South Georgia Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM). We’ve undergone many changes in how we evaluate clergy for admission into conference membership and ordination in the past several years. The process is more difficult now than when I went through, but it assures the conference that candidates have an understanding of Wesleyan theology and a command of the core competencies of ministry.

On the BOM, we joke about how glad we are that we do not have to go through the process now. We don’t really mean it – or do we? Think of the benefits to our church if all ordained clergy were required to periodically go through a recertification process. Many other professional vocations (with less impact on people’s personal lives!) require continuing recertification. At minimum, other professions mandate a certain level of continuing education.

In my time on the BOM, I have also served as the continuing education chairperson. While many take continuing education seriously, some do not. Do you know what happens if a minister does not attain the required number of CEU credits? Nothing. There have been attempts in South Georgia and other conferences to put teeth in continuing education policies. In South Georgia, the response was overwhelmingly negative to the idea of holding elders and deacons accountable for continuing education. The primary resistance was from the ministers! Can you imagine the response to a recommendation for some type of recertification?

Continuing education alone may not be enough. Let’s say a certain minister is not a strong preacher, yet a gifted administrator. Every year he/she looks for continuing education opportunities in administration, after all, that may be his/her passion! They learn a great deal, but all this new expertise in administration doesn’t seem to increase worship attendance. What’s wrong? They are, after all, fulfilling the requirement for continuing education.

Candidates interviewed by the BOM must show proficiency in the areas of theology, preaching, teaching, pastoral care, personal life and psychological health. They provide credit reports, criminal background checks, and divorce paperwork. We evaluate the whole person on the way in – and never again.

But look around your conference and ask yourself – which ministers have undergone the most recent disgraces? The large number of controversies and failures come from those who were approved years ago, or who have never been approved at all. Many live without accountability in both their personal lives and their public ministry.

Don’t hear me wrong – this is not about running people out of the ministry. On the contrary, I think the best system would be more akin to how we evaluate probationary members. If we find an area needing work, we make suggestions and offer help. We give time, resources, and training. We bring them back the next year to ensure they have followed the recommendations. Wesleyans emphasize accountability, holiness, AND grace. Our goal should never be a witch hunt, rather a covenant of accountability that builds the kind of church that can transform the world.

The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church met in October. They reaffirmed a decision by Bishop Schol in the Baltimore-Washington Conference that has caused quite a controversy in the church. Rev. Drew Phoenix will be allowed to continue serving in his/her appointment. If you are not aware, Drew Phoenix used to be Ann Gordon. Ann underwent a sex change operation and returned to her church as a “him”. When Drew returned, he/she found the Baltimore Conference asking the question, “Can a transgender person serve as an elder in the United Methodist Church?” There isn’t anything in the Discipline about this issue, nevertheless; members of the Baltimore-Washington Conference wanted the issue addressed. The Rev. Kevin Baker asked for a ruling of law from the Judicial Council to determine if a transgender person may serve under appointment. The Judicial Council examined this request and their ruling shocked many United Methodists. The Judicial Council affirmed Bishop Schol and stated Rev. Phoenix could remain under appointment.

The Judicial Council did not look at the issue of whether Drew/Ann was eligible to serve as a transgender pastor; rather they stated “a clergyperson’s standing cannot be terminated without administrative or juridical action having occurred and all fair process being accorded.” Simply put – an elder cannot be removed from their appointment without a charge or a complaint filed and a fair process followed. Since the issue of a transgender pastor is not addressed in the Discipline, and the conference brought no complaint or charge, Rev. Phoenix could remain appointed. (See news sites at www.bwcumc.com, and www.umc.org )

Now here is the salient point: due process is a vital part of our tradition – as United Methodists, as Americans, and as Christians (don’t forget Paul’s appeal to Rome in the book of Acts!). I understand completely the attitude that states, “Why should we need any kind of complaint/charge against Drew Phoenix? He/she is obviously in violation of scripture and that should be enough for removal without any kind of due process.” We hear this comment and many of us may agree. But let’s think about this. While some issues may seem clearly out of bounds, others are quite muddy. Who will pick and choose who leaves and who stays? Whose interpretation of scripture, doctrine, and polity will make these determinations? Will we leave that in the hands of one, two, or twenty? No, we need a collective and prayerful time of discernment. We must uphold a fair and due process outlined in our book of Discipline. We may all agree that our church polity is slow and often frustrating, but it is structure that provides a measured and prayerful response.

Next year’s General Conference will be flooded with petitions to address the transgender issue in our church. And I imagine Drew Phoenix will be removed at some point in the future. But it will not happen by the whims of a few in the middle of the night. No, when Drew leaves, we will all know that due process was fairly and justly accorded.

Benjamin Franklin said: “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Franklin was obviously not a United Methodist. Each year, when pastoral appointments are made, bishops must do one thing. They must appoint every elder in good standing to a church. Methodists call this a “guaranteed” appointment.

The General Conference Ministry Study Commission, which will present its report at the 2008 General Conference, states,

“The Discipline affirms that “all elders in full connection who are in good standing in an annual conference shall be continued under appointment” (¶337.1). This is described as a “guarantee” of appointment, as if it were an entitlement for which one achieves permanent eligibility or an insurance policy on which one has paid the premium.” (Q84.2, page 33)

The Discipline never uses the word “guarantee”. In most jobs, a yearly performance review is required. If you don’t meet the standards of the company, they send you on your way. Accountability is a Biblical teaching, yet where is the accountability for elders? There is none. What happens if an elder doesn’t get their continuing education? Nothing. What happens if an elder is ineffective? As long as they don’t break the law, they are sent to another congregation.

The Ministry Study Commission continues, stating:

The Discipline’s affirmation of continuous appointment should be read, rather, within the context of the elder’s order of mutual support and accountability, which commits its members mutually to a rigorous program of covenant group participation, lifelong learning, and professional growth. Continuous appointment means continuous practice of the disciplines of the order. . . (Q84.2)

Elders should be held accountable. How, you ask? It may surprise you to know that the Book of Discipline provides a process for the assessment of an elder’s competence and effectiveness:

“Allegations of incompetence, ineffectiveness, or unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties” are to be referred to the board of ordained ministry. A fair and just process of review is described and a variety of “remedial actions” are listed (¶362). The Commission urges bishops, district superintendents, and boards of ordained ministry to use these processes to address the performance of persons who do not meet the conference’s professional standards, and to help such persons find an appropriate place of ministry among the many ministries of the whole people of God. (Q84.3)

The study commission makes some good points. Local churches and district superintendents could file complaints against ineffective elders. Bishops may have to appoint elders, but they don’t have to appoint them at the same salary level and they certainly are not required to grant a pay raise if they are ineffective! Historically, ineffective elders are not appointed to lower salaries – they move laterally and some even receive pay increases. Why would an elder change if they know they are assured of a place to go and no reduction in pay?

Is there an elder that shows incompetence, ineffectiveness, or an unwillingness to perform their duties? There is a remedy and it doesn’t require sending them to another unsuspecting congregation.

On June 19, the United Methodist Church released its “State of the Church” report (find it at www.umc.org) The report stated that United Methodists are firm and consistent in their beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and salvation, but differed on how important mission and service are to personal salvation. The research was conducted by the Connectional Table (established at General Conference) which interviewed over 2,600 Methodists.

A few interesting facts from the report include:

• 35 percent of United Methodist congregations consistently report growth
• Between 1995 and 2005, global membership increased more than 34 percent, with the largest increases occurring in Africa and the Philippines

It’s true, the United Methodist Church overall is growing. That is great news! Almost 40% of all churches consistently report growth. But at the same time, it is true that the United Methodist Church in the United States is in decline. Denominational leaders in America decry the decline of our church membership. But is membership the key to evaluating where we are? What are the signs of vitality for a local church in the United States?

American Methodist leaders emphasize “net gain” in membership (along with apportionments paid, which is another discussion). The church in the United States has become inculcated with the belief that a “net gain” in membership is the most important sign of church vitality. This presses pastors to add as many members as possible while removing no one from the rolls. This leads to some systemic problems, one of which is a lack of commitment required from members in a church – a problem for all mainline congregations.

The Book of Discipline (Paragraph 228) gives the process of regaining inactive members. The purpose of the process is restoration. The desire is to see members recommit to the vows they made at membership. If they do not respond after two years of effort, they may be removed by Charge Conference action. But this hurts the “net gain”. So, while some denominational leaders may encourage pastors to regain inactive members, they don’t want you to actually remove any members.

This mindset is reinforced each year as the Cabinet report laments how churches are taking people off the rolls. The most overused phrase (and anticipated applause line) of the Cabinet report is, “churches seem to be more concerned with taking people off the rolls than bringing people into the church. . .” They decry the practice without realizing they are helping to reinforce a culture that builds churches with little required commitment.

This may be one reason we have so many churches that will take in many new members, yet their ratio of worship attendance to membership continues to decline. These are the churches we reward. Some of these award winning churches get barely 22% of their membership in worship – yes, 22%!

Two numbers are reported each month in our district newsletter: “net gain” in membership and percentage of apportionments paid. Leaders establish the culture. The foundation has been laid. What constitutes a vital church?

Annual Conference strikes me very much like Thanksgiving. The anticipation builds as you prepare to spend four days with the extended family. The excitement lasts about half a day until you look across the dry turkey and realize you will be spending the next three days with Uncle Harold. Harold snores, and because of the cramped sleeping arrangements, I have to share a bunk room with him.

As we gather our extended Methodist family together, we’ll deal with a lot of issues and those issues will raise questions. You may find yourself asking the same questions or some new ones:

• Does any Conference Committee on Finance and Administration actually say no to new funding requests? Does any CF&A Committee actually know how to remove something from a budget? It’s great they hold the budget to a 2% increase each year – but 2% every year for eternity adds up. Remember this – when delegates vote a conference budget increase, they vote apportionment increases – that means tough budget decisions at the local church level. Apportionment increases, pension increases, health insurance increases – the local church cuts programs and pay raises to make it fit – what does the conference cut?
• If selling alcohol on Sunday (the Lord’s Day) is a moral issue, then why isn’t selling alcohol on any other day not a moral issue? Saturday is the Sabbath. Christmas Eve is on Monday in 2007. Good Friday is on, yes, a Friday. In America, isn’t it a moral issue to deny people the right to vote on this issue? That’s all the legislature wants – to allow local communities to choose.
• On a lighter note, isn’t it great that Annual Conferences now do a day of service in the host cities? Isn’t it even greater that they offer a golf tournament that raises money for charities on the day of service? (Especially since those folk would be playing golf on the day of service anyway?) Now that was brilliant!
• Do I really want to vote for a delegate who wants to go to General/Jurisdictional Conference too much?
• Isn’t a night off at Annual Conference terrific? A night of free time to catch up with friends over a relaxing dinner and night out – it’s more brilliant than the golf.
• Could we go one year without actually forming a new committee or task force? If we do establish one, is it too much to expect them to do their work in one year?
• Why does the Cabinet report have to tell us how many miles they drove last year? Do I need to know how many times they would circle the globe? Just a thought – if you leave that kind of stuff out, your 15 minute report might actually be 15 minutes.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Annual Conference. Getting together with the extended family is a wonderful experience. Just don’t fault me for being glad when it’s over – it’s nothing personal – I just don’t care for the snoring.

“No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for you stomach and your frequent ailments.” – 1 Timothy 5:23

“They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor which was actually what I was eager to do.” – Galatians 2:10

Which is a larger issue for the Kingdom of God? 1) That the Georgia legislature wants to give local communities the right to vote on Sunday sales of alcohol, or 2) That on March 31, no new children would be added into Georgia PeachCare, a state health insurance program for children in poverty?

In the past few weeks, I have received numerous emails asking me to help stop Sunday alcohol sales. The emails encourage me to contact my state senator and ask him/her to stop the Sunday sale bill. These emails are the only ones I have received from the various commissions concerned with morals in Georgia, so I can only assume they believe Sunday alcohol sales to be THE primary moral concern currently facing our state.

I have not received one email asking me to contact my representatives regarding the funding of Georgia PeachCare. Is this a moral issue worthy of a call to action? If unfunded, poor children will be uninsured in our state. Fortunately, our legislators have approved using surplus Medicaid funds to supplement the federal shortfall. PeachCare will continue for now, but what happens when the reserves run out later this summer?

What about other issues before the Georgia legislature? Are there any moral issues worthy of emails that call us to action?

I’ve received no emails about a bill for stricter laws toward sexual predators making it unlawful for them to photograph minors. I’ve heard nothing about a bill to increase the state minimum wage. That bill never made it out of committee. Would an email to Methodists have made a difference for those who need a living wage? What about a bill that would give greater protections for disabled persons unable to grant consent in sexual crimes? What about $100 million that was set aside for land conservation in 2005? Did you know that money is tied up in a revolving loan fund that is attracting very little interest? That means only $4 million of the $100 million set aside is used to protect our environment.

These bills, and hundreds of others, are moving through the legislature in 2007, but it seems a bill for the Sunday sale of alcohol is the only bill worthy of a call to arms. The Sunday sale of alcohol is an attractive enemy. Agencies and commissions who fight for moral issues can raise more money for their organizations when they send out a clarion call against alcohol. I just hope we don’t miss the opportunity to speak out and act on some substantive, moral issues confronting the poor and oppressed in our state.

It is enough to unsettle the stomach. I know what Paul would prescribe – just don’t purchase it on Sundays, please.

To run, or not to run – that is the question.

It’s not what Shakespeare had in mind, but for some clergy and laity, the thought of being elected to General Conference can be one of the highest privileges of our church. It is a great honor, and it is a great commitment.

Laity, and clergy in many conferences, are allowed to put their names forward on the conference website with a 300 word statement about their beliefs and positions on issues. The deadlines for submitting names in North and South Georgia are upon us. Electing delegates will be the major work of this year’s annual conferences, so each conference should begin prayerfully considering who would best represent the voice of their conference at the General and Jurisdictional Conferences.

This will be the first time clergy in South Georgia will submit their names to indicate their interest in being elected. While almost all elders and deacons can be elected, South Georgia’s delegates will probably come from this list. Some clergy in South Georgia may feel uncomfortable putting their names out, but I hope all who feel led to serve in this capacity would participate fully in the process.

For all potential delegates, consider one word – commitment. Be aware of the following (taken from North Georgia’s website):

• The General Conference lasts for two weeks, followed by the North or South Georgia Annual Conference which lasts one week and the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference which lasts one week. Altogether delegates to General Conference need to commit four weeks to these three conferences within the three months time period from April 21 through July 19, 2008.
• There will be numerous meetings of the clergy and lay delegates, usually a full day Saturday meeting per month during the year following election of the delegates.
• The General Conference, in particular, requires extensive preparatory study plus long hours of meetings during the two weeks the General Conference is in session.
• Most delegates find that the per diem provided by the General and Jurisdictional Conferences does not cover all costs of being a delegate, and have to use personal funds to cover some of their expenses.

Prayerfully consider the commitment demanded of you. While a great honor to represent your conference, it requires a tremendous amount of time, energy, and personal resources. If you are unable or unwilling to fully participate, don’t submit your name! Years ago, I heard of someone who got elected knowing they would not be able to attend the next year’s conference. That is not fair to those who trust you will represent them with your presence. If they wanted the alternate to serve, they would have voted for them!

If the Lord moves you, submit your name. Be a part of making the United Methodist Church the best it can be. But be ready! With the responsibility and all that is asked of you, you may not question your existence as Hamlet did in Act 3, Scene 1, but you might come close!

We are one.

Since the moment God created us and walked among us, we have been connected to God. Since God declared, “It is not good that we be alone,” we have been connected to each other.

Connections matter. My family gathered together for Thanksgiving from different parts of the state and country. We shared food and fellowship together. My family connection matters, because it is a connection that makes a difference. Family connection reminds me where I come from and who I am. It reminds me that I am someone worth beholding even when I feel worthless.

My family does not always agree. We have Calvinists and Wesleyans. We have Georgia and Georgia Tech fans (which carries more weight than theology some years). Even in the differences, there is something inside all of us that longs for deep, defining connection. This mystical, family connection is larger than any individual. How is it that I gain strength, love, peace, and joy from this connection even though we do not agree on all things?

Last General Conference; our United Methodist family talked of schism. Some stated, “We can’t get along on the issues, so let us divide our assets and go our separate ways.” That sounds like divorce. I am amazed at how easily we will throw around the idea of “amicable separation”, as if any separation of one body can be amicable. Try convincing someone it is in their best interest to be split in half. Not even TV know-it-all Dr. Gregory House can repair that breach.

United Methodists are family. We are not a perfect family – no family is. There are the good aunts, the obnoxious uncles, grandpas who tell the same stories every year, young cousins who think they know it all, mothers who always have a place for us, and fathers who stumble over words attempting to articulate their love. In spite of all the differences –

We are one.

Whoever said it was impossible to live together with differences? Scripture doesn’t teach that. In Ephesians 4, Paul writes, “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I Peter 3:8 states, “all of you, have unity of spirit.” I have not been able to determine how Christians can use scripture to justify breaking apart the body of Christ.

Will United Methodists’ great and noble achievement be that we split our family? I hope not. I hope our great witness will reveal how we lived together with differences. There exists too much fear and isolation in the world without the church contributing to the disconnection. Christ came to do away with that. Let us be the church that stands strongly for what we believe, while proclaiming our unity. As for me, I will stand with my family – even my Uncle Teed and the others I may not see eye to eye with. For the love of Christ and for the love of the world let the Church proclaim boldly –

We are one.