On Monday, October 23, my grandmother passed away due to complications from a stroke. We celebrated her life throughout the week as our family gathered together. My grandmother, or “Mamasan” as we affectionately called her, was a strong force in our family. Like many matriarchs, she had this gravitational pull that affected her entire family. She kept us connected.

I could always count on updates concerning aunts, uncles, cousins, and other grandchildren. I haven’t seen many of my cousins in years. We all live in different cities. One cousin lives in Canada, needless to say we don’t see him very often. But Mamasan kept us connected. I knew what was happening in their lives and that was special. She never let us forget she loved us. She never let us forget we were loved.

Connections matter. Families cannot exist without the links of the heart. We may not always agree, but there is something deep inside all of us that longs for those deep, abiding connections.

After my Mamasan passed away, an email was sent out by Sandy Scaggs in the Bishop’s office. It was an email asking for prayers for our family. Within 24 hours, I had received over 50 emails from ministers and friends – some I knew personally, others I have only met in passing. Within 48 hours, the number of emails had almost doubled. In the time of a deep loss, I was reminded of a great connection that we all share as Christians, and especially as United Methodists.

I will never forget the first time I met with a group of older men for breakfast at my first church. As discussions began, they informed me, “We don’t talk about religion or politics.” They immediately began talking politics. When I asked about the discrepancy, they told me, “Religion and politics don’t go together.”

Politics have been around since the church began. In Acts 6, the disciples appointed Stephen in response to political pressure. In Acts 15, Paul and Peter went toe-to-toe at the Council of Jerusalem debating the future of the church. I have always been amazed when I hear people say, “Politics have no place in the church!” I guess it depends on how you define politics.

The dictionary defines politics in several ways. It can mean, “The art or science of governing” and it can mean, “The art or science concerned with winning or holding control of authority.” Therefore, depending on your definition of politics, it may be appropriate to have politics in the church, or it may be inappropriate to have politics in the church.

In South Georgia, we received the news recently of the new procedure for identifying those who desire to serve as delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conference. The 2005 session of the South Georgia Annual Conference established a policy on elections in an effort to “create a level playing field and be fair with all potential candidates.” South Georgia is joining other conferences in allowing clergy to declare their interest in serving by placing their personal information on the conference website – lay people have done this for years. The conference designed the procedure to be sufficient and preclude candidates or supporters from sending other forms of campaign materials, printed or electronic. This appears to be an attempt to do away with politics as “the art of winning control or authority”. The hope is to allow a political process that will uphold the greatest virtues of our faith and promote unity.

Many in the church have observed the church taking cues from our American culture when it comes to choosing leaders, and that is unfortunate. Our culture emphasizes the polarization of people into defined camps of ideology. The church has followed suit and has drawn firmer distinctions on both sides of every issue. Unity was a primary concern for Paul, but it seems to be of little concern for modern Christians. At times, we seem to be more concerned with winning control than becoming one in Christ.

What kind of example could we set if we chose leaders in a way that accentuated our unity? Could our practice of choosing leaders become a model that would transform American politics? In Acts 1:8, Jesus said we were to be his witnesses to the world. Could it be that our greatest witness is in how we disagree with one another, remain unified, and lift high the cross?

A very wise person once said, “The highest form of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.”

The United Methodist Church exists in a world that is constantly changing, yet we often seem slow to adapt. A few conferences in the United Methodist Church have taken bold steps in redistricting to help local churches in their mission of making disciples. These conferences are attempting to respond to changing culture and demographics. The Florida and North Alabama Conferences come immediately to mind. Florida recently downsized from 14 to 9 districts. North Alabama voted in January 2006 to downsize from 12 to 8. The resulting dramatic decreases in the number of districts were intentional. Both conferences wanted to force the new districts to implement new and radical ways of doing ministry. This past year, Bishop Timothy Whitaker of Florida penned a letter to North Alabama making the case for dramatic cuts in the number of districts. He shared how Florida was compelled to think and act differently about district structures because they made the decision to downsize radically. If they had only downsized by one or two districts, they would have been tempted to engage in business as usual. This would have led to overworked district superintendents and would have proved all the naysayers correct. Instead, they acted decisively which forced fundamental change.

The South Georgia Conference formed a task force in 2005 to study district structures. South Georgia has discussed this issue before. In years past, those who fought against downsizing and restructuring insisted South Georgia’s growth would be hindered if the number of districts were cut. South Georgia has shown more net losses in membership than gains in recent years. Maintaining the number of districts is apparently not the answer for producing evangelistic growth in our conference.

Maybe it is time to think in new, unconventional ways. Maybe we should take a new approach. Other conferences could study North Alabama and Florida to see what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to restructuring districts. North Alabama is asking some challenging questions about the work of districts. Some of the questions they are asking include: “Can a group of elders assist the DS in the supervision of churches and clergy?”; “What projects will occupy the DS?”; “What will be the priorities in the DS’s time?”; “What will the DS say NO to that previous DS’s could not?”; “Will the districts set up an accountability team for the District and who will serve on it?”; “How will the new DS and district keep itself spiritually formed and theologically committed rather than simply administratively, bureaucratically preoccupied?”; “How will the new district constantly evaluate itself and its faithfulness to its mission?”; and, “How will it hold itself accountable to results and outcomes of its work?”

Reducing districts is not a magic answer, but it might be one bold change that could ignite the creative energies of a new generation. It would certainly force us to do ministry differently. It would compel us to utilize new decision-making processes, and call us to work more closely together, strengthening our connection.

Finally, many people I have talked with would like to see radical downsizing of districts solely because it would save money. The financial impact could certainly open up other avenues for ministry and allow the strategic reallocation of staff, but our primary reason behind making these changes should be missional.

Some people might say change for change sake is unwise. Why risk it? Another wise person once said, “If you always do what you’ve always done, then you always get what you’ve always got”. It might be time for a change.

As I perused the annual conference recaps for the Southeastern jurisdiction, I found some interesting paradoxes. The statistics state that only five of the 15 conferences in the Southeastern jurisdiction showed an increase in membership. North Georgia led the way reporting over 4,000 new members. Ironically, of the five conferences reporting an increase in new members, none were able to report an increase in worship attendance (according to summaries listed at UMC.org). Only one conference in the Southeast showed an increase in worship attendance (Kentucky) and that conference showed a decline in membership. However, while every conference showed a decrease in either membership or worship, every conference told wonderful stories! They reported a variety of wonderful ministries, new and exciting opportunities, vitality in new church development, and the continuing development of new leaders. The statistics led to confusion about the state of our church, but the stories led to hope and joy.

What do the statistics really tell us? Is the picture as grim as the numbers say? If we are ever to get a handle on what is truly going on, we will need to adjust our learning processes and cease putting so much emphasis on the statistics. Many in our church scan over our yearly, quarterly, and monthly statistical reports like Wall Street analysts reading the Fed reports. “Did you see so-and-so church lost 30 members the first half of ’06? They must be having huge problems,” we state with scientific certainty. After all, we are children of rationalism and numbers don’t lie. We believe we know the truth because we know the numbers.

The only way you can really know someone is to listen to their story. Margaret Wheatley, in her book Finding Our Way: Leadership for Uncertain Times, states that we tend to treat organizations (churches, in our case) more like machines than living systems (organisms). We look at the output and production and make our pontifications about the state of things in the church. We formulate steps, plans, and methodologies so churches can follow someone’s “Five Easy Steps to Church Growth”. These plans and platitudes treat churches like machines that just need to be operated correctly to be productive. We say the church is a body – a living organism – but we often treat the church like a piece of machinery. It is time to rediscover the stories.

What are the stories behind the numbers? Do we know? Do we care? We can make the statistics say anything we want. We can spin the increase in giving to counter the loss of members in many ways. For example, many of the conference recaps heralded the increase of overall giving for 2005. What many did not clearly state was that overall giving included gifts toward relief efforts for natural disasters. Very few conferences actually paid a higher percentage of denominational apportionments over previous years.

The point is this: Why do we feel the need to allow the statistics tell the stories? Let the stories speak. The stories are rich and powerful. Why does almost every district in our church take half of the monthly district newsletter to list statistics (apportionments paid and net gain/loss in evangelism)? Stories would be better use of our space than statistics. Narratives of resurrected lives speak with more integrity than numbers.

There are stories behind the numbers. Stories of lives changed, hearts reborn, and relationships healed. Let us take time to rediscover the power of stories before we lose our hearing from the cacophony of statistics.

When pastors commit to itineracy at ordination, they understand they are not entering a call system. A call system is a system where churches interview a pastor and extend an offer for employment. In our denomination, a bishop appoints pastors. Churches do not pick pastors, and pastors do not pick churches. The bishop appoints clergy through a process of consulation with the cabinet, churches, and pastors. The Discipline states, “Consultation is not committee selection or call of a pastor. The role of the committee on staff-parish relations is advisory.” (par. 431) This method is, and has been, the understood process by which appointments take place.

Like many institutional processes, there exist manifest policies and latent policies. The manifest policies are the outward, perceivable rules and practices that institutions preach and strive to maintain. In the United Methodist Church, the manifest policy for clergy deployment is this – the bishop makes all appointments. Churches cannot engage in a search for pastors, and pastors cannot petition local churches for a position. Appointments occur following these manifest rules – the pastors and churches may ask for a change, but the bishop will determine who goes where. Ministers are obligated to commit themselves to this particular understanding at ordination.

But as my grandfather used to tell me, “Don’t just trust your eyes boy, they don’t always see the whole story.” The latent policies, those present but not as obvious, reflect another layer of the appointment system. Some bishops give a few churches permission to engage in pastoral searches. On occasion, bishops will allow some churches to send out committees to hear ministers preach, set up interviews, and negotiate compensation packages. Let’s say, hypothetically, that a bishop gives a church in Texas permission to conduct a pastoral search. Hypothetically, the Staff Parish Relations Committee meets and a search ensues. If we keep this imaginary analogy going, the church in Texas might interview a pastor from Georgia and offer him/her the job. Once the terms are agreed to, bishops will “make” the appointment, hypothetically of course. Defenders of the manifest policies will quickly stress the bishops’ involvement in the “making” of the appointment; therefore, they tell us this situation does not qualify as a call situation. We’re told the search committee only served an advisory capacity; therefore, our hypothetical situation reflects the appointment system hard at work. “It wasn’t a call,” they say, “It was an appointment.”

Have you ever heard the saying, “If it quacks like a duck . . .?”

Are these types of pastoral searches necessarily a negative thing? A variety of reasons can validate making appointments this way. There may be special missional considerations or unique congregational concerns. A bishop may wish to give certain churches this opportunity because of exceptional circumstances or extraordinary undertakings. In some situations, this process could strengthen our connection and assist in the Discipline’s encouragement to make appointments across conference boundaries.

Rather than insist that pastoral searches do not occur in our conferences, leaders should be able to clearly and compellingly articulate why one church receives the opportunity to conduct a search for a pastor, but another church does not. It is certainly more comfortable to continue proclaiming the manifest policy. It is easier to tell a church or a pastor, “We don’t do it that way,” or, “That doesn’t happen.” The problem is we have done it that way, and we will do it that way again.

I recently asked my Southern Baptist brother how many people they averaged in worship. He didn’t know. They only count Sunday school attendance in his church. His reply was, “We count the people we can count on.”

Membership is an important talking point. Whether the discussion is the decline in membership, the commitment of members, or cleaning of the church rolls, everyone seems to have an opinion. Does membership matter?

Paragraphs 216 and following in the Book of Discipline give clear, Biblical direction on the nurture and accountability of church members. Did you know that every church should have a membership audit every year? The church is called to keep up with its people. This requires an investment of time, energy, and money, but it is an investment in the people we disciple. If we do not keep up with members of our churches, what does that say about us? Some churches invest more time and money into their coffee service on Sundays than they do trying to regain inactive members. I believe there is something in the New Testament about the shepherd giving up his cup of joe to seek the sheep that was lost. Churches have a responsibility to their members.

Members also have a responsibility to the church. Members should uphold the vows made when they joined. How do we respond when members are no longer committed to their vows? Paragraph 228 outlines how we are called to regain members who are negligent of their vows or who are “regularly absent from worship” (228.b.1). It reads:

“If a professing member residing in the community is negligent of the vows or is regularly absent from the worship of the church without valid reason, the pastor and the membership secretary shall report that member’s name to the church council, which shall do all in its power to reenlist the member in the active fellowship of the church. . . If the member does not comply with any of the available alternatives over a period of two years, the member’s name may be removed.”

Many local churches never engage in this process. Pastors and local church leaders feel their time and energy is better spent on reaching new members, not trying to regain inactive members. Because of this, many churches see their membership numbers increase over the years while their worship attendance remains stagnant. Churches stay with the ninety-nine and let the one disappear through the back door. It is deemed an acceptable loss and an inevitable reality.

Some denominational leaders act as if it is anathema to remove anyone by charge conference action. Some leaders tell churches not to take members off the rolls until new members can replace them. Some pastors and local churches feel denominational leaders are more concerned about the net gain at the end of the year than about the church practicing accountability.

If the Bible teaches accountability and the Discipline outlines a process of accountability, why do we stringently resist engaging in this process of discipleship? Christ calls us to keep up with our people, to minister to them, to pray for them, to disciple them, and yes, to hold them accountable to the vows they made at their membership. Holding members accountable to their vows of membership is just as important in the formation of disciples as our activities in evangelism, stewardship, and education.

Finally, for those who take people off your roll to help decrease your apportionments; don’t waste your time. It is entirely imprudent and probably won’t net enough money to pay for your coffee service. If we engage in this process for any other reason than the reclamation of human souls, we are misguided.

I believe there is much we need to dialogue about in our church. My struggle is determining where that conversation can effectively take place. The Advocate is one of the few public forums that remain for United Methodists in Georgia. First, we must be willing to use this space to engage in substantive discussion about issues in our church. Second, we must get the Advocate into the hands of every United Methodist in Georgia for the discussions to be as effective as possible.

A few weeks ago, we held a class for visitors at our church. As we talked about our church’s connection, we discussed apportionments – why our church supports them fully and the wonderful things they do. One of our visitors brought up an interesting point: Why does our denomination ask for more from the local church than God asks for from his followers? God calls for 10%; our local church is apportioned almost 16% of its income.

Why is the local church required to give more than 10%? I wonder how much more churches could do in local mission and ministry if they kept an additional six percent of their income. What would happen if they used that amount locally for evangelism, mission, or discipleship? Would that better enable us to make the substantial changes we long for in our denomination? Would it reverse the declining membership? We agree revitalization will come out of the local church, not the church agencies and institutions. How could our apportionments better model a tithe? The only way we could achieve this model of stewardship is for annual conferences and the general church to do some difficult work on their budgets.

The general church and annual conferences are very candid about the percentage of income local churches are apportioned. The General Church Finance and Administration website shows that out of every dollar given, 83.2 cents stays in the local church, 12.8 cents goes to the annual conference and jurisdictions, and 4 cents goes to the general church. In my congregation, apportionments are 15.7% of our general fund income. If you include total giving, apportionments are 14.6%. Your church probably pays a similar percentage.

Why are churches required to give more than 10%? The answer is simple. Annual conferences and the general church need more than our 10% to pay their obligations. Healthcare and pensions may be expensive items that we cannot control, but many other expenses were added collectively over the years to accomplish ministry beyond the local church. If we believe churches should only be required to give 10% of their income, we will need to make cuts to our conference and denominational budgets. If we agree collectively that additional denominational expenses are vital, then we should pay 16% since we agreed collectively to support these ministries. Our local church delegates to annual conference make these decisions.

I hope you will reflect on the many sides of this issue. Can we have both a strong connection of vital ministries and local congregations that are able to keep more of their resources? I believe we can.

Moreover, speaking of stewardship let me add this: Churches must model Biblical stewardship by tithing, at least. If your church is giving less than 10% of its income, or not giving at all, you are modeling something to your people. However, it has nothing to do with Biblical stewardship.