North Georgia AC Day 2 Official Wrap Up

An exciting, busy, historic day full of Methodist conferencing was held in Athens GA. See NGAC 2011 Wednesday for the official report.

Official North Georgia Annual Conference Report- Day 1

In addition to my more personal view of the conference from last night find the
Day 1 Official Report from North GA UMC.

North Georgia UMC Annual Conference 2011- Day 1

Imagine a family reunion complete with worship, church business, elections, ordinations, networking, and LOTS of eating and meeting and you'll have a good idea of a United Methodist annual conference meeting. This year is a little different with delegate elections for the UMC General Conference in 2012 which gathers UM delegates from all the conferences across the world, and in our case, delegates for the Southeastern Jurisdiction of the UMC which will do business including the important working of electing bishops.

Some of the main activities of Day 1 includes the official business of the Board of Ordained Ministry, & then the clergy in executive session acting on the BOM recommendations. This includes the mix of receiving the names of those clergy newly commissioned or ordained, hearing the names of those who are retiring, and hearing of a great variety of situations ranging from continuation of education or status to changes of status in relationship to the conference. You see, in United Methodism clergy aren't members of a local congregation but are members of the conference, and that makes this a family reunion in many respects as it may be the only time in the year that we see each other.

A new twist that I'm experiencing this year, and really enjoying I might add, is keeping up with other delegates through Twitter. I've never really gotten into Twitter, though I find that it allows for a level of conversation, immediate response, and everything from humor to good insight that you might get with a friend or two in your row though seldom with 30 friends at once!

Tonight's worship is the ordination service & is always a favorite as families, friends, churches, and the conference gather to ordain the deacons and elders who have fulfilled all the requirements of the North Georgia Conference and have already proven themselves to be effective in ministry. Tonight will see 6 full connection deacons and 18 full connection elders be ordained!

Bishop Watson shared some words for them, and for all the clergy in executive session this morning, that got my attention: "This is our holy calling. This is our work. This is our covenant." So, we welcome these new full connection clergy into the family, and we too are renewed and challenged in this holy calling.

And this is just Day 1 of our 4 day Annual Conference! More news tomorrow as we get the results of the first ballots, as we see if there is any impact from caucus groups, lists, texts and tweets of lists, local pastors voting, etc.

The List of Lists

Ah, June- the heat, the humidity, the church elections!

I'm on vacation and have had time to 1) catch up on some home projects, and 2) think about the larger United Methodist Church and our upcoming elections. This really has been a struggle for me as I've tried to approach it prayerfully, spiritually, with a focus on more than merely the relational or political. That's tough though in a very large conference when you don't have much information or know where potential delegates stand.

At this Annual Conference (June 14-17) of North GA UMC we, like all other annual conferences, are preparing for delegate elections for General & Jurisdictional Conferences. The UMC always has a lay & clergy delegates to gather in conference. While laity announce they are interested in being elected in North GA, and then share some basic information with the lay delegates, the clergy are all electable and therefore no one officially "runs." We don't advertise this, we don't fill out a form, but conversations grow over the months as we get closer to these elections held every 4 years. It's easiest to vote for people you know, who have high visibility, or who have the backing of some group of clergy you know.

I'm not running, & while very interested in the near future of the UMC, am neither a potential delegate nor a "king" maker. I'm a deacon mission pastor who loves the UMC and wants to see us do our best work. Serving in Augusta, which is 2 1/2 hours from the conference office in metro Atlanta, I'm barely in the conference! So, the challenge for me is to know who's interested in being a delegate, & that's why I've asked with interest who's on a list (since we don't use a clergy self nominating process which might include a brief bio, their vision, & a photo so you might know the face). In years when I've shown up at Annual Conference not knowing who's "on the list" it would take a couple of ballots to know what was going on & by then a number of the delegates would have the numbers to be elected while it would also become more obvious who might emerge to fill out the rest of the delegation. I vaguely recall around 30 ballots the last time or two we went through this!

Yesterday I received a "combined nomination list." This shared 50 names of clergy vetted by an All Women's Clergy group, the African American women's group, the Deacons, a clergy chaired group, and the Wesley Covenant Renewal Movement. I don't know where this came from, or who compiled it, but they do seem to be well connected. This whole process is an odd tightrope walk for everyone as we desire to stay in covenant with each other, keep the focus on ministry and relationships built on trust, yet elect a representative group of clergy who 1) might have an episcopal nominee who could become bishop in the SEJ, 2) do all this in a way that builds short term and long term ministry focus, and 3) identifies those who will be entrusted as our decision makers who will shape the future of the UMC. I'm sure you see the practical, political, spiritual, and relational challenge in all of this. Of course, each caucus vets delegates who come from their ranks or are well regarded by their group.

There are some things that bug me about some of the lists. I wonder how many clergy didn't cast a prevote. By that, I merely indicate that there are a lot of independent clergy, folk who stay busy in ministry, and folk outside of metro ATL who are outside of the current system of conversations leading up to the election. Still, there are some very strong clergy on the list that I'll vote for, though it is noteworthy there are many other strong clergy in North GA UMC that I don't see listed. Too bad there isn't an Indy Clergy List!

Another issue would be if the group is working in ways that create unity or division. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see North GA as a divided or divisive group during normal seasons. If a group seems to be creating an "order" within the clergy order, or within the conference, I'm not voting for any of their vetted delegates. While I might be sympathetic toward some of their objectives their process and exclusion ultimately say more about them than their list.

On the plus side I do like the variety of clergy who might represent us when I look over these names-- with the addition of my Indy List. I'm much more comfortable with a diverse group that reflects the variety of North GA than some bland, lock step sort of group that has a narrow agenda. We do best as Methodists in conference when our voices are all heard and when we listen for the voice of God.

Here's the list of lists that was originally in an Excel format. You'll notice some clergy show up in multiple lists (the original was alphabetized and color coded!).

All Women(25)
Dave Allen Grady
Susan Allen Grady
Jane Brooks
Jim Cantrell
Carol Cook
Coy Hinton
Jonathan Holston
David Jones
Sondra Jones
Karen Kagiyama
Millie Kim
Beth LaRocca-Pitts
Mary Gene Lee
Sharma Lewis
Nora Martinez
Yvette Massey
Joy Melton
David Melton
Jimmy Moor
Amy Morgan
Alice Rogers
Jasmine Smothers
Renita Thomas
Jacqui Rose Tucker
Bridgette Young

African American Women (16)
Sherry Austin
Joe Crawford
Jonathan Holston
Walter Kimbrough
Bernice Kirkland
Sharma Lewis
Nora Martinez
Yvette Massey
Leon Matthews
Marvin Moss
Renita Thomas
Byron Thomas
Jacqui Rose-Tucker
Robert Ward
Richard Winn
Bridgette Young

Deacons(5)
[Note: my clergy order is smaller, therefore, we typically offer a few of our group for consideration by the annual conference]
Margaret Freeman
Nancy Lane
Nora Martinez
Joy Melton
David Melton

Moor (23)
Dave Allen Grady
Susan Allen Grady
Jane Brooks
Jim Cantrell
Glenn Ethridge
Jonathan Holston
David Jones
Karen Kagiyama
Bernice Kirkland
Beth LaRocca-Pitts
Nora Martinez
Leon Matthews
Joy Melton
David Melton
Jimmy Moor
David Naglee
Adam Roberts
Alice Rogers
Phil Schroeder
John Simmons
Wiley Stephens
Renita Thomas
Byron Thomas

Wesleyan Renewal (8)
[Note: this is a partial list as members will be sent a text update
as balloting proceeds.]
Jim Ellison
Richard Hunter
Sharma Lewis
Diane Parrish
Juan Quintanilla
Chuck Savage

Some Clergy on my Indy list worth consideration:
Bill Britt
Richard Chewning
Dana Everhart
Tom Davis
Jim Higgins
Jamie Jenkins
Marvin Moss
Dee Shelnutt
Doug Thrasher

How do you find 31 clergy delegates -13 for General Conference, 13 for Jurisdictional Conference, and 5 Alternates- out of 1000 clergy? Who is missing from the list? Are there any Independents out there we've overlooked? What might God be doing that is going to surprise all of us? And who will the episcopal nominee be?

I'm looking for people with proven leadership in the conference, with a strong Wesleyan Christian approach, with a great sense of teamwork and unity, and with roots in the best of our tradition yet ready to embrace our future with enthusiasm and Methodist zeal as we make some necessary institutional changes. I hope we have a delegation that reflects the best of our North GA Annual Conference, and has a range of clergy & laity who are excited to be part of the larger work of the UMC as we follow the way of Christ today and tomorrow. This 2012 General Conference is going to call for our very best efforts, and some strategic decisions in mission and ministry which will have long term consequences. I'd love to hear your thoughts, ideas, and best choices as we "pre-conference" in hopes that by listening to each other we'll better hear God.

Local News Coverage of Tampa FUMC

There's always more to the story...

Here's some of the local press to fill in the blanks. The background information on steady funding, a $2 million bequest, & the conference interest in starting a new church- from an outsiders perspective- does cloud the situation. How do you balance the local congregation in the work of the annual UM conference in terms of missional viability? These folk don't seem as out of step as I would have first supposed.

Tampa FUMC

What if a Church Isn't Missionally Viable?

John Meunier recently shared blogs about the FL UMC conference closing the Tampa FUMC. Historically conferences have closed churches which were not financially viable, i.e. that could support a clergy of some sort, could pay apportionments, etc. I'm aware of at least one congregation in North GA that was closed in recent years & it seemed like a small church caught in long term dissension which couldn't be overcome.

See Meunier at Tampa Church & UMC Expectations for the information.

Bishop Whitaker speaks to the issue, though does not name the Tampa situation, at "Why Discontinue Congregations?"

Here's a key section worthy of conversation:
"The main reason today to discontinue a congregation is that it can no longer fulfill the mission of the United Methodist Church. This is a different time than a generation ago. In the past, as long as a congregation could pay its bills, including its connectional giving, it was allowed to continue. Today, the Church expects every congregation to possess missional vitality. If the congregation is no longer able or willing to accomplish the mission of the United Methodist Church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then the Church has a responsibility to discontinue that congregation and seek new ways to fulfill its mission in that location."

Will to be missionally vital or to be closed become a new norm for UM congregations?

Missional Manifesto

I've been absent for awhile as mission trips, everyday ministry, and then unexpected, historic tornadoes have taken attention.

I've just found an intriguing manifesto, and currently listening to a dialogue with the author Alan Hirsch regarding this recent document. I enjoy some of the approach and challenges that Hirsch offers in his writing so this got my attention. These are Baptist and evangelical thinkers, but they've surprised me a little as they are trying to build a stronger theology for mission as well as to make a strong tie between an ecclesiology driven by mission. This isn't the typical Baptist fare and deserves some attention and discussion in UMC circles. Of course, we'll take what is useful to a Wesleyan view and can find applications and use to our perspective.

They begin the missions document by defining God as a "sending God" which frames the document. While their first affirmations on authority and gospel shows their theological and denominational affiliation their discussion might have some clues that even Methodist congregations and the UMC may learn from as we also seek to be in church in mission. I'd be curious how you view the document since the UMC is currently struggling as we look at numbers, upcoming General Conference, and how to best position ourselves given the various realities. I REALLY appreciate that this is a theological manifesto yet has much practical application.

The Manifesto offers that a "missional community is one that regards mission as both its originating impulse and organizing principle" & then points to the Christological nature of mission/church. The document states that "Missional represents a significant shift in the way we understand the church. As the people of a missionary God, we are entrusted to participate in the world the same way He does-- by committing to be His ambassadors. Missional is the perspective to see people as God does and to engage in the activity of reaching them. The church on mission is the church as God intended."

Part of the live video I just heard included discussion by Hirsch as to how the church needs to develop metrics which gauges the "impact of those outside the church." As Hirsch said that I wondered what the "game changer" view might mean for my church and denomination.

Missional Manifesto

Bullard on the Coming Death of Denominations

Catch some insightful thoughts and questions below with George Bullard. He has other recent videos which go into more detail in case you are intrigued by his synopsis here. A few of his thoughts--put into my words and context-- are found in 5 brief videos recently posted that caught my attention:

*He contends that a denomination needs to start new congregations in a 3% proportion to existing congregations. For North GA UMC that would mean around 29-30 new congregations a year. While we had a more aggressive pace a few years ago we've backed off of that due to funding and political backlash from existing congregations. Ironic, huh?

*"If 60-90% of a denominations churches are plateaued or dying then the denomination is on the slide toward death." I can see this in the Augusta District of the UMC as it is tough to see how half of the churches will be alive in 10 years unless there is a revival, renewal, and strong outreach to the younger generations. How quickly will 94 churches boil down to 20??

Bullard pushes me even more in my thoughts regarding denominations dying due to success.

*He points to denominations that are dying due to success in demanding or hoping for loyalty rather than earning it.

*Further, he talks about dying due to the success of a system of clergy education and support that has more control yet lacks success and lacks a "farm system" for engaging young clergy. Serving on a conference Board of Ordained Ministry I'd really like to see what he proposes which walks that tight rope between a cohesive denominational approach and a system which promotes effectiveness & a variety of clergy rising through the ranks in effectiveness.

*I'm also intrigued by Bullard's thought of denom's dying due to success in driving away congregations and constituents by explosively dealing with moral and theological issues. How might we be creating an "ensmallment rather than an enlargement" movement in the UMC and with upcoming conferences?

*The last major point is perhaps the most profound in terms of the UMC with upcoming conferences. Bullard says that some denominations are dying due to success as we "restructure or retask national agencies and denomination thinking that is the same as renewing the spiritual strategic direction" of the denomination. Such a move is actually "preparing for another restructuring which will happen in another 5-7 years." Perhaps if we do both-- follow God and seek to restructure in faithful ways--then maybe we find the right balance? With so many agendas, campaigns, and personalities in any denomination it would take a miracle of some sort to get us on task with a sense of shared unity and ministry purpose!

As I'm preparing for Easter I'm thinking of my personal salvation, and Bullard helps me to consider what resurrection means for the church and denomination that I love. A spiritual renewal, a transformation of clergy and laity, and obedient acts of faith are called for as we seek to be useful to the work of the Kingdom of God in our world today. Bullard certainly pushes in ways that call us beyond the norm in our denominational life. Surely God calls us to something we can act upon and can hand to the next generation in better shape than we found it.

Methodists in Mission & Some Questions

The General Board of Global Ministries General Secretary, Thomas Kemper, offers an interesting spring report to GBGM. He makes note of doctoral research out of The School of Theology at Boston University which will soon be released in The Methodist Review. Professor Dana Robert and PhD candidate David Scott have done a comparative study of Methodism and sister denominations in various countries. Sadly the word "anemic" pops up and a number of questions and conclusions are developed. See the link below for the full report from Kemper, and ponder the section of his report that includes the Robert/Scott material. I've copied this section as it offers some strong observations and questions for GBGM and the UMC.

"In looking at their statistical data, Robert and Scott reflect on ecclesiological, structural,sociological, cultural, and theological reasons for the anemia; they raise several 'tough' but highly relevant questions for United Methodism and this agency. I want to cite just four of these questions, making minimal comments. You as mission board directors will get the points. Remember that these questions are in relation to comparative growth rates alongside sister denominations in various broadly scattered countries:

 Do 'bureaucratic, unwieldy, outdated structures' hinder the 'type of flexibility and indigenous initiatives necessary for strong growth?' I simply note that at Global
Ministries we observe greater growth in Mission Initiatives where the forms of
mission are most closely aligned with indigenous social and cultural structures.

 What about the efficacy of 'one size fits all' theories and practices 'in which
North American middle-class culture is a normative value imposed on United
Methodism outside the US?' I ask: Do we need to look again at the vitality of
mission-founded, now-autonomous Methodist churches that have modified
American and European norms? I am thinking especially of Latin America.

 Has a culture of dependency created 'over-reliance on American resources' by
some parts of the church and 'neo-colonial attitudes on the parts of others?' May
I point here to the impressive struggle of our congregations and annual
conferences in Eurasia to achieve both spiritual and organizational maturity,
including an increasing degree of financial self-sufficiency? In his leadership in
this pilgrimage, Bishop Hans Växby is a missionary pioneer and prophet.

 'Could it be possible that the efforts of leadership elites to create a so-called
'global' United Methodism are wasting energy and resources that could be better
spent in paying more attention to local needs, lay mobilization and regional
partnerships?' This is a question with which we as a denomination have
struggled for years and will again in Tampa.

In summing up their questions, Robert and Scott asked whether it might be that the
United Methodist culture is inadequate for the challenges of the 21st century. They
wonder, 'Have we made a decision as a denomination to sacrifice church growth in
order to maintain other important commitments? Or is it the case that holistic ministry (including numerical growth) gushes from a deep well of confident faith that United Methodists lack, relative to the stronger theological or liturgical identities of sister denominations?'"

GBGM Spring 2011 Report

If You Could Create a Methodist Denomination from Scratch What Would It Look Like?

With all the talk of a Call to Action, the exciting Annual, Jurisdictional, and General Conference season soon upon us, with some talking of denominational death and others of new life & resurrection, I've had a lunch time curiosity. What if we could start a Methodist denomination from scratch? What would it look like? What elements would you want in it?

For me, I'd like to retain the very best of our theological heritage, yet create a dynamic organization (local congregations and ministries and the Church) and resources (the supporting cast of players that should support church) which would best share those distinctives today. Think of the rediscovery and reappropriation of Francis Asbury and circuit rider zeal and commitment. Think E. Stanley Jones missionary savvy and enthusiasm expressed in many nations. Imagine we are stepping into our Wesleyan glory days as we find ourselves in that intersection of the needs of the world and our availability to God and expression of the Kingdom today. I truly believe this is a possibility though we need to reinvigorate the dream and reform our ways in order to do what God requires. Rather than totally trash the old I find it easier during my lunch break to consider a new Methodist denomination that might allow this. Here are my somewhat random thoughts (in no particular order) as I finish my lunch. These are "raw" thoughts, and not polished in the least, but may provide something to "chew on" in future lunch thoughts.

*Every church and every member focus on the Wesleyan way of Christian salvation and the means of grace. This shared goal of laity & clergy, of local church and conference, of conference and denomination provides the framework for the goals, expectations, and accountability of the system.

*We would continue the fine Methodist tradition of conferencing, but would not have petitions or resolutions (which always makes me think of a United Nations approach!).

* Bishops & "helpers" would spend their time inspiring, encouraging, equipping, & directing the work in bullet #1. Any "out of district or conference" time would be very limited. Being "out of the office," i.e. your appointed area of responsibility, would be unusual rather than the norm. Bishops would not hold such a title for life, & would most likely be appointed to a region of "people and place" that they know and that knows them. The giftedness of the individual by God would be the priority in the use of the person in the work of the Church.

* There would be no "agencies" in this new denomination though there would be a Methodist headquarters that would include all the groups. There would be ministry offices in many regions/nations which would focus on issues most relevant to the accomplishment of the first bullet, e.g. worship, discipleship (including all the "age and stage" areas, small groups, prayer, etc.), evangelism, church leadership & vision (including communication), clergy training & development, new church development, evangelism, mission, etc. These would be housed in a central office and would interrelate to one another, just as they must in any congregation, for a holistic approach to congregational life and the Christian life. Thus, all the continents would have a "central office" which might also find expression in many countries, then in jurisdictions & conferences, and so on. There would be a leader at the central office who would direct the work in vision, supervision, coordination, and communication. Any existing entities (perhaps from a previous denomination or a group merging) would be moved into this umbrella of ministries & all the assets would be used for other ministries or sold. The "connection" then would work in both directions from local to national & from national to local in this continual link that effectively supports every element of the denomination, allows for strong 2 way communication, and allows for certain national or regional nuances that could retain the Methodist emphases while allowing for subtle distinctives necessary for the ministry in varied contexts.

*There would be strong emphasis in training on the variety of specialized ministries needed including preaching, worship & music, discipleship, teaching, age level ministries, evangelism, mission, communication, etc. for laity and clergy.

*The main books would be the Bible, a print or electronic hymnal/music book consistent with bullet #1 and relevant to each nation where this ministry is expressed, a Book of Discipline would be a concise, "slim" 200 page guide, and perhaps a current book of theology, doctrine, or of biblical or faith importance.

Ah well, lunch break is over at my desk, so time is up for now. What would your Methodist denomination look like?