Bandits No More

A brief introductory interview with the new UMC bishop in Mississippi. More history and biography than substance of her theological and ecclesiological perspectives.

Sometimes I wish Jerry Falwell knew how to keep his mouth shut. Or at least show some discretion. Or at least learn some discernment. Or at least get a better grasp on biblical Christianity vis-a-vis the World. Or… Well, you get the idea.

Now he is saying that Evangelicals control the Republican party. To be fair, this is appears to be the editorial spin on his comments which are more exactly a claim that the Republicans will fail to elect a Presidential candidate whom Evangelicals do not support. This isn’t the same as “controlling” the party (it doesn’t look to me liek any one group is controlling the party; they just don’t have that level of unity), but it does come across as a desire to control the party – at least the selection of a president. I have trouble seeing how proclaiming a lust for political power will bring many people to Christ – though I can see how it might scare some people away.

Bishops newly elected and assigned at Jurisdictional Confrences in July have now taken office (as of September 1) in their respective Annual Conefercnes). Newspapers are reporting regularly about these bishops and their first words to their new communities and constituencies. My guess is that all these news items are vetted by or produced in conjunction with Annual Conference staff people.

Bishop Peter Weaver has taken over in the New England Annual Confrence after 8 years in Philadelphia.

The new head of the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church on Saturday stood at the altar barefoot and urged members of his flock to do the same.Bishop Peter Weaver passionately urged worshippers to wiggle their toes and feel the world that is under their feet at a ceremony held in the historic Chestnut Street United Methodist Church nestled just off Congress Street behind Portland City Hall.

“I invite you to take the shoes off your souls and be in touch with the reality of the power in God’s presence and the pain of God’s people,” Weaver, 59, said…..

Church membership in the New England Conference of the denomination has fallen by 13,000 over the past decade, according to conference spokesman, the Rev. Michael Hickcox. Tight finances over the two years have forced the church’s New England headquarters, located in a former furniture store in Lawrence, Mass., to downsize its staff.Other challenges facing Weaver include graying congregations and declining Sunday service attendance, which in rural locations in northern New England often means an average of 25 worshippers per service, Hickcox said on Saturday. Aging church buildings often are in desperate need of repair As he took off his shoes and delivered a fiery sermon interrupted by applause and amens, Weaver said that those things would not be the focus during his tenure as bishop.

Yes, the Conference has only lost 13,000 members over tha past decade. Since church membership has been aging for some time, some might think that the majority of this decline is due to the death of members. The most recent copy of the General Minutes that I have is fro the year 2000, reporting data from 1999. In that year the Conference churches lost 1640 members through death, 1017 through transfer to other churches (transfer may be to other UM churches in other areas or to other denominations), and 3654 through Charge Conference action or withdrawal. This third category represents memebrs who have withdrawn from the life of the church either through word or action.

Why have they lost so many?

The fight over homosexuality among United Methodists has made many people in the conference unhappy and caused some to leave for churches with a more liberal outlook, Hickcox said Saturday, adding that the 18th and 19th century music older worshippers often prefer puts off many younger worshippers. Yet success in blending contemporary and traditional worship styles has been mixed, often leaving “everybody unhappy part of the time,” he said.

It sounds like Mr. Hickcox believes the Church hasn’t been liberal enough in their attitudes toward homosexuality. Or their worship styles haven’t caught on with the general worshipping yet on-church-going public. But now everything is under control. They finally have a bishop who will take his shoes off in worship (while not saying negative things about homosexuality, as far as we can tell). He will be positive, feel “god’s presence” and not focus on “those things” – membership decline and an aging church. I can’t help but think that in that kind of situation “those things” would require some focus from the bishop.

Mary Ann Swenson is entering her second quadrennium as bshop inthe California Pacific Annual Conference. (LA Times story requires registration.)

The Cal-Pac Conference, like most the others, is also in decline. The LA Times reports that they lose 2000-3000 a year now. We know the loss is not due to population decline – California continues to grow. Bishop Swenson has a theory why this is:

The bishop attributes the decline in church membership to a material wealth that makes people think they have no need for church, distractions from popular culture, and the church’s failure to reach out enough to new areas and new potential members.

It’s society’s fault for being too rich and too busy. It’s the church’s fault for not reaching out. I spent four years in a UM church in that conference. I know that in general, the church doesn’t reach out – unless by “reaching out” one means doing good works for people. All the California Methodists I met were friendly people. They were nice and well-mannered. What they lacked, for the most part, were articulated reasons for why someone ought to be a Christian rather than something else (or even rather than nothing). The Bishop at that time was Roy Sano. I remember him telling us that his Buddhist heritage and his Christian heritage were so important to him that he kept both the Christian symbol and the yin-yang on opposite sides of this briefcase. I have trouble seeing how the Conference will ever grow – or even reverse its decline – until the leadership develops a conviction that people actaully need Jesus -not just the good deeds done by Jesus people.

I haven’t met Bishop Swenson, but the people I know that serve under her report that she is a very kind person and perhaps the most pastoral bishop they’ve ever met. According to the LA Times, she has a plan. This plan is exemplified in two related things: Her bike riding and her social action.

She sometimes spends a night with homeless people in shelters, marches on behalf of workers’ rights, and has spoken out on behalf of gays and lesbians.

I can imagine that all these are good things. But where is Jesus? Where is the difference between being a Christian and just being a supporter of the ACLU, the Humane Society, the Unitarians or a political party? I just don’t get it.

But then I’m not a bishop.

Church advertising is dangerous. We have the model of Jesus (God incarnate among us as an ordinary human being), the model of Paul (I Cor. 9 – all things to all people) teaching us to make what we have accessible to outsiders. But the two dangers are that we start using a “Bait & Switch” method or that we water down what we preach, teach, practice & believe so it is indistinguishable from the world.

The above link takes you to a discussion of this issue in the Deseret News in Utah. As far as I can tell, the Mormons pioneered the modern use of advertising in religion with their “Family” spots. When non-Mormons see these ads they think something like, “Aw, I remember those days… back before everyone in the family was off doing their own thing. Back in the days when we had real togetherness. Back before the problems of divorce & child abuse.” Not being a Mormon, and never having been in any of their strategy sessions, I think their appeal to American nostalgia could be really effective. From my understanding of Mormon doctrine, it is also truthful advertising. Family IS important in Mormonism – more important than outsiders can conceive. Eternal life for Mormons is all about family – being with your family for eterity; begetting spirit children; creating and ruling over a world where your spirit children can take on bodies and repeat the cycle. You don’t get all that in their ads, but there is a direct line between the doctinal position and the advertising message.

But what about the United Methodist advertising campaign? Our motto isn’t “Family is forever,” but “Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors.” How will the average American hear this? That we are OPEN. We don’t believe anything in particular, and to be a United Methodist you don’t have to believe anything in particular – unless its believing in Openness (not believing in anything in particular). In the Deseret News piece Steve Godier of Christ UMC says;

“It says a lot about who we are theologically. That we’re not so dogmatic that we’ll tell you what to believe.”

It is un-American to tell people what to believe. The Mormons don’t – they just hitch on to the modern American nostalgia for family. We UMs hitch on to the modern American desire to be autonomous, to practice atomistic individualism. Do you want to believe in God? That’s ok. Want to believe Jesus was only a wandering Cynic philosopher? That’s ok. Want to believe he was killed, and his body eaten by dogs? That’s ok. Want to believe the resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus’ body, but onoly reflects the fact that after he died some people came to think Jesus was a great guy? That’s ok too. But – if you want to believe there is such a thing as truth and that it actually matters – and that one of the jobs of United Methodists is to help people become disciples of a Jesus who actually was and is, who is NOT made in their own image – that is a sin against openness.

When the advertising campaign first came out I corresponded with some of the campaign staff. I shared my concern that it gave the impression that UMs have no doctrine. Their comment was that the UMC did indeed have doctrine, but advertising wasn’t the place for it. We needed to get people in the (open) door first, and THEN give them doctrine. My response was that we UMs were already so deeply enculturated in American Autonomous Individualism, that even UMs would be mislead by this campaign. They would also seek to conform their churches (which had doctrine) to the slogan (no doctrine) so they wouldn’t be accused of using Bait & Switch. And now we see that a pastor – a leader of a church – happens to think exactly that.

Now I’m afraid we have even more work to do.

The US elections aren’t the only ones of consequence on the horizon, certainly aren’t the only ones Americans ought to be concerned with. Check out this link for reporting from Oxblog on the pre-election situation in Afghanistan.

Robert Sanders has an interesting piece on the theological division in mainline churches in the latest Christianity Today (the link above is to an expanded version). As an Episcopalian, his focus is on that church, but I believe his comments are applicable in other ecclesial settings as well.

“The militant on the video called President Bush “a dog” and addressed him, saying, “Now, you have people who love death just like you love life. Killing for the sake of God is their best wish, getting to your soldiers and allies are their happiest moments, and cutting the heads of the criminal infidels is implementing the orders of our lord.” ”

From the Muslims I’ve talked to, this is not Islam. As an outsider, I’d say that Muslims are at a point in history where they have to decide what is genuine Islam and what isn’t. We can’t do that by (1) just reading the Qur’an, (2) declaring at the beginning that Islam is a “religion of peace,” or, (3) listening to a terrorist – or any other single speaker.

As to (1), the Qur’an clearly can be read in a variety of ways. One way some Muslims are doing this is by doing what some might call a “fundamentalist” move – going back to the Qur’an alone, setting aside the Haddith (traditions of the Prophet).

As to (2), many religions can be described as “religions of peace.” But this moniker begs several questions: What does “peace” mean? What does is look like? Peace for whom? By what means? Under what conditions?

Finally, (3) is insufficient because a religion is to complex a thing to identify on the word of any one person on any one occasion. It takes time. If Islam is in flux now, it will not be resolved quickly.

Mark D. Roberts, pastor of a Presbyteran Church in Irvina, CA writes intelligently and Christianly on politics. I can identify with what he desires – a “non-partisan” church. In our congregation we have active and dedicated Republicans AND Democrats. This election we have a member running for congress as a Democrat. Last time around the church had another member running for congress as a Republican.

We do have more to learn, I believe. We achieve our peacefulness by simply avoiding all political talk – even of the intersection of Kingdom of God interests and political interests.

Thom Rainer, a teacher of evangelism at Southern Seminary in Louisville has done intensive study of people who were formerly unchurched. He wanted to know what it was that made the biggest difference in their becoming Christians and part of a church. To his suprise he learned that a church’s doctrine and their stance toward it made a huge impact on them. When the content of the doctrine was matched with a seriousness toward it and seeing the people live it out, it makes a huge dufference.

A story about loving a sinner – in a way that the sinner recognizes as love.