Bandits No More

During our special Annual Conference session November 19th a retired pastor and District Superintendent made the contention that new church plants are only for the Houston area – not for the majority of towns in the Conference. I can think of two reasons one might hold such a view, one clearly wrong, and one that is questionable, yet commonly believed. Note: I do not know if the one who made the original comments adheres to these or any other reasons.

First, one who is against church planting outside Houston – easily thought of as the Big City of the Conference – might think most of the other towns, whether static in population or not, have all the churches they need to reach the resident population. My guess is that the city that has 50% of its residents in church any given Sunday is highly exceptional. There are lots of unreached people out there – even in a small, highly churched town like Pittsburg. The Baptists and non-denominational churches certainly don’t think there are enough churches: they keep planting more, whether through intentional placement or through church splits. We may quail at the idea of copying the Baptists, but in how many of our East Texas towns is the main UM church larger and stronger than the largest Baptist church? In how many towns are there multiple Baptist churches that are larger and stronger than our UM churches? If they can keep up the church planting (and growing), why can’t we? So the idea that there are simply plenty of churches to reach the people is clearly false in my judgment.

The second possible reason is related to the first. Some believe that one church can be for all people. These are the folks who think the Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP) is evil. This principle, developed by theorists in Church Growth, basically says that people like to go to church (and do just about anything) with people who are like them. Some of us hear this idea and hear it as an expression of racism. We think it’s wrong to want to go to church only with people who are like us.

Before I came to my current appointment I served Westbury UMC in Houston. Westbury is rightly known as a multi-cultural church. One of my favorite things about the congregation was that it wasn’t just Anglo folks like me: we had Africans, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Europeans, etc. One might point to Westbury as counter-evidence to the HUP. Here are people who are clearly different going to church together and enjoying each other’s company. But that assessment would be wrong, and in its wrongness I see why the HUP need not be considered as a justification for racism – or any other evil “ism.”

The difference between Westbury and the vast multitude of monochromatic churches was not that the people there decided not to identify those who are “like us” on the basis of race. Racial difference just didn’t matter. If you could go to Westbury and ignore race, you’d notice that most of the people were alike: they were (mostly) middle class professional people. We lazy Americans too often judge “likeness to us” based on skin color since skin color is something we can see instantly (unless the lights are low), with no thought required.

HUP – as I understand it – does not make the claim that homogeneity is the ultimate destination for the church, either in the eschaton or here and now. HUP is a descriptive sociological claim – people congregate with people who are like themselves, not a normative theological claim – churches ought to be composed of people who are alike.

If this is so, can we ask this question: Is it the case that one of the questions people ask when they are considering going to church (any particular church, that is) is, “Is there someone there like me?” If this is one of the questions people who are not in our churches ask, is it then legitimate to ask the general question, “What barriers must we remove that are presently keeping people out of our church?” in a more particular way: “What can we do that might break down the barrier the keeps this particular group of people in our town from coming?” Or, to put it another way, “What can we do to make this particular group of people comfortable in our church?”

“Comfortable” is a dangerous word. It’s hard to read the New Testament and not see that the Gospel – the Good News that Jesus is Lord – is highly discomforting for those committed to living the way of the World. Mike Slaughter, pastor of Ginghamsburg UMC in Ohio has commented that when it comes to language, he wants to be as clear and accommodating as possible [I paraphrase] so that he makes sure the people understand the Gospel well enough to be offended at it and not their method of style of presentation. Shifting from the rhetorical to the social arena, we see Jesus doing something similar – he loved sinners in a way they never expected – yet his relationships with them led them away from their sin, not to affirmation in their lifestyle (Ex. Zacchaeus, the woman caught in adultery).

What does all this have to do with church planting in the Texas Conference? Just this: Our assumption in small town United Methodism has too often been that one church will accommodate all people. Actually our practice is a little different – we really mean that one white church and one black church will accommodate all people.

In the first summer of my first appointment, it crossed my mind that we ought to do a vacation bible school. That’s what churches do in the summer, isn’t it? Our problem was that our little church only had one or two children. We had loads of retired adults who could teach, but not enough children. Simple minded fellow that I was, I looked across town (about a quarter mile) and saw the black UM church. They had lots of children, and few adults available to teach at VBS during the day. It sounded like a perfect match. As I recall, our combined VBS went well that year, but I sure got a bunch of lectures. “Preacher,” I was told, “Our churches are supposed to be separate. That’s why the Conference spent so much money to build them their own building.”

Now I don’t know if the Conference was motivated by an ecclesiastical version of “separate but equal,” but my (white) members certainly perceived it that way.

Having pastored a multicultural church my longstanding theory (and previous experience) was confirmed: Black people aren’t all alike. The senior pastor I worked with their commented that he (and African American) had observed the same thing about whites – we’re not all alike. If these observations – first, that people tend to congregate with people who are like themselves, and, second, that not all people in any given racial, ethnic or social category are all alike – are accurate, then surely one White church and one Black church surely won’t be enough to reach everyone in any town. Some people find their primary identity in their race. My guess is that neither Black church leaders nor White church leaders will be prone to label their monochrome way of doing church as illegitimate anytime soon. Nonetheless, there are many in our communities for whom ecclesial segregation is the main barrier that is keeping them out of our churches. So without eliminating our white and black congregations (instead multiplying them), we need also to plant intentionally integrated churches. Some will say this is impossible to do in East Texas. I have two answers to that protest. First, church planting is hard no matter where you are or what kind of church you’re planting. Second, God loves calling us to do things that can only be done in his power.

While we plant and grow churches where distinct people groups (and we’ll have to work by their own self-identification, not our own), we will include as part of their discipling, the skills and inclination to expand the circle of those they count as “like me.” To do this, the leaders (especially the pastors) will have to be more mature than their people in this area, so they can preach unity in Christ. Beyond preaching and teaching, we’ll also have to find ways for congregations to gather regularly with each other across the various boundary lines we’ve identified.

My guess is that racial, ethnic and even language boundaries will be easier for us to cross than the socio-economic barriers. The UMC is mostly a middle-class denomination. Our leadership comes from that stratum of society. We have many ministries to the poor. We even have brought them into some of our churches (St. Johns in Houston strikes me as a good example). It will be very difficult, however, to bring them into leadership and equip them to be pastors and church planters. The main barrier is the educational requirement. The normal route to becoming an Elder is a four year college degree, followed by a 90 hour (at least) masters. Some of the Baptist and Pentecostal groups that offer lower educational hurdles for pastors (or none at all) seem to be doing a more effective job of planting and growing churches among the poor. We UMs tend to look down our noses at them – at their questionable theology, their quaint hymnody, their crass emotionalism. But just as we’ve learned that neither the White or Black way(s) of doing church is/are the one right way, we’ll need to learn that the middle class educated way of doing church isn’t the one right way either.

The Rolling Stones have been signed to play halftime of the upcoming Super Bowl. It reminds me of the time I recognized “Hotel California” playing on Muzak at a funeral home.

While I am not old enough to remember it well, I know that rock and roll was once-upon-a-time counter-cultural. The “establishment” didn’t like it. Adults opined aloud that western civilization was coming apart at the seams at the sound of electrical music.

I have seen the photographs. Men used to almost always wear ties and fedoras when out in public. Women always wore dresses that actually covered their bodies, and often wore hats and gloves, too. You know, the “Leave-it-to-Beaver” world that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell seem to want us to go back to? When The Government and Big Corporation America ran things and all was well with the white-washed world?

Those days are apparently gone as once edgy rock and roll is now safe for the Super Bowl halftime.

Let’s face it; following the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake debacle of 2003, the NFL is not going to take a chance at offending everyone again. No; these days Super Bowl is the epitome of family entertainment. It has got to be safe for everyone.

The Rolling Stones are safe. Who’da thunk it 40 years ago?

For our family Thanksgiving gathering this year we met up at Quartz Mountain Resort Park on Lake Altus in western Oklahoma. None of us had ever been there before, but considering we were traveling from East Texas, Central Texas, the DFW area and NW New Mexico, it provided somewhat of a compromise.

Our family stayed in the 3 bedroom cabin, my parents and youngest brother & his wife (and dogs) in a 2 bedroom cabin, and my other brother’s family in the lodge. The cabins were described as “rustic” – that means that haven’t been renovated recently. They worked just fine for us and were nicely furnished. The 3 bedroom cabin had a full kitchen so we were able to prepare our own meals – including Thanksgiving Dinner. Our cabin could have easily accommodated several more people. If the weather were warmer, one could even sleep out on the screened porch.

The lodge was much newer. I didn’t see much of the interior, but it looked quite nice. Unlike the cabins, it had TVs in the rooms – and had no nearby parking. The parking lot was closer to the main building and people were getting luggage carts or just hefting their stuff to their rooms. All the staff people I encountered were friendly and helpful.

The staff described the pool as indoor-outdoor. Since it was cold during our visit, the garage-door-like windows along both sides were closed. I suppose in warmer weather they open it all up.

We only ate at the restaurant on Wednesday night, so I can’t report much about it. They were very slow in seating us. More than a problem of seating a group of 12, I think they were severely short of staff. We observed a long table (the one they eventually put us) sitting unbussed for at least 20 minutes. My wife and I shared the Blackened Chicken and Pasta in Spicy Alfredo Sauce. It was very tasty, but it’s a good thing we shared. Other than my mother’s French Onion Soup coming out cold, all reported their food good.

For me, beyond seeing family, the highlight was hiking up to the top of the mountain (a small granite hill, to be more precise – maybe 500-600 feet up). I wish I had one of those in my back yard. I know I’d be in better shape. The trail we took was fairly strenuous, but was easily doable by my 9 year old daughter. The one downside of hiking around so much was seeing all the refuse people had dropped on their treks. Soda and beer cans seemed to be in almost every crevice on the mountain. I wish we’d brought a garbage sack with us.

I’ve posted some photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/55768008@N00/?saved=1 if you’d like to get an idea what the place looks like.

Our Final Night in Nashville for the NYWC. Heard a group called Lost and Found tonight. They are a band that is funny, edgy, witty, and, did I mention musical.

They mentioned that they have been together for 14 years and for that time have been flying under the radar of “the christian music industrial complex.” I laughed. Many missed it.

Are we at such a place in history that even something like Christian Music is eaten up with power grabs, manipulation, and unfair practices? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Most “Christian” recording labels are owned by “secular” companies, so on what basis could one expect them to be run any differently than their parent companies.

After all, American Christians have plenty of money, and they (we) seem to like our music.

The Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church met in special session at Lakeview Methodist Conference Center today. After approving the Chartering Resolution, the Conference delegates readily approved the “Supporting” and “Implementing” Resolutions. Here’s the text of these six resolutions:

SUPPORTING RESOLUTIONS
1. Center for Congregational Excellence
Resolved that the Conference authorizes the Bishop to establish a Center for
Congregational Excellence with staff responsible for revitalization and new church starts. (Requires a ¾ vote. See Rule 27.)
2. Center for Clergy Excellence
Resolved that the Conference authorize the Bishop to establish a Center for Clergy Excellence, an expansion of the Office of Ministerial Services, with staff and resources to enhance clergy effectiveness. (Requires a ¾ vote. See Rule 27.)
3. Reformation of Districts
Resolved that the Conference authorizes the Bishop and the Cabinet to reorganize the Conference into nine (9) districts effective May, 2006.
IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTIONS
4. Restructuring
Resolved that the Conference authorizes the Strategic Mapping Team to propose rules and structure in alignment with our Vision, Mission, Key Drivers, Core Beliefs, and Strategic Themes, as well as requirements of the Book of Discipline. These proposals will be reviewed by the Conference Committee on Rules and Structure and presented to the May 2006 Annual Conference for action.
5. Process of Accountability
Resolved that the Conference authorizes the Strategic Mapping Team – in consultation with the Board of Ordained Ministry, the Orders of Elders and Deacons, the Clergy Effectiveness Task Force, and the Conference Council on Ministries – to propose a definition of accountability and processes for implementing accountability in all areas and to recommend a plan to the 2006 Annual Conference.
6. Realignment of Budget
Resolved that the Conference authorizes the Strategic Mapping Team to make proposals to Conference Council on Finance and Administration regarding alignment of the budget with Vision, Mission, Key Drivers, Core Values, and Strategic Initiatives and the Book of Discipline. CFA will present the budget to the May 2006 Annual Conference for action. (Requires 2/3 vote. See Rule 27.)

The first three resolutions generated the most discussion. Comments included:

• From a pastor with 49 years of service (including 11 years on the Cabinet), now retired for some years: (the quotes are approximate) “During all my years of ministry I never felt a need to call on conference staff people in Houston. We surely don’t have the need to add more staff there now.” (This is the same fellow who, when I told him I was attending Asbury Seminary, replied, “You’ll never get anywhere in this conference unless you go to Perkins.”)
• Church conflict was a big concern. (With the big changes coming, conflict will increase, not decrease.) The same pastor I just quoted said, “There’s an easy solution to conflict. Just move the pastor.” That comment received a raucous response. Have you ever been to a funeral and heard someone say of the deceased, “He looks so peaceful”? Of course he looks peaceful. He’s dead. For many of our churches conflict is a necessary step to LIFE.
• “The DSs already have too much work to do. Why are we cutting their number?”
• “Houston suburbs may be growing, but we don’t need any new churches in all these small towns around the Conference.”

In my judgment, the Conference did the right thing in approving these resolutions. The changes will definitely be difficult. Not only are we changing the declared purpose of the Annual Conference (“Equip congregations to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the
transformation of the world to the glory of God”), but we’re also pushing churches to shift from seeing their purpose as taking care of the members to making disciples. It will be very tempting to minimize the differences – to say that everything we’re already doing is making disciples. What will make the difference is accountability. This is where the work for leadership comes. Will leadership be willing to hold churches and pastors and districts to be accountable for making disciples? Or will we resort to “happy talk” instead? The UMC has a strong tendency to want to be affirming and nice. Real accountability will include a lot of actions that won’t look or feel like affirmation or niceness. We – pastors and churches – are going to have to want this real bad to let it overcome our entrenched lethargy, fear of conflict, and love of niceness.

The scales are tipped in the favor of success by Bishop Huie’s leadership. After leading us through the resolutions today, she shared a short message from Mark 16:15, 20 (I was surprised to hear a UM Bishop preach from a text the top textual critics reject as an original part of Mark) on “Preaching the Gospel to all Creation.” She said the first thing we need to do is pray for ourselves and our churches – for the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to make the things we voted on a reality.

As her “altar call” she issued three challenges to those present.

1. Will you raise your 2006 worship attendance 5% over 2005?
2. Will you raise your number of professions of faith in 2006 5% over 2005?
3. Will you raise the number of people engaged in hands-on outreach ministry (outside ministries that serve church members) 5% in 2006 over 2005?

In each case those willing to take the step were invited to stand, look around, and hold each other accountable in the coming year.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. But we’re off to a good start.

UPDATE: Peter Cammarano at A Padre Complex has another good post up on the Conference session, and here’s what Guy Williams has to say. I’m trying to collect responses from Texas Conference bloggers here. If you’re a TAC blogger send me a link and I’ll add it here.

I am in Nashville for the weekend, at Youth Specialities National Youth Worker’s Convention. I am a first timer, but this won’t be my last time.

Oddly, just after I sat down in the little turbo-prop puddle-jumper on which my journey began, I looked up and saw a colleague in ministry. As he sat down I realized this was also the weekend of the AAR-SBL Annual Meeting, held in Pittsburg this year. That was the meeting toward which my colleague was headed.

As we travelled together from Waco to D/FW Airport, I couldn’t help but ponder the irony in having these two separate meetings at the same time. At one, the academic study of religion will be recognized, even glorified. At the other, ministry within the Christian tradition will be celebrated and practiced.

Can you imagine a weekend of meetings where both of these things happen?

Sometimes I hear folks who think that dissent is part of the Great American Tradition. We hear it in politics – whether the issue is taxes, abortion or war. If we stifle dissent for the sake of national security or to “support the troops” it is said that we’re letting the bad guys win (or that we’re becoming like them).

This disctinctive American attitude is also part of the American church. Bishop Sprague illustrates this with his dissent from many doctrinal positions long thought normative in the church. Dissent is good – it shows that one is truly rational and authentic, brave enough to stand against the (evil?) powers-that-be.

Part of this tradition of dissent seems to come from a reluctance to admit the existence of a truth or reality we have to submit to regardless of our personal likes or dislikes. Lawson Stone (in the midst of a series of posts on the literal meaning of Scripture) writes:

For now, let’s note that Augustine raises a caveat for both moderns and post-moderns. Both of these Spawn of Kant share a disquiet with.. Truth. Both want truth, especially the truth about God and salvation, to be…negotiable. Neither wants an inconvenient “meta-narrative” to bound their “meaning making.” Both prefer the truth to be inaccessible, valuing the lattitude for a multiplicity of “stories” afforded by Truth’s elusiveness. Kant’s modernist children show their stripes by marshalling the open-endedness of the historical quest to undermine any witness to…the Truth. It’s somewhat out of context, but I think Augustine exposes the mendacity of both when, in attacking those who quibble over his interpretation not being that of Moses, he says

Rather they are proud and know not Moses’s meaning, but love their own, not because it is true but because it is theirs (Confessions 12.25.34 emphasis added)

Neither wants to be held accountable to a Truth that simply sits there and demands allegiance. To both groups, I suspect–but I am no expert–Augustine would say “A pox on both your houses!” Those who love the Truth do not put that truth at risk when they confess the inadequacy of their historical quest for the inspired authors’ meanings because they are not seeking to escape anything. They are simply being humble. Likewise, those who love the Truth will not hold it hostage to a quest that inherently cannot end, and that might never return a final answer. They will pursue their quest, but realize that even as we pursue the truth we are embraced and sustained by “the Truth.”

Whether the issue is the sexuality, economics, or war & violence, we often let our feelings and desires trump scripture and the Christian tradition. We move from the fact of variety within the tradition of the church in each of these areas to assert the place of dissent against the tradition so that we can have our way. Sometimes this is in order to deny the tradition, sometimes to absolutize one option within the tradition.

Too often dissent is lifted up as an abstraction. Dissent is good, dogmatism (the oft-perceived contrary to dissent) is bad. But no one dissents (or can dissent) from everything. If they did, they wouldn’t be able to function in society.

So when it comes to dissent in the United Methodist Church, let’s drop the praise of dissent as if the abstraction has value in itself and seek instead to defend dissent only in particular instances.

At the recommendation of an aquaintance, I picked up Christianity and the Postmodern Turn Myron Penner, ed. I am not linking this to Amazon or anything else, because I don’t care to help you find it. This collection of essays primarily sets up straw men of the positions of self-identified postmodern Christians and then knocks them down “convincingly.” If you buy every argument Josh McDowell has ever offered, you’ll love this book!

I bought and read this because this aquaintance was so concerned that I admitted to being a postmodern Christian. I read it. I remain postmodern.

Any suggestions as to what I ought to recommend he read in return?

North Korea is known for being one of the most backward and horrible places to live. Misruled by megalomaniacs for over half a century, they routinely starve their own people to death so they can build a bigger army.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom has just put out its new report on religious persecution in North Korea (available here as a pdf). The New York Sun has a bried summary of the contents of the report if you’re short on time. Here’s a brief excerpt showing the brutality of the regime:

on a summer day in North Korea in 1997, a young woman was washing clothes in a tributary of the Tumen River when she dropped a small Bible she had hidden amid the laundry. Spotted by a fellow washerwoman, the girl was reported to North Korean authorities on the suspicion that she was engaging in an exercise of thought or religion condemned by the state. The girl, believed to be in her 20s, and her father, estimated to be around 60, were arrested by local national security police and imprisoned for three months.

One morning, they were taken to a public market area, where, after a brief show trial, the father and daughter were condemned as traitors to the North Korean nation and its communist dictator, Kim Jong Il. The father and daughter were then tied to stakes a few meters from where they had been “tried,” and, before an assembly of schoolchildren, were riddled with bullets by seven policemen who fired three shots each into the pair.

Pray for the people of North Korea.

Las Cruces is in trouble. At least a couple of the Lawyers WIthout Nothing Better to Do have decided to waste some tax money pursuing justice for the beleagured non-Christians in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The city’s logo is three crosses. Of course the city’s name translates “the crosses.” What a religiously bigotted thing to name a city! While stopping short of calling for the city to be renamed, those offended want the symbols removed.

Oddly, they say that “the crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens.” Are we then to believe that the Las Cruces government intends to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens? I have been to quite a few city council meetings (though none in Las Cruces) and have never heard a city councilmember advocate disenfranchising or discrediting anyone.

Frankly, I don’t understand why The Offended are satisfied with changing the logo. How could any reasonable non-Christian be expected to live in a city named for crosses?

The solution? Las Cruces, New Mexico needs to become Los Simbolos Significativos, New Mexico. In a state with a city named Truth or Consequences, would that really seem so strange?