Bandits No More

The called session of the Texas Annual Conference is this Saturday at Lakeview. The Pre-Conference Journal highlights several themes that make up the proposals from the Strategic Mapping Team. I’m enclosing my comments in brackets[].

GOAL – Lead congregations to revitalize and to reach unserved resident populations. [The starting point is to realize that these are goals for the Annual Conference. The purpose of AC leadership will not be to collect apportionment money or to have meetings, but to lead congregations in reaching people. I observe that it doesn’t say, “Lead needy churches to revitalize…” The assumption – and I think the statistics easily support it – is that the vast majority of TAC churches need revitalization. This may be a hard sell. Most congregations think they’re doing pretty well. They have nice programs. They usually meet the budget. They’re full of nice people – well, the people they have are nice, at least. But most of us aren’t having a significant impact on the surrounding population. We’re not winning people to Christ. We’re not crossing cultural boundaries. It’ll take leadership to transform our ways of doing things if we’re going to start winning people to Christ. It’ll take even greater leadership to create and maintain dissatisfaction with the status quo. As long as most churches think the purpose of the church is to take care of its members, they will resist efforts to push them elsewhere.]

Objectives

• Equip congregations to become vibrant and grow. [Yes! We want congregations were insiders and outsiders can tell God is at work. When they see God, it will attract the, Because the insiders have experienced Jesus and been filled with the Spirit, they will be able to introduce others to Jesus, resulting in growth.]
• Identify and prioritize resident populations and start new churches. [The usual UM church planting model has been to look for new developments. This contrasts with other denominations that not only target new developments, but allow congregational freedom to divide and multiply. Although UM ecclesiology doesn’t fit well with the Homogeneous Unit Principle, I think part of the thought here is to fid ways to reach the different cultural and ethnic groups in E Texas through church planting. We have at least 60,000 Urdu speakers in the Houston area – and one Urdu speaking UM pastor. We have work to do.]
• Implement the Congregational Development Task Force Plan.

The Conference will:
Develop a congregational vitality assessment to assist churches in identifying

• challenges, opportunities, and needs. [This will enable our churches to answer the question: “How are we doing?” By having clear measures and assessments, we’ll be able to get beyond the “happy talk” of “I’m ok, you’re ok, we’re all ok together.”]
• Provide resources for congregational revitalization and transformation. [This will enable us to answer the how question: How do we change?]
• Assist in identifying strategic opportunities for new church starts. [This is a big change. No longer will the Conference simply do this – it will assist in the work. By distributing the responsibility for church planting, not only will wisdom and knowledge increase, but so will buy-in.]

Learning and Growth [These points sound like what’s already been said. Unless this is identifying areas the Conference needs to learn. If so, it constitutes a confession that they don’t already know how to do everything. A wise move.]

• Model and coach churches to become vibrant in ministry and to grow.
• Provide resources and financial support for new church starts in identified strategic
• opportunity areas.

Financial Strategy

• Reallocate currently available funds to support strategy
• Develop volunteer partnerships

If you’d like to read the whole report (the Pre-Conference Journal for the upcoming special session) you can find it on the Texas Conference website. In my previous posts on this proposal I highlighted the positive reasons for making this move: There’s lots of people out there and we’re not reaching them!

There are also “negative” reasons. We’re in trouble. The first negative statistic, worship attendance last year was down .06% from 2000. As I consider the attendance reports since 1998 I don’t see any really significant change. Churches compute attendance by a variety of means: (1) Counting people (some ushers & preachers are pretty imaginative with their counting); (2) Attendance pads (I have never seen these be 100% accurate. They undercount more often than they overcount.); (3) A checklist. (Usually in a software package.). None of these methods are fool proof; all have a margin of error. I’m inclined to think that the worship attendance variance over the past few years is within the margin of error. If so, we’re not seeing substantial decline (assuming the numbers are real), but since these numbers are just over a third of our reported membership, we’re still doing pretty pitifully.

By my reckoning, attendance is hugely important. Healthy churches will have more people in attendance than they do members. Why? First, because they will be attracting seekers – people who are investigating Jesus – who have not yet committed themselves. Second, because membership is seen as a substantive commitment, not just getting your name on a roll.

Other statistics are down also: Professions of Faith (new Christians), Baptisms, and students in confirmation classes all declined over the past 5 years. We’re apparently not doing enough to help people become Christians and connect to the church.

Considering these statistics, the document sums up the situation very briefly:

The Texas Annual Conference is at a turning point. We can maintain the current path, which is not addressing the opportunities of our growing area, or we can choose a new path leading to growth, revitalization, and enhanced ministry and mission.

I’ll put up more later.

It is time for Pat Robertson to retire. It is at least time for someone to take away his microphone. The AP reports that Mr. Robertson warned Dover, Pennsylvania that God has rejected them.

Why does Mr. Robertson think God has turned his back on Dover? On Tuesday Dover voted out of office all eight school board members. The Dover school board had tried to introduce intelligent design theory into science classes.

Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that the complexity of the universe implies some intelligence behind its design; that it didn’t “just happen.” Critics of ID consider it dressed up scientific creationism. ID proponents, of course, deny this.

I have commented on ID before. Richard also blogged on the matter. I have no intention of commenting in ID, evolution, creation, or any other theory here.Here I am more concerned with Pat Robertson than with how the world came to be.

I am confident God brought the universe into existence. I am wondering, at the moment, why he brought Pat into existence.

NEWSFLASH: Townfolk of Dover and everywhere: God has not forsaken and will not forsake you depending on your vote for school board or based on your understanding of origins.

How do you know when you’ve got things out of proportion?

I was at a high school football game a couple of weeks ago. Just before halftime the quarterback was on the sidelines, and was smiling. I heard an adult not far from me say, “I wish I could wipe that smile off his face! Does he think this is just a game?”

No, I am not making that up. What a tragedy for so many adults who live their dreams of glory vicariously through kids.

Whew. Another year’s Charge Conference behind us. One of the challenges our church faces is our old church plant. We celebrated the centennial of the sanctuary this past spring. The fellowship hall and education building are 50 years old and are clearly showing their age. Starting before I arrived as pastor in 2003, the church has been engaged in an extensive program of renovation centered on the sanctuary. The building interior was renovated (finished the week I arrived), leaving us with a current debt of 250k. We just finished the 46k renovation of the stained glass windows, and the 34k roof job. We ony lack about 23k for the 185k renovation of the pipe organ. Lurking ominously in the background is the need for getting a bid to level the shifting foundation (we wish we didn’t see the cracks in the walls). The fellowship hall/education building also has a shifting foundation and a 50 year old asbestos roof. If you’ve been following this blog for a while, you know about the loss of our recently renovated youth building. Just opened in February, an arsonist burnt it down in July.

Do you get an idea that money might be on the minds of the congregation? Do you also get an idea of how that money might be used? As far as these capital expenses go, the money is going entirely toward fixing old things. Having fixed old things is better than having unfixed old things, but there seems to be a different kind of attitude that goes with repairing the old than building the new.

Many would like to build a new youth center to replace the one that was destroyed. In a community where the other leading churches (i.e., the baptists) already have new youth facilities, it’s mighty tempting to jump on the “if you build it they will come” train. Clearly, some people think that way. They make a direct connection between a church’s investment in facilities for youth and the church’s commitment to youth. If there are no – or substandard (when compared with other local churches) – facilities dedicated for youth, then they’ll take their youth elsewhere.

I understand how children look at these things. When I was a kid I’d much ratrher have something new than something old. What’s the ratio of kids who want their old clothes constantly repaired to those who want new clothes to replace the old? As a culture, we tend to value the new over the old (unlike the ancients who valued the old over the new).

In a historic church like this there are both kinds of people: lovers of the old and lovers of the new. Too often, they think they’re desires are not only incompatible, but so righteous that they must be imposed on the whole body – “or else I’ll quit.” In times like this one of my main jobs is reminding people that we’re in the people business. Building have a purpose – they can be a great blessing. But they can also sap the energy, finances and missional drive of a church.

Rioting has been going on in France for almost 2 weeks now. Why? Originally set off by the deatsh of two boys – they thought the police were pursuing them so they hid, mistaking a transformer station as a safe refuge – the riots have expanded each night. Some have suggested it is the beginning of a European (or “Eurabian”) intifada. Clive Davis has a different take on it. He suggests that the biggest problem is the lack of integration of immigrants for the past 40 years. What we see now is their hopelessness boiling over.

At the end of his post Davis translates from a Le Figaro interview:

Ces émeutiers ne se projettent dans aucune revendication sociale ou politique. “A notre niveau, c’est la merde», lâche Morad, qui avoue toutefois rêver “d’un petit pavillon, d’une femme et d’enfants… au bled”.

[Loose trans: “These rioters put forward no social or political demands. “Down where we are, life is horrible,” says Morad, who nevertheless admits he dreams of “a little house, a wife and kids… in a village.”]

Once upon a time France was counted as a Christian nation. Surely part of the long term solution in France will be for Christians to take the hope found in Jesus to these folks with no hope. As for an immediate solution, I’m too far away and too ignorant to have any advice for anyone.

But I do wonder how these things might be prevented in America. I think we do a better job of assimilating imigrants – though sometimes we do so kicking and screaming, and sometimes, especially of late, we’ve proclaimed that assimilation is a bad thing. But there’s more.

If you want your eyes opened, read Jerome Weeks’ piece in today’s Dallas Morning News. He writes about “Sundown Towns,” towns that through explicit or implicit action have sought to keep blacks from settling. The stereotype might be that this is a southern problem, but from the research of James W. Loewen, the problem (sin? evil?) is greater in the North and Midwest. Texas has its Sundown Towns – Weeks mentions Vidor (everyone knows Vidor’s reputation) and Highland Park (a rich town in Dallas – and the rich profess to be more enlightened!).

Once upon a time peopel called America a Christian nation. Evidently we have even more work to do than we thought.

The Council of Bishops has just released a “Pastoral Letter” in response to the Judicial Council’s ruling that reversed a bishop’s decision to place a pastor on a leave of absence for denying membership to a practicing homosexual.

I have not yet digested the entirety of the letter, but came to this sentence that, frankly, set me off: “The United Methodist Church is committed to making disciples of Jesus Christ with all people.” (emphasis added) I cannot take it anymore! Mrs. Weisinger, help me!

Mrs. Eloise Weisinger was my Senior English Teacher. She had the patience and the passion finally to open the doors of my mind to grammar. Now I wish she were available for our denomination.

It has long struck me that we, as a church long since ceased ministering “to” anyone. To claim we were in ministry “to” someone would obviously imply that someone was in need of our help, thus we would be putting ourselves above another.

Putting ourselves above anyone is something we United Methodists would never do. (Except the Religious Right, but they are barely human anyway) In our concern never to do anything that could be conceivably construed as condescending, we only are in ministry “with” others; never “for” or “to” others.

Ah, but the dear Bishops, our Loyal Leaders, have taken it one step further. Now we are no longer to be part of the Great Commission of making disciples of Jesus Christ “of” all people; we want to make disciples of Jesus Christ “with” all people.

Please, Mrs. Weisinger, correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read “make disciples of Jesus Christ with all people” assumes that all people are about the task of making disciples of Jesus Christ. Since everyone is about this same business, we happily, then, join in the work.

But is it fair or wise to assume that everyone is about the business of making disciples of Jesus Christ? Are our Muslim brethren aware they are on such a task? Ought we suppose the Hindi have a lick of interest in making disciples of Jesus Christ “with” us?

Prepositions are generally small words. But, my, can they make a great deal of difference!

Last Sunday I preached on the price of following Jesus. Jesus didn’t practice some of the positive thinking recruitment strategies we’d think of today. Instead of just offering a mansion in heaven, eternal happiness and an end to the difficulties of life, Jesus said, “Anyone who wants to follow me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” In this message I show that this isn’t an isolated thought in scripture but permeates not only the message of Jesus but also the writings of Peter and Paul.

Scott Burns, a financial columnist for the Dallas Morning News always writes interesting and practical pieces, sometimes on personal finance, sometimes on bigger issues. Today’s column was on the declining buying power of the lower 75% of the American populace. Here are some snippets of what he has to say:

According to the most recent IRS statistics on tax returns (for 2003), households needed at least $295,495 to be in the top 1 percent, $130,080 to be in the top 5 percent, $94,891 to be in the top 10 percent and $57,343 to enter the top 25 percent.

Yes, you read that right. If your household income is over $57,343, you’re well toward the front of the line when the checks are handed out. If your income is below $29,019, you sink into the bottom 50 percent.

Increasingly, those in the bottom 75 percent – households with incomes below $57,343 – are looking like a long, slow train wreck….

Over this period [1993-2003], the dividing-line income for the bottom 50 percent has risen from $21,179 to $29,019, rising 4.3 percent a year. Had the income line only risen with inflation, it would have climbed to $26,504.

And that’s an important fact: Even the bottom of the income scale has gained purchasing power over the period – about $2,515.

Combine that additional income with declining interest rates on home mortgages, a period of weak to declining rents for apartments, a multitude of low-interest and no-interest offers from stores and automakers, and the people who do a lot of the heavy lifting in our society have gotten along.

Meanwhile, those with more earning power have done a lot better than just get along.

Earners at the top 1 percent line have gained $63,040 in purchasing power. Earners at the top 10 percent line have gained $12,198 in purchasing power, while seeing the portion of income they spend on income taxes decline from 20.2 percent to 18.5 percent. Earners at the top 25 percent line have gained $5,570 in purchasing power.

Unfortunately, gains for the bottom 75 percent are vaporizing.

It would take a major hit to destroy the $12,198 gain for those at the top 10 percent line.

That isn’t the case for those in the bottom 50 percent. Their entire $2,515 purchasing power gain since 1993 may already be history.

Will a tax cut solve the problem? Burns says,

If the federal income tax was simply eliminated for every household in the bottom half, it would liberate only about 3.5 percent of their income – less than inflation for one year.

Doesn’t sound like a lot of help to me.

I’m inclined to think this is a problem – and not only because I’m in that lower 75%. I think it would be a good thing for people in the bottom 75% of the economic scale to do at least as well, percentage-wise, as those in the top 25%.

How is that going to happen? I don’t know. A raise in minimum wage would help a few, but not the majority. In the olden days an increase in unionizing seemed to have helped, but I’m doubtful that’d work today. First, the nature of jobs has changed. Industries are more varied now. Second, we’re even more individualistic than ever. Unionism seems to depend on denying yourself more than we’re used to. Third, at least for me, unions don’t have a great reputation. I’m sure many are just fine – maybe even most – but I’ve read too many stories of union bosses who are every bit as mean, controlling, greedy and corrupt as some of the worst business people they oppose.

Here are a few ideas, though they maybe too idealistic:
1. Find a way to bring CEO pay & expectations in line. Their huge packages ought to embarrass businesses. But you’d think the businesses would be embarrassed by hiring leaders who fail to lead and destroy their companies. It would seem companies need smarter boards to do this.
2. Think up ways to make it so work and not just wealth can build wealth. Right now, wealth has great leverage. As far as work alone goes, you can work all day every day, and still not get ahead. Completely unrealistic, I know. The underlying requirement seems to be moving away from a culture built on gambling – and I don’t mean what they do in Las Vegas & state lotteries. Right now money makes money better than work because our culture sees investors as taking a risk in their investment. We’ve developed ways of quantifying and measuring these risks (markets, stock exchanges, etc.). That’s great. Since people want a big return, they’re often willing to take big risks. But is work seen as a risk? Short term, unless you have a dangerous job, it’s often not. But economically with our economic structure, yeah, working for a lifetime and not getting ahead sounds like a risk to me. But we have no institutions that quantify this risk. I’m not an economist so I haven’t a clue how to do this, but I’m inclined to think it’s not impossible.

At the risk of being labeled a homophobe, I have to make a confession here. There is something about the current debate over sexual orientation and practice that confuses me. For many, it seems, once sexual orientation is declared to be determined rather than chosen, it follows that acting on one’s orientation is therefore acceptable, even recommended.

For instance, the Reconciling Ministries Network’s mission statement is: “Reconciling Ministries Network is a national grassroots organization that exists to enable full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the United Methodist Church, both in policy and practice.”

Actually, so far so good. But from here is where, for me anyway, the problem starts. As one pursues an understanding of the position of the Reconciling Ministries folks, one becomes familiar with “LGBT,” or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered.

Is my point of confusion clear? I have no desire to argue here the various points on orientation versus practice of “lesbian” or “gay.” It seems to be pretty clear, though, that when one moves into “bisexual,” one moves to a place where there is an obvious and necessary distinction between orientation and practice.

Whether or not there is justification for a sexual orientation called “bisexual,” it is obvious that bisexual practice is inappropriate for Christians because Christians are in broad agreement, as far as I know, that appropriate sexual behavior is “celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage.”

(This is one reason those on the Reconciling side of this argument fight for homosexual marriage; as it currently stands, church law and civil law forbid them from practicing fidelity in marriage.)

So here is my problem, and it is one that will undoubtedly have some on the “left” side of this issue banding me a homophobe. It seems to me that there is necessarily a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. There is no law, either in The United Methodist Church or in the United States, that directly refers to, limits, or addresses sexual orientation.

Since we necessarily have the ability to differentiate between orientation and behavior, the standard argument identifying orientation and behavior is specious. Specifically, how does “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” not preclude bisexuality being acted out?