Relections on General Conference #1

                      The General Conference of the United Methodist Church recently finished its quadrennial meeting.  What was supposed to be a meeting in which major structure change was to take place and processes to make the ministry of the United Methodist Church more nimble turned into disappointment for some as not much was accomplished, and in the eyes of many pastors trust and covenant was broken.  As I have thought about what has happened the last few weeks in Tampa, FL, I have come to some conclusions.  This article is mine and mine alone, and some of ideas discussed in it are probably not what the “leadership” of the denomination wants to hear.  In this post I will talk about a few of the major issues and my take on it.  They are written in the order I think of them not in the importance I place on them.  I will break this up into several different blog posts for ease of reading.  Let me say I am also not opposed to change if it is needed and it is implemented fairly.  The Call to Action and the follow-up done on the report is not necessarily a just or fair document for a large segment of the United Methodist Church.

  1.  The response to the Call to Action Report-The Call to Action was a report issued last year by one of the groups commissioned by either the General Conference or the Council of Bishops.  Prepared by an outside agency that looked at many statistics the conclusions reached were most of the congregations of the United Methodist Church in the United States were ineffective in accomplishing the mission of the United Methodist Church, there were trust issues at all levels of the church, a lot of ineffective ministers, and the organization was a 1950s style in a 21^st century world.  There were other items, but I believe the biggest ones were the ones listed in the previous sentence.  The report, as I said in an earlier blog post, seemed to me to be outcomes looking for a report.  All these items had been talked about for quite some time and now there was a way to make it look snappy while trumpeting the doom of the UMC if these changes were not made.  The response to the Call to Action was, for the most part, backlash.
            A team had worked on a restructuring plan that eliminated, merged, and cut the size of the general boards and agencies.  The overall oversight for the denomination would be delegated to a small board of 15 people.  The number of people involved in overseeing the other boards and agencies would be cut down as well.  The shrinkage and elimination of boards, agencies, and directors as well as consolidating the power into such a small group raised many issues.  Some of the issues raised were a) how would inclusiveness of gender, ethnicity/race, and theological differences be ensured; b) how would the current work be affected; c) was all of the work and issues that had been raised when the commissions/boards slated for elimination had been authorized?  If not who would continue the work/would the work get the same attention?  And, while it probably shouldn’t have there was probably some fiefdom/turf protection going on as well.

            There were two plans put forth to the General Conference, one backed by the leadership the other by the Methodist Federation for Social Action.  A third plan(Plan B), while not submitted officially, also was factoring into what would get passed.  In the process of being vetted and either being recommended or not recommended by a legislative group of the General Conference, it became obvious there was a lot of dissent even among the delegates.  Because of the divisiveness of the proposals there was not recommendation from the committee of either plan, and for a while it looked as if there would be no vote on any plan because of the rules saying it had to come from a legislative committee to amke it to the General Conference's floor for discussion and vote.  Through a lot of finagling and finesse, and representatives from all three plans working together, a plan was put together, presented, amended, voted on, approved, and then struck down by the Judicial Council as not being in accord with the denomination’s constitution.  Some people are quite happy there is no reorganization this quadrennium while others are very upset. 
            As I have thought about the restructuring I have come to the conclusion our organization is not the problem.  The United Methodist Church is a global organization of over eleven million people.  To effectively manage and deliver resources is going to require a fairly large organization.  Does that mean it cannot be tweaked, new boards created or old ones eliminated?  No, it doesn’t.  In fact they probably need to be tweaked.  In my opinion what probably needs to happen is the boards and agencies become more user friendly and have a bigger impact upon all the local congregations.  Resources need to be made available that are user friendly and more affordable.  The internet needs to be used more effectively.  The General Boards and Agencies should work more cooperatively.  My perception is our denomination’s organizational groups are much like the federal government’s security agencies before 9-11-2001.  There is not enough cooperation because everyone wants to protect their territory or they don’t like someone or something.  The boards and agencies should be held to uphold the standards and doctrine of the United Methodist Church and should not look for loopholes to get around the polity, discipline, or doctrine of the denomination.  Some of the boards and agencies, and their general and assistant secretaries seem to push ideas that are not always in line with the UMC’s stated positions.  The issues surrounding sexuality is probably the most notable example of this.

            I also have been wondering if the leadership of the denomination learned anything from the 2008 General Conference when a major restructuring proposal from the leadership came forward to be voted on, and because of the need for constitutional amendments, votes in the individual annual conferences.  While the restructure was approved by the GC, at the annual conference level it was rejected.  As I recall the most common reason for voting no was that no one knew how the restructuring would look or what exactly it would do.  Yes, there were some who wondered about their fiefdoms, inclusiveness, or something else, but people wanted to know how it would work and the effects it would have on people.  The standard answer was, to paraphrase from the best of my recollection, “We don’t know, just trust us that it will be for the best.”

            And that brings us to the next topic, trust in the United Methodist Church.

Here is the outline I used for "Cuts Like a Knife" the first in a series called "Demons of Destruction-Attitudes and Actions that Cause Harm to the Self, Others, and Organizations"  It deals with a critical spirit.  As with the entire sermon series this is just an introduction.  Just as a disclaimer with the outline I know what I am trying to say, but it may not seem to be clear to others.  I have tried to be understandable, but if I am not please forgive.

 

Sermon Outline

May 6, 2012

 Scripture Lessons:  Proverbs 15:1-15 (selected verses about the mouth); Ephesians 4:17-5:5 (Living a holy life, putting aside all sorts of evil practices.  Don’t use foul or abusive language); James 3:1-12 (the power of the tongue including the bad part of it); Colossians 3:1-17 (putting off the old self and putting on the new.  This includes anger, coarse language, etc).

 Sermon Topic:  Demon of Destruction-Critical Spirit/Attitude

Sermon Title:  Cuts Like a Knife

I.  Introduction and Background

    A.  Opening story on Bryan Adams’ “Cuts like a Knife”

    B.  Start of a new sermon series dealing with the Demons of Destruction-Attitudes and actions that can be destructive to the self and or systems.  Topics may include envy, pride, etc.
    C.  What We Are Talking about Today
         1.  What is a Critical Spirit
         2.  How is it expressed
         3.  How can we exorcise it from our lives
         4.  How can we overcome it when it is directed at us

II.  What is a Critical Spirit

     A.  Have you ever worked with someone or have someone in your family who is “perfect.”  They are quick to point out how good they are, and what you are lacking in.  Often it is in a condescending, sharp, or arrogant tone.  Other times they may point something out in a reasonable tone, but it is always what is wrong or what could be done better.  Other times they are pushy and bossy and “you better do it.”  Know I am not talking about doing follow-up on jobs per se, or holding someone accountable, but a way to make a person feel bad about themselves or a way to make the person belittling feel better about themselves at the expense of someone else, or both.
    B.  Biblical Times
         1.  We see in Proverbs 15 numerous sayings about the mouth
         2.  In Ephesians we see abusive language as well as coarse/vulgar language being seen as a bad thing
         3.  In James we see how the tongue should not be cursing the image of God and how much damage such a small thing can cause
         4.  In Colossians again we are told to put aside/take off the old=bad language, envy, slander, etc.
     C.  Our Time
          1.  Merriam Webster on line dictionary defines criticism as the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something
          2. It seems as if many people will use “constructive” criticism and seem to be helpful when in reality they are trying to a) get their own way, b) make a person feel bad, c) combination
         3.  Once was told all criticism hurts, it is what you do with it that makes it constructive or not.
              a. Some criticism has no possibility of being constructive
         4.  Critical spirit is when it is common to find fault or disapproval on a regular basis and it is to make one feel better about oneself         or to tear down and/or destroy someone or something.
         5.  A critical spirit may be something one grows up with or it may be acquired through life experiences.  One may not realize one has a critical spirit if it is their personal normal.

III.  How is it expressed

      A.  Talk about how people communicate in many different ways-verbal, non-verbal, combination, written,
      B.  In Scripture
           1.  From what I have seen it is most often expressed verbally,
      C.  Our Time
           1.  Verbally is still probably the most common way
                a.  The favorite words of an individual or corporate entity-We cannot do it that way because we have never done I that way/we always do it this way-in its own way that is a cutting and critical remark essentially saying that the person’s idea is not even worth considering
                b.  Put downs/insults when things don’t go just right or just because-
                     I.  Words have immense power and calling someone stupid, making them feel little, etc  will cut like a knife and eventually mar a person
                     II.  Talk about kids being called stupid by parents and coming to believe it, comments made by parents that still effect people 80 plus years later
                c.  Tone can carry a lot if criticism
          2.  Non-verbally can be purposefully avoiding people, shaking the head, body language like finger pointing 
          3.  It can be talking with others-“The pastor’s kids should not be wearing tied dye clothes and getting their tongues pierced.  They have an image to keep up.”  Or “I cannot believe So and so was holding the glass in their right hand, everyone knows it is supposed to be held in their left and you pour water our the spout not putting the pitcher on its side.
          4.  Written
          5.  In tone:
               a.  Sharp, biting tones carry cut sharply.
               b.  A disappointing tone can add burden to a person’s ego/self

IV.  How can we exorcise it from our lives

       A.  Talk about how the old horror movies that deal with demons often would have an elaborate exorcism rite.  Sometimes the person would want it done other times it would have to be imposed on them.
       B.  Biblical Times
            1.  Colossians, James, and Ephesians all talk about setting aside or not participating in in letting the tongue run amok, slandering people, controlling the tongue.
            2.  The idea is to take out the old ugly spirit and replace it with a new, clean and pure spirit.
       C.  Our Time
            1.  While we are not talking about an actual demon today, we do need to exorcise a critical spirit from our lives as it impacts our relationships as well as other people’s lives and organizations.
            2.  First thing is we have to do is to see if we have a critical spirit
                 a.  Almost all of us have one at least time to time
                 b.  We HAVE to admit that it does occur
                 c.  It may have become the norm for individuals and for organizations to be critical/cutting/ insulting.
            3.  If we are catch ourselves making a cutting remark we need to stop ourselves from doing it.
            4.  If we realized we have made a cutting remark, or someone has told us that it was an uncalled for remark then we need to apologize.
                 a.  There will be times when what needs to be said is not comfortable or it may hurt, during those times we need to use grace.  There are times when it is not a negative use of the critical spirit.
                 b.  At the same time there are those who may say that everything that is said that is holding us accountable is negative and will not listen or their spirit says you are flat out wrong.
                     I.  We need to proceed carefully in those situations
             5.  We may need to look at our history and see what bad patterns we are continuing from our past and our families past
                  a.  Just as abuse is passed on to successive generations so can the critical spirit.
             6.  We need to pray, read Scripture, find someone who is able to help hold us accountable.
             7.  We also need to replace what we want to get rid of with something positive and Godly
                  a.  Remember what Colossians says, to take off the old and put on the new.

V.  How can we overcome it when it is directed at us

     A.  The old saying about sticks and stones is wrong-they both hurt and they both can cause long lasting harm.
     B.  Our Time
           1.  When it is directed at us look to see if there is any truth in it.
           2.  Understand that sometimes people do not know they are being hurtful or insulting as it has become their norm.
           3.  Hold the person accountable
                a.  Don’t let it slide, be willing to say something instead of rationalizing it away like “that is just so and so and he/she always talks that way.”
           4.  Talk to God
           5.  Seek professional help.

VI.  Conclusion

      A.  Rmember that just as a break up and leaving can cause somebody to feel like their heart has been cut with a knife.  The effects of a critical spirit can do the same thing to a person’s spirit and to an organization’s spirit.  We need to replace our hurtful spirit with peace, love.  It will take work, and it will take time.  Are you willing to replace the things of the devil with the things of God?