Hacking Christianity

Is Methodism Protestant?

This seems like a ridiculous question for a United Methodist clergyperson to ask the Internets, but someone asked and my answer was insufficient for them.  I ask now because I've always considered Methodism to not really be from the Protestant branch but closer to the Anglican Church, which does not consider itself to be Protestant.

Consider:

• John Wesley lived and died an Anglican clergyperson.
• John Wesley started a revival within the Anglican church which then became the Methodist Episcopal Church.  The "Episcopal" moniker acknowledged its heritage with the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Church. 
• The First General Conference defined the Methodist Church to be "an Episcopal Church."
• Our Liturgy is closely patterned after the Book of Common Prayer.
• Why is this important?  The Anglican Church doesn't consider itself to be Protestant! From Wikipedia:

The question often arises as to whether the Anglican Communion should be identified as a Protestant or Catholic church, or perhaps as a distinct branch of Christianity altogether. The official position of the Anglican Communion is that, like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions, it is a full and distinct branch of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," created by Christ.

• Finally, David Hempton writes in his book Methodism: Empire of the Spirit that:

Although it had deep roots in the Pietist traditions that came out of the European Reformation, Methodism, it should not be forgotten, arose directly out of Anglicanism and expanded into those parts of the world where Anglicans and English speakers migrated.

page 204

Opposing considerations

• Theologically, John Wesley was influenced heavily by Arminianism, which identifies itself from the Protestant Reformation
• Through our mergers (especially with the Evangelical United Brethren and Methodist Protestant Church) we have much tradition in the Protestant Church in today's church.
• While there is great diversity in United Methodist worship, the Protestant worship style and format is predominant in the South and the Midwest.

Your turn:

Forgive me if this is stupid, but it's a question of identifying between Protestant practices and Anglican DNA.

• If the Anglican Communion considers itself a separate branch of Christianity from Protestantism, does Methodism do the same?  
• Or does Protestant polity and practice outweigh its Anglican DNA?

Addendum:

• Protestantism defined as "any non-Catholic church" is probably not helpful.  Why? From Wikipedia:

While the faiths and churches born directly or indirectly of the Protestant Reformation constitute Protestantism, in common usage, the term is often used in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.^[3] This usage is imprecise, however, as there are non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox traditions that predate the Reformation (notably Oriental Orthodoxy). The Anglican tradition, although historically influenced by the Protestant Reformation in what is called the English Reformation, differs from many Reformation principles and understands itself to be a middle path—a via media—between Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines. Other groups, such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, reject traditional Protestantism as another deviation from true Christianity, while perceiving themselves to be restorationists.

Read full post >>

A mission.hack is defined here. We look at mission statements or at mission initiatives and examine different ways of expressing them. Hacking them...if you will.

Wordle is a fascinating generator that allows you to paste chunks of text, and it will make a word-cloud out of it, giving words that are repeated more often bigger letters (like the tag cloud to the right).  I think it will become a regular part of our repertoire when evaluating mission.hacks, to expose what terms show up the most.  If nothing else, it will be fun to use.

To try it out, I inserted the United Methodist Social Principles (the preamble and main paragraphs [160-166]) into the generator, and clicked random grouping, grabbed a mountain dew, and almost spewed it when I saw what came out!

I hesitate to claim any lesson to be found in random groupings of words.  But I was struck by the way how it randomly placed the two most repeated words (God and persons) together:

While you can read the biblical, theological, and historical basis of the Creed, I think here is the basis of the social principles:

• We are called to be Godpersons who bring Life to the World.

That's it.  Pretty simple, eh?

Read full post >>

There's something brass in the Anglican Communion these days.  Something in the water that guides the people to follow the Spirit moving through the church structures.

• First, the Episcopal Church in America consecrates a gay bishop and a woman presiding bishop.
• Now, the governing body of the Church of England (not the worldwide communion) has voted to approve women as bishops. 

Naturally, this has caused concern from some of those who disagree with the current policies.  But what most struck me was the following quote from the Telegraph by a supporter of the decision:

A couple of hours ago, the Church of England decisively severed itself from its Catholic roots. By voting to ordain women bishops without significant safeguards for traditionalists, it reasserted its identity as a Protestant Church. Whether it will be a liberal or conservative Protestant denomination remains to be seen. But any hope of unity with Rome and the Orthodox has gone forever.

To this person, unity means going back and establishing common roots.  By holding fast to the values and practices of the ancient church, that is the only possibility for full communion with other traditions. 

Silly, don't you know?  The Spirit gives you wings.  Wings that allow you to outfly your roots and be open to the movement of the spirit that is empowering the ministries of women.

In fact, unity means grabbing ahold of these wings together and not letting others stay put. 

• In the Church of England, since 1992's decision to ordain women, there have been pockets and groups of clergy and parishes that refuse to ordain women.  For a generation now, they have kept women priests from their pockets of influence and embraced the roots of the human church rather than the wings of the spirit.
  
• In the United Methodist Church, my home conference last year revealed that several churches are explicit in saying that they don't want a woman pastor.  Which, to me, seems the only surefire way to get one!  By confronting these roots
  
• In the Episcopal church, while there are churches that seek to disband and reaffiliate with a different Anglican Communion bishop, there are some who decide to stay because of both roots and wings.
  

All this is evidence that unity comes not from turning back the clock to ancient church practices and values.  It comes from grabbing ahold of one another and wrestling with the issues face to face, not schizms and segregating churches into pockets and pinholes. 

This is a challenge for forward-thinking leaders that while we must do all we can to pull people out of their roots and comfort zones...there comes a time when we must do what is good and right and push churches to uproot themselves.

But don't worry.  The Spirit gives you wings!

Related articles by Zemanta

• England Church Backs She Bishops
• Conservative Anglicans Plan Rival Conference as Split Over Homosexuality Grows
• Women Bishops: What is the row about?

Read full post >>

Image via WikipediaSorry for my non-Methodist readers, but it is Annual Conference time and that means United Methodist posts aplenty.

Annual Conferences are like the three bears: they either have too many clergy or too few. The 'just right' bear is off taking a nap somewhere, I think.

Indeed, in some annual conferences with too many clergy, there's a vicious circle of clergy appointments and ordination. Walk with me through this:

1. IF the Book of Discipline requires all provisional and ordained clergy to have full-time appointments.
2. BUT there are less and less full-time appointments to which to appoint provisional and ordained clergy.
3. THEN the Board of Ordained ministry will not commission candidates for ministry until a full-time appointment opens up for them.

The rationale is solid: if the BOM cannot offer a full-time appointment, and if they bring in more candidates, then the system of appointments will suffer. Also, if they cannot offer a full-time appointment by ordination time, then they are in violation of the Discipline. Makes perfect sense from a maintaining-the-system perspective.

While this takes care of the system of ordination, it leads to several injustices to the candidates for ministry. Some real-life examples:

• One candidate was approved for commissioning, but due to the lack of appointments, he was not commissioned. Two years later he finally got to be commissioned, but during that time he developed a medical condition which required surgery. One month before he would finally be under the clergy health care...he was required to pay for the surgery out of his own pocket.
• One candidate was up for commissioning, but to be commissioned he would have to leave his vibrant, passionate half-time appointment for a different full-time appointment altogether...there were no other half-time appointments available in the area. Thus, the candidate forwent commissioning in order to keep his passionate ministry.
• Transferred clergy or clergy on cross-conference appointments are not required to be given full-time appointments.
  

Truth be told: there are local pastors who are in full-time appointments while candidates for ministry wait in the wings. Is that wrong? Not as a whole: they are gifted pastors in their churches, and if there is viable ministry, then continue to do good works! But even if they are gifted pastors, does that mean a seminary-educated candidate for ministry would be any less appropriate?

From a systems perspective, I find this troubling. If our theology of ordination includes consideration for the system of ordination above the individual calls to ministry, then there's something wrong. If we are caretaking the system of ordination more than we are affirming the call to ministry God has placed on individual people....then is that really what ordination is?

Now, full disclosure: I'm not on the ordained ministry leadership, and I'm not privy to those conversations. But I think that when we are keeping candidates for ministry out of the clergy pool we are essentially putting systems above people. And that troubles me.

Perhaps there are ways to commission candidates for ministry and maintain the tense balance between clergy and churches? To me, there is a simple answer to this...but no one will like it.

Perhaps clergy missionaries can be made of candidates. If annual conferences with too few clergy would contact conferences with too many clergy, then they can offer to take commissioned clergy into their conferences for a while on cross-conference appointments. While they may run the risk of staying when they get there, it would ensure that candidates' ministries are affirmed. I realize the hardship this would be on families for a drastic change in venue, and try to balance that against keeping candidates out of the clergy pool.

Full disclosure: I'm on a cross-conference appointment. By constantly maintaining relationships between two conferences, I'm seeing a lot of United Methodism and drastically different ways of ministry. By seeing how two different conferences deal with ordination, one with too many clergy and one with too few, I think better use and beefing-up of the cross-conference appointments may be a good approach.

Perhaps it can be a precursor to a blend between connectional and congregational systems: churches that want a minister so badly they will accept a cross-conference appointment can put out a "call" for a minister that other conferences can fill.

....let's stop there (number one critique of HX: my posts are too long!). What do you think?

• What balance should there be between maintaining systems of ordination and affirming the call of individuals?
• What do you think about the cross-conference appointments idea?
  
• What other methods can ordained ministry leadership try rather than being the stop-gap for new clergy?

Thanks for reading, and welcome to our visitors!

Read full post >>

My site statistics just registered several hits from RMN, so drop a "hello" in the comments to everyone! (T.L. Steinwert and I were called "tech-savvy".......I am offended. I am soooooo much nerdier than she is!)

A little shameless promotion: if you'd like to read this blogs' posts on General Conference 2008, check them out here:

Enjoy and welcome! And don't forget to subscribe to the website for almost-daily updates, even if it is just what I'm reading!

[/shameless plug]

Read full post >>

Ah, appointments. It's that time of year for itinerant systems of clergy like the United Methodist Church. So the blogs are talking a bit about it. This post is no exception.

How about a six-year appointment at a church? Whether that terrifies you or inspires you, read on for more discussion on what that might look like.

First, katie m ladd writes about the theological rationale behind the appointment system in the UMC:

Our appointment process makes a great deal of sense if we understand the pastor's presence to be primarily priestly and pastoral in nature. If the leadership resides among the laity and the pastor is there to teach, administer the sacraments, tend the flock, and lead worship, short tenures are fine. In theory, it matters not whether we are there one year or thirty years. The congregation itself provides continuity, vision, and leadership.

I uphold our appointment system because I agree with the theology behind it: we are not the leaders of our churches, the laity are. By moving us clergy around, that keeps churches from becoming cults of personality and instead they are to rely on their own gifts and graces for ministry. Beautiful. And fits perfectly within a grassroots bottom-up model of ministry so valued here at HX.net.

As sound as the theology is, more and more the pastoral gift of visioning is being emphasized as crucial to moving churches from maintenance to mission. How can we nurture vision and mission-building in short appointments? Research shows that it is usually by year four that ministers really start seeing the fruits of their labors in concentric circles, ripple effects that no longer silence themselves because "the previous pastor didn't do that" or "we aren't there yet as a congregation." It is at the four-year mark that pastors see what is working well...and we move UM clergy usually every three years. Frustrating, I'm sure!

Katie writes further about the appointment system and congregation visioning:

By the time a United Methodist clergy person has been at a congregation long enough to build the necessary trust, lay the important groundwork, and build strong relationships, more often than not we are moved. This is especially true in small churches which have shorter tenures for clergy...A missional outlook is an intentional orientation to ministry. And, an intentional orientation takes time and risk, which require trust.

As we move our brick-and-mortar churches to move their ministries outside their walls, perhaps the way appointments are done can help facilitate that? The UMC can test-drive a few districts or even conferences a new way of appointments. What would it look like?

In the spirit of ecumenism, my Roman Catholic friends inform me of the 6 + 4 system that some dioceses operate under.

• A priest is appointed to a parish for six years.
• At the six-year mark, their ministry is evaluated by the diocese.
  
• If all is well, then the priest serves another four years.
• After those four years, the priest is moved to another church or given another four year extension based on ministry viability.

Thus this means often ten-year appointments. Ugh...Ten years is a long time for Methodists.

I would propose a 4 + 2 system that is similar to the above to achieve six-year appointments.

1. Appoint a clergyperson to a parish for four years.
2. At the four-year mark, when ministry and visioning is truly beginning, evaluate their ministry by the DS and the congregation.
   
3. If there are seeds of missional context that need further growth by the pastor, then the pastor serves another two years.
4. After those two years, the pastor is moved to another church or given another two-year extension based on ministry viability.
   

So, 4 + 2 = 6 year appointments.

I like this idea because then at any time, a maximum of half the churches in a district could possibly have a appointment change. This gives overworked DSes more time to make better appointments and make congregations feel truly present in appointment deliberations.

Your thoughts? Would appointments of four years minimum (barring extreme circumstances, not set in stone) give clergy the time and contentment necessary to move congregations to missional outlooks?

If any present or past bishops or DSes have spare time enough to read this blog (hahahahaha, I made a funny), perhaps some feedback based on being on the other side of the appointment process?

Thanks for your comments, they are always cherished!

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

At General Conference, one item that was hotly debated was a motion to add pastoral accountability to church pastors regarding membership. It was sponsored by the Oklahoma conference, and would have made pastors accountable for decisions regarding membership. This was primarily in response to Judicial Council decision 1032, which erroneously gave sole authority to the pastor regarding membership. Sole authority is good and fine, but there must be some accountability, someone for a pastor to have to answer to if they exclude racial minorities, sexual minorities, or even people who are poor from their flock. [/soapbox]

Open Membership failed by 12 votesAnyway, the item failed by a mere 12 votes, and ¶214 in the Discipline will be the same for the next 4 years. But that's not what is interesting to this blog's readership. One of the primary arguments used on the General Conference floor against this measure came from Alice Wolfe, who (at least twice) claimed that this measure would have tied pastor's hands and forced them to accept people into membership.

Open Membership Worst Case Scenario: $500 in Lost RevenueThe worst-case scenario for Wolfe? That people would join a church just to not have to pay for a wedding. Really. Most UM churches do not charge members of those churches for building usage, such as weddings and funerals. Thus the people who would join to not have to pay for those usages would be stealing about $500 from the church coffers. That's the scare tactic used by Wolfe which probably was just effective enough to get the 12 votes needed to defeat the measure.

The worst-case scenario for Wolfe is a loss of $500. The worst-case scenario for for those who are gay is denial of membership from a church community that they love and contribute to.

Local Church Policy can nullify the Worst Case Scenario...easily.This is an example of how top-down polity could easily be rectified by bottom-up policy. I've worked at many churches, and at least two I've been wedding and events coordinators for. In all of those churches, we had a local church policy: You must be a member for at least one year to have building usage fees waived. A simple policy, and as long as it is well-known, then people won't come sneaking into your churches to steal $500 from your cribs...at least, not for a year.

Closed systems are better at local level than at the top-level.There, isn't that easier than top-down scare tactics that do not give justice to pastor's decisions on membership? This claim by Wolfe and supported by members of the minority report was simply a scare-tactic, a straw-man fallacy that was true, but easily remedied at the local level. Instead, we still have a polity that gives sole judgment of receiving into membership into the local church pastor...without accountability. Wouldn't it have been better to close the system's loopholes at the local level than dictating it from the highest levels?

I'm ashamed at the fear-mongering tactics and the delegates who voted out of fear of a local church losing $500. I'm angered by our judgmental attitudes on people's reasons for membership. And I'm a preacher, so I preached about it from my bully pulpit. From my sermon today:

We need to look at the long view, of what happens when people become part of a community, and give trust to God that the Spirit may actually enter into them despite their intentions. This church has accepted people who joined only to get their children baptized. This church has accepted people who joined only to get a members’ discount on a wedding. And you know what...we will continue to do so. Because we must have a bird’s eye view of things, and we leave judgment on people’s hearts to God.

I don't pastor a fancy church with tons of disposable income that $500 is not needed. It most certainly is needed for ministry! But if a person is willing to take the membership classes and pledge UM vows, who am I to judge what is in their heart? I will leave the judgment up to God. If we lose $500, but there's a possibility for a new disciple in Christ...friends, that is worth it. Heck, a year's worth of pledges would most likely be close to $500.

Targeting "cheaters" betrays our lack of trust in God.It just tears my heart up that our polity lost a chance at inclusiveness by 12 votes because delegates were scared of losing money. Not all of them who voted against it voted for that reason, I'm sure, but 12 votes, 6 people? Most likely. We don't like people who cheat the system, so we close it off to them. That's human nature. But in this case, our desire to thwart others led us to value $500 over the chance to change a life by exposure to a Christian family and lifestyle. And that hurts my heart.

May the God of New Beginnings signal to local church clergy to trust in God when it comes to readiness for membership, and may their accountability be to Jesus Christ...who will ask them at heaven's gates why they excluded from membership the least of these for $500.

Read full post >>

On the last day of GC, Karen Oliveto nudged me towards this poem by Italian writer Carlo Carretto. I hope it means as much to you as it does to me!

How much I criticize you, my church,
and yet how much I love you!
You have made me suffer more than anyone,
and yet I owe more to you than to anyone.
   I should like to see you destroyed,
   and yet I need your presence.

You have given me much scandal,
and yet you alone have made me understand holiness.
Never in this world have I seen anything,
more compromised, more false,
   yet never have I touched anything more pure,
   more generous or more beautiful.

Countless times I have felt like
slamming the door of my soul in your face—
and yet, every night, I have prayed that I might die in your arms!
No, I cannot be free of you, for I am one with you,
even if not completely you.

Then too, where would I go?
To build another church?
But I could not build one without the same defects,
for they are my defects.
   And again, if I were to build another church,
   it would be my church, not Christ’s church.

No. I am old enough. I know better.

(cross-posted at Religion is a Queer Thing)

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

Homophobia leads to weakened witness against sexual violence.

Hear that again: Homophobia in the United Methodist Church has weakened our witness against sexual violence.

I was having dinner with T.L. Steinwert and she alerted our table to this fact. I'm gonna post it here before her to steal her thunder. :-) As a result of our denominations' fear of gay people, we voted in a weaker stance on sexual ethics that does not give words or power to those who suffer from sexual violence.

We get our stance on sexual ethics from the Social Principles. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church are our stances on social issues, such as war, the environment, politics, democracy, abortion, and...homosexuality! Indeed, we have an entire section devoted to human sexuality.

Anyway, other blogs have written much about the lack of changes to the homosexuality prohibitions. I'll leave that to them. I want to write about how our fear of all things gay has removed the language against sex acts of violence.

Anyway, here's what the Social Principles say now about sexual violence.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond. Sex may become exploitative within as well as outside marriage. We reject all sexual expressions that damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.

Here's what was removed at General Conference 2008.

Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage bond . Sex may become exploitative within as well as outside marriage. We reject all sexual expressions that damage or destroy the humanity God has given us as birthright, and we affirm only that sexual expression that enhances that same humanity. We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.

Notice what is missing?
You can read it again here, it wasn't put in elsewhere.
Here's what the 2008 Social Principles will NOT say about sexual violence.

• No words of prohibition against marital rape
• No words of prohibition against improperness in marriage relationships that are outside of legal codes.
  
• No words of comfort to those who are troubled by their partner's demands of them in sexual relations.
  

I know when we get hurt we turn to the bible for comfort. As sick as it sounds, some pastors and even lay UMs turn to their Book of Discipline for our stance on deeply personal issues. If they don't see their issue reflected back at them, if a woman being raped by her husband doesn't see words to give her power, then the United Methodist Church's stance on sexual violence has been weakened.

The minority report tries, it really does. Here's its reference to violence in sexuality.

All persons, regardless of age, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured and to be protected against violence.

Weak. Way to replace a well-written sentence that acknowledges the messy humanity of relationships with an ambiguous one that does not speak truth to power.

This is a bad.hack. We have replaced language that gives power to people with language that does not empower people. It's like saying "We are against snowcones" without condemning those who make snowcone machines or the funnel-sized cups. There is no substance behind our witness, and indeed the substance that was there was removed, making the system of symbols less effective in social witness. By this change, we have made our system of social witness weaker and less relevant.

There are always unintended consequences to our actions. In our homophobia and zeal, we forget the humanity of those whom we wish to strip rights from, and unintentionally remove language of power to those who suffer from sexual violence. In other words, by focusing so much on sexual relationships, we have given power to those who commit sexual violence.

May the God of broken bodies forgive our church for our homophobia, and may we look in the mirror and realize that the one who is broken by homophobia is ourselves.

Read full post >>

A bad.hack (read more about it here) is a manipulation of a Christian system either using illicit means to achieve an end, or achieving goals that leave the system worse off and less open than before. Read on for the hack!

MethoFolks, listen up. This is a big post. I've got plenty of links and information regarding the PhoneGate at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a controversy surrounding the gifts of cell phones to African delegates from a Renewal group with an implicit exchange for their votes.

Read the UMNS news service report today on a Renewal Group handing out free cell phones to delegates with guides on who to vote for for Judicial Council.

Delegates and church officials attending General Conference are wondering if democratic processes have been compromised because a renewal group provided some African and some Filipino delegates with cell phones.

The Renewal and Reform Coalition created myriad conversations among delegates, church leaders and visitors after they learned that the Confessing Movement, Good News/Renew, Transforming Congregations and UMAction provided free cell phones to more than 150 African delegates to use during the General Conference.

Some delegates and officials expressed concern that the coalition is trying to sway the votes of African delegates who are typically more conservative than their U.S. counterparts. They fear the coalition might use the phones to offer suggestions on how to vote on particular issues.

INCREDIBLE!! They purchased cell phones and gave them to delegates, "no string attached."

I'm with GC Blogger in that this just smells fishy...and not good cooked fish, but raw stinky fish. And yes, Jim...FAIL.

I'm not the only one smelling the stink. Here's a relevant response from an ethics monitoring team:

A joint monitoring team from the Commission on the Status and Role of Women and the Commission on Religion and Race said the giveaway “is inappropriate behavior and it destroys community. We have gathered for Christian conferencing, which requires trust, honesty, openness and respect. Whenever there is an imbalance of power relationships with the expectation of reciprocity, this behavior gives the appearance of paternalism, manipulation, exploitation and of course, racism."

However, it seems to get much worse!

The GC2008 blog linked to the Daily-Kos affiliated blog StreetProphets post with video and images of the offending incidents that claims the cell phones came with a list of people to vote for, and information that who to vote for will be text-messaged to delegates during conference.

Here's the video (from StreetProphets):


However, StreetProphets erroneously credits the IRD solely with this scheme, but it was a joint effort among all the Renewal groups. I was handed a Good News written response to the controversy which claims "a cell phone is just a cell phone."

It is demeaning to the African Delegates to think that a gift of a cell phone would change their vote. They are highly educated, aware of issues, and supremely principled in their beliefs; and to think that the gift of a cell phone would change their view is demeaning to them. ...the Rev. James Heidinger, president and published of Good News, [said] "We believe that equal access to techno0logy helps create a more just and equitable playing field."

Finally, Will Green, a delegate from New England, also mentioned this:

Another member of the New England delegation - Ralph - was granted the floor for a moment of personal privilege and requested the Commission on General Conference form an Ethics Committee to address such crises as this. It was seconded and passed by a hand count (in other words, it wasn't close)!

That sounds brilliant. You need an established body of people to decide whether censure or condemnation is needed in an official capacity. Personally, I think it should have happened at GC2004 when the renewal groups said the UMC was splitting and that they speak for the church....

But I digress. This is hacking Christianity, right? So, what kind of hack is this?

• An offering of hospitality to delegates whose international citizenship would make it difficult to purchase a cell phone?
  
• Or a gift with no explicit strings attached, but with the means and method to influence votes at General Conference?

I guess I'm troubled mostly by the text-message thing: to send text messages on the floor to delegates while they are supposed to be in Holy Conferencing and listening only to the Spirit of God seems really antithetical to the whole thing.

If that proves true, then I would call this a bad.hack, one that uses a system of acceptable gifts and abuses those acceptable gifts to influence delegates while they are supposed to be listening to the Spirit of God. There's some more debate of this here on Matthew Kelley's blog.

But still, giving of "gifts" especially to those from third-world (hate that term) and developing nations (better) just reeks of, in the words of the UMNS article, colonist mentality that gives gifts with an implicit exchange of reciprocity. That sort of mentality has no place in a global Methodist church.

Sigh. I'm torn. What are your thoughts?

• Is a cell phone just a cell phone? A gift of hospitality to our overseas friends?
  
• Or is a cell phone an abuse of a system that seduces good Christian people to listen to a cell phone rather than the Spirit of God?

Thoughts?

Read full post >>

A mission.hack is defined here. We look at mission statements or at mission initiatives and examine different ways of expressing them. Hacking them...if you will.

An important and refreshing change happened in the first minutes of the UMC's General Conference with radical implications for our local church committees and ecumenical business gatherings. It is that important.

From lay delegate Will Green on the ground at GC:

[A] member of the New England delegation, my friend We Chang, asked the Bishop to change her language around a motion being "defeated" so that we don't use war and violence language. The Bishop loved the suggestion and it got applause from the gallery!

Thus, for the whole of GC2008, measures are not "defeated" they are "rejected."


It started me thinking:

• How often do your church committees "defeat" measures? Reading through a church's committee minutes can sound at times like armies swathing across Europe.
  
• How often do you vote with "ayes" and "nays?" Hearing it like two opposing sides can seem like there are only two areas, black and white, no shades of gray, reinforcing the opposing sides mentality.
  

Perhaps a change in language will assist us as we grow in mutuality towards each other? Maybe examine your own committees and see if the very language we use promotes combative relationships and "winners" and "losers."

Thoughts on this?

Read full post >>

So, General Conference starts today. All your favorite bloggers are there (or will be there...I don't get there until Friday). Out of all the updates and commentary by bloggers, pundits, and John Wesley himself, what can you expect here at HX.net?

For those of you that are not Methodist or are solely interested in the concept of hacking Christianity, please forgive the next 10 days. However, if you stick with me, you'll find many applications of the concepts of this blog onto the UMC. Ya might learn somethin'!

During General Conference

• There's gonna be plenty of hacks and opportunities abound! Here's what I'll be doing...
  
• posting and reviewing copies of renewal group publications (mostly bad.hacks I'm sure).
• reviewing written statements by the UMC-affiliated agencies and handouts (our famous mission.hacks)
• Pictures, pictures, pictures!
• Coverage of advocacy events and responses!
• Praying for peace.
• Crying and celebrating with my brothers and sisters in Christ (I'm sure there will be much of both!)
  

Post-General Conference

• There's plenty more to process!
• Review the changes to the Discipline
• Review the responses and media-whoring by the renewal groups
• Review the witness and advocacy events of the caucus groups
• Sleep. Maybe.
  

Life after General Conference...

• There's several posts to look forward to that I'm holding off on until after GC...since that's all on everyone's mind anyway!
• What the UMC can learn from Wikipedia [4-post series]
• User-submitted mission.hacks from their communities (contribute by emailing me here)
• And more whittling through the list of future blog posts.

Enjoy! Looking forward to the week ahead, and pray for safe travels!

Read full post >>

I was asked on Sunday the following:

Why do Methodists love their committees so much that they would gather for a full week of committess? It seems like that many Methodists could do good works and charity instead of sitting around and talking.

Indeed, the questioner is correct, we could take that week and thousands of people and do good works and acts of charity. But we wouldn't be getting all the jobs done that are required of us as the Church of Jesus Christ...

How is that? To parallel why General Conference for the United Methodist Church matters, we have to compare it to another General: General Motors, that is.

It's been said that the car company General Motors has two jobs.

• The obvious one? To make cars.
• The other one? To be a company.

This car company has to focus not only on getting cars made, but also how to conduct themselves and interact as a company of people dedicated to Job #1.

We could then say that the Christian church United Methodist Church is like that. We also have two jobs.

• The obvious one? To make disciples of Jesus Christ.
• The other one? To be a church together.

This Christian church focuses not only on creating disciples, but every four years we come together and decide how to conduct ourselves and interact as a fellowship of believers dedicated to Job #1.

May we these next two weeks come to a working arrangement and a grace-filled polity as we work on Job #2 in order to better pursue Job #1.

Read full post >>

A mission.hack is defined here. We look at mission statements or at mission initiatives and examine different ways of expressing them. Hacking them...if you will.

Yesterday, I attended a presentation by Doug Ruffle, PhD, of the New Jersey area of the UMC who came and did a presentation on church growth and tools for evangelism. He said (at least) one thing that really stuck with me and reminded me of many UMC Mission statements. He said this:

Stop being a friendly church.

Seriously...stop it.

• A friendly church is not what God calls us to be.
• We are called to be a church where people can make friends.

Dr. Ruffle writes...

My mother had to move over 10 times during her first 12 years of marriage. My father worked as a salesman and the companies he worked for were constantly assigning him to new places. We asked my Mom how she had managed to pick up everything and move with a family of five to a new town or city where she didn’t know a soul.

“I would find a Methodist Church,” she replied, “because there I knew I could make a friend.”

I thought it interesting how she worded her response. She didn’t look for a “friendly church,” but rather a church where she could make a friend. There is a big difference.

The difference was underscored for me recently upon hearing of a colleague who moved to a new town and sought out the closest United Methodist Church. He found a “friendly church.” People were kind. They smiled at him. Some greeted him during the after-worship fellowship hour. But, he wasn’t making any friends. He even went so far as to invite some of the church members he met to his home — to try to build a relationship — but they couldn’t find the time to come over. My colleague had found a friendly church, but not one where he could make a friend. He has given up trying and now is attending a church of another denomination where within two weeks of his first visit he was invited over to a member’s house for dinner.

To me, this is not mere hospitality, but a discrimination issue too. Too often we are only "friends" with people similar to us, and "friendly" to people who are not similar to us.

• You know...those people.
  
• The ones who you will talk to in coffee hour, maybe even wave back on the street, but otherwise outside the church walls you aren't connected to their lives.
  
• The ones of a different race or, perhaps more likely, economic level than you.
  

We are called to be friends and accountability partners, not just "friendly" people who greet you with a smile, but keep you at arms length.

The statement on a plaque on the front steps of my church says this: "A friendly Church in a friendly town." I'd rather it say "A Church where you can make a friend."

But maybe friendship isn't what you are looking for. Perhaps you are one of those wounded ones who just wants Sanctuary, a time alone with God. Emphasis on alone. That's fine too, and churches that take "to make a friend" to borderline-stalking are out of the loop too.

So, where is the sweet spot between being "friendly" and "making friends" that churches welcoming and hospitality committees can address? And how can pastors and laity alike help move their church from being friendly to actually treating one another like the brother and sister in Christ that they are?

Ruffle concludes his talk with this nugget:

My mother taught me a valuable lesson about the difference between a friendly church and a church where you can make a friend. It's a lesson of which our churches need to be reminded.

When I see the words "a friendly church" that just reminds me to be friendly. If I instead saw "where you can make a friend" I might remember, hey, that's ME. I might be the one making a friend today.

Mission.hacks examine what effect mission statements have on people, and what our mission statements betray about us. Perhaps the "country-club" stigma of the UMC could be a bit more eradicated if we stopped being "friendly" and started trying to offer to be "friends."

Thoughts? Other "friendly" manifestations that you want to note of?

Discuss.

Read full post >>

There's been two blog posts here that have gotten much ballyhoo the past few days. That's a pretty good return for being new to this niche of the blogosphere and really not on anyone's read lists yet. These Methobloggers and Facebookers are friendly and talkative folks!

So, what of mine blipped on the MethoRadars this week?

First, a satirical take on analyzing the mission holiness of seminary mission statements, got 29 comments and a ridiculous number of linkbacks of people writing about it:

• Redeeming Asbury Seminary as a Holy Institution: SPECIFIC DENSITY
• Mission Holiness
  
• Useless Measures
• seminary
• Asbury Theological Seminary is the Least Holy UMC Seminary
• No fair, a blogger who does actual work
• and finally, Touche, mon pasteur.

Second, a serious take of a Freakonomics new motto for the USA ("Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay") and applying that motto to the United Methodist Church, landed not many comments, but rather a mention in UMNexus and further (and better discussion) and a linkback from John the Methodist.

A NEW MOTTO? Check out Rev. Jeremy Smith’s blog, “Hacking Christianity.” Smith takes the winner of a recent motto contest, “Our Worst Critics Prefer to Stay,” and applies it to the UMC, with some surprising results. One of the best Methodist blogs, “Locusts & Honey,” in referring readers to Smith’s blog, draws a cogent comment from Jeff the Baptist, just in time for General Conference. (By the way, look over “Locusts & Honey’s” excellent blogroll. Great mix of people and views!).

Not too shabby for my first two weeks, eh? In fact, these two pages alone accounted for 60.5% of my page views the past two days! Ha!

I'm sure writing a post self-congratulating myself won't go over well in the blogosphere. But as a pastor who rarely or only slowly sees the fruits of his labor, instant gratification is sometimes a welcome guest.

So, thanks to everyone! More new content tomorrow!

Read full post >>

John and Andrew have both noticed that Claremont School of Theology has a new mission statement that they both have difficulties with: there is no mention of Jesus Christ or God or the UMC in it.

That makes me fuming angry! (HULK SMASH)
As a United Methodist Institution, should not our schools reflect the mission of the United Methodist Church: To Make Disciples of Jesus Christ? (THROWS PULPIT)
We have to be explicit with our mission statements, right? (THROWS CHALICE)
No wishy-washy nuanced academic words like Faith, Spirituality, or Religion will cut it! (CATCHES CHALICE..whew!)
Words with nuance are not expressive of the simple tenets of Christian faith! (SITS IN ASHES)

I propose that we determine who is the holiest of all UMC institutions.

Since we applied it to Claremont, let's use this clinically-proven formula of analyzing mission statements and apply it to the variety of mission statements from the 13 United Methodist Seminaries and see how they nuance things.

We are armed with the scientifically lab-tested and proven Mission Holiness Index (MHI), which gives scores to holiness words, and subtracts for wishy-washy words. Let's keep score!

• 5 points for explicit mentions of Jesus Christ, God, Christian, or the United Methodist Church
• Minus 1 point for wishy-washy academic words like faith, spirituality, religion, etc...words that indicate they are about God, but without the maracas to actually say it. Even "church" is here because they aren't paying homage to the UMC...the true faith.
  

NOTE: I took what was EXPLICITLY their mission statement. Some of them are longer, but only the parts that are explicitly stated as their mission statement are included.

Boston University's Mission: (not on website...pansies...taken from this official paper here)

The purpose of the Boston University School of Theology is to pursue knowledge of God, to cultivate leaders for communities of faith, to enrich the academy, and to seek peace with justice in a diverse and interconnected world.

As the founding school of Boston University and the oldest United Methodist seminary in North America, we are a professional school within a cosmopolitan research university that is itself committed to “learning, virtue, and piety.” Rooted in the Wesleyan traditions and drawing from the Christian traditions of the world, we strive to equip ministries and vocations whose aim is both personal and social transformation, whose orientation is diverse and global, and whose vision expands the prophetic legacy of this historic School of Theology.

5 point Words: God, UMC, Christian
Minus 1 point Words: faith, Wesleyan, ministries, prophetic, Theology,
TOTAL: 10 points

Candler's Mission:

Candler School of Theology is grounded in the Christian faith and shaped by the Wesleyan tradition of evangelical piety, ecumenical openness, and social concern. Its mission is to educate—through scholarship, teaching, and service—faithful and creative leaders for the church’s ministries in the world.

5 point Words: Christian
Minus 1 point Words: Evangelical, ecumenical, faithful, church's, ministries, Wesleyan
TOTAL: -1 points

Claremont's Mission, the school in question...

"An ecumenical and interfaith institution, Claremont School of Theology seeks to instill students with the ethical integrity, religious intelligence, and intercultural understanding necessary to become effective in thought and action as spiritual leaders in the increasingly diverse, multi-faith world of the 21st century."

Scoring Words: None, nada, zip.
1 point Words: ecumenical, interfaith, religious, spiritual, multi-faith
TOTAL: -4 points

Drew's Mission is:

The Mission of Drew Theological School Center for Continuing Education is to:

• Equip clergy and lay leaders to effectively address emerging and ongoing issues in ministry by providing relevant leadership education programs, including courses developed in partnership with Annual Conferences and agencies of The United Methodist Church.
• Provide advanced theological education beyond the structure of degree programs by opening some graduate courses to non-degree participants, and partnering with Annual Conferences and local churches to provide alternative educational opportunities that embrace multiple learning styles.
• Strengthen the spiritual lives of all people through deep Christian study and reflection that is characterized by a commitment to justice, ecumenism, and respect for the integrity of creation, and is supported by theology that is responsible to the complex social realities of our interconnected world.
  
  Scoring Words: Christian, United Methodist Church
  Minus 1 point Words: clergy, ministry, annual conferences (x2), churches, spiritual, ecumenism, creation, theology.
• TOTAL: 1 points
  

Duke's Mission is:

Duke Divinity School’s mission is to engage in spiritually disciplined and academically rigorous education in service and witness to the Triune God in the midst of the church, the academy, and the world. We strive to cultivate a vibrant community through theological education on Scripture, engagement with the living Christian tradition, and attention to and reflection on contemporary contexts in order to form leaders for faithful Christian ministries.

5 point Words: Triune God, Christian (x2)
Minus 1 point Words: spiritually, witness, church, Scripture, ministries
TOTAL: 10 points

Gammon's Mission is:

The mission of Gammon Theological Seminary, a historically African American institution, in partnership with The Interdenominational Theological Center, is to recruit, support, and educate pastors and leaders for The United Methodist Church.

5 point Words: UMC
Minus 1 point Words: Interdenominational, pastors
TOTAL: 3 points

Garrett-Evangelical's Mission is:

The core purpose of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary is to know God in Christ and, through preparing spiritual leaders, to help others know God in Christ.

The seminary enacts its mission through:

• Preparing women and men for ordained and lay ministries;
• Preparing qualified students for seminary, church-related college, and university teaching in the theological disciplines;
• Providing theological research and reflection for the church.
  
  5 point Words: God (x2), Christ (x2)
  Minus 1 point Words: spiritual, ministries, theological, church
  TOTAL: 16 points

Iliff's Mission is:

The Iliff School of Theology is a graduate theological school of the United Methodist Church. Its central mission is the education of persons for effective ministry in Christian churches and other religious communities, for academic leadership, and for the cultivation of justice and peace in local and global contexts.

Iliff affirms its United Methodist identity and its liberal Christian heritage, grounded in scriptures and traditions, critical thinking, and openness to emerging truths, including those derived from science, experience, and other faith traditions. In a world fragmented by religious and ideological conflicts, Iliff promotes theological scholarship and dialogue to foster transformative possibilities for humanity and nature.

5 point Words: UMC (x2), Christian (x2)
Minus 1 point Words:ministry, religious, scriptures, faith, religious,
TOTAL: 15

MTSO's Mission (well, their stated Purpose Statement) is:

Our Purpose
Methodist Theological School in Ohio provides a vibrant learning environment for the preparation of skilled, passionate transformational leaders for churches, religious institutions, emerging faith communities and the wider world. We attend to the theological, spiritual, and vocational formation of a diverse group of students involved in a wide range of pursuits. Expecting active participation in our community of learning, we maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect and openness, teaching how to engage in conversation with the past and with others so that new and faithful perspectives may emerge. Our graduates demonstrate a deep understanding of the heritage disciplines of religious study, are highly competent in areas of practical theology, and show evidence of thoughtful reflection. We take seriously our responsibility for stewardship of the intellectual life of the church and our commitment to a just and sustainable world.

5 point Words: NONE
Minus 1 point Words: churches, religious, faith, spiritual, faithful, religious, theology, church.
TOTAL: -8 points

Perkin's Mission is:

The primary mission of Perkins School of Theology, as a community devoted to theological study and teaching in the service of the church of Jesus Christ, is to prepare women and men for faithful leadership in Christian ministry.

Perkins School of Theology affirms its relationships to the community of learning that is Southern Methodist University, to the universal church (inclusive, ecumenical, and global), the The United Methodist Church specifically, and to its particular geographical and cultural setting in the southwestern United States.

These relationships are sources of strength and avenues of service for the school as it pursues its twin tasks of theological reflection and theological education to the glory of God.

5 point Words: Jesus Christ, Christian, UMC, God
Minus 1 point Words: church, ministry, church, ecumenical, theological (x2)
TOTAL: 14 points

Saint Paul's Mission is:

Rooted in the Wesleyan tradition

and committed to inspiring passion for ministry

in diverse Christian bodies,

Saint Paul School of Theology

educates leaders

to make disciples for Jesus Christ,

renew the church,
and transform the world.

5 point Words: Christian, Jesus Christ
Minus 1 point Words: Wesleyan, ministry, disciples, church
TOTAL: 6 points

United's Mission is:

United Theological Seminary is a Christ-centered graduate school of The United Methodist Church that equips leaders for the church in a pluralistic world through the nurture of piety