The Wesley Fellowship at Duke, of which I am fortunate to serve as an intern from the Divinity School, took a small, but strong, group to Branches UMC in Florida City, FL this past week for a winter break trip. Branches UMC is a United Methodist Church in Florida City, FL (about an hour south of Miami, right next to Homestead). Most will remember the area in relation to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. To say that Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida is an extreme understatement. Homestead was pretty much wiped out. Ever since, Florida City, thanks to help from the US government, has had a rebirth of its economy. It's impossible to fully grasp the amount of impact Hurrican Andrew had on the area without being there. Everything, in one way or another, reminds visitors of the devastation. Branches UMC also houses a mission program within its walls, one of three Branches sites within South Florida. This mission program was our main focus throughout the past week. For years now, Branches has provided an after school tutoring program for the community's children. They tutor every child, help them with homework, pick them up from school, and act as a bit of a liason between the church, the schools, and the community. It's an incredible witness to the community because it is a place free of gang violence, drugs, and other issues. It's a large undertaking for such a task, but the staff and volunteers at Branches are there every day, rain or fire, to minister to this community. As you're probably aware, South Florida is ethnically diverse. While English is still the "main language," nearly everyone is somewhat bilingual and many businesses operate almost completely in Spanish if at all possible. But it's not just, English or Spanish, White or Latino, or Latino or Black either. These generalizations do little good. There are Cubans, Hondurians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Haitians, as well as a representation from every race, country, and nationality. These people are different than those they see around them and they're conscious of this fact. Because of this, the large collection of 'illegal immigrants' (more on that term another time), the extreme poverty, and other aspects such as weather and climate, South Florida is a type of place that you may not be used to in any way. As a white male, though I grew up in Florida, I was very underprepared. But it's not just race. It's also class. There are the extreme rich (though most of them live closer to Miami). There are the extreme poor (many live 10 to a small house). There are those who run their own bakeries (and there are some really good ones), and there are those who can't find work. There are skilled day laborers that stand on the street waiting to see if there will be any work for the day (and their stories will bring tears to your eyes), and there are those who drive fancy cars and have season tickets for the Heat. Perhaps our whole world deals with these issues of class, etc, but the racial tensions within South Florida seem to make the problem even more...real. To make it one step worse (or perhaps in some ways...better) the church burned in 2010. The whole church, more or less, went up in fire, destroying everything. And here's where I'd like to dwell for a moment. Obviously, the fire is a defining moment in the church's history. But not because it changed them. I see it as definining because of the way they reacted. From the morning after the fire the pastor, Audrey Warren, stood before the communion table and said, "Don't come for communion if you are unwilling to forgive whoever has done this." Imagine the rage in your heart if everything you had worked for had been burned. Now imagine a complete and utter message of immediate forgiveness. I think that's what Jesus used to speak about. This church sings songs with lyrics like "out of the ashes we rise," "you fail us not," and "you're bigger than the battle," in ways that I could never dream to. They begin worship with the call, "God is Bigger" and respond, "All the time." Because God is bigger than a fire. God is bigger than lost computers, guitars, and desks. And they recognized that. Immediately. Because they're here, for a purpose, and are working to do whatever they can to make some sort of difference. Because it doesn't matter if the parents have 'papers' or not...these kids are in school. Because the Gospel matters just as much in this church as it does in any other place in the world. There was a fire. It happened. But that wasn't so important. That moment when a child's face lights up because he finally understood it was important. That moment when they came together as a community over a campfire to sing songs about making beautiful things out of the dust was important. That moment when they welcomed strangers on their staff retreat so that they could learn just a little bit more about what they do was important. Branches is a family. A family of Americorp workers. A family of staffers. A family of volunteers. A family of college kids just trying to have eyes opened toward the work of the Church and future of the Gospel. A family of ministers and those in need of that ministry. It's an amazing place and you ought to go. -B
The Death of the UMC #explo2011
I've had over 63 pages of writing due in the last two weeks. It's funny that we often describe Divinity School as "Hell on Earth." Currently, I'm tired of writing my theology paper. Thus, I am taking a break to do this. I attended Exploration 2011 this weekend in St. Louis. Exploration is a conference for about 600 young, college-aged, United Methodist adults who are exploring (hence the title) a call into some sort of ministry. It serves several purposes:
- Encourage young people to explore their calls into ministry,
- Explain the ordination process,
- Educate attendees about different methods and modes of ministry,
- Provide reflection time in small groups to discuss,
- Enable UMC young-adults from around to the world to meet each other, converse, worship, and fellowship.
In addition, all of the United Methodist Seminaries (13 in all) were represented by staff and student alike, providing information, sweet giveaways, and advice to potential seminary students. I'm already a seminary student, but I was not a rep from Duke. I was an attendee. But, you know, I wore Duke stuff everyday.
Friday night's preacher in worship was none other than Adam Hamilton, the pastor of the largest United Methodist church in the world, Church of the Resurrection. Adam has been promoted through churches like WillowCreek and is easily the best known United Methodist pastor in today's culture. He spoke well, clearly, and with passion. He encouraged young people to truly consider ministry for the good of the Church. If a quick search of the Twitter hashtags "explo2011" says anything, his message reverberated with a large percentage of the attendees that night.
One of Adam's main focuses: The United Methodist Church's decline. It does little good to bore you with insignificant stats that prove this thesis. Instead, this general point can be made: If the rate of decline in membership in the United Methodist church continues, the UMC will not be in existence in 2050.
Gone. No more. One of the denominations on which Christian culture was established in the United States will have vanished.
It won't have been the first time a denomination that has been so influential in our history has declined. Or died.
Adam discussed a crucial point, too. He admitted that our goal ought not to be to save a denomination, or religious group. He pointed out, more or less, that our goal should be to make disciples. And, as United Methodists, we believe that the Wesleyan way of discipleship is the best, most effective way to do this. By reaching into our Wesleyan core (which, from my observations, seems to be - at the most - ambiguously articulated in a majority of UM churches across the globe) we may discover new ways of changing the world through disciples of Jesus. I agree, but I do think that and established church has at least the possibility of bringing this on (This is obviously widely disproved throughout the course of history, but a man has to have a little faith, right?)
I'll quote Vance Rains here,
Does anyone here, including myself, really know how to save the United Methodist Church?
All I can do, as a new comer to this movement, is observe. I can tell you what I think the church is doing well. I can definitely tell you what the church is not doing well.
And for me, it seems to be summed up in this: We aren't skating to where the puck will be.
This phrase is attributed to Wayne Gretsky (though I'm unsure if he actually said it) and was one of the favorites of the late Steve Jobs. Jobs wanted to move ahead. So, to do that, he moved ahead…taking great ideas from other people and fusing them with his own. Through this, he innovated and created products people didn't know they wanted. Like Henry Ford, he created phones without keyboards, tablets without styluses, and computers without disc drives. Ford is claimed to have said, "If I'd have asked the customers, they'd have said they wanted a faster horse."
But the UMC doesn't seem to be doing that. The UMC doesn't seem to be taking old ideas, mixing them with new ones, and coming out with something effective. The UMC doesn't seem to be thinking creatively. The UMC doesn't seem to be not only listening and reading their Wesleyan heritage, but synthesizing it to create something that will serve the needs of the world. No, it doesn't seem to be doing that.
And that's ok. Research In Motion isn't doing that either. But come five years, they won't be around.
Wesley was an innovator. Wesley was clear about what he thought. Wesley knew of effective ways of maintaining accountability in discipleship. Wesley knew of positive ways to change the world. Wesley knew that the power behind religious revival was in a movement. And Wesley should get a lot of credit for thinking differently than many, many others in his time.
I think United Methodists recognize this. And I do think, as a General Church, the UMC is trying to be relevant.
It's just that our methodology seems a little screwy.
Our version of "relevancy" seems to be based on what the Reformed or evangelical churches are doing. And we, as we always have been, are behind. Seriously behind. And sometimes we throw resources into the wrong areas. We staff the wrong places. We don't always hire the best in the field.
So no wonder our attempts at things are less successful. We're creating the hi-PHONE instead of the iPhone. We're trying to play contemporary music, but it's just not…quite…right…yet.
I think it is happening this way: through desperation, we are copying others. 20 years ago, we saw the evangelical denominations growing faster than us. So we decided something had to change. We waited around for 5 years to make a decision to do so and then we got to work. We started marketing campaigns (I would say, some of the more successful things we've done). We started rethinking who we were. Why? Because we saw others do it. I ask of you: how different are those rethink church commercials, really, than those billboards from non-denominational groups that advertise a "new way to do church"? They're only different in that they are more socially minded (a good a righteous thing), but our attitude is much the same. "Oh, God, they're undercutting us by stripping down some of the perceived ridiculousness of our liturgy and system," we might as well have said.
The funny part is, the ReThink Church commercials are easily one of the best things the Church has done, in my opinion. I think we've called on people to question some things that ought to be questioned. It just appears to have had little follow through.
Which gets me to my point. We copy others. AND THAT'S FINE. But, in our copying, we aren't thorough. We write things like "Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds" when large percentages of our church simply don't believe it. We try to be relevant, but many of our churches are much, much older than other churches. So, we try to do things in our old buildings that just aren't practically possible. And the product of our efforts doesn't look "cool" like we think it does. It looks like a cheap knock off. And people, congregants, don't see authentic worship, they see posers (something our culture is less and less tolerant of everyday). They see people faking what's popular. They see BOBS instead of TOMS. They see Samsung instead of Apple. We're ripping off others, and to make it worse…we're not even doing it well. (At least Samsung stuff still looks good)
Instead, perhaps, maybe we ought to truly rethink church. Not basing it off of our own social values. Not basing it off of our own bias. Not basing it off of our own thoughts. Not basing it off of our own Scriptural interpretation. Not basing it off of our own political beliefs. Not basing it off of our own definitions.
Because the Wesley that I read doesn't seem to have been ripping anybody off. Wesley seems to have been starting something new, incorporating the traditional values, thoughts, concepts, and theological insights of the old tradition to bring about a revival that focused on holiness in discipleship. That movement is what helped influence the Christian culture in America. And his thoughts were so good, I'm convinced there's another opportunity, if only we'd wake up.
Picasso said, "Good artists copy. Great artists steal." There's a huge difference between the two, and I'm unconvinced that the UMC understands that.
So please, let's not put up a GPS (or phone…we had disagreements about what it was) around the lyrics being projected on the screen unless we're going to take the time to actually explain it, incorporate it, and usefully employ it. Otherwise, it looks like we saw the evangelical churches using the iPhone theme for their events and thought, "Oh, God, we're behind." Which, I'd imagine, is exactly what happened.
If we're going to do it, we need to do it well. Otherwise, we're going to die.
Like Vance, I don't know what is going to save the church. But, I do feel as if I'll know when I see it. And I know this from observation: we can't keep following everyone else. We have never been like that as a church and this is an awful time to start. We ought to seriously rethink who we are, where we're going, and where we've been. We make corrections, we synthesize, and we move on…making the best, most faithful decisions we can as fast as we can. And we have to do it throughly, with class, artistry, energy, and resources. Every detail has to be ironed out so that what we say is cohesive and intentional. And we don't need to try to be "cool." That'll come to us, if we are who we are and the story is as good as we say it is. And, friends, it is.
Please, it's too good of a story not to tell in new and fresh ways. And besides, Jesus is calling us to tell it.
-B
Turbo-Charge the Tradition
Amen. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMd-nHTUFA&]
-B
Wesley and Women in Ministry
Every once in a while you learn something in seminary. We are making our way(somewhat slowly as opposed to other classes) through Sondra Matthaei's Making Disciples: Faith Formation in the Wesleyan Tradition in my Forming Disciples in the Wesleyan Tradition class. I was kidding when I said earlier that it is only every once in a while that you learn something, because that seems like all that I am doing, but I like this class in particular because it deals with some of the practicality of parish ministry and the future of the United Methodist Church in particular. In my mind, it's a different type of learning.
I grew up in a Baptist tradition in a church body that seemingly(to me a least) supported women in ministerial roles more than most Baptist Churches do. I never had a woman pastor, but I would have been in support if the question had ever arisen. I never made the distinguishment [please see commentary below based on the word "distinction"] between who should and shouldn't be in a pastoral role. Especially based on gender.
The chapter that I was reading dealt with...who, according to Wesley, shall teach? Matthaei went through several different ideas that Wesley laid down for how things in the church ought to be taught. I particularly liked the emphasis that was put on lay leadership because I feel like it is often a perception of the UMC that lay and diaconal leadership have little power because of some of the stipulations put on the church by the ordination process (for instance, the celebration of marriage ceremonies, sharing and blessing of the Eucharist, baptism, etc...more on my perception of this perception in a later post).
What I like so much about Wesley is that he was so right in so many ways.
Here is the kicker, I got to the section that described Wesley's perception of women in the role of preaching. Matthaei had already spoken about the role of the women in some of their practices with the poor, and had spoken highly of them. However, Wesley here had some hesitancy when it came to women in a role that would require them to preach. It took seeing the fruits of women preaching to point out that perhaps God was working inside of this. Matthaei even goes so far to point out that Charles Wesley was "clearly opposed to the increasing leadership of women."
If you didn't know this already, like myself, it may be a bit shocking because the UMC these days is a bit ahead of the game in the American Church and there seems to be a strong leaning to return to our Wesleyan roots. With that though, there has never been talk, that I have heard, in removing women from their role in the church. This would seem absurd!
To make it a bit less shocking, it is necessary to look at the Wesleys' and their thought process. Many may not know that John simply wanted to reinvigorate the church by building disciples who were growing toward holiness in their love of God and neighbor. After my studies, I dont think that it was his intention to create a new church. Many SHOULD know that Wesley never officially left the Anglican Church (though I am sure that many would have liked him to) and so did not consent to the ordination of women. However, it seems to me that the only reason that Wesley did not formally consent was because of his torn views between the traditional view and the new view that women could contribute significantly in their preaching to the teaching of the church.
Here is what I get: Wesley considered function over form to be necessary. Paul Chilcote puts it this way, "When the normal pastoral system fails to bear fruit, God raises up messengers to do what must be done." Matthaei states that "Since Wesley relied heavily on the criteria of fruits of the Spirit, he could not deny the evidence of God's work in women called to preach.". Wesley would later use the word "barbarity" when speaking of a method of not allowing women to preach.
To me, the most intriguing part of the UMC is the lack of this mentality. Often times, the church in general, does what is "traditional" rather than what is "effective". If something is failing us, should we not reevaluate what that is and come to grips with a way to fix it? And I'm not talking about worship music style either. In Wesley's denomination, it was absurd to assume that a woman could preach, and yet he saw the light that God was working through them and that all people are to use their God given gifts. This would include women.
What is it in today's world that the UMC is doing that is more form over function? Where is God working, bearing fruit, and showing us that we are ignoring? When we finally see the fruits of God's work in human labor, will it be enough? Will it be too late? Does this have anything to do with the significant loss of numbers inside of the UM church over the past 20 to 30 years? What are we doing wrong?
-B