Response to Bishop Willimon

By Jay Voorhees, Special Contributor…

Dear Bishop Willimon,

This morning the net was abuzz with commentary about your UMR essay “Church By Committee.” Frankly there was little in the article that surprised me for I’ve known you long enough to know of your disdain for the system that we are both part of. I have heard you speak pretty disparagingly about our shared denomination both “within the family,” and depressingly enough to me, with folks outside the United Methodist fold, offering them permission to dis’ our communion  without a great deal of justification for why you choose to remain a part of the people called United Methodist. There was nothing in your commentary that I haven’t heard before.

You are a Bishop in our church, and I respect the position that you hold as a church leader. While I have known you since before you were elected to that office, I trust the discernment of the Southeast Jurisdiction representatives who believed that you possessed the gifts to hold the office of Bishop, and I respect your opinions (even agreeing with some of them).

And yet, with all due respect, as I read through your post, I found so many points of disagreement that I’m not sure really where to begin.

Actually, I DO know where to begin — with your conclusion that the discernment of the Body of Christ as reflected in the General Conference is inadequate, and that we should simply allow the Bishop’s to work things out.

And you wonder why there is a trust issue in the UMC?

You are right — the General Conference didn’t fully trust the Council of Bishops, and that’s because the church as a whole isn’t fully sure that the Council of Bishops can be trusted. Don’t put the burden of this solely at the feet of the 1000 delegates of General Conference, for they simply represented a much larger mistrust of a Council that they aren’t really sure can be trusted.

You offer some great examples of why that is the case. Take your commentary on the Call to Action process initiated by the Council of Bishops. You suggest that the GC2012 disregarded four years of work “…guided by some of the church’s best management minds…” And yet, when those of us in the hinterlands reviewed the work, we found a plan that was guided in part by a systemic survivor, and which contained conclusions that were not completely supported by the research. Apparently our best church management minds weren’t so great after all, for they failed to invite participation from any of our experts in church polity to see if what they were proposing would likely pass constitutional muster (it didn’t) and they clearly failed to recognize the changing nature of our church in their failure to invite participation from leaders outside the U.S. If the Bishops want to take credit for the CTA/IOT plan (which it sounds like you want to do) you fell short in many ways in trying to get something that the General Conference could embrace and adopt.

But the lack of trust has been present for far longer than that. The fact is that clergy and congregations don’t fully trust the bishops because we’ve experienced bishops at their worst. We’ve seen appointments made for political reasons rather than missional ones. We’ve seen pastors removed for speaking prophetically because folks with money convinced the bishop to remove him rather than the bishop standing up for the gospel. We’ve seen bishops engaged again and again in shutting down creative and exciting ministries that have great kingdom potential, but fall outside of the norms of what a church is supposed to look like under our current system. Congregations have experienced bishops failing to take the time to understand their issues and making appointments that are doomed to fail from the beginning, and clergy have experienced episcopal leaders seem to have little compassion for the struggles they face in serving “clergy killer” congregations.

Most of all we have seen a Council of Bishops who have spent their careers as the consummate systemic insiders. For all of the rhetoric of creative leadership, many (if not most of you) have spent years serving on the very committees and boards that have failed to embrace change. The current boards and agencies, which have been largely groups that rubber stamped staff initiatives and General Secretary priorities, have not been held accountable even though it is Council of Bishop members who are, by and large, the presidents of those governing boards. The bishop, more often than not, are a body who are invested in the same political process that got them elected in the first place, a network of relationships that seems unable to truly embrace change.

And we’re supposed to trust you now?

Trust, as I understand it, rarely comes through authority imposed from above, but rather through the experience of one over time. Yes, we respect the office and place ourselves under your authority . . . but trust can only be given when it’s earned, and in far too many cases the expectation of blind obedience to power has ruled the day at the expense of building trust.

The Turmoil in Tampa was not the problem, although it was certainly a reflection of the problem. Our problems are far deeper, seen in the failure to truly talk about Christ’s call to be engaged in forming disciples and focusing again (as we’ve done since the very beginning of the Methodist Episcopal Church) on how we structure ourselves. We fail to have a common understanding of the task before us, and in the decline that comes from that failure, the fingers start pointing in all directions as we search for someone to blame. In the blame game, trust is eroded even further, and we ALL miss out on the opportunity God gives us.

Yes, we have a broken system, and it is in our best interest to unpack that brokenness to discern if there is any means of fixing it. But as important will be our efforts to attempt to rebuild trust — between lay and clergy, conservative and liberal, U.S. and Central Conferences, and between the Council of Bishops and pretty much everyone else. Without addressing the issue of trust, our ability to function as a communion is indeed doomed to fail.

I pray that as you soon watch from afar in the ultimate insider/outsider role as a retired bishop, you might work to discern a means by which the breach of trust can be fixed. That would be, in my honest opinion, the greatest legacy you could leave the United Methodist Church.

Thanks again for your commentary. May God bless you in your new endeavor.

Sincerely,

Jay

 

The Rev. Jay Voorhees is a UM pastor in Nashville, Tenn.

Join the conversation....

  1. knowlestuell says:

    Wow, talk about bitter! Clearly, Rev. Voorhees has had one or more bad experiences with bishops in the appointment making process and he extrapolates those to all of us. Well, I've had a few issues with my bishops as well, but they are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time most of the bishops try their darndest to make appointments that advance the mission of Christ and the United Methodist Church. I, too, have my share of disagreements with Bishop Willimon's analysis, but please don't claim that the great majority of UM's distrust their bishops, because they don't.

  2. willrev says:

    Rev. Voorhees is not bitter at all. He is simply being factual. What he says is one of the most accurate answers I have read in response. I debated a UMC seminary professor over the set aside bishop idea. I was told that UMC bishops had too much power stripped away from them and that centralizing the power back in the hands of the bishops and a protestant "pope" would be good for the denomination. There are so many trust issues in the UMC that all of them cannot be named. Over my 40-something lifetime I have seen the emphasis in the UMC shift from pastoral ministry to business style management. DS's have become mid-level managers instead of equippers, counselors, and apostles to the ordained clergy. Bishop's have adopted the CEO model from wanting to throw out so called ineffective clergy who are members of a family who have given their lives and gone into debt to pay for seminary to become pastors to living high on the hog driving Mercedes Benzes, Lexus and owning fancy homes with indoor swimming pools in private gated communities. Some of them have homes in resort areas too. Pastors with kids struggle to make ends meet while bishops and ds's make the big bucks. Wouldn't a JESUS centered model look just the opposite? Give the ones raising kids the bigger houses and salaries and as your needs decrease over the years, to downsize both for the Kingdom of God? Too radical for the UMC-Upper Middle Class and mostly white church. Sure, appointments are made because you have some buddy buddy who represents you on the cabinet. If you are a "nobody" and not politically connected, you get the worst of the worst. That is FACT. I was an associate pastor under a pastor who wanted to be a bishop in the S.E. Jurisdisction who told me "If you stick with me and my buddies and do what we tell you, we will make sure you get better appointments from here on out." I went home and literally vomitted and left pastoral ministry in the church not long after that. Rev. Voorhees is right that it has come down to money. If the bishop feels he will lose apportionments from a local church, it does not matter how "right" the pastor may be, the bishop and ds will go with the local church and stab the clergy person in the back. Some of our local churches are abusive. Clergy and spouses struggle thorugh marriage counseling due to pastor-abuse. Clergy killer congregations are NEVER, NEVER, NEVER held accountable because the conference and general agencies will lose money. It is all about the money. Yes, creative ministry gets shut down because it does not "fit" the UMC white upper middle class way. There is no trust left for most clergy, but they are afriad to tell anyone. Some are afraid to leave because of pensions. Clergy and laity are held in bondage – and it all comes back to money. Disciples are made in the local churches, not in boards and committees or in council of bishops meetings. Return the money and resources to the local churches and give the pastors the authority to make changes to grow the church without reprisals from ds's and bishops who want to "keep the peace" and keep the money flowing. This is not a conservative-liberal issue. For the denomination to turn around, radical change is needed back to the roots of Methodism. Perhaps then we will seed another revival and see a great harvest.

Your thoughts?

applications-education-miscellaneous.png
The United Methodist Reporter wants to encourage lively conversation about The United Methodist Church and our articles in the belief that Christian conversation (what Wesley would call conferencing) is a means of grace. While we support passionate debate, we cannot allow language that demeans or demonizes others, and we reserve the right to delete any comment we believe to be harmful or inappropriate. We encourage all to remember that we are all broken and in need of Christ's grace, and that we all see through the glass darkly until that time we when reach full perfection in love. May your speech here be tempered with love, and reflection of the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. After all, "There is no law against things like this." (Galatians 5:22-23)
 

*

Google+
%d bloggers like this: