It is always a treat to learn about the history of a church. In fact, it is certainly an essential task of any pastor to be constantly learning about the people and church one serves. What I always find even more awesome as I learn history is how much it teaches you about the "soul" of a place and a people.
Yesterday, I was invited to one of our women's circles to speak about our new worship service, Koinonia. Since we're still in the building phase of that service, we haven't done a thorough job getting the word out about that, especially getting the reasoning behind it out. We need to do better, and these small groups are a great way to have conversation (otherwise, it becomes us talking AT people, and that's never fun, and often leaves important questions unanswered).
So it truly was a treat to fellowship with these women, and get to share some of our vision and passion for continuing to expand Calvary's ministry in new ways. I talked about how starting a new service is not an attempt by us to "fix" anything--indeed all experts agree that a church starting a new service to fix itself is about as good of an idea as a couple who has a child thinking that will fix their relationship. Bad news. Some experts talk about a church as having DNA. You don't want to replicate churches with bad DNA, only those with good DNA. And so for us, starting a new service is precisely because we think we have something great to offer as a congregation, and we want to reach new people in new ways.
I also shared that we will continue to grow ALL our services. Our current services welcome visitors every Sunday, and we are growing! New members are joining each month, and we hope that will continue and even expand! This ministry is a way of reach those people we aren't already reaching.
I could go on and on, and I hope that if you have any questions, you will invite me to your group, or just schedule to meet for coffee sometime! It is important that we get your feedback, and it's also important that you have the full story so you can really make an educated judgment about what we are attempting.
But back to those wonderful ladies I was with yesterday. As I told them that we were seeking to continue the amazing work that Calvary has done throughout the years by reaching people in new ways (a church that has moved so many times? And can you imagine being the pastor who walked into a council meeting and proposed knocking down the church and building a new one on the same spot?!)...I heard more stories about people being on the frontlines of the latest in church "work".
For example, one woman talked about the beginning of Calvary's tape ministry--this conversation had started as a discussion about how much of a gift Ray Stroh is to our congregation and how we (truly) need to celebrate all the behind the scenes work he does with our sound system. Do you know that our tape ministry started long before we could record through our sound system? Yep, they got a tape recorder and the minister's job was to hit "record" as he was beginning his sermon. They used a basic tape machine to make copies, and people hand delivered the copies to shut-ins. Today, we still make recordings to tapes and CDs, and people can also listen to our sermons online through iTunes!
This is just the latest in the long line of amazing stories I have heard at Calvary. Calvary really has been on the forefront of the newest in church stuff...and the next year will certainly push us to continue to do that. There are exciting and challenging opportunities on the horizon, and we will need your prayers and support and guidance as we seek to honor the legacy we have all been given--if a people never scared to do whatever is needed to reach God's people.
That's the path that has been laid for us. May we walk it faithfully.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
On Things New and Old
This week, I had an opportunity to participate in my first conference call. I know, I must be behind the times, right? As I hear it, these days conference calls are standard for many business people, and I have to admit I understand that they save tons of money and time by getting their teams/groups together via phone.
I have to be honest, though. I found it pretty strange. Very impersonal. That may sound weird coming from someone who is online as much as I am--I don't consider myself a technophile or expert, though I guess I am online more than some people. There is TONS of stuff about technology and the internet that I don't know, and I"m not always on the cutting edge of things (i.e. I'm simply not that cool). I finally got an iPhone after Easter (which I'd planned to do in June but my Blackberry's unfortunate--and yes, I swear, accidental--dip in water spend that up). However, I didn't rush into getting apps (to the confusion of my husband) since, upon discovering I could download a Kindle app on the iPhone (and thus saving hundreds of dollars) I spent my free time for a week reading Malcolm Gladwell's What the Dog Saw.
I'm not a fan of technology for it's own sake, and I DEFINITELY think that simply using (or not using) technology says little about your/our ability to interact authentically with people. I am still convinced that people are largely the same online as they are offline (once they learn how to use a tool). For example:
We all have those things that seem to weird for us, don't we? And we all take some new things and some old, and really any of us are prone to get stuck on some form of technology (my transition from a Blackberry to an iPhone was somewhat of a "long" process...i.e. it took me like 3 months to decide I wanted one). Things change much faster these days (experts tell us that, I'm not just making that up) and we have to constantly be on the cutting edge of everything. Whether that's technology, music, media, social media, cultural trends, whatever, we don't have to just follow the trends like lemmings, but we cannot stop learning and changing.
About a year ago, my husband started using Animoto to create videos for camp, etc., after seeing it used at a conference. We've really liked using it, though until today, I hadn't used it for probably six months or so. And you know what's happened in that time? They've added the ability to insert videos, even stock videos into the videos they create for you. This is a minor thing (and something we saw coming), but that one change totally changes what you can do with this tool.
That's how things are today. Constantly changing. And keeping up isn't really an option. Keep up, or your old fashioned. So maybe that's the thing...maybe I'm not old fashioned at all. My preference? Video conferencing. Next step, gotta admit I expect that someday we'll get to have holographic conferencing. Seems so far off, but then again, a lot of things once did...
I have to be honest, though. I found it pretty strange. Very impersonal. That may sound weird coming from someone who is online as much as I am--I don't consider myself a technophile or expert, though I guess I am online more than some people. There is TONS of stuff about technology and the internet that I don't know, and I"m not always on the cutting edge of things (i.e. I'm simply not that cool). I finally got an iPhone after Easter (which I'd planned to do in June but my Blackberry's unfortunate--and yes, I swear, accidental--dip in water spend that up). However, I didn't rush into getting apps (to the confusion of my husband) since, upon discovering I could download a Kindle app on the iPhone (and thus saving hundreds of dollars) I spent my free time for a week reading Malcolm Gladwell's What the Dog Saw.
I'm not a fan of technology for it's own sake, and I DEFINITELY think that simply using (or not using) technology says little about your/our ability to interact authentically with people. I am still convinced that people are largely the same online as they are offline (once they learn how to use a tool). For example:
- Someone who shares too much information online, probably does the same thing in face-to-face encounters.
- Someone who interjects awkwardly into other people's lives in person, is probably doing the same thing on Facebook.
- Someone who is way too impressed with themselves in person is probably Twittering way too much about themselves.
We all have those things that seem to weird for us, don't we? And we all take some new things and some old, and really any of us are prone to get stuck on some form of technology (my transition from a Blackberry to an iPhone was somewhat of a "long" process...i.e. it took me like 3 months to decide I wanted one). Things change much faster these days (experts tell us that, I'm not just making that up) and we have to constantly be on the cutting edge of everything. Whether that's technology, music, media, social media, cultural trends, whatever, we don't have to just follow the trends like lemmings, but we cannot stop learning and changing.
About a year ago, my husband started using Animoto to create videos for camp, etc., after seeing it used at a conference. We've really liked using it, though until today, I hadn't used it for probably six months or so. And you know what's happened in that time? They've added the ability to insert videos, even stock videos into the videos they create for you. This is a minor thing (and something we saw coming), but that one change totally changes what you can do with this tool.
That's how things are today. Constantly changing. And keeping up isn't really an option. Keep up, or your old fashioned. So maybe that's the thing...maybe I'm not old fashioned at all. My preference? Video conferencing. Next step, gotta admit I expect that someday we'll get to have holographic conferencing. Seems so far off, but then again, a lot of things once did...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Resources on the Trust Clause in the UMC
The MD State General Assembly did not pass HB1554/SB1091, thanks to a two vote margin in the House subcommittee (who knows its fate would it have been brought to the floor). Word has it (this morning's Frederick News Post) that Senator Mooney plans to reintroduce the bill next year. There's every chance the Sunnyside issue will be settled by the courts by that point, but who knows.
I wanted to share with you some resources regarding the United Methodist trust clause. I'm not suggesting you read ALL of them, but if you're so inclined, here they are. These are certainly not the only relevant pieces, so I encourage you to do your own research.
THE TRUST CLAUSE GOVERNING USE OF PROPERTY IN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
FAITHFULNESS TO THE CONNECTION ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED DOCTRINAL STANDARDS
By Dr. Thomas C. Oden
Located in the archives of the Good News Magazine at http://www.goodnewsmag.org/news/122902TrustClause_FULL.pdf
Dr. Oden's article looks into several issues related to the trust clause (but not so much related to the Sunnyside situation) related to due process within the church, and in light of the activist goals of Good News--along the lines of faithfulness to the Discipline and doctrinal standards. Dr. Oden quotes the Book of Disciple that:
Dr. Oden also points out:
Dr. Oden's argument is less oriented to the restrictions on local church property (which he seems to assume quite strongly is thus restricted), but rather his main purpose seems to be to propose the possibility that denominational officials might be held to the other end of the trust clause, namely, faithfulness to the doctrinal standards--which serves as Dr. Oden's primary definition of the Connection.
My only concern/question regarding Dr. Oden's argument is I find it hard to imagine any court wanting to make a distinction within a church of who is following the doctrinal standard and who is not. I suppose the intention is more specifically to propose a new option for churches of the more conservative persuasion within our church, with the argument they are more in line with the doctrinal standards than some denominational authorities. The arguments for that aside (and they are not at all minor) I just have a hard time imagining any court would want to get in the middle of that, and as a result, would defer to the UM's highest body, the General Conference.
It's not even clear to me that Dr. Oden's target is to weaken the GC in a case where it overreaches (as he explains, that's really hard for it to do), but more so his focus seems to be on bishops (and pastors) who fail to obey the discipline. And really, the truth of the matter is that yes, if you violate the Discipline, as much as you disagree with it, you must be prepared to lose your status or protections under the Discipline.
Check out page 25 and following for Dr. Oden's description of how it IS possible, but really, virtually impossible, that the trust clause will ever be changed within UM law. Dr. Oden also argues that the trust clause is not a barrier but rather a great benefit to all of us (p.29).
Finally, Dr. Oden's article has convicted me that I really need to go back and reread Wesley's Sermons and Notes...
This article ("Land and Building Wars) in Christianity Today explains challenges to trust clauses in denominations, but also asserts that legal victories against the UM trust clause are unlikely because of the relative strength of the UMC's policy as opposed to other denominations...though it points out that some disagree.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/january/16.15.html
An Amicus brief filed in a case involving a local church and the CME church (so not the UMC, but with similar trust clause policies because of a shared history).
http://www.pcusa.org/acl/amicus/am29.pdf In all fairness, it must be noted (as noted at the end of this document) that it was filed by Tom Starnes, our conference's lawyer.
Okay, that's just a small bit, but it's some stuff of interest for now.
I wanted to share with you some resources regarding the United Methodist trust clause. I'm not suggesting you read ALL of them, but if you're so inclined, here they are. These are certainly not the only relevant pieces, so I encourage you to do your own research.
THE TRUST CLAUSE GOVERNING USE OF PROPERTY IN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
FAITHFULNESS TO THE CONNECTION ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED DOCTRINAL STANDARDS
By Dr. Thomas C. Oden
Located in the archives of the Good News Magazine at http://www.goodnewsmag.org/news/122902TrustClause_FULL.pdf
Dr. Oden's article looks into several issues related to the trust clause (but not so much related to the Sunnyside situation) related to due process within the church, and in light of the activist goals of Good News--along the lines of faithfulness to the Discipline and doctrinal standards. Dr. Oden quotes the Book of Disciple that:
The very reason for the trust clause in deeds is to protect the doctrinal standards, not the Conference, and the Conference only insofar as it protects the doctrinal standards. The Restrictive Rules as interpreted by the Plan of Union and subsequent Disciplines textually specify the documents of the doctrinal standards (Disc., 2000, para.103, pp. 59-74).
Dr. Oden also points out:
No use of property is licit "that violates the right of the Church to maintain connectional structure," recalling that the notion of connection for two and a half centuries has meant connection with Mr. Wesley, as defined in his writings, and notably in his Standard Sermons and Notes (Disc., 2000, para. 2506, p. 652).
Dr. Oden's argument is less oriented to the restrictions on local church property (which he seems to assume quite strongly is thus restricted), but rather his main purpose seems to be to propose the possibility that denominational officials might be held to the other end of the trust clause, namely, faithfulness to the doctrinal standards--which serves as Dr. Oden's primary definition of the Connection.
My only concern/question regarding Dr. Oden's argument is I find it hard to imagine any court wanting to make a distinction within a church of who is following the doctrinal standard and who is not. I suppose the intention is more specifically to propose a new option for churches of the more conservative persuasion within our church, with the argument they are more in line with the doctrinal standards than some denominational authorities. The arguments for that aside (and they are not at all minor) I just have a hard time imagining any court would want to get in the middle of that, and as a result, would defer to the UM's highest body, the General Conference.
It's not even clear to me that Dr. Oden's target is to weaken the GC in a case where it overreaches (as he explains, that's really hard for it to do), but more so his focus seems to be on bishops (and pastors) who fail to obey the discipline. And really, the truth of the matter is that yes, if you violate the Discipline, as much as you disagree with it, you must be prepared to lose your status or protections under the Discipline.
Check out page 25 and following for Dr. Oden's description of how it IS possible, but really, virtually impossible, that the trust clause will ever be changed within UM law. Dr. Oden also argues that the trust clause is not a barrier but rather a great benefit to all of us (p.29).
Finally, Dr. Oden's article has convicted me that I really need to go back and reread Wesley's Sermons and Notes...
This article ("Land and Building Wars) in Christianity Today explains challenges to trust clauses in denominations, but also asserts that legal victories against the UM trust clause are unlikely because of the relative strength of the UMC's policy as opposed to other denominations...though it points out that some disagree.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/january/16.15.html
An Amicus brief filed in a case involving a local church and the CME church (so not the UMC, but with similar trust clause policies because of a shared history).
http://www.pcusa.org/acl/amicus/am29.pdf In all fairness, it must be noted (as noted at the end of this document) that it was filed by Tom Starnes, our conference's lawyer.
Okay, that's just a small bit, but it's some stuff of interest for now.
Prodigal Worship Conference
I had all the best intentions about blogging throughout the Prodigal Worship Conference held this past Tuesday...but the irony of that is the same thing I was trying to do is often the problem with worship: taking it in pieces rather than as a whole. I mean, think about it...
Most churches and pastors plan worship with a plug and play kind of approach. We need a call to worship, a prayer, a few hymns. We make an honest attempt to tie them together, but most weeks, pastors are so overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes across their desks that any sort of thematic cohesion in the service is an accomplishment. Instead, worship planners today are advocating for an integration of all those involved in worship planning in an attempt not only to boost the quality of worship, but also the creativity.
I must admit that not everything I heard at the Prodigal Worship conference was news to me. I heard a lot of, "Well, and what they don't teach you in seminary is..." followed by something that I DID learn in seminary. Analyze the culture as part of your sermon prep? Yep. Use technology with quality and integrity, not just to say you used powerpoint? Check. Not think any video someone has done is awesome just because you don't personally know how to edit videos? Indeed.
What did most hit home with me was the discussions about forming a worship planning team to meet regularly (Gingamsburg's team meets on Wednesdays AND Friday...I think weekly is quite a goal).
Worship planning teams should ideally, we were told, not only meet regularly, but also me made up of 4 to 8 people. Less, and there's not enough input. More, and it's hard to get anything done. There are different roles that should be represented, yet everyone should throw in ideas for all aspects.
For Calvary, this is especially timely as beginning our new, third worship service (Koinonia) gives us a good opportunity to look at how we plan all worship.
So, we're going to try it. Ken and I and a handful of folks will be meeting weekly to see how we can enhance and raise the bar in our worship. It's going to be a big change in how we do things, but we are confident it will be an exceedingly beneficial one. We hope to start with May services...so you'll have to know if you notice a difference in worship and what you think!
Most churches and pastors plan worship with a plug and play kind of approach. We need a call to worship, a prayer, a few hymns. We make an honest attempt to tie them together, but most weeks, pastors are so overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes across their desks that any sort of thematic cohesion in the service is an accomplishment. Instead, worship planners today are advocating for an integration of all those involved in worship planning in an attempt not only to boost the quality of worship, but also the creativity.
I must admit that not everything I heard at the Prodigal Worship conference was news to me. I heard a lot of, "Well, and what they don't teach you in seminary is..." followed by something that I DID learn in seminary. Analyze the culture as part of your sermon prep? Yep. Use technology with quality and integrity, not just to say you used powerpoint? Check. Not think any video someone has done is awesome just because you don't personally know how to edit videos? Indeed.
What did most hit home with me was the discussions about forming a worship planning team to meet regularly (Gingamsburg's team meets on Wednesdays AND Friday...I think weekly is quite a goal).
Worship planning teams should ideally, we were told, not only meet regularly, but also me made up of 4 to 8 people. Less, and there's not enough input. More, and it's hard to get anything done. There are different roles that should be represented, yet everyone should throw in ideas for all aspects.
For Calvary, this is especially timely as beginning our new, third worship service (Koinonia) gives us a good opportunity to look at how we plan all worship.
So, we're going to try it. Ken and I and a handful of folks will be meeting weekly to see how we can enhance and raise the bar in our worship. It's going to be a big change in how we do things, but we are confident it will be an exceedingly beneficial one. We hope to start with May services...so you'll have to know if you notice a difference in worship and what you think!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thoughts from the Prodigal Worship Conference
Today, Ken and I are at the Prodigal Worship Conference. I wanted to shared some notes and thoughts as heard or overheard.
The first keynote speaker is Mike Slaughter. He shared the five elements of worship planning:
1. MESSAGE: need, theme, desired outcome
2. MEDIUM: space, design
3. MYSTERY: sacraments, mystery of God's presence, silence, experiential
4. MUSIC: music has a connection that's deeper than our mind, but it can't be mindless, music cannot be separated from life experience, use of secular music, style is important, incorporating music and other mediums
5. MISSION: calling people to participate in transformation
to be continued...
The first keynote speaker is Mike Slaughter. He shared the five elements of worship planning:
1. MESSAGE: need, theme, desired outcome
2. MEDIUM: space, design
3. MYSTERY: sacraments, mystery of God's presence, silence, experiential
4. MUSIC: music has a connection that's deeper than our mind, but it can't be mindless, music cannot be separated from life experience, use of secular music, style is important, incorporating music and other mediums
5. MISSION: calling people to participate in transformation
to be continued...
Friday, April 9, 2010
As the "Fight" Continues
As my recent posting to my blog indicate, we continue to face the possibility that the MD state general assembly will chose to intervene in a legal proceeding involving Sunnyside United Methodist Church and the denominational (in the case case legally represented by its local entity the Baltimore-Washington Conference).
According to public documents the entire Frederick County delegation supported a bill (House Bill 1554 and Senate Bill 1091) that in its original wording would exempt Sunnyside from the state code's trust clause. The Attorney General office's ruling that the bill was unconstitutional caused a radical shift in the wording of the bill (it's really a totally different bill now) that would seek to remove the wording related to the UMC's trust clause entirely.
Now, on surface, this may seem like a rather banal bill. It would have no doubt brought for great discussion if proposed at any other time, but it does nothing to address the long standing legal precedent. Whether the state code says it or not, Sunnyside is legally bound by the trust clause. They will lose all their property. It didn't have to come to that, but the actions of they and their pastor have created one of the most ridiculous cases we've had of late. The circus surrounding this situation has been further muddled by the activism of some local legislators, and though the amended bill passed the senate as far as I can tell, it seems doomed in the house. We hope.
What bothers me most of all is the arrogance of those outside of our system whose personal opinions seem set on challenging our policies. Sunnyside knew what the situation was. the trust clause has never been a secret in the UMC, and if they failed to understand the legal wall they would hit, that is no one's fault but their own.
What is concerning are those outside of our denomination who disagree with our policies and think it is their prerogative to change our church's policies by intervening at such a time--that the bill has been changed simply represents that the poor wisdom which originally draft the bill as worded has been supercede by an equally unwise effort to continue to affect the current legal situation by making an end run around the issue. The amended bill may not name Sunnyside, but we're not that stupid.
Look, I may not like the idea of a Pope. Maybe the idea of papal infallibility sits uneasily with me. You know what? I'm not Catholic. And I wouldn't try to challenge their structure legally or legislatively if I were in a position to do so. I wouldn't try to change that church's property rights, especially if that meant in any way diminishing them. Because you know what? If a local parish got ticked off at the Pope, that's their problem, because that's what they bargained for.
For this reason, the state has hesitated greatly to get involved in church matters. And that's why the trust clause has been so consistently upheld in court. Judges, who are not enticed by the romantic politics of sticking up for the little guy like those who face frequent re-election, are loathe to mess with church law and basically rule along the lines of, "You knew this was the rule, so you know what you were getting into. We're not going to change the rules, you have to live by the rules you accepted."
Our bishop's assistant has compared the situation to a franchise (I bet if McDonalds got concerned this might affect the laws governing their franchises, this would get resolved real quickly). I think it could also be compared to a marriage. Such a union SHOULD be difficult to get out of. And the parties involved ought to be held to the pre-nup that existed at the beginning. Just because one partner gets upset doesn't mean they get to change the rules of the game.
I have been asked of late for more details about the situation from clergy colleagues and others. I'm hesitant to share much of what I've heard, since it is second hand, but it does come from those deeply involved. The issue here is not how this church was more upset or wronged by the conference. Some churches have their moments of being upset about apportionments or wanting more from the conference (two things which, ironically enough, conflict with each other...the conference can't do more with less money). That Sunnyside took such a move after receiving the additional pastoral leadership they requested, and at a time when the conference was actively reducing the apportionment rate says a lot about them, and the only thing it says about the conference was how much it was trying to help. And of course, history has shone that churches which decide to try to leave the connection almost never do so without active and aggressive cajoling by their pastor. Which is always a shame because the people always have far more to lose than the pastor.
I understand that some may not like the United Methodist system. Perhaps they prefer more of a congregation system. That's not who we are. For a lot of reasons. Our system, like that of any denomination, has its strengths and weaknesses. But it works for us. And yours works for you, I hope. We are always trying to make our system better, and we are the first to acknowledge it's not perfect. But it is not for others to get in the middle of our structures and policies.
I hope the house will do what the senate would not, uphold the state laws for now, not seek to intervene in a legal matter, and should their remain desire to re-address the state code in an effort to clean it up, do so at a time when such an action is not a masked attempt to affect a current legal struggle.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not used to speaking about a political issue so openly. I have very strong opinions on things, but I take very seriously that as a pastor my words are heard differently (for good and bad) than one's friend or co-worker. But in this case, the political system has stepped into a process that is properly the churches, and one cannot be silent in the face of such an intrusion.
According to public documents the entire Frederick County delegation supported a bill (House Bill 1554 and Senate Bill 1091) that in its original wording would exempt Sunnyside from the state code's trust clause. The Attorney General office's ruling that the bill was unconstitutional caused a radical shift in the wording of the bill (it's really a totally different bill now) that would seek to remove the wording related to the UMC's trust clause entirely.
Now, on surface, this may seem like a rather banal bill. It would have no doubt brought for great discussion if proposed at any other time, but it does nothing to address the long standing legal precedent. Whether the state code says it or not, Sunnyside is legally bound by the trust clause. They will lose all their property. It didn't have to come to that, but the actions of they and their pastor have created one of the most ridiculous cases we've had of late. The circus surrounding this situation has been further muddled by the activism of some local legislators, and though the amended bill passed the senate as far as I can tell, it seems doomed in the house. We hope.
What bothers me most of all is the arrogance of those outside of our system whose personal opinions seem set on challenging our policies. Sunnyside knew what the situation was. the trust clause has never been a secret in the UMC, and if they failed to understand the legal wall they would hit, that is no one's fault but their own.
What is concerning are those outside of our denomination who disagree with our policies and think it is their prerogative to change our church's policies by intervening at such a time--that the bill has been changed simply represents that the poor wisdom which originally draft the bill as worded has been supercede by an equally unwise effort to continue to affect the current legal situation by making an end run around the issue. The amended bill may not name Sunnyside, but we're not that stupid.
Look, I may not like the idea of a Pope. Maybe the idea of papal infallibility sits uneasily with me. You know what? I'm not Catholic. And I wouldn't try to challenge their structure legally or legislatively if I were in a position to do so. I wouldn't try to change that church's property rights, especially if that meant in any way diminishing them. Because you know what? If a local parish got ticked off at the Pope, that's their problem, because that's what they bargained for.
For this reason, the state has hesitated greatly to get involved in church matters. And that's why the trust clause has been so consistently upheld in court. Judges, who are not enticed by the romantic politics of sticking up for the little guy like those who face frequent re-election, are loathe to mess with church law and basically rule along the lines of, "You knew this was the rule, so you know what you were getting into. We're not going to change the rules, you have to live by the rules you accepted."
Our bishop's assistant has compared the situation to a franchise (I bet if McDonalds got concerned this might affect the laws governing their franchises, this would get resolved real quickly). I think it could also be compared to a marriage. Such a union SHOULD be difficult to get out of. And the parties involved ought to be held to the pre-nup that existed at the beginning. Just because one partner gets upset doesn't mean they get to change the rules of the game.
I have been asked of late for more details about the situation from clergy colleagues and others. I'm hesitant to share much of what I've heard, since it is second hand, but it does come from those deeply involved. The issue here is not how this church was more upset or wronged by the conference. Some churches have their moments of being upset about apportionments or wanting more from the conference (two things which, ironically enough, conflict with each other...the conference can't do more with less money). That Sunnyside took such a move after receiving the additional pastoral leadership they requested, and at a time when the conference was actively reducing the apportionment rate says a lot about them, and the only thing it says about the conference was how much it was trying to help. And of course, history has shone that churches which decide to try to leave the connection almost never do so without active and aggressive cajoling by their pastor. Which is always a shame because the people always have far more to lose than the pastor.
I understand that some may not like the United Methodist system. Perhaps they prefer more of a congregation system. That's not who we are. For a lot of reasons. Our system, like that of any denomination, has its strengths and weaknesses. But it works for us. And yours works for you, I hope. We are always trying to make our system better, and we are the first to acknowledge it's not perfect. But it is not for others to get in the middle of our structures and policies.
I hope the house will do what the senate would not, uphold the state laws for now, not seek to intervene in a legal matter, and should their remain desire to re-address the state code in an effort to clean it up, do so at a time when such an action is not a masked attempt to affect a current legal struggle.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not used to speaking about a political issue so openly. I have very strong opinions on things, but I take very seriously that as a pastor my words are heard differently (for good and bad) than one's friend or co-worker. But in this case, the political system has stepped into a process that is properly the churches, and one cannot be silent in the face of such an intrusion.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Amended Bill
I just got e-mailed a link to this from a Delegate I e-mailed. It includes the amendments to Maryland HB 1552/SB 1091. Actually the SB, but you get the idea...
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/sb/sb1091t.pdf
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/sb/sb1091t.pdf
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
In All Fairness...
So I just got off the phone with a rep in Sen. Mooney's office, and in all fairness to them, I wanted to share what they told me.
It was explained to me that the bill as proposed (it's apparently been amended since the AG's office declared it unconstitutional, they say) doesn't directly speak to this case (guess they realized they couldn't make an exception to state law) but rather would seek to generalize state law on the question of church property. I was told that the UM is unique amongst denominations to have a specific code within MD law. This, they said, is simply cleaning that up and in no way affects this case. The legal precedent long-established in favor of the trust clause will still be the deciding factor.
I responded by asking, well, why, then, proposed this now? It seems to do nothing more, then, than make a painful situation for Sunnyside and the UMC into a three-ring circus involving lots of people with no stake in this. Why not wait, then? Why make it a political issue if it is, as seemed to be expressed to me, largely a bookkeeping issue?
So, we'll see. Legal precedent is on our side, and I've just heard from one of my colleagues who spoke with her reps and was told that bills thus proposed so late are rarely passed.
I did learn, though, when this piece was entered into MD code. You know when? the 1950s...right in the midst of the desegregation of the Methodist Church. I'll side with that any day.
It was explained to me that the bill as proposed (it's apparently been amended since the AG's office declared it unconstitutional, they say) doesn't directly speak to this case (guess they realized they couldn't make an exception to state law) but rather would seek to generalize state law on the question of church property. I was told that the UM is unique amongst denominations to have a specific code within MD law. This, they said, is simply cleaning that up and in no way affects this case. The legal precedent long-established in favor of the trust clause will still be the deciding factor.
I responded by asking, well, why, then, proposed this now? It seems to do nothing more, then, than make a painful situation for Sunnyside and the UMC into a three-ring circus involving lots of people with no stake in this. Why not wait, then? Why make it a political issue if it is, as seemed to be expressed to me, largely a bookkeeping issue?
So, we'll see. Legal precedent is on our side, and I've just heard from one of my colleagues who spoke with her reps and was told that bills thus proposed so late are rarely passed.
I did learn, though, when this piece was entered into MD code. You know when? the 1950s...right in the midst of the desegregation of the Methodist Church. I'll side with that any day.
The Trust Clause
We have had a situation unfolding here in the Frederick area for over a year now. In fact, I think it was about this time last year...maybe even longer ago...that I first learned of it.
Sunnyside UMC, a small African-American congregation on Mountville Rd between Adamstown and Jefferson (at the top of the hill) essentially decided they no longer wanted to me United Methodist. Now, you have to understand that it takes a lot of cajoling by SOMEONE for a church to get to that point. A lot of churches get ticked off at some point. Most never imagine taking such a step.
Until recently, the district superintendent (TR Chattin, who has had far more grace with the people there than I may have mustered given some of what they've done), working with the bishop and conference officials, were dealing through the appropriate channels and the congregation. In fact, she tried very hard to talk with the congregation...time and again, but their rudeness in at times not even responding to her approaches is itself a stain upon Sunnyside's entire argument. They did not make a good faith effort early on to address concerns. By the time the conference was aware of what was happening, Sunnyside refused to earnestly discuss the matter.
What has complicated Sunnyside's attitude is the United Methodist Church's well-established (and impressive legal standing) trust clause. The trust clause dates all the way back to John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement. ALL CHURCHES within the Methodist system have this clause written into their founding documents or implied through other avenues. Essentially, all local church property is held in trust for the denomination.
There are many reasons for the trust clause, including maintaining the unity of the church. The trust clause also guarantees the original intentions of the founders of a local church are maintained. In the case of Sunnyside, while some churches' trust clause is implied, it is my understanding that their is EXPRESSLY stated in their founding documents. Their ancestors PURPOSEFULLY chose to be part of this system. It is not the conference, but rather those seeking division, who are failing to honor the founders of that congregation.
The trust cause has also been important during times when the church needed to speak up for social justice. During the height of the Civil Rights Movements and the desegregation of the Methodist church, the trust clause was a powerful tool to prevent racism from sweeping away church property.
I could go on and on about the trust clause, and if you want to talk with me more about it, I invite you to contact me. But all this said and beyond, the fact of the matter is that the trust clause is not only well established by legal precedent but also expressly written into Maryland's law code by my understanding. There is no legal question here. None. Whatsoever. That the bishop and conference leadership have continued to try to be in discussion with the congregation is an act of grace which has not been reciprocated by these brothers and sisters who will, inevitably, put a lot of money into a court battle they will lose. And all this when they could stop the whole thing by taking a step back. The conference has already shown a willingness to appoint a well-experienced, loving pastor to this troubled situation (to which the congregation responded by changing their worship service time and trying to lock this pastor out).
Of late, some Maryland legislators, in a show of sympathy for this congregation (sympathy which is understandable but displays a lack of knowledge of the entire situation) have drafted a bill which would create a special exemption of Maryland law for this congregation. Such a special exemption is necessary because there is NO QUESTION what the law actually is.
This effort poses so many problems it's mind boggling. Separation of church and state (the state doesn't want to church to guide it's policies and needn't feel entitled to rule the churches' own policies). Separation of powers (the legislative branch trying an end run around well-established legal precedent, and at any rate trying to get around a legal decision on a legal matter).
The Frederick media have at times portrayed this as a David and Goliath thing. Of course they relish this opportunity to stick it to the big church and yell and scream for the little guy. But you know what? Sometimes the little guy is actually wrong. Sometimes the larger entity is in the right. Some legislators may not like the trust clause, but that is our church's rules. And the courts have and will uphold them.
I could go on about the dangers to the UMC if the trust clause is negated in this case. Frederick state reps don't care about our denomination or the challenges we face and they don't understand the stakes. The stakes are high. They always have been. Which is why the denominational leadership treads lightly. But the truth is the trust clause will be legally upheld. If it (against wisdom and all legal and political guidance) should pass the MD legislature, it will be over turned in court. The people of Sunnyside will have spent even more money, MD will look foolish in the eye of jurisprudence, and we will have all gotten worked up over something that we already know how it's going to turn out.
That said, I hope we don't go that far. For the sake of everyone, let's stop spending money of this and start trying to make disciples of Jesus Christ instead. This whole thing makes us look silly. Below is an e-mail sent today. If you have opportunity to call your MD reps and ask them to uphold not only UMC church law but also the separation of church and state as well as the (constitutional) separation of powers, please do so.
Brothers and sisters in Christ:
I join you and your congregation in celebrating the power of the resurrection and the joy of this Easter season. I am writing to seek your support on an important and timely matter.
As you are aware, the congregation of Sunnyside UMC in Buckeystown, has expressed its intention to leave the denomination and to take the church property with it. This action is a violation of church and state laws. To get itself exempted from the Trust Clause, the church sought the assistance of a handful of area state legislators. House Bill 1554 and Senate Bill 1091 are the result.
Unfortunately, the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee passed an amended bill yesterday that removes the entire section relating to United Methodists out of the state law. This will have a substantial impact - not only in our dealings with Sunnyside UMC but also potentially on the entire United Methodist Church. The bill goes to the full senate today for a first read and a vote will possibly take place Thursday. The House of Delegates Economic Matters Committee has not done anything with the bill yet.
I urge to you contact your state legislators today – particularly those who represent Frederick County, members of the Economics Matters Committee and members of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and voice your opposition to House Bill 1554 and the amended Senate Bill 1091. The legislative session ends April 12. Your action on this matter is of utmost importance. Attached is the contact information for all Senate and Delegate committee members considering the bill, as well as all Frederick County delegates and Senators.
Last week, I, and other conference leaders, testified before legislative hearings against these bills. I am now asking you to add your voice. As the leader of a vital United Methodist congregation, you know the importance of our connectional system. Both church law and the state constitution uphold the conference’s concerns about legislators granting an exemption to Sunnyside, or to the churches of Frederick County, (as a Senate amendment to the bill suggests) so that they might stand separate, functioning outside of our denominational rules.
Please be assured we are working very hard to find a grace-filled resolution to this issue. We need the voices of you and your congregations to be heard today.
Keep the Faith,
Bishop John R. Schol
Rev. Terri Rae Chattin
Rev. William T. Chaney, Jr.
Sunnyside UMC, a small African-American congregation on Mountville Rd between Adamstown and Jefferson (at the top of the hill) essentially decided they no longer wanted to me United Methodist. Now, you have to understand that it takes a lot of cajoling by SOMEONE for a church to get to that point. A lot of churches get ticked off at some point. Most never imagine taking such a step.
Until recently, the district superintendent (TR Chattin, who has had far more grace with the people there than I may have mustered given some of what they've done), working with the bishop and conference officials, were dealing through the appropriate channels and the congregation. In fact, she tried very hard to talk with the congregation...time and again, but their rudeness in at times not even responding to her approaches is itself a stain upon Sunnyside's entire argument. They did not make a good faith effort early on to address concerns. By the time the conference was aware of what was happening, Sunnyside refused to earnestly discuss the matter.
What has complicated Sunnyside's attitude is the United Methodist Church's well-established (and impressive legal standing) trust clause. The trust clause dates all the way back to John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement. ALL CHURCHES within the Methodist system have this clause written into their founding documents or implied through other avenues. Essentially, all local church property is held in trust for the denomination.
There are many reasons for the trust clause, including maintaining the unity of the church. The trust clause also guarantees the original intentions of the founders of a local church are maintained. In the case of Sunnyside, while some churches' trust clause is implied, it is my understanding that their is EXPRESSLY stated in their founding documents. Their ancestors PURPOSEFULLY chose to be part of this system. It is not the conference, but rather those seeking division, who are failing to honor the founders of that congregation.
The trust cause has also been important during times when the church needed to speak up for social justice. During the height of the Civil Rights Movements and the desegregation of the Methodist church, the trust clause was a powerful tool to prevent racism from sweeping away church property.
I could go on and on about the trust clause, and if you want to talk with me more about it, I invite you to contact me. But all this said and beyond, the fact of the matter is that the trust clause is not only well established by legal precedent but also expressly written into Maryland's law code by my understanding. There is no legal question here. None. Whatsoever. That the bishop and conference leadership have continued to try to be in discussion with the congregation is an act of grace which has not been reciprocated by these brothers and sisters who will, inevitably, put a lot of money into a court battle they will lose. And all this when they could stop the whole thing by taking a step back. The conference has already shown a willingness to appoint a well-experienced, loving pastor to this troubled situation (to which the congregation responded by changing their worship service time and trying to lock this pastor out).
Of late, some Maryland legislators, in a show of sympathy for this congregation (sympathy which is understandable but displays a lack of knowledge of the entire situation) have drafted a bill which would create a special exemption of Maryland law for this congregation. Such a special exemption is necessary because there is NO QUESTION what the law actually is.
This effort poses so many problems it's mind boggling. Separation of church and state (the state doesn't want to church to guide it's policies and needn't feel entitled to rule the churches' own policies). Separation of powers (the legislative branch trying an end run around well-established legal precedent, and at any rate trying to get around a legal decision on a legal matter).
The Frederick media have at times portrayed this as a David and Goliath thing. Of course they relish this opportunity to stick it to the big church and yell and scream for the little guy. But you know what? Sometimes the little guy is actually wrong. Sometimes the larger entity is in the right. Some legislators may not like the trust clause, but that is our church's rules. And the courts have and will uphold them.
I could go on about the dangers to the UMC if the trust clause is negated in this case. Frederick state reps don't care about our denomination or the challenges we face and they don't understand the stakes. The stakes are high. They always have been. Which is why the denominational leadership treads lightly. But the truth is the trust clause will be legally upheld. If it (against wisdom and all legal and political guidance) should pass the MD legislature, it will be over turned in court. The people of Sunnyside will have spent even more money, MD will look foolish in the eye of jurisprudence, and we will have all gotten worked up over something that we already know how it's going to turn out.
That said, I hope we don't go that far. For the sake of everyone, let's stop spending money of this and start trying to make disciples of Jesus Christ instead. This whole thing makes us look silly. Below is an e-mail sent today. If you have opportunity to call your MD reps and ask them to uphold not only UMC church law but also the separation of church and state as well as the (constitutional) separation of powers, please do so.
Brothers and sisters in Christ:
I join you and your congregation in celebrating the power of the resurrection and the joy of this Easter season. I am writing to seek your support on an important and timely matter.
As you are aware, the congregation of Sunnyside UMC in Buckeystown, has expressed its intention to leave the denomination and to take the church property with it. This action is a violation of church and state laws. To get itself exempted from the Trust Clause, the church sought the assistance of a handful of area state legislators. House Bill 1554 and Senate Bill 1091 are the result.
Unfortunately, the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee passed an amended bill yesterday that removes the entire section relating to United Methodists out of the state law. This will have a substantial impact - not only in our dealings with Sunnyside UMC but also potentially on the entire United Methodist Church. The bill goes to the full senate today for a first read and a vote will possibly take place Thursday. The House of Delegates Economic Matters Committee has not done anything with the bill yet.
I urge to you contact your state legislators today – particularly those who represent Frederick County, members of the Economics Matters Committee and members of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and voice your opposition to House Bill 1554 and the amended Senate Bill 1091. The legislative session ends April 12. Your action on this matter is of utmost importance. Attached is the contact information for all Senate and Delegate committee members considering the bill, as well as all Frederick County delegates and Senators.
Last week, I, and other conference leaders, testified before legislative hearings against these bills. I am now asking you to add your voice. As the leader of a vital United Methodist congregation, you know the importance of our connectional system. Both church law and the state constitution uphold the conference’s concerns about legislators granting an exemption to Sunnyside, or to the churches of Frederick County, (as a Senate amendment to the bill suggests) so that they might stand separate, functioning outside of our denominational rules.
Please be assured we are working very hard to find a grace-filled resolution to this issue. We need the voices of you and your congregations to be heard today.
Keep the Faith,
Bishop John R. Schol
Rev. Terri Rae Chattin
Rev. William T. Chaney, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)