There is a
very real chance that I am suffering from drama-aversion due to being the
designated parent of my 17-month-old while my husband, a lay alternate (2x)
attends some of the sessions, but I just don’t have the energy for the anxiety
and drama that seems to be going around about the end of guaranteed appointments
today. Or, perhaps it’s the knowledge that things that change easily can…change
easily. Or, that there’s a very real chance that this is neither the end of the
world, nor the end of the universal church, and maybe not even the end of the
UMC. Or maybe the knowledge that the system works to correct itself, and if the
bishops misuse this power, it will come back to bite them—and hard. Wicked
hard.
Here’s the
thing(s)…
There are
some ineffective pastors who will never do something significant enough to be
brought to trial. These aren’t good pastors who disagree with the bishop, or
pastors who have a different idea of what effective congregations look like. These
are pastors who have stopped giving a &*$%. I say “have stopped” because I
still hold out hope that our candidacy process works. But people change. And we
don’t have a good system now for what to do when pastors change.
I’ll be the
first to say there are probably other ways to get rid of pastors, ways that put
a stronger burden on bishops (because let’s be honest in the end, this is who
it all comes down to). In a perfect world, I’d have liked to see a process
streamlined for this sort of case. Getting rid of GA seems a bit excessive, but
it is what we have. And it will help address these pastors.
There are
many of us who are concerned about the increasing power being sought for/by the
bishops. This isn’t a problem if you trust your bishop and believe you will
always have a bishop whose wisdom you can trust. Most people wouldn’t stake
their careers on that. And so they are scared. I understand that.
But please,
people, let’s ease off the drama. Here’s what’s going to happen, in my opinion.
This clause will be used, but sparingly by most bishops. Some will take it as a
license to play God. But just a couple, at most. And I personally choose to
believe they will pay. Dearly. If even just a few take this too far, all of the
bishops will get slapped down hard in 2016…mark my words…they mess with the
clergy too much, pull enough that churches are left without pastors? The clergy
and lay alike will rise up. And it will not be pretty.
But I also
choose to believe it won’t come to that (we’re all reacting right now on what
we choose to believe will happen—some worst case, me, after entertaining Anna
for an entire day in a convention center, I’m hanging onto the sunny side of
the world). I still hope we work some more accountability into the system
(personally I’m not a fan of term limits for bishops, I just wish we’d go back
to the EUB system of making them all stand for re-election every four years).
In practice, hardly anyone (I think really no one except Bishop Wright lost,
and he was a character) failed to get re-elected. But I think we’d all feel
better if we could vote for or against them each quadrennium.
Yes, we go
through a lot to get ordained. And no, the bishop shouldn’t be able to
summarily reject the decision of BOOM. I think we need to think more about guidelines
about how many non-UMCs can fill pulpits (especially when UMs can be pushed out
without charges) as well as how we handle DS hires and LPs and other statuses.
Basically, we need to make sure BOOMs still have the role they’re designed to.
I don’t know if the amendment to the current proposal really has the teeth it
needs. Actually I don’t think it has teeth. I guess we’ll find out if it needs
them.
I don’t
think we’re going to see a massacre of the order of elders in the next four
years. I just don’t think we will. I don’t know if this is the best way to
start working towards more effective clergy, but I also don’t think it’s the
worst. Maybe it’s even in the top three of ways that would work.
Someone
commented somewhere on Facebook that someone else asked if this meant
ineffective churches would stop receiving pastors. I think there needs to be a
process there (there is one, but perhaps it too, as it currently stands, is too
cumbersome), but no, I don’t think that would be the worst thing in the world,
either.
Finally,
some have lamented a divergence from our Wesleyan roots. Really? Having heard
of the annual interviews and questions Wesley submitted his pastors to, ones
which he was said (if I remember correctly from my studies) to have been fairly
harsh about (I think I remember hearing Charles had to convince him to be more
reasonable in his assessments), I hardly think the system we’ve had is
identical to Wesley’s. If anything one might make the case getting rid of GA is
more similar to it.
I don’t
think this will kill pastors’ prophetic voice, but partly because I don’t think
being prophetic means you have to be a jerk or arrogant about it (perhaps part
of the problem the IOT was facing this week). Sometimes it’s about how you say
a thing. I think we’ll also need to live into this, for sure. There will be
bumps, and some conferences will no doubt have a tougher time than others. But
I think we’ll be okay for the next four years. And I’ll be interested to see
what we all have to say about it when we catch up in four years in Portland.
2016 will be a pivotal year for the episcopacy, I think.
Most of all,
I do believe we are all still in connection with each other. Even our bishops, fellow
elders, are in this with us. I know it’s fun to get all worked up, but this isn’t
the issue to freak out about. Where some ideas are great in principal but
horrible in reality, I think we’ll discover this is scary in principal, but
fine—maybe even helpful—in reality.
I have lots of concerns about this, if I'm honest. But these are mostly questions about worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is an awesome and horrible place to live. It's where I spend a lot of time, but I just don't have the energy for it with this. Being at GC has made me so frustrated with the drama, sarcasm and condescension towards the work done here by those who aren't. This is a tough place to be. There are TONS of big items that come to the floor, and having met a number of the delegates, I believe they are good people with a lot of wisdom. I think it's easy to be in the peanut gallery and grab for the most extreme reaction to small (and yes, even big, like this) issues. We have survived a great deal, and we will survive this. We might even thrive.
I am just so tired to bitter, grumpy church folk. For example, I'm over the former EUBs still ticked about '68. Please people, I'm one of you, but where do you think we'd be without '68? Not having this debate, I'll tell you that. Some EUBs have chosen to be excited about being UM, and we love it. Others are still bitter. And they're miserable. Because they choose to be. Today, a lot of people are choosing to see the end in this. I choose not to.
God has not brought us this far to leave us, and I for one, am done for now with seeing doom in every corner and every decision. So you know what, I choose to suck it up and make it work the best I can, whatever I can do to work towards that end. And if it doesn't work, let's change it after we've tried it and do something better. Ok? Can we try that?
So, crazier
things have happened than this legislation coming back to the floor again
before the end of this GC, but people whose wisdom I trust say it’s settled for
four years now. It will be okay, really it will. Take a deep breath. We’ve just
begun the hard work. The coming days at GC will really be…interesting…
