A conversation with Luke this week tipped me off to the practice of creating websites for episcopal candidates within the United Methodist Church. He pointed me to the Southeast Jurisdiction Candidates and North Central Jurisdiction Candidates where nearly 100% of them have created a website specifically to promote their candidacy.

United Methodist Episcopal Candidate Websites « Thoughts of Resurrection.

We’re going to jump on the bandwagon and draw your attention to Andrew’s post and conversation on the practice in a couple of jurisdictions to blatantly campaign for the office of bishop. It really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, as there have been campaign websites for at least the past two quadrennia. However, let’s mix it up here around the following questions: Do we really believe that the selection of bishops is a process of discernment, or should we all admit that it is a political horse race? Shouldn’t delegates in the information age have as much information about the candidates being presented for election as possible, or does this somehow impede the work of the Spirit? What does it mean for the church to have a “political” episcopate versus a “discerned/called/selected” episcopate? Last but not least, is the political election model of selection inherently a problem if we believe that Bishops should be selected by discernment?

And we also might ask ourselves a question: What if the ancient Christians of the early church had had the option of a No-Stress Sunday? You know, those ancestors of ours who got fed to the lions, had their heads chopped off and were occasionally crucified. What if some ol’ Roman governor had just said, “Look guys, we know you don’t want to bow to the emperor or offer sacrifice or anything like that. But just come into the back office, sprinkle a little incense before a pagan idol and we’ll forget all about this Jesus stuff.”

 The United Methodist Portal.

An informal May survey by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) confirmed what many pastors and denominational leaders have long known: many churches offer inadequate health care to their shepherds.

The majority of denominations that responded to the survey offered little or no health insurance to pastors or other fulltime church staff.

Blessed Insurance | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

One of the ongoing struggles I have in ministry has to do with the place of patriotic recognitions in worship. I have reconciled myself to having the U.S. flag present in the sanctuary, believing on the one hand that claiming loyalty in the state stands at odds with our loyalty to God, but also knowing that there are other beliefs at work and that it isn’t really worth the battle to try and remove it.

Where I especially struggle is in regards to the “high holy days” of the American patriotic season — Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, and Independence Day. Part of my problem is that I often forget in my worship planning that for some these days have some connection to the church. But my main struggle is with whether the observance of these holidays is appropriate in a church setting or not.

This is a special issue for us United Methodists, for the “high point” of our life in the U.S. (the 1940’s and 50’s) saw a church in which faith was often equated with patriotism and good citizenship. American Civil Religion (a description coined by Martin Marty) ran rampant in the Methodist Church, and one of the benefits of our “decline” is the recognition that our place in the seats of governmental power led to a faith with little connection to the teachings and example of Jesus. Like the religious right of today, Methodists believed that they held the power cards, and the fall since those days has been hard.

So, the question for the day is: How do you incorporate or avoid patriotic observances in your worship services? Do you grin and beat it, embrace the recognition of flag and country fully, or try to walk a fine line in between? What did you do this Sunday (today) to remember Independence Day, or did you avoid the topic entirely?

Let’s be honest, as much as we love our jobs and as deeply as we feel called, we all have pet peeves in regards to our ministries. They usually aren’t big things, for if they were we probably would give up and start working at McDonalds (something that is probably in the long run a more effective missional strategy!). But they continue to be an irritating presence in our lives, something that we wish we could change with a snap of the fingers.

So, without any further adieu, here my non-exhaustive list of this week:

So, what are the things that you hate in your task of parish ministry? Let us know your top five list in the comments below.

Recently there has been a great deal of rhetoric tossed around about the need for better systems to deal with the issue of clergy effectiveness. I saw it in the report of the Conference Lay Leader, who harped on the need for more effective clergy, somehow implying that the challenges facing the United Methodist Church could be fixed if only the clergy were more effective. In fact, it’s become a mantra among a certain segment of lay folk that the reason the United Methodist Church has lost its place of standing in the world is that we have too many clergy who are incompetent and that we need to simply run the bums off.

Certainly, the UMC has to deal with helping clergy to be more effective. The system of tenure we call “guaranteed appointment” (which was created for good and just purposes) has many problems, and once someone is ordained as an elder and gains full conference membership, it is difficult if not impossible to deal with persons who continue to have problems in their ministries. There are far too many persons on the two year service cycle, a sign that something isn’t fully kosher in Jerusalem, and we DO have to find ways of helping persons succeed or gently moving them into the career that God has gifted them for.

However, in all this conversation about accountability and clergy effectiveness, we overlook an even more important concern in our fold. That concern is congregational effectiveness.

You see, our current systems of accountability focus on the role of the pastor in the ministry of the church, but never ask congregational leaders what they are doing to further the work of God in their communities. The annual charge/church conference contains much good information about the church, but the primary business is to hear a report of the pastor, to nominate new leaders, and to set the pastor’s salary. At no time does the conference through the district superintendent ever question the leaders about their faith, their vision for the church, or their responsibility for evangelism.

Yes, the pastor is the appointed leader of the congregation, and as such represents the congregation to the general church. Yes, there is a sense in which the accountability of the pastor is a form of congregational accountability. However, as any pastor will tell you, there is a limit to what he or she can do in a congregation that is dysfunctional, hard headed, and simply isn’t particularly concerned with being anything beyond what they already are. Ministry for the transformation of the world requires a partnership between pastor and congregation, and there are situations all through our communion in which congregations aren’t willing to be active participants in that partnership. “What?” Us be in ministry,” they say. “Isn’t that what we pay the pastor for?”

One of the problems that we have is that there are no systems in place for the Bishop and/or the D.S. to meet with congregational leaders for conversation on accountability. Congregational leaders need to be quizzed on their visions for the future ministry of the church, and in a denomination struggling with resources, congregations that refuse to be held accountable or simply want to continue as they always have should be informed that they are a drain on the ministries of the church and cannot be fully supported. Why should a family chapel that has no intention of ever reaching out to the community or the world receive an elder as their leader simply because they can afford to pay for one? Why shouldn’t a congregation that has caught a vision for God’s kingdom and is making steps to move out into the world be subsidized in one way or the other by a conference whose very mission is making new disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?

A few years ago I was talking with a D.S. who had been in the church for many years about my belief in need for accountability of congregations. He suggested that one of the great losses of the UMC was the move to the annual charge conference from the quarterly conference model that had been in place before.

“ What meeting quarterly offered was a chance for ongoing conversation about what the church was doing as well as the D.S. thinking with them about possibilities for the future,” he said. “What we have now tries to do too much, which means that there really isn’t any chance to converse in a meaningful way about the direction of the church.”

The more I’ve thought about it, the more I think he’s right.

Accountability, be it pastoral or congregational, requires a sense of relationship that only comes through familiarity. Pastors gain that familiarity through their relationships with the congregations and their relationships with their D.S. through monthly pastor’s meetings and other conference activities. Congregations, however, never have an opportunity to enter into relationship in a meaningful way with persons in the denominational hierarchy and so “those people” have little authority to hold the congregation accountable for its actions (except in the most glaring of offenses). Moving to a quarterly conference would remove the pressure felt in the charge conference system that we have to do everything at once. It would also allow the D.S. to enter into an ongoing relationship with congregational leaders that would help facilitate conversation about the mission and ministry of the church.

I can hear D.S’s already rolling their eyes and groaning. “We have too much to do already!” they are saying. “How could we possibly meet with every congregation in our district four times a year?”

I confess that I don’t have the answer for that. Possibly we could empower elders from other congregations to serve as “class leaders” on an ongoing basis with another congregation to meet with church leaders and ask them how that congregation is moving on to perfection? Maybe we need to take away some of the annual conference responsibilities in order to allow D.S’s more time in local congregations. Maybe we could utilize effective retired clergy to become mentors to congregations, not to undermine the work of the existing pastor, but to hold the congregation accountable to their role of ministry?

The ultimate goal is the recognition that the United Methodist Church has an investment in the success or failure of all of our member congregations, and that those congregations must be moving forward if they want to receive the full support of the UMC.

That can never happen when the only intersection between the denomination and the local congregation happens for one hour once a year.

Isn’t the success of every congregation worth more than one hour a year?

I just received the following e-mail from John Winn, a member of the MethoBlog community and a member of a prominent UM family in Louisiana:

Help us get a little help for our favorite lighthouse on Lake Ponchartrain destroyed by Katrina.  Community involvement is underway and your vote could help bring in a major support group.  Read on, click on to the website at the bottom, then click on "Vote" and please vote for the Canal Lighthouse in New Orleans.  

Thanks for your help---it only takes a second. 
Shalom, John

I’m not sure that this is an “approved” UM activity, but it only takes a couple of minutes and would be a great way to help out our friends still recovering from Katrina.

> www.jeld-wen.com/lighthouse <http://www.jeld-wen.com/lighthouse

Now that we are several weeks out of General Conference, it’s time for a MethoBlog postmortem. So, what do you think were the most important items that happened at General Conference? Are there things that grabbed you or things that things are are driving you up a wall? Make your nominations for the five most significant things that happened at General Conference 2008 below and we will pick the top five to share with you.

Yesterday I received a phone call from a user of another social network, one that is run through a partnership of a web development company and a United Methodist agency. He shared the difficulties he was having in dealing with individuals on this network who seem unwilling to engage in civil and respectful conversation, regularly calling others names and questioning their faith. This network has gained, over time, a reputation of hostility, focused in the commentary of a minority of the participants who seem to think that their role in life is to be the “orthodoxy police.”

On the surface, as an administrator, dealing with this issue should be easy. If one is unwilling to live with the terms of agreement requiring civil discourse, one should lose the right to participate in the community. To the credit of the agency, there has been an attempt to do that, however the agency has minimal control over the entire site (which is owned and operated by the development company) that the others involved with the site seem rather unconcerned with the path that their community is taking.

The issue of how to carry on civil conversations has always been in the back of our minds here at the MethoBlog, and for the most part we have experienced a community of respect. We will continue to take steps to create a space for civil conversation on life in the United Methodist Church, and want to have a space that invites all to talk about our common life together.

Having said that, we recognize that in many ways The MethoBlog has been a closed system. In the attempt to maintain some degree of control, we limit posting to the main page to a group of volunteer editors who draw attention to the best posts in the MethoBlogoSphere, and occasionally offer commentary as well. We are always open to adding to our group of contributors, especially since many of our past contributors have been less active recently. If you would be interested in joining the team, please let me know in the comments below.

We also know that many are unaware that we have a fairly open forum system on the site, which can be found by clicking on the “Conversations” tab. This requires creating an account on the site, but our hope is to provide a space for conversation on life in the UMC.

We have been thinking about adding a feature to the site that would allow the creation of “organic groups,” much like the “villages” in that other place, which would allow folks to gather in affinity groups online. We would be interested in knowing if there would be an interest in expanding the functionality of this site, and ask for your comments.

We appreciate all of the ways that you contribute to this community, and it is our hope that we might be able to expand and make this into an important place of conversation about the future of the United Methodist Church.