Of all the great pastors in Wisconsin that I admired, Stan was at the top of my list. He was well-organized, had some incredible accomplishments, and really cared about us.
The thing I saw in him that I saw in few others who tried to get things done in our conference was his remarkable awareness of the people and agencies he needed to have on his side when he worked on something. He worked behind the scenes to develop important things so that by the time annual conference came, he never had to get up and argue his concern from the floor of the plenary. With very few exceptions, his name was not on important actions. His political skills were remarkable, all because he did not need the attention. The work was the most important to him when it came to being active in the denomination. I never found him into seeking prestige or notoriety.
The exceptions, of course, were building up pensions for retirees and the establishment of the Foundation which has grown into a substantial financial institution. Because these were so important for helping others, he put himself on the line to assure their success. Every pastor and nearly every church in our conference has benefitted from his very active efforts into which he poured himself. He led the efforts for retirees and contributed to their special fund everytime a pastor died, even pastors he didn't know. And he led the Foundation once the conference followed his lead to establish it.
Along with these major accomplishments, he brought a measure of accountability and sensitivity to the appointment process. He helped design and implement the consultation process in which superintendents talked with the pastors and churches and got them together before an appointment was set by the bishop. Once it had been found to be productive and effective, he led the charge to get it through General Conference and succeeded. Cabinets around the country use it. Some bishops still think they should have the freedom to move pastors just because they want to, but pastors have been able to challenge such bad behavior because of Stan's successful efforts.
The thing I appreciated most about Stan was that he maintained warmth and good humor in every interaction I ever had with him. He welcomed me by correspondence and took me onto his district despite rumors that my attending Perkins meant I would not come home to Wisconsin. He cared so much about his district that he had a heart attack just before I actually came back from seminary. I had him as my DS some years later and he brought me into his new district to start a new church. He did all he could to help me succeed, including playing wiffle ball in our parsonage backyard during a picnic for the new church. He always took my calls and responded in later years to my emails. He was the epitome of collegiality and support in the "covenant of the clergy."
I asked hm once how he liked being a superintendent. He said it was hard work but that it gave him a chance to help pastors, especially new ones. I asked him what was the down side. He said. "I really miss having a church during the holidays. I worked closely with the church folks to develop the special services and felt a personal part of the congregation at those times. As a DS, I really miss that part of being a pastor."
I hate that he is no longer with us but I am so grateful for the chance to remember what he meant to me. It is also a chance for me to remind you, in case you had forgotten, what he gave to our denomination, to our conference, and to us who knew him.
Showing posts with label Wisconsin Annual Conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wisconsin Annual Conference. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
JCD 1215
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1335&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229
INVITATION TO END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTQI FOLKS
A Wisconsin Conference pastor was put on trial for two charges, for being a self-avowed practicing homosexual and for conducting a service of union for two gay partners. The trial court found her not guilty of the first charge because it would have required a third party to observe whether or not the “self-avowing” was actually true and not just a political statement. She was found guilty of the second charge, was suspended for twenty days, and instructed as part of the trial court decision to prepare a report exploring the issue of reconciliation among those who disagree over the church’s stance on homosexuality.
The report is worth reading because it shows considerable research and is well written. The entire text is found at http://www.loveontrial.org/pages/covenant.document,pdf/.
The report was presented this June at annual conference. After they accepted her report, church counsel from the trial rose to challenge that action. He presented two questions, one related to the report’s calling for ending discrimination against LGBTQI folks in violation JCD 1111 (no conference may ignore the Discipline even for conscience sake); two, relating to funding a group to work on that project, does that funding constitute promoting homosexuality contrary to P 613.20?
If the respondent in a church trial appeals a decision of the trial court, church counsel then has a chance to argue the case upon appeal. Otherwise, church counsel has no appellate rights except in a case that is handled egregiously (P 2715.10). He chose not to make that kind of challenge, though there are some who wish he had. In my way of thinking, he would have had a hard time proving his case since the pastor was found guilty and the trial court had determined penalties. The Council had been very clear lately that it does not want to overturn the decisions in a church trial (JCD 1094, particularly).
So church counsel chose to raise questions about the report as a way to get a modest kind of review by the Judicial Council.
The bishop responded that the Discipline calls for an end to discrimination so the request in the report for a committee to explore the concern is in order and until the committee assigned with the task has delivered its report in 2013, the first question of the church counsel is hypothetical and need not be answered. The bishop said the second question is also moot and hypothetical because the funding of the study committee enables it to function but does not require a particular answer to how to end possible discrimination.
The Judicial Council concurred. Until the study committee reports next year, the questions asked by the church counsel are hypothetical.
Again, those who feel strongly about homosexuality as contrary to Scripture may see this decision as evading the question. Is any examination of the issue of homosexuality legitimate in the denomination simply because treating any form of study about it is encouraging it? But that issue is long settled in a number of previous Council decisions. Innumerable studies have been supported as within church law.
Those who feel that there is discrimination in the church over homosexuality may be heartened that these kind of studies may legally continue but they know the Council has struck down any actions taken as a result of the studies because they violated the Discipline’s current strictures about homosexuality.
Maybe this Wisconsin effort will find a new path toward reconciling the differences. The United Methodist Church needs help on this divisive issue. Until the General Conference finds a better solution than it has during the past four decades, this conflict will be with us for awhile.
Note: The pastor’s report adds a new wrinkle to the size and shape of the LGBT community. She adds a “Q” and an “I” (LGBTQI). She includes a glossary at the end of her paper. The “Q” represents those who are “questioning” their own sexual orientation and the “I” represents those who are “Intersex” (having both sexual organs at birth – see http://www.isna.org/).
One of the more recent scientific findings is that homosexuality may be a matter of degrees in some people because it is based on the hormones of the birth mother. So, while many gay people are gay by genetics, many are more or less homosexual based on the level of hormones of their mother at their birth. So for many people, their potential confusion over homosexuality may be seen along a spectrum rather than either that they are or they aren’t.
That would underscore the addition of the “Q” to the pastor’s identifying initials of the community.
INVITATION TO END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTQI FOLKS
A Wisconsin Conference pastor was put on trial for two charges, for being a self-avowed practicing homosexual and for conducting a service of union for two gay partners. The trial court found her not guilty of the first charge because it would have required a third party to observe whether or not the “self-avowing” was actually true and not just a political statement. She was found guilty of the second charge, was suspended for twenty days, and instructed as part of the trial court decision to prepare a report exploring the issue of reconciliation among those who disagree over the church’s stance on homosexuality.
The report is worth reading because it shows considerable research and is well written. The entire text is found at http://www.loveontrial.org/pages/covenant.document,pdf/.
The report was presented this June at annual conference. After they accepted her report, church counsel from the trial rose to challenge that action. He presented two questions, one related to the report’s calling for ending discrimination against LGBTQI folks in violation JCD 1111 (no conference may ignore the Discipline even for conscience sake); two, relating to funding a group to work on that project, does that funding constitute promoting homosexuality contrary to P 613.20?
If the respondent in a church trial appeals a decision of the trial court, church counsel then has a chance to argue the case upon appeal. Otherwise, church counsel has no appellate rights except in a case that is handled egregiously (P 2715.10). He chose not to make that kind of challenge, though there are some who wish he had. In my way of thinking, he would have had a hard time proving his case since the pastor was found guilty and the trial court had determined penalties. The Council had been very clear lately that it does not want to overturn the decisions in a church trial (JCD 1094, particularly).
So church counsel chose to raise questions about the report as a way to get a modest kind of review by the Judicial Council.
The bishop responded that the Discipline calls for an end to discrimination so the request in the report for a committee to explore the concern is in order and until the committee assigned with the task has delivered its report in 2013, the first question of the church counsel is hypothetical and need not be answered. The bishop said the second question is also moot and hypothetical because the funding of the study committee enables it to function but does not require a particular answer to how to end possible discrimination.
The Judicial Council concurred. Until the study committee reports next year, the questions asked by the church counsel are hypothetical.
Again, those who feel strongly about homosexuality as contrary to Scripture may see this decision as evading the question. Is any examination of the issue of homosexuality legitimate in the denomination simply because treating any form of study about it is encouraging it? But that issue is long settled in a number of previous Council decisions. Innumerable studies have been supported as within church law.
Those who feel that there is discrimination in the church over homosexuality may be heartened that these kind of studies may legally continue but they know the Council has struck down any actions taken as a result of the studies because they violated the Discipline’s current strictures about homosexuality.
Maybe this Wisconsin effort will find a new path toward reconciling the differences. The United Methodist Church needs help on this divisive issue. Until the General Conference finds a better solution than it has during the past four decades, this conflict will be with us for awhile.
Note: The pastor’s report adds a new wrinkle to the size and shape of the LGBT community. She adds a “Q” and an “I” (LGBTQI). She includes a glossary at the end of her paper. The “Q” represents those who are “questioning” their own sexual orientation and the “I” represents those who are “Intersex” (having both sexual organs at birth – see http://www.isna.org/).
One of the more recent scientific findings is that homosexuality may be a matter of degrees in some people because it is based on the hormones of the birth mother. So, while many gay people are gay by genetics, many are more or less homosexual based on the level of hormones of their mother at their birth. So for many people, their potential confusion over homosexuality may be seen along a spectrum rather than either that they are or they aren’t.
That would underscore the addition of the “Q” to the pastor’s identifying initials of the community.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
AIA letter for January
Associates in Advocacy
http://www.aiateam.org
January 6, 2009
Dear Bishop,
At the end of my first year at Perkins (1959), I visited the North Texas Annual Conference to see how they operated. Despite the thousand delegates present, the bishop granted the floor to only ten people during the plenaries I observed. Albert Outler, of course, four big church pastors, and five DSs. No laity. No other clergy.
The June before I left for Perkins (1958), I was ordained Deacon at the Wisconsin Conference whose delegates numbered about 500. I spent a day observing there before the ordination. During the course of business, a friend who had been ordained Deacon the year before was recognized and rose to speak to the matter on the floor. A few minutes later, following a report by one of the DSs, a minister rose and in a diplomatic manner, severely criticized the report while the DS was still at the podium. I saw the two men laughing over lunch together an hour later.
Rev. William Blake, my pastor during high school and college, was conference historian and I asked him about the difference between the two conferences.
“I can’t tell you how that Texas conference operated during the 1930s. But let me tell you what we did during the Great Depression. Even before President Roosevelt took office, things were very bad in the rural and small town areas of our conference. The churches serving those areas were really struggling to pay their bills and to pay their pastors. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be serving churches whose incomes were still fairly strong set up a fund which was then distributed to help pay the salaries of the pastors in the struggling churches.
“The best thing about that was the collegiality that developed in our conference among the ministers. The relationships between the older better-off pastors and the younger struggling ones continued as some of those younger ones received more financially solid appointments. They continued the sharing with the new pastors who joined late in that decade.
“That program ended in 1945 as the war economy improved everyone’s lot. But those last ones who benefited never forgot and passed along the collegiality to this day.”
My conversation with Rev. Blake was in the early 1960s.
By 1980, nearly all those pastors were retired and with them went that memory of the close bonds they had experienced because of the grace shown among clergy during the Depression. That memory’s impact lasted fifty years.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
http://www.aiateam.org
January 6, 2009
Dear Bishop,
At the end of my first year at Perkins (1959), I visited the North Texas Annual Conference to see how they operated. Despite the thousand delegates present, the bishop granted the floor to only ten people during the plenaries I observed. Albert Outler, of course, four big church pastors, and five DSs. No laity. No other clergy.
The June before I left for Perkins (1958), I was ordained Deacon at the Wisconsin Conference whose delegates numbered about 500. I spent a day observing there before the ordination. During the course of business, a friend who had been ordained Deacon the year before was recognized and rose to speak to the matter on the floor. A few minutes later, following a report by one of the DSs, a minister rose and in a diplomatic manner, severely criticized the report while the DS was still at the podium. I saw the two men laughing over lunch together an hour later.
Rev. William Blake, my pastor during high school and college, was conference historian and I asked him about the difference between the two conferences.
“I can’t tell you how that Texas conference operated during the 1930s. But let me tell you what we did during the Great Depression. Even before President Roosevelt took office, things were very bad in the rural and small town areas of our conference. The churches serving those areas were really struggling to pay their bills and to pay their pastors. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be serving churches whose incomes were still fairly strong set up a fund which was then distributed to help pay the salaries of the pastors in the struggling churches.
“The best thing about that was the collegiality that developed in our conference among the ministers. The relationships between the older better-off pastors and the younger struggling ones continued as some of those younger ones received more financially solid appointments. They continued the sharing with the new pastors who joined late in that decade.
“That program ended in 1945 as the war economy improved everyone’s lot. But those last ones who benefited never forgot and passed along the collegiality to this day.”
My conversation with Rev. Blake was in the early 1960s.
By 1980, nearly all those pastors were retired and with them went that memory of the close bonds they had experienced because of the grace shown among clergy during the Depression. That memory’s impact lasted fifty years.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)