With General Conference approaching, NEWSCOPE is getting statements from prominent church leaders about thngs that need to be addressed in the United Methodist Church.
The January 11, 2008, issue includes a list of requirements for consideration. The list was proposed by Dr. Lyle Schaller. Unfortunately, it is without any commentary or argument to support his suggested requirements.
Maybe short-shrifting ideas will get more dialogue going. It certainly got me to enter this fray!
I agree with Dr. Schaller that conferences aim toward much longer appointments and that local churches need to be more involved in mission exchanges with churches on other continents. I’m sure he has good reasons for some of his other ideas but they did not particularly move me. The one that bothered me was his idea to initiate a process requiring the elimination of guaranteed appointments.
He will have willing partners in that endeavor among many bishops. In many conferences, pastors have no assurance of appointment because of the way their Cabinets handle appointments and complaints.
Cabinet members in those places freely use the phrase “You are unappointable.”
Cabinet members in those places freely avoid fair process to run off pastors, usually at the bottom of the peck order, whenever the pastor may be attacked by clergy killing congregations. Despite the Judicial Council’s recent ruling (JCD 1082) against such practices, some Cabinets will ignore them just like they have the Discipline.
They get away with it because there are no effective means of holding Cabinet members accountable. The Discipline leaves loopholes a mile wide in the procedures it provides.
A complaint against a DS ends up being handled under Paragraph 429.3 instead of Paragraph 362. It’s called “circling the wagons.”
A complaint against a bishop goes to episcopal colleagues in the College of Bishops who cover for one another. The “supervisory response” there just never ends with anything they judge as having enough weight to pursue . . . unless sex is involved . . . no matter how egregious the complaint.
Because Dr. Schaller has gone on record in support of a major change like eliminating guaranteed appointments, let me suggest he add the following in order to provide the proper administrative set up to go along with it.
1. Eliminate lifetime elections for bishops. Require that they be up for re-election every four years and that they return to a local church every eight years.
2. Take away the bishop’s power of appointment so that s/he can have time to get to know the local churches well enough to be able to supervise the taking in of new church members. That way bishops would have more to say about fulfilling goals of increasing church membership.
3. Drop the appointment system completely and let it become a call system like most other Protestant churches have.
4. Elect superintendents and let them be the one who enables pastors and churches to link up when a pastoral change is needed in that district. Changes would be made as seldom as possible and only when necessary to allow the pastors and churches more stability to have the fifteen year tenures called for by Dr. Schaller.
5. Make it easier for congregations to split so they can form new congregations whenever a particular pastor or clique in the congregation divides a church. Let the entrepreneurial spirit prevail.
Oh, while we are at it, let’s eliminate tenure for university and seminary professors. And let’s make Congress and former Presidents have to buy private health insurance.
I do not mean to appear to make light of one “requirement.” A change as suggested by Dr. Schaller has ramifications which, if made without full consideration of all the other elements of a system, will tend to further breakdown the whole system.
If pastors do not have guaranteed appointments, they are completely at the mercy of the appointment power of the bishops. It is bad enough as it is when a bishop ignores the Discipline.
By allowing bishops a lifetime election but eliminating the guaranteed appointment, the General Conference would be giving bishops even more power over their conferences.
Every pastor would be even more tempted to seek to please the bishop because it would not just enhance their moving up the peck order. Without a guaranteed appointment, the bishop could arbitrarily take that career away completely. Imagine the consequences of that kind of dependence built into the system.
I always wondered how medieval governance by lords over servants evolved from more democratic Christian structures. That’s what it looks like to me and I don’t want it to happen in our denomination!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Review of TRAGIC REDEMPTION by Hiram Johnson
Review by Dr. Donald D. Budd*
The author, Reverend Hiram Johnson, brings some fine credentials for the writing of this book. He is both theologically trained and a professional counselor. He is a United Methodist clergy and is under appointment as a counselor in private practice. Asbury is the seminary where he received his Masters degree in counseling. He has an MSW from the University of Kentucky. He has credentials as a board certified diplomate in clinical social work.
The author intertwines two themes throughout the book. They are:
1) therapeutic insights and
2) his spiritual journey from faithlessness to faith.
The story line is interesting. He tells of being the driver in an auto accident that killed a 17 year-old female passenger on Christmas Day. Then he traces his journey through various therapy situations to deal with his guilt and shame. In a way the book can be compared to a “before and after” experience, that is, before faith and after his conversion.
The narrative also mixes his theology and his therapeutic insights. For example, right after the accident, many friends tried to share Scripture with him and he found that more disruptive than helpful. He writes, “All Scripture is pure and true, but the timing and context in which it is read or heard makes the difference as to whether it is significant, embraced, or from our perspective, feels downright cruel.”
Throughout the book, he quite successfully uses Scripture texts where he thinks they do work. He also pulls in quotes from all kinds of sources. This reviewer did enjoy the quotes. In fact, they were one of the book’s strengths, taken from a wide range of writings, including many with which the reviewer is familiar. When looking at the issue of personal flaws, something he had previously seen as objects of guilt and shame, he found this from Harold Kushner, “Although God may be disappointed in some of the things we do, He is never disappointed in who we are, fallible people struggling with the implication of knowing good and evil.”
Rev. Johnson’s greatest contributions are his counseling skills, wide reading, and experience.
This is not to say that there are some concerns which the author doesn’t address.
For all the talk of faith and grace redeeming persons through appropriate Scripture and belief, this reviewer found it very interesting that the author came to faith via community. It was through the church that God revealed God’s self to the author. The author found Christ through people. It was not just God’s use of the accident and its aftermath that brought him to faith but the faithfulness of believers.
Another concern the book does not address is post traumatic stress syndrome. It was not helpful to this reviewer who has to deal with PTSS. I am a Vietnam Veteran. Anger and hate were my issues; guilt and shame were not. With so many Iraq occupation casualties and veterans having PTSS, the author misses the chance to acknowledge them. The difference between the stress of his experience and that of a vet is like the difference between apples and oranges.
The book clearly is not an academic treatise. He makes many assertions without verification. But it is an enjoyable read for nonprofessionals as are most books for the popular market.
While Rev. Johnson really does not add anything new or unique to counseling theory, any Christian counselor or pastoral counselor would accept the book with gratitude. His emphasis is on grace, on Christ’s forgiveness of our sins which in turn enables us to forgive ourselves and others.
Psychologically the book is very helpful, i.e. the definitions of key counseling words and the problems of guilt and shame.
Virtually all persons who counsel deal with these issues.
To whom is Rev. Johnson writing?
How about Conservative pastors/theologians? They will be accepting of the book and find it profitable reading. This will be especially true for those who are not trained in counseling or have little exposure to counseling theory. The conservative pastor/theologian will appreciate the combining of counseling insights and belief system, even if he/she disagrees at some points with the author’s theology.
The book is not intended to be a methodology book or a how-to book. This being the case I do not see how it will help an untrained counselor to bring healing to a client. However, the book introduces many key clinical insights that can open up to the novice the breadth of issues a counselee may be facing and hopefully be encouragement to pursue in further study.
I would be very careful about passing it on to lay people. If their
guilt/shame is severe they would need a therapist to help them. Hopefully, the book will be a catalyst helping readers to recognize that help is available.
Would a liberal theologian/pastor find this book helpful? Theologically the help offered has usually been considered and found by them to be inadequate. The value of the book is how it presents a conservative approach to counseling as well as a bibliography which includes the key texts used in conservative circles. All have things to learn from each other especially since many of our parishioners tend to be conservative.
I am glad to have read the book and have the distinct privilege of reviewing it.
Rev. Donald D. Budd, D. Min.
-----
Editor’s note on Dr. Budd:
He received his BS degree from Southern Nazarene University. Double majors: philosophy and Christian education
His graduate degrees are a Masters in Religion Education from Nazarene Theological Seminary, Masters degrees in Church Management and Pastoral Counseling from Olivet Nazarene University and his M. Div. equivalent and D. Min. from United Theological Seminary
His counseling ministry was a part of his parish ministry from which he is now retired.
The author, Reverend Hiram Johnson, brings some fine credentials for the writing of this book. He is both theologically trained and a professional counselor. He is a United Methodist clergy and is under appointment as a counselor in private practice. Asbury is the seminary where he received his Masters degree in counseling. He has an MSW from the University of Kentucky. He has credentials as a board certified diplomate in clinical social work.
The author intertwines two themes throughout the book. They are:
1) therapeutic insights and
2) his spiritual journey from faithlessness to faith.
The story line is interesting. He tells of being the driver in an auto accident that killed a 17 year-old female passenger on Christmas Day. Then he traces his journey through various therapy situations to deal with his guilt and shame. In a way the book can be compared to a “before and after” experience, that is, before faith and after his conversion.
The narrative also mixes his theology and his therapeutic insights. For example, right after the accident, many friends tried to share Scripture with him and he found that more disruptive than helpful. He writes, “All Scripture is pure and true, but the timing and context in which it is read or heard makes the difference as to whether it is significant, embraced, or from our perspective, feels downright cruel.”
Throughout the book, he quite successfully uses Scripture texts where he thinks they do work. He also pulls in quotes from all kinds of sources. This reviewer did enjoy the quotes. In fact, they were one of the book’s strengths, taken from a wide range of writings, including many with which the reviewer is familiar. When looking at the issue of personal flaws, something he had previously seen as objects of guilt and shame, he found this from Harold Kushner, “Although God may be disappointed in some of the things we do, He is never disappointed in who we are, fallible people struggling with the implication of knowing good and evil.”
Rev. Johnson’s greatest contributions are his counseling skills, wide reading, and experience.
This is not to say that there are some concerns which the author doesn’t address.
For all the talk of faith and grace redeeming persons through appropriate Scripture and belief, this reviewer found it very interesting that the author came to faith via community. It was through the church that God revealed God’s self to the author. The author found Christ through people. It was not just God’s use of the accident and its aftermath that brought him to faith but the faithfulness of believers.
Another concern the book does not address is post traumatic stress syndrome. It was not helpful to this reviewer who has to deal with PTSS. I am a Vietnam Veteran. Anger and hate were my issues; guilt and shame were not. With so many Iraq occupation casualties and veterans having PTSS, the author misses the chance to acknowledge them. The difference between the stress of his experience and that of a vet is like the difference between apples and oranges.
The book clearly is not an academic treatise. He makes many assertions without verification. But it is an enjoyable read for nonprofessionals as are most books for the popular market.
While Rev. Johnson really does not add anything new or unique to counseling theory, any Christian counselor or pastoral counselor would accept the book with gratitude. His emphasis is on grace, on Christ’s forgiveness of our sins which in turn enables us to forgive ourselves and others.
Psychologically the book is very helpful, i.e. the definitions of key counseling words and the problems of guilt and shame.
Virtually all persons who counsel deal with these issues.
To whom is Rev. Johnson writing?
How about Conservative pastors/theologians? They will be accepting of the book and find it profitable reading. This will be especially true for those who are not trained in counseling or have little exposure to counseling theory. The conservative pastor/theologian will appreciate the combining of counseling insights and belief system, even if he/she disagrees at some points with the author’s theology.
The book is not intended to be a methodology book or a how-to book. This being the case I do not see how it will help an untrained counselor to bring healing to a client. However, the book introduces many key clinical insights that can open up to the novice the breadth of issues a counselee may be facing and hopefully be encouragement to pursue in further study.
I would be very careful about passing it on to lay people. If their
guilt/shame is severe they would need a therapist to help them. Hopefully, the book will be a catalyst helping readers to recognize that help is available.
Would a liberal theologian/pastor find this book helpful? Theologically the help offered has usually been considered and found by them to be inadequate. The value of the book is how it presents a conservative approach to counseling as well as a bibliography which includes the key texts used in conservative circles. All have things to learn from each other especially since many of our parishioners tend to be conservative.
I am glad to have read the book and have the distinct privilege of reviewing it.
Rev. Donald D. Budd, D. Min.
-----
Editor’s note on Dr. Budd:
He received his BS degree from Southern Nazarene University. Double majors: philosophy and Christian education
His graduate degrees are a Masters in Religion Education from Nazarene Theological Seminary, Masters degrees in Church Management and Pastoral Counseling from Olivet Nazarene University and his M. Div. equivalent and D. Min. from United Theological Seminary
His counseling ministry was a part of his parish ministry from which he is now retired.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Pastors, Be Prepared
When I joined the Wisconsin Annual Conference in 1962, there was quite an amazing feeling of closeness among the pastors. I learned one of the things which led to that was the support they gave each other back during the Depression, almost a quarter of a century before. Although it later seeped away as those older pastors retired, that "institutional memory" of the better off pastors contributing to a fund so that the pastors of very poor churches got financial help to survive the economic problems of that time was a very powetrful community builder in its day.
There are two signs of some serious financial problems ahead.
One is the huge national debt resulting from our war in Iraq, a debt that will be far more of a problem than the current mortgage problem.
The other is the diminishing size of local church budgets in most places at the same time that salaries of church officials and pastors have grown to where they can no longer be afforded in many places.
When I came into the ministry, I expected it to be a lifetime employment right on into retirement. But withn a few years, it became obvious that pastors had better have skills that could help them get jobs if the church could no longer afford them. That reflected the real situation of everyone else: have more than one marketable skill and expect to change jobs several times during your career.
Seminary students had better be aware of this dynamic. Many are coming over from other employment as mid-career changees. They would be wise to keep their certifications for employment in their former fields.
Other pastors need to be thinking about what kind of work they could do to support themselves and their families as the churches diminish in their financial capacities.
BUT ALL OF US BETTER BE READY TO HELP ONE ANOTHER JUST AS DID THE GENERATION THAT SUFFERED THROUGH THE DEPRESSION . . . TOGETHER.
There are two signs of some serious financial problems ahead.
One is the huge national debt resulting from our war in Iraq, a debt that will be far more of a problem than the current mortgage problem.
The other is the diminishing size of local church budgets in most places at the same time that salaries of church officials and pastors have grown to where they can no longer be afforded in many places.
When I came into the ministry, I expected it to be a lifetime employment right on into retirement. But withn a few years, it became obvious that pastors had better have skills that could help them get jobs if the church could no longer afford them. That reflected the real situation of everyone else: have more than one marketable skill and expect to change jobs several times during your career.
Seminary students had better be aware of this dynamic. Many are coming over from other employment as mid-career changees. They would be wise to keep their certifications for employment in their former fields.
Other pastors need to be thinking about what kind of work they could do to support themselves and their families as the churches diminish in their financial capacities.
BUT ALL OF US BETTER BE READY TO HELP ONE ANOTHER JUST AS DID THE GENERATION THAT SUFFERED THROUGH THE DEPRESSION . . . TOGETHER.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Judicial Council Ruling
October 31, 2007
--From the blog "Kairos and Ambiguities" at http://zilhaver.typepad.com/ by permission--
Yesterday the Judicial Council posted its decisions on line. There are many that are interesting and will have impact on the church (I may comment on them at another time), of course I am most interested in reflecting on the questions of law I submitted during the clergy session at our last annual conference.
Judicial Council Decision 1077 is the Judicial Council’s direct response to my questions, but these answers must also be understood in light of the Judicial Council’s response to a similar Clergy Study Team in the Memphis Annual Conference Judicial Decision 1082. Both of these actions dealt with Clergy Study Teams appointed by their respective bishops to come up with a plan to define and deal with ineffective clergy in a streamlined process.
This is not surprising, as both Bishop Bickerton of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference have collaborated together on many good projects even before they became bishops. Most recently they shared together at the "Clergy Get Away" for the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference. So, it is not surprising to see two parallel clergy study teams in their respective conferences.
The Judicial Council chose to address all the issues raised about the WPA Clergy Team and the ad hoc process (aimed at exiting pastors) in the Memphis decision. It did so for two main reasons, first it is easier and provides more freedom for the Judicial Council to speak clearly on a subject from a Declaratory Decision rather than from a Question of Law. Second, the Memphis Clergy Study Team had completed a full report, whereas in Western PA these things were still in a more formative stage.
The Judicial Council has set excellent standards to which any Clergy Study Team seeking to streamline exiting procedures must meet, whether that team function in Western PA, Memphis, or any other annual conference in the connection. Here is a summary of the problems found in this clergy team/ad hoc process.
The deficiencies in the policy include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The policy circumvents fair process as defined in the 2004 Discipline and prior Judicial Council decisions. The policy provides no means for the clergyperson to challenge the determination of ineffectiveness or to have access to all records that were relied upon in making that determination.
2. The policy does not provide for the clergyperson to be informed in writing of the problems or issues which caused the cabinet to determine ineffectiveness.
3. The policy does not allow the board of ordained ministry and its executive committee to carry out their disciplinary responsibilities for dealing with clergy ineffectiveness as provided in ¶ 362 of the 2004 Discipline.
4. The policy does not provide adequate pastoral care and support to the clergyperson who has been declared ineffective, nor is there any mention of pastoral care and support for his or her spouse and family.
5. The twelve month whirlwind process for dealing with a clergyperson’s ineffectiveness and the number of times the clergyperson is offered the opportunity to exit suggests that the primary purpose of the policy is to weed out ineffective clergy rather than developing the skills and abilities which would enable them to become effective.
6. The policy supplants the disciplinary provisions for dealing with clergy incompetence, ineffectiveness and unwillingness or the inability to perform ministerial duties as provided for in ¶ 362.2, .3, and .4 of the 2004 Discipline by establishing its own process for dealing with these issues. According to the policy, the initiation of an administrative complaint will be done only if the ineffective clergyperson fails to exit voluntarily.
7. The policy limits the range of remedies available in response to an administrative complaint as provided for in the 2004 Discipline.
8. Specific disciplinary paragraphs are not cited in the policy.
Having dealt with the Judicial Council on several other occasions, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday afternoon with a call from a member of the Judicial Council. They may not talk to anyone prior to the announcement of the decision and normally they make no contact (this was this persons first time, as well as mine). I was humbled that this person felt that the brief was the best the person had seen during the person’s tenure on the Judicial Council. There was an expression of thanks for the good work and encouragement to keep up the good fight.
Knowing that God’s providence works all things for good, I rejoice that I may play a small part in the Kingdom of Heaven. May you know that joy in your heart as well.
Until next time…Grace & Peace
Rev. Robert Zilhaver
--From the blog "Kairos and Ambiguities" at http://zilhaver.typepad.com/ by permission--
Yesterday the Judicial Council posted its decisions on line. There are many that are interesting and will have impact on the church (I may comment on them at another time), of course I am most interested in reflecting on the questions of law I submitted during the clergy session at our last annual conference.
Judicial Council Decision 1077 is the Judicial Council’s direct response to my questions, but these answers must also be understood in light of the Judicial Council’s response to a similar Clergy Study Team in the Memphis Annual Conference Judicial Decision 1082. Both of these actions dealt with Clergy Study Teams appointed by their respective bishops to come up with a plan to define and deal with ineffective clergy in a streamlined process.
This is not surprising, as both Bishop Bickerton of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference have collaborated together on many good projects even before they became bishops. Most recently they shared together at the "Clergy Get Away" for the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference. So, it is not surprising to see two parallel clergy study teams in their respective conferences.
The Judicial Council chose to address all the issues raised about the WPA Clergy Team and the ad hoc process (aimed at exiting pastors) in the Memphis decision. It did so for two main reasons, first it is easier and provides more freedom for the Judicial Council to speak clearly on a subject from a Declaratory Decision rather than from a Question of Law. Second, the Memphis Clergy Study Team had completed a full report, whereas in Western PA these things were still in a more formative stage.
The Judicial Council has set excellent standards to which any Clergy Study Team seeking to streamline exiting procedures must meet, whether that team function in Western PA, Memphis, or any other annual conference in the connection. Here is a summary of the problems found in this clergy team/ad hoc process.
The deficiencies in the policy include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The policy circumvents fair process as defined in the 2004 Discipline and prior Judicial Council decisions. The policy provides no means for the clergyperson to challenge the determination of ineffectiveness or to have access to all records that were relied upon in making that determination.
2. The policy does not provide for the clergyperson to be informed in writing of the problems or issues which caused the cabinet to determine ineffectiveness.
3. The policy does not allow the board of ordained ministry and its executive committee to carry out their disciplinary responsibilities for dealing with clergy ineffectiveness as provided in ¶ 362 of the 2004 Discipline.
4. The policy does not provide adequate pastoral care and support to the clergyperson who has been declared ineffective, nor is there any mention of pastoral care and support for his or her spouse and family.
5. The twelve month whirlwind process for dealing with a clergyperson’s ineffectiveness and the number of times the clergyperson is offered the opportunity to exit suggests that the primary purpose of the policy is to weed out ineffective clergy rather than developing the skills and abilities which would enable them to become effective.
6. The policy supplants the disciplinary provisions for dealing with clergy incompetence, ineffectiveness and unwillingness or the inability to perform ministerial duties as provided for in ¶ 362.2, .3, and .4 of the 2004 Discipline by establishing its own process for dealing with these issues. According to the policy, the initiation of an administrative complaint will be done only if the ineffective clergyperson fails to exit voluntarily.
7. The policy limits the range of remedies available in response to an administrative complaint as provided for in the 2004 Discipline.
8. Specific disciplinary paragraphs are not cited in the policy.
Having dealt with the Judicial Council on several other occasions, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday afternoon with a call from a member of the Judicial Council. They may not talk to anyone prior to the announcement of the decision and normally they make no contact (this was this persons first time, as well as mine). I was humbled that this person felt that the brief was the best the person had seen during the person’s tenure on the Judicial Council. There was an expression of thanks for the good work and encouragement to keep up the good fight.
Knowing that God’s providence works all things for good, I rejoice that I may play a small part in the Kingdom of Heaven. May you know that joy in your heart as well.
Until next time…Grace & Peace
Rev. Robert Zilhaver
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Another power of the episcopacy
The bishop was so angry with me for raising a question of law that he sent the dean of the Cabinet to excoriate me for disrespecting his authority. The superintendent was an old friend. But he was very serious. It was obvious that he felt I had stepped over the line.
Ordinarily, that would have frightened me.
This was the umpteenth time a superintendent had made his (I didn’t have a woman superintendent up to that time) anger with me known for my various challenges. This time, God’s grace stuck. Previously, the fear had taken over and I couldn’t respond. But this time I actually laughed. The superintendent did not take that well either. So I explained.
“Jim, all I did was ask a straight-forward question of law. The bishop got to answer it and establish his answer as law for our conference until October when the Judicial Council meets. Who knows, they may support his decision. Everything is cool. We both got what we wanted,” I said.
Jim was not very happy because I had gotten what the bishop did not want. And, despite being an "extension of the episcopal office," he had not successfully persuaded me to withdraw my question of law.
How did it come to this?
Pre-conference materials showed no line items in the proposed budget. There was just a single figure for all the mission agencies of the conference, a kind of block grant. I wrote the bishop that I didn’t think that satisfied the Disciplinary requirements for a budget. The day conference met, he called me in to meet with him about my concern. He made it clear that he was interpreting a line item as the total to be authorized for the category of missions in the budget. Even the 2004 Book of Discipline carries the same language as the 1988 Discipline did. Nearly every paragraph describing the budget and how it is built implies that the budget must have line items to be voted by the Conference which represented the expenditure each group, program, or agency could expect to have for the year. See Paragraph (P) 613.3a) as one such description.
For several years, this bishop and several church officers, mainly the treasurer and program director, had spoken of how difficult it was in the middle of the conference year to be sure incomes to cover all those line items would be met. A number of times, agencies and groups were asked to pare down their budgets and expect to not be able to spend the amounts identified by the budget. There often ended up being a surplus left because of unspent funds about which those leaders did not complain.
Then the bishop asked that we budget for a two year period in order to save time at annual conference for something besides arguing about the budget.
What struck me was that all the concern about fulfilling the budget was coming from just the three people. Midyear budgetary slumps were common and the end of the year contributions usually brought us to within a percentage point or two of the anticipated incomes.
Then the bishop argued how expensive it was to borrow money in midyear to cover until the churches paid up their apportionments in November and December. Previous budgets had built up a fund to cover that exigency but the bishop still complained.
When I met with the bishop before that “fateful” 1991 annual conference, it was clear the bishop wanted no line items. That surprised me because he knew church law very well. I went over all that the Discipline said about the necessity for them. When he insisted he was not changing his definition, I said I would have to ask a question of law to challenge that. He turned red in the face and said the conversation was over.
When the budget was presented with seven general categories (that was quite a concession, I thought, but not true to the Discipline) under the benevolence budget, I took the floor with the following question:
"In light of Judicial Council Decisions 5, 8, 400, 521, 539 and others, is the Annual Conference giving up a right reserved to it by describing the seven items on the 1992 budget request of the Board of Global Ministries as 'line items'" rather than the items listed under 'line items presented for information only?'"
The bishop ruled:
”It is the judgment of the Chair that this budget is properly before the Annual Conference through the recommendation of the Council on Finance and Administration, that the attached 'For Information Only' document was clearly introduced and discussed as an informational document and was not properly before the Conference as a budget recommendation, that the seven line items of the proposed budget are in fact operational line items for this agency, that the Conference members demonstrated their understanding of the nature of the budget by their discussion of it and the nature of several attempted amendments, that the budget as presented was approved by vote of a large majority of the Conference members, and thus, that the budget and its seven line items is in order and the Annual Conference has not given up any right reserved to itself.“
These are quoted from JCD 663.
The Judicial Council affirmed the bishop’s decision. He finally got what he wanted.
That decision changed the United Methodist Church.
From that time on, annual conferences all over the country found ways to fill time with Bible studies, preaching, banquets, award programs, and special events celebrating something or other because they no longer had to argue the budget.
Several things happened because of that.
One, bishops got considerable control over how much of the budget was spent. They could be sure programs they championed were funded fully and thus were more likely to be successful no matter what the priorities of the conference might be.
Two, lay members of conference who understood spreadsheets and budgets, often because they managed much larger ones in their own businesses, were frustrated because they never saw enough information to be able to understand the budget or the accounting.
Three, lay and clergy who were on the various program and mission projects were no longer called upon to discuss their efforts. That meant there was no chance to do more than put up booths outside the plenary area. Since conference members no longer made any decisions about those agencies or programs, they didn’t need to know about them. Because they no longer knew much about them, they had little reason to talk to their local churches about all the good things the conference was doing. Younger people never realized that their denomination was doing things that used to excite earlier generations.
That set of breakdowns in the life of annual conferences was a real loss because the conference was further away from the local church. The motivation to support apportionments declined. Many mission projects disappeared as a result because conferences had less money with which to work. Younger people had no reason to be loyal and supportive of their denomination because it had receded into the mists.
One more aspect of that 1991 event struck me. It expanded the power of the bishops.
I’ve been fussing for months about this kind of accumulation of power in their hands.
Look at the letters of bishops about the Virginia case where a pastor allegedly refused church membership to a gay man. You will find a sentence which says something like, “That pastor disobeyed his bishop.” So now the bishops want to be the gatekeepers of who joins the church rather than allow the pastor who is right there working with those folks?
Some of those who are and who want to be bishop are tempted to keep episcopal salaries and perks as high as possible despite other financial priorities will be the most potent “party” at the coming General Conference.
Bishops have led the fight in church law and in their actual behavior to take over the hiring and firing of pastors, ignoring and intentionally avoiding the directions of the Book of Discipline related to Fair Process.
Now we add this incursion into the expenditure of the conference finances which occurred in 1991.
I believe the fruit of it are manifest in a declining denomination.
I have submitted a petition to General Conference. The two sentences I pray will be added to Paragraph 613 are these:
“The council shall prepare, as noted below, a budget for the annual conference which includes line items, that is, specific amounts for administrative and program costs for every board, agency, cause, program, institution, mission and conference benevolence. Line items shall be before the annual conference prior to its vote on the whole conference budget.”
This is the rationale (had to be under 50 words!) that I gave:
“The current pattern of offering a general budget and trusting conference officers to take care of the details provides no protection from their neglecting, jeopardizing, and excluding ministries desired by the annual conference, contrary to Paragraph 613.3a) which demands ‘that none may be neglected.’”
Will this petition be passed at General Conference? We’ll see. Will it lead to positive changes if passed? It will help.
Ordinarily, that would have frightened me.
This was the umpteenth time a superintendent had made his (I didn’t have a woman superintendent up to that time) anger with me known for my various challenges. This time, God’s grace stuck. Previously, the fear had taken over and I couldn’t respond. But this time I actually laughed. The superintendent did not take that well either. So I explained.
“Jim, all I did was ask a straight-forward question of law. The bishop got to answer it and establish his answer as law for our conference until October when the Judicial Council meets. Who knows, they may support his decision. Everything is cool. We both got what we wanted,” I said.
Jim was not very happy because I had gotten what the bishop did not want. And, despite being an "extension of the episcopal office," he had not successfully persuaded me to withdraw my question of law.
How did it come to this?
Pre-conference materials showed no line items in the proposed budget. There was just a single figure for all the mission agencies of the conference, a kind of block grant. I wrote the bishop that I didn’t think that satisfied the Disciplinary requirements for a budget. The day conference met, he called me in to meet with him about my concern. He made it clear that he was interpreting a line item as the total to be authorized for the category of missions in the budget. Even the 2004 Book of Discipline carries the same language as the 1988 Discipline did. Nearly every paragraph describing the budget and how it is built implies that the budget must have line items to be voted by the Conference which represented the expenditure each group, program, or agency could expect to have for the year. See Paragraph (P) 613.3a) as one such description.
For several years, this bishop and several church officers, mainly the treasurer and program director, had spoken of how difficult it was in the middle of the conference year to be sure incomes to cover all those line items would be met. A number of times, agencies and groups were asked to pare down their budgets and expect to not be able to spend the amounts identified by the budget. There often ended up being a surplus left because of unspent funds about which those leaders did not complain.
Then the bishop asked that we budget for a two year period in order to save time at annual conference for something besides arguing about the budget.
What struck me was that all the concern about fulfilling the budget was coming from just the three people. Midyear budgetary slumps were common and the end of the year contributions usually brought us to within a percentage point or two of the anticipated incomes.
Then the bishop argued how expensive it was to borrow money in midyear to cover until the churches paid up their apportionments in November and December. Previous budgets had built up a fund to cover that exigency but the bishop still complained.
When I met with the bishop before that “fateful” 1991 annual conference, it was clear the bishop wanted no line items. That surprised me because he knew church law very well. I went over all that the Discipline said about the necessity for them. When he insisted he was not changing his definition, I said I would have to ask a question of law to challenge that. He turned red in the face and said the conversation was over.
When the budget was presented with seven general categories (that was quite a concession, I thought, but not true to the Discipline) under the benevolence budget, I took the floor with the following question:
"In light of Judicial Council Decisions 5, 8, 400, 521, 539 and others, is the Annual Conference giving up a right reserved to it by describing the seven items on the 1992 budget request of the Board of Global Ministries as 'line items'" rather than the items listed under 'line items presented for information only?'"
The bishop ruled:
”It is the judgment of the Chair that this budget is properly before the Annual Conference through the recommendation of the Council on Finance and Administration, that the attached 'For Information Only' document was clearly introduced and discussed as an informational document and was not properly before the Conference as a budget recommendation, that the seven line items of the proposed budget are in fact operational line items for this agency, that the Conference members demonstrated their understanding of the nature of the budget by their discussion of it and the nature of several attempted amendments, that the budget as presented was approved by vote of a large majority of the Conference members, and thus, that the budget and its seven line items is in order and the Annual Conference has not given up any right reserved to itself.“
These are quoted from JCD 663.
The Judicial Council affirmed the bishop’s decision. He finally got what he wanted.
That decision changed the United Methodist Church.
From that time on, annual conferences all over the country found ways to fill time with Bible studies, preaching, banquets, award programs, and special events celebrating something or other because they no longer had to argue the budget.
Several things happened because of that.
One, bishops got considerable control over how much of the budget was spent. They could be sure programs they championed were funded fully and thus were more likely to be successful no matter what the priorities of the conference might be.
Two, lay members of conference who understood spreadsheets and budgets, often because they managed much larger ones in their own businesses, were frustrated because they never saw enough information to be able to understand the budget or the accounting.
Three, lay and clergy who were on the various program and mission projects were no longer called upon to discuss their efforts. That meant there was no chance to do more than put up booths outside the plenary area. Since conference members no longer made any decisions about those agencies or programs, they didn’t need to know about them. Because they no longer knew much about them, they had little reason to talk to their local churches about all the good things the conference was doing. Younger people never realized that their denomination was doing things that used to excite earlier generations.
That set of breakdowns in the life of annual conferences was a real loss because the conference was further away from the local church. The motivation to support apportionments declined. Many mission projects disappeared as a result because conferences had less money with which to work. Younger people had no reason to be loyal and supportive of their denomination because it had receded into the mists.
One more aspect of that 1991 event struck me. It expanded the power of the bishops.
I’ve been fussing for months about this kind of accumulation of power in their hands.
Look at the letters of bishops about the Virginia case where a pastor allegedly refused church membership to a gay man. You will find a sentence which says something like, “That pastor disobeyed his bishop.” So now the bishops want to be the gatekeepers of who joins the church rather than allow the pastor who is right there working with those folks?
Some of those who are and who want to be bishop are tempted to keep episcopal salaries and perks as high as possible despite other financial priorities will be the most potent “party” at the coming General Conference.
Bishops have led the fight in church law and in their actual behavior to take over the hiring and firing of pastors, ignoring and intentionally avoiding the directions of the Book of Discipline related to Fair Process.
Now we add this incursion into the expenditure of the conference finances which occurred in 1991.
I believe the fruit of it are manifest in a declining denomination.
I have submitted a petition to General Conference. The two sentences I pray will be added to Paragraph 613 are these:
“The council shall prepare, as noted below, a budget for the annual conference which includes line items, that is, specific amounts for administrative and program costs for every board, agency, cause, program, institution, mission and conference benevolence. Line items shall be before the annual conference prior to its vote on the whole conference budget.”
This is the rationale (had to be under 50 words!) that I gave:
“The current pattern of offering a general budget and trusting conference officers to take care of the details provides no protection from their neglecting, jeopardizing, and excluding ministries desired by the annual conference, contrary to Paragraph 613.3a) which demands ‘that none may be neglected.’”
Will this petition be passed at General Conference? We’ll see. Will it lead to positive changes if passed? It will help.
Monday, October 1, 2007
A Bridge
Ever since our Union in 1968, our denomination has been split over many issues and each General Conference since has seen many wondering if we would come out whole at the end.
We’ve limped along and held together.
In the field of advocacy and care-giving, we have discovered that split is irrelevant to our work. Most of us have clear opinions on all the controversial issues the Church faces and yet we find the greater concern to be a lack of commitment on the part of too many of our church leaders to follow the Discipline.
As you can imagine, that statement means some different things to various associates. But that still means we can work together to counter the institutional culture that allows Cabinet members to treat clergy and laity shabbily. We are still a part of the same denomination and so working together has been an energizing and helpful process.
Perhaps the denomination will allow a split. We hope not but should it happen, I fully expect that AIA will still bridge that for a generation since the lessons we have learned about how the arrogant want to handle their power and how church law and advocacy can counter that will be an ongoing struggle in both. Since we will each claim the same tradition, there is every likelihood that the segments of the split denomination will start out with the same polity. Hopefully, we will be able to influence how Fair Process is to be handled, and even then I expect we will be very similar or want to be!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that autocratic attitudes are not peculiar to one end of the political spectrum. They come from any theological background and use that background to justify their behavior. No wonder Jesus emphasized, “By their fruit ye shall know them!” He had friends and enemies among all the factions that made up the Judaism of his day. Why should we expect anything different in our day?
John Wesley may have been fussy about who stayed in the Classes but he never removed them from church membership nor did he care from what theological background others came who wanted to work with him. “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”
So AIA will not take a stand on the unity or split of our denomination. We are here to serve anyone and we are willing to work together in hopes for a humane and just future based on things like the Golden Rule rather than on who our theological gurus may be.
Jerry Eckert
10/1/07
We’ve limped along and held together.
In the field of advocacy and care-giving, we have discovered that split is irrelevant to our work. Most of us have clear opinions on all the controversial issues the Church faces and yet we find the greater concern to be a lack of commitment on the part of too many of our church leaders to follow the Discipline.
As you can imagine, that statement means some different things to various associates. But that still means we can work together to counter the institutional culture that allows Cabinet members to treat clergy and laity shabbily. We are still a part of the same denomination and so working together has been an energizing and helpful process.
Perhaps the denomination will allow a split. We hope not but should it happen, I fully expect that AIA will still bridge that for a generation since the lessons we have learned about how the arrogant want to handle their power and how church law and advocacy can counter that will be an ongoing struggle in both. Since we will each claim the same tradition, there is every likelihood that the segments of the split denomination will start out with the same polity. Hopefully, we will be able to influence how Fair Process is to be handled, and even then I expect we will be very similar or want to be!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that autocratic attitudes are not peculiar to one end of the political spectrum. They come from any theological background and use that background to justify their behavior. No wonder Jesus emphasized, “By their fruit ye shall know them!” He had friends and enemies among all the factions that made up the Judaism of his day. Why should we expect anything different in our day?
John Wesley may have been fussy about who stayed in the Classes but he never removed them from church membership nor did he care from what theological background others came who wanted to work with him. “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”
So AIA will not take a stand on the unity or split of our denomination. We are here to serve anyone and we are willing to work together in hopes for a humane and just future based on things like the Golden Rule rather than on who our theological gurus may be.
Jerry Eckert
10/1/07
Friday, September 28, 2007
A 9/28 letter to the bishops
Dear Bishop,
You may be aware that Associates in Advocacy has had a website and hopefully, you may have used it.
You may also be aware that we lost it due to circumstances beyond our control and have had to rebuild it.
This letter is to announce that the website http://www.aiateam.org/ is open for business.
Our intention is to provide help to anyone who is concerned about a personnel action in the church. That includes Cabinet members as well.
You will soon note a bias against authority in many of the articles. I earned that the hard way, reading documents signed by church leaders, watching them operate at General Conference, talking with those who would talk with me. I am not completely cynical about those in authority because I had Ralph Alton as my bishop. I have come to know William Boyd Grave and Leroy Hodapp well enough to know there are real princes among the "perfumed princes."
I also know that I probably never will hear from pastors in many active bishops' conferences because those bishops are doing a good job. My intent is to provide them with good ideas to supplement what they are already doing. My hope is to hear back from you if you have any better ideas than mine or if you have any problems with things said in the articles.
Our website is not only open for business. It is also open for improvement.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
You may be aware that Associates in Advocacy has had a website and hopefully, you may have used it.
You may also be aware that we lost it due to circumstances beyond our control and have had to rebuild it.
This letter is to announce that the website http://www.aiateam.org/ is open for business.
Our intention is to provide help to anyone who is concerned about a personnel action in the church. That includes Cabinet members as well.
You will soon note a bias against authority in many of the articles. I earned that the hard way, reading documents signed by church leaders, watching them operate at General Conference, talking with those who would talk with me. I am not completely cynical about those in authority because I had Ralph Alton as my bishop. I have come to know William Boyd Grave and Leroy Hodapp well enough to know there are real princes among the "perfumed princes."
I also know that I probably never will hear from pastors in many active bishops' conferences because those bishops are doing a good job. My intent is to provide them with good ideas to supplement what they are already doing. My hope is to hear back from you if you have any better ideas than mine or if you have any problems with things said in the articles.
Our website is not only open for business. It is also open for improvement.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)