An Evangelical Approach To Reform (II)

A report entitled “Operational Assessment of the Connectional Church,” prepared by an independent group (Apex Healthcare Group) under the direction of the Call to Action Steering Team, has made some sobering assessments of the present state of The United Methodist Church. This report is in the hands of the Call to Action Steering Committee which will use it as a basis for the recommendations they will make to the denomination’s Connectional Table. Eventually, legislation will be proposed to the 2012 General Conference that will (hopefully) reform, restructure and refocus The United Methodist Church for the coming years.

Statistics testify to the need for reform. Ever since the radical and destructive restructuring of 1972 the church has been on a downward spiral (it is recognized there are other reasons besides restructuring that account for the decline, but the way the church reoriented itself as a result of the radical 1960s must be seen as one contributing factor). During that time The United Methodist Church has lost 3.2 million members. In the last 10 years, from 1998 to 2008 alone, membership has declined 7% and attendance 9%. The number of churches has declined by 6%. As a percentage of the population United Methodists have twice as many members over 65 years of age as the general population. At the same time the percentage of United Methodist members in the 18-44 age bracket is half the percentage of the general population in that age range. The average age of a United Methodist member has increased in these last ten years from 49 to 54. Professions of faith have declined 25% in the ten-year period. The number of baptisms has declined 13%.

Yet the church continues to do things in the same way year after year, believing, evidently, that what we have been doing for 40 years will eventually work if we just try harder and have better public relations and introduce new programs. It is like if we close our eyes the problems will go away. It is time to acknowledge that there is a sickness at the core of the denomination. Revival and renewal are needed; these will come through a new movement of the Holy Spirit. But first there must be repentance: we have failed to be the church God wants us to be. We have lost our way theologically, morally, spiritually, and organizationally.

The Operational Assessment Report is a good place to begin a discussion on why, when, and where we have lost our way, and what must be done for the future. The last Happenings article mentioned areas such as the lack of trust within the church, the loss of mission definition and denominational identity, the lack of the Wesleyan theological focus, and the failure of the “big tent” approach of trying to be all things to all people.

This article mentions several other areas, summarized below, with some additional observations.

1) The general agencies are judged to be “below average” in almost every area of their operation (“below average” might also be described as “flunking”). Specifically they are “below average” in decision-making and effectiveness of the church’s programs and ministry functions in the areas of “making disciples” and the Four Areas of Focus. The agencies do not cooperate or collaborate. They operate independently from the rest of the church. There is much too much “distance” between them and annual conferences and local churches. 60% of all respondents in the study ranked agencies “below average” in accountability for outcomes.

2) A major reason for this “below average” rating is that the church generally (and agencies in particular) has been mismatching its legislative role and its operative (or governance) role. It often seeks management through legislation. The boards and agencies are way too large and do not meet often enough to provide oversight and governance. The General Board of Global Ministries, for example, has 89 members. The cost simply to meet cannot be justified. Most effective non-profit boards operate with somewhere around 12-14 members.

Because of the confusion (and perhaps for other reasons) staff tends to dominate agency activities. Because the agency boards are themselves so tied up with matters like quota systems and other concerns unrelated to the church’s mission of making disciples, and because the denomination offers no effective accountability structures, there is a disconnect between the agencies, the annual conferences, and the local churches. And because the agenda of some of the agency staffs is ideologically driven (with a propensity toward liberal causes) there is disenchantment, distrust, and sometimes downright hostility on the part of ordinary church members toward some of the agencies. The agencies need a total refiguring.

3) There is no good reason why the church continues to have Jurisdictional Conferences. Its purposes are unclear; the costs cannot be justified.

4) General Conference is evaluated as “below average” in such areas as decision-making effectiveness, process effectiveness, decision-results effectiveness, and financial stewardship effectiveness. One of its main problems is that conference seeks to manage through legislation. In addition, there is no accepted authority to oversee the actions of General Conference in the four years between General Conferences.

5) Boards of Ordained Ministry and the church’s way of recruiting ministers contribute to the problem. The Church does not have “birthing places” for call. The process for ordination is far too long. Boards of ordained ministry have wide variations in practice. Sometimes the boards serve as advocates, sometimes they serve as adversaries.

From an evangelical perspective: the church colleges—or at least many of them—are United Methodist in name only. They once were “birthing places” for call; they are no longer. None of the colleges has any interest in promoting the church’s mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ. The whole meaning of “church-related” needs re-evaluation.

The church’s youth ministry was torpedoed in the 1960s and 70s and likewise is not an effective “birthing place” for call. In fact, major responsibility for the church’s inability to reach and sustain its youth members lies with the failure of an effective youth ministry. There is no way that “inclusion” of youth as part of the quota system of the church should be seen as related to youth ministry or related to the church’s mission of making disciples for Jesus Christ. The church should learn from para-church ministries at this point.

The church has many problems. The church would be served better if boards and agencies would be drastically downsized, combined, or, in some cases eliminated.