And yet, I find myself sympathizing and understanding at one level the need by our bishops for a space where they can talk freely and openly without concern for how they will sound in the press. While I try to be open and honest with my congregation, the fact remains that there are times when I need to get things off my chest that simply wouldn’t play well in print. That is one of the reasons for participating in confidential, closed clergy accountability and support groups — the need to vent. These are sacred spaces of personal confession — places to admit our own failings in the midst of our our attempts to grow into the person God wants us to be. While many of our bishops have similar relational spaces, I can see the need for the entire group of active bishops to have a space where they can be vulnerable and honest with one another in ways that could easily be misconstrued in the press as they face the challenge of renewing our communion.

Part of the problem is that our society, especially as interpreted in the media, views vulnerability and uncertainty as weakness to be avoided. We don’t really want our leaders to be humans in need of God’s grace. We want them to be filled with superhuman wisdom, firm resolve, holding firm ideological convictions that can never be move. Certainly we don’t want them saying, “I don’t know what to do…” or “I struggle with this in my life….” We may say that we want transparency and honesty, but in fact we want soundbites that suggest that our leaders have their acts together. And in our pursuit of perfect leaders, we often elect politicians who recognize that speaking the truth (even in love) can often get them in trouble — and it is the rare person who wants to be in trouble all the time.

In the face of that, I’m not surprised at the call for a private meeting without a press presence. But that need points to the fact that our faith is broken for we fail to acknowledge, recognize and celebrate that power and strength in God’s Kingdom is found in our weakness rather in our strength. While I understand the need for a safe space for open and honest conversation, what a witness it would be for our bishops to acknowledge that they too have not yet reached Christian perfection, that they too struggle with the same issues each one of us struggles with, and that they too often have moments of uncertainty about God’s call for them and for our church. What would it mean for our active bishops to share openly about the elephant in the room — that the world has changed dramatically in a very short time and the experiences of many of our retired bishops have little connection with the realities they face today? Are we really willing to let the bishops say openly what they want to say — that they can see the problem with the future of the church and that problem is us — a church that has equated membership with discipleship and is bearing the fruit of failing to develop disciples for the future.

I’m all about openness and transparency, but we are a part of the equation as well. Openness and transparency is a factor in bringing forth trust, but so is acceptance and grace. Are we really willing to have the grace, gentleness, kindness, acceptance, and the desire for connection to allow our bishops to say what’s on their mind?

Apparently, given their decision, they think not.

I am haunted by the waters
flowing from the start of time.
The streaming fountain of forgiveness
and the claim of love sublime.
So I step into the waters
and immerse myself in you,
and you send to me your Spirit
filling me with love and truth

Chorus:
Make your way down to the river
where the spirit of love’s revealed.
Holding hands as we go under
to the place where we are healed.
Let the Spirit come down to you
from the heavens like a dove;
make your way down to the river
and our redeemer’s holy love.

I made my way down to the waters,
and that sacred holy pond
where a grey haired baptist preacher
shared with me the grace of God.
In the Father, Son, and Spirit
into the waters I did fall
and when I rose out of the waters
I knew that I was claimed and called.

Repeat chorus

(c) Copyright 2013 Jay Voorhees All Rights Reserved

1. How does a pope “retire” in the modern age?
   The last pope to abdicate the throne of Peter was Pope Gregory XII in 1415, who did so to end a civil war between competing factions of the church regarding the selection of the pope. At no time has a pope voluntarily retired, moving to the south of France to sit on a beach and drink chablis. Morris West in his book “The Clowns of God” suggests that a dethroned pope would likely lock himself in a monastery to live in relative seclusion out of sight and out of mind for the rest of his days, but there are no precedents and no regulations on where a former pope can live or what a former pope can do to my knowledge.The more difficult issue is the one of authority. While it’s true that Benedict will have voluntarily given up his office, any church who has experienced the resignation of a long lived and loved senior pastor and the hiring of new leadership will tell you that these transitions are rarely easy, for people continue to reach out to the old guard and if the old guard isn’t careful, they can easily find themselves offering commentary ans suggestions which undermine the new leadership. This will be the first time ever where a sitting pope will have a living dethroned pope in the wings — one who is a long time product of the Vatican and has many, many relationships with leaders in that institution over many years. This may be a good argument for the selection of a new pope likewise rooted in the bureaucracy of the church rather than the selection of an outsider to bring a new vision and outlook, something that would likely be harmful for the church in the long term.

   It’s easy to think that Benedict’s retirement will be easy, but the lack of precedents and rules governing abdication will make this an interesting time.

2. Will the Roman Catholic Church see this as an opportunity for change or remain entrenched in the same old, same old?
   Benedict’s reign has been both predictable and rocky. The College of Cardinals selected a pope they new was relatively old and would likely have a shorter reign than his predecessor John Paul II in the desire to maintain the status quo (if not undo some of the influence of Vatican II) but also in the recognition of the need for a “sacrificial pope,” that is, a pope who could deal with the fallout of falling a very popular predecessor. Benedict didn’t surprise anyone in his theological pronouncements (both Cardinals and the Vatican curia don’t deal well with surprises) but his demeanor and approach to faith meant that he likewise didn’t handle the repeated child sexual abuse scandals very effectively. Certainly there are some who believe that the need for a conservative approach to faith was needed in a postmodern world, and Benedict was the keeper of the faith, but there are likely as many Roman Catholics for whom Benedict had little influence and minimal authority over their lives.This resignation offers the conclave (the gathering of cardinals who will select the new pope) an opportunity to reset and look for someone who is a symbol of what Roman Catholicism may need to be in our postmodern age. Certainly the church could benefit from a charismatic, young leader who has some semblance of understanding about the nature of religious pluralism in the world today, and an understanding that the old dogmas that governed religious thought and practice in the world during the modern era are increasingly becoming irrelevant today. More importantly this leader could understand that  youngerish postmodern, post colonial folks are okay with the mystery of God and the church, resonate with the beauty of the liturgy, and are ripe for entering into a relationship with the divine in a community that is generous in its orthodoxy.This is a chance for a new start, but I am skeptical that the conclave will take it for I think part of Benedict’s strategy of consolidation of his theological and political power pretty much ensures a leadership that is invested in maintaining that expression of theological and political thought. Benedict shrewdly understood that his legacy would be found in creating a leadership team in the church that reflected his approach to theology and practice that would last beyond his tenure. From what I’ve seen, he’s carried out this task effectively, so I’m inclined to think that we’ll be seeing a new pope more in his mold than any reformer.
3. Is this the time for a Pope of the Americas?
   The power of the church in terms of active participation shifted several years ago from Europe to the Americas, specifically Latin America, which has not been reflected in the selection of the office. There will always be factions in the Vatican who believe that the “Bishop of Rome” is best served by an Italian rooted in the system. However, given the global nature of the office it is time to think that a pope who represents the largest group of Roman Catholics in the world might be in order. This will certainly not be a candidate from North America, for I think there is a recognition that the problems and struggles of the church in the states would likely be a hindrance to carrying out the office world wide, but I would not be surprised to see a candidate from one of the Latin American countries rise to prominence and even obtain election.

The conclave will select a new pope in March. I have no doubt there there will be many words written and much conversation between now and then.

This one illustration seemed to spark the most interesting comments of the day, including the following commentary:

I agree with the overall tone of your post, and appreciate it; but the above comment caught my attention.  I recently shared with a DS friend of mine that he might be surprised at the number of people who might be interested in learning who God is–a triune God of holy love who is a verb–and who we are–fallen, in need of salvation–and the impact God can have on our lives.  I know I have spent years wandering around the church “in a fog” wondering what Christianity was all about.  I’ve ended up “doing it on my own” by delving into John Wesley and what true Methodism is about: the salvation of the person in the pew–something The UMC lost a long time ago.  If you were told that in seminary, no wonder we never get past the rock bottom basics and get to the point of living a life centered in God as seen in Christ Jesus.  After much reading and monitoring the state of the UMC, and my own experience, I can absolutely say that the gospel and its impact on a person’s life is the best kept secret.  I can easily name three people in the church who would like to “go deeper”–and I have a sneaking suspicion there are many, many more.

I absolutely believe that there are folks in every church who are looking for more than we offer in the average Sunday School lesson. I first learned this in my first appointment when I was tasked with teaching the mid-week, old ladies bible study and decided to pull out things like source theory, authorship, and textual analysis in talking about the scriptures. Living in the buckle of the Bible Belt, where more folks have been brought up with conservative evangelical teachings of sola scriptura and biblical inerrancy, I expected some resistance. Instead I found an entire group of women (all over the age of 60) who ate it up and wanted more. All their lives they had been spoon fed the Bible, and now as they approached the end of their lives they questions they were asking simply weren’t being answered by the same tired old platitudes.

I’ve experienced the desire for depth in every Disciple Bible Study group that I’ve facilitated. While there is occasional push back when I sometimes question folk’s Sunday School influenced assumptions about faith, there is an openness to being challenged and a willingness to hear another’s opinion even while they disagree.

But here is the difficulty from a practical point – the time commitment that comes with doing this type of study. From a student perspective I’ve often seen the desire for something deeper, but the non-retiree, working 50+ hours a week (if they are lucky) plus raising two kids mom or dad struggles to find the time to read and study at a deep level. Similarly, preparing to do this type of study requires a time investment from the pastor/teacher, time that often simply isn’t available in the midst church administration, preparing sermons, writing newsletter articles, planning programs, visiting the sick and infirm, and the myriad of tasks that come with all of our jobs – be they ministry or otherwise. More often than not I can find myself choosing the easy lesson simply because I don’t seem to be able to find the time (and sometimes the emotional energy) required to take folks to a deeper level. One of the advantages of having 7 years of theological training (I was a bible major in college, plus three years of seminary) is that there are many times when I can do things off the top of my head, drawing on what I learned in those days, but scholarship is always advancing and keeping up with the latest research and theory on the bible and Christian thought is something that I want to do, but often find slipping through my fingers – especially when the message I receive from the powers that be above me is that my learning focus should be on leadership and congregational dynamics.

It’s a bit of a cliché to draw on the project management triangle bemoaning the relationship between our ability to do things fast, do things cheap, and do things well, but in my experience the ability to offer “deep” study is directly related to those factors. I struggle going deep right now because I’m juggling too many balls, requiring to pull things together on a short time frame, usually with minimal external resources (due to budgetary constraints) which makes excellence very difficult at best. Going deep requires time, but more importantly it requires an investment of a community and individuals that this type of study is valued and worthy of expenditures of time and money. Pastor/teachers have to know that the energy they expend in preparation will be appreciated by student’s  participation and investment in learning (including their own preparation). Likewise, church hierarchies (SPRC’s, Church Councils, etc.) must recognize that research and study aren’t luxuries that interfere with the pastor/teacher’s “real work,” but is a key component of the mission of teaching.

And yet, in the end, those of us in church leadership may have little choice but to go deep in helping folks become better disciples of Jesus Christ. Certainly I’ve seen that when folks do go deep in things like Disciple Bible Study, there is a transformation that leads to more dedication and a greater motivation to live out Christ’s call to service. The failure to go deep is demonstrated again and again by a congregation that is apathetic, goes through the motions, and wants to be spoon fed a bowl of spiritual platitudes which sound good, but have little connection to transformation and faithfulness. If we fail to go deep, we end up with the congregations that we deserve.

I’ve been spending this week taking care of my sickly mom and her sister who underwent surgery at the beginning of the week. Generally it’s a low demand task – getting a few meals together, making sure that they get their meds on time, and keeping the dishes washed. However, what it does open my eyes to is the 24 hour news cycle, something that I know of but rarely personally experience in the busyness of my normal work day, for the television is never off at their house and seems to stay tuned to the Today Show and CNN. As I sit in the dining room, trying to keep up with church and community work from afar, I have a clear view of the TV and it seems like every 2 minutes there is another report on the most pressing news of the day: Beyonce’s lip synching of the National Anthem at the inauguration, and Manta Te’o’s fake girlfriend. As we sit here and watch again and again and again the breathless attempts to transform these minor events into a major scandal, we all find ourselves looking at the screen and saying, “Shut up, already! Leave those poor folks alone! We just don’t care.”

Make no mistake, these really aren’t big deals worthy of hours of attention. It should be of no surprise to anyone these days that musicians often lip synch their live performances rather than take the risk of a major flub before millions (if not billions) of people. The demands of live events and television make live performance difficult if not impossible in many cases. The demands of staging, which puts the instrumentalists too far removed from the singers, often requires compromises. No one is debating whether it was Beyonce’s voice at the inauguration, but it looks like she and the powers that be decided that trying to pull this off live wasn’t worth the risk . . . a decision that is made daily by performers. So she lip synced . . . big deal! Isn’t the results of the Israeli election much more significant to the future of our lives and worthy of attention on the screens of our households?

The Manta Te’o situation is even more bewildering to me. This is a 21 year old kid who has gotten caught up in a hoax and apparently made a couple of mistakes in how he handled it. I’ve about decided that anyone’s record of stupid beliefs and behaviors before they are 25 years of age should be off limits to the press for it is the rare individual that fails to make some bad decisions during the transition from being a teen to being and adult. Yes, he may have lied to the press in a short stand-up interview, but there is no indication of a life characterized by deception, and from the cheap seats it simply looks like he made a mistake – something we all do and should be forgiven of. The story here is that there really is no story but the media continues to beat this horse until all of us want to scream.

It’s often suggested that the media only airs what the people want to see. In fact, more often than not, the 24 hour news monster encourages the media (regardless of political bias) to over report and over cover, feeding on one another’s reports as a means of filling the beast. I once worked for a religious education channel that aired 12 hours a day and I can say first hand that the pressures of filling the time meant that we sometimes put stuff on the air that was less than stellar. The clock never stops and the tyranny of time that faces most producers leads them to be on the look out for something to fill it . . . and flogging a potential scandal until it screams (whether it is really a scandal or not) is a sure fire time filler. It’s also easy and cheap to cover – something that quality coverage of substantive news items rarely is. Thus, economics and time become the drivers of these things more than the will of the masses.

Yes, I suppose that the folks who leave their TV’s on 24/7 have a short attention span and may not have the patience for longer quality coverage on difficult issues . . . but I think that is more of an assumption than a reality. I remember being told in seminary that most church members wouldn’t have the time patience or tolerance for deep and difficult bible study. However, when I got into the local church and started pulling out the harder stuff I discovered a whole pool of folks who were longing for something deeper and more substantive. I wonder if that may not be the case in regards to TV news today?

So media producers, we’ve heard enough. The Beyonce and Manta Te’o stories just don’t matter. Frankly my dears, we don’t give a damn.

However, the question that remains for me is if the emergence conversation has had any impact on the broader, institutional church. Some will say (cough…Tony Jones…) that there is no future for the already established, institutional church and that we should treat it with respect as we help it die a peaceful death (actually Tony might argue for assisted suicide, but that’s another blog post). There are others of us that understand (which Phyllis affirms) that reform movement often create something new, but also bring forth changes from the institutions that they are pushing against. Have changes been happening in traditional communions like my own? Are there influences from the emergent conversation that have begun to make their way into “traditional” church life and practice.

I can only speak for my communion, the United Methodist Church, but I would have to say that there are, albeit very subtly and often without direct attribution to the minds of emergent. Certainly among a younger generation of church leaders the lines of thought are pretty direct, with these leaders embracing new definitions of what it means to be church, and trying a host of creative experiments for creating Christian community. Yet I believe that the language and grammar of the emerging conversation has begun to spread throughout more traditional congregations and their leaders – leading to a split within the church between those who lift of the old way of thinking as normative for Christian life and practice, and those who understand that Christian discipleship is a holistic enterprise that moves away from focusing on numbers and members to transformative experiences and a great valuing of intensive communal life with one another. This split (lived out most fully at the 2012 General Conference in Tampa) is often characterized by the traditional labels of “conservative” and “liberal” but rather is more influences by different ways at looking at the world and defining Christian practice and community – differences that have been at the heart of the emerging church conversation.

Perhaps the greatest influence of the emerging conversation has been the adoption and understanding of “missional” life and practice. While the church has often talked about mission, it was usually practiced as something down “out there” by specially trained, often professional (or at least amazingly dedicated) people, not the average Joe who attends church on Sunday morning. Emergents understood that “missional” was not about a program, but rather an attitude toward life and the world, something that informed every aspect of who the church is and what the church does.  The former group tended to equate success in the church with numerical growth, be it number of members, worship attendance, or average budget. The latter understood that living faithfully to the missional call of God for their community was more concerned about faithful practice than numerical gain, trusting that being missional would lead to growth at some level. The former approach was most clearly demonstrated in the recommendations of the Call to Action by the United Methodist Bishops, the majority of who had grown up in earlier understandings of church. However, this year several new bishops were elected who understood that missional faithfulness was more important than simply padding the numbers, and already in my Annual Conference we have seen a change in the language about our life together. It will be interesting to see how the “missional” language continues to seep through our life together.

From my perspective, I would also suggest that much of the conversation within the United Methodist movement about moving from program to discipleship finds resonance with, and perhaps even draws upon, the influence of the emerging conversation. While Emergents didn’t often overtly talk about discipleship, their life and practice demonstrated a commitment to being rooted in the stuff of Jesus Christ, that is to truly live out the call to be Christ’s disciples. This holistic understanding of faith (faith lived 24/7 in every aspect of one’s life) intersected with a renewed interest in United Methodism in the work and theology of John Wesley, and especially the dynamics of the class meeting system, which likewise focused on a holistic practice of faith, often explicated pand experienced for some in the Disciple Bible Study program. For many Disciple represented their first experience of a Christian faith that embraced and wrestled with complexity and ambiguity rather than the Sunday School storybook faith that they had grown up with, leaving participants more able to resonate with and embrace the emergent willingness to embrace and live in the mystery rather than insisting on propositional certainty. It’s likely (and I think Diana Butler Bass would suggest) that emergence theology and the movement from program to discipleship happened in parallel with one another, but both supported one another, leading to a new emphasis on spiritual formation and practices in the life of the church.

Has the United Methodist Church been radically transformed by the emergent conversation? Nope, and it would be naïve to think that would be possible. But there has been cross pollination between the two movements, and that hope still exists for the UMC because of the influence of emerging leaders on our communal life.

It’s only been 10 years. As I get older the more I realize what a short time that is. It’s going to be interesting and quite fun to see where this all leads us at year twenty.

This Thursday I will be heading in the Corolla to participate in what is in some ways an heir of the Emergent Convention: Emergence Christianity—A National Gathering, happening down in Memphis. The occasion of the event is the release of Phyllis Tickle’s overview and review of this whole emerging thing titled: Emergence Christianity. While this event is much smaller in scope, for some of us it will be the first time that many of us have been in the same space at the same time in several years.

Certainly, the events and workshops at EC2003 were great (Anne Lamott’s talk was classic, if for no other reason than to watch the polo wearing wannabe mega-church pastors attending the National Pastor’s Convention freak out at her less than religious way of talking about faith). What was as important (and would be even more important at the two conventions to follow) were the conversations around the pool, in the hallways, and sitting outside the convention center. These conversations would lead to life long relationships, and really served to support Emergent’s notion of this we found ourselves in as a generative conversation. It was at this gathering that I first connected with Tony Jones and we began a season of working to connect the mainline world with this emergent conversation.

Emergence Christianity offers a similar opportunity for connections, but while new friendships will be made what I look to the most is to catch up with folks who have been walking this path for the past 10 years. Many of us were idealistic, with great hope for change 10 years ago. A decade later, we have experienced the resistance of the traditional church structures to thinking in new ways, and have found our dreams tempered by the realities of institutional inertia. Yes, some of us have started new things – some more successful than others – and it will be great to hear about those communities. Others of us have languished in the hope that we could be agents of transformation, and have been adapting what we’ve learned in the emergent conversation to meet the sensibilities of older, established congregations.

Be watching this week for updates from EC2013. I’m really excited about the possibilities of this gathering, and hope you will pray for us as we think about the future of church in the U.S.

Today we learned that Cokesbury (I guess in their desire to meet the adaptive challenge that Neal Alexander talks about on a regular basis) will be closing down all their brick and mortar stores choosing instead to place their future in on-line sales.  I confess that I received the news with a bit of a heavy heart, for this decision (right or wrong) will affect people that I know and love, people who have given their lives to make the stores responsive to the needs of their customers, and who will soon find themselves unemployed. The decision has human consequences that we can’t forget in our analysis.

While I understand completely the need to cast off the overhead of “real” stores (building costs, staffing, etc.) and can imagine the factors that went into making the decision, there WILL be a loss for many of us in the decision. This has little to do with book sales, and I think Cokesbury may find themselves completely unable to compete with the behemoth that is Amazon.com. It’s been a long time since I’ve purchased books from Cokesbury, even when they publish the book, because so many of my reading purchases are connected to the Kindle ecosystem, and in those rare cases where I purchase a “real” book I choose Amazon because of the free 2 day shipping I receive with my Prime membership. Frankly, Cokesbury has not been especially good in developing a usable web store that can be as quick and responsive as Amazon, and their product search has been ineffective. Certainly Cokesbury COULD create a series of sites which highlight, compare, and contrast certain categories of products (which might then lead to sales) but I haven’t found many of their category oriented sites to be compelling and particularly able to offer a deep enough experience by which to evaluate the products. They are choosing to focus on a tough market with killer competition, and all I can say is “good luck to you with that!”

No, the loss isn’t about losing a bookstore. It’s about losing a store focused on outfitting the needs of churches and pastors. I didn’t visit Cokesbury to buy books, but rather to pick up products, often at the last minute, that I needed in worship. I would look up the week before Advent and realized that I had forgotten to order the Advent wreath candles and so I would run to Cokesbury to get a set. Cokesbury was the place where new clergy went to be fitted for robes and albs, and the staff there could offer their insight on the best practices and fit. I would visit Cokesbury to scan the available curricula, to search for church supplies, and to check out the latest clergy stole. And yes, sometimes I would even buy books – usually by looking in a particular category and guided by the curation of the staff in what was available on the shelf. Cokesbury was and is a supplier, but it’s also been a destination when I’ve needed to find resources to help the ministry of my church.

I suppose that I, like others of us in the fold, should have been more loyal to our denominational stores, choosing them over Amazon, but in a Wal-Mart wage world, very few of us have the resources in which brand loyalty wins out over price and convenience. Amazon simply works most of the time, and it’s hard not to look there first.

What worries me the most in this decision is that I no longer have a place to send my church members for their spiritual resources that isn’t rooted in evangelicalism and especially the Southern Baptist tradition. I already struggle with folks doing all their religious shopping at Lifeway Stores, and this decision leaves Lifeway as the only player in our market. There is nothing wrong with Lifeway – except that they will not be carrying resources written by United Methodists or other mainline authors. Their curriculum will have a particular theological slant (most often these days a neo-Calvinist one) and there won’t be any place to browse the latest in theological scholarship and see titles that reflect a more mainstream perspective. Lifeway is fine for music or Jesus junk, but it’s not a place where you are likely to find works by Richard Rohr, Walter Brueggemann, or even folks like Adam Hamilton. Our loss is not simply Lifeway’s gain, but our loss of a distinctive theological heritage which offers a different vision of God’s Kingdom than available in the Lifeway aisles.

So I’m sad at the news. I understand the decision, and if I were on the other side of the headlines I may have very well made the same choice. But we shouldn’t fail to recognize that we lose an important asset along the way, and that loss will affect how we carry out our practice of ministry in the days and weeks to come.

For my friends whose jobs are on the chopping block, please know that you are in my prayers, and that I appreciate your service to God’s kingdom. Very few folks understand that for most of you this was as much a ministry as it was a job, and I hope that as you are transitioned to a new status that our church will take the time and energy to thank you for your service to our church and the work of God’s kingdom.

 

A week or so ago I was asked by a colleague in ministry who is in a new appointment to come talk to his finance committee. He was new in ministry and his church had just reconstituted a functioning finance committee and languishing for several years. They were looking for training on what they needed to do, and for some reason it was suggested that I might have something to offer. So tonight, after bible study at my church, I hopped in the car and headed down the road to meet with this group about how to organize their work, an example of what connectionalism means in the United Methodist Church. Here is a bit of what I told them (although in a bit more scattered fashion)…

The most important thing that I can tell you is that you need to get out of your mind that your job is about finance, accounting, and numbers. Your primary task is the ministry of resources, and your calling is to understand your work as facilitators of the ministry of the church. You aren’t gatekeepers. You aren’t bean counters to keep everything in order. Your job is to discern what financial resources are needed to carry out your vision and ministry of your congregation, and to help develop the means by which those resources are obtained.

The danger in focusing on accounting and numbers is that it can quickly lead to being driven by the vision of scarcity rather than the vision of abundance. Far too often our ministries are hindered by a focus on what we DON’T have rather than the amazing abundance that God has given us. The truth is that very few churches have the resources they desire to do everything that God is calling them to do. But focusing on the glass half full instead of the glass half empty only leads others to think in negative terms about the ministry of the church rather than positive terms, and no one wants to risk their money on a lame horse. Certainly, you shouldn’t be a Pollyanna about the financial realities you face, and I advocate for openness and transparency across the board. But understanding yourself as a minister of resources opens you to thinking creatively about how we can create a climate for God’s provision – and the finance committee must be first and foremost believers in God’s ability to provide in our need.

I guess what I’m suggesting is that you view your role in spiritual terms rather than administrative, something that has been lacking in the United Methodist Church for a long time. Undergird your work with prayer – not only at the beginning and ending of the meeting, but in those times where you are trying to make an important decision about financial (ministry) priorities. Is giving down this month? Pray about it. Has God dumped a great big check in your lap? Take time to give God thanks! Understand that perhaps the most important thing you can do for the financial health of your congregation is to be prayer warriors, asking God to provide wisdom and to multiply the resources you’ve been given to go farther than you ever might imagine.

There are all sorts of things I can share about policies and procedures based in my years of ministry. As I said earlier, I think transparency and clear and accurate reporting on the finances of the church is important. I believe that the committee can model stewardship by tithing on undesignated income  toward mission outside the church (which might include the church apportionments). I would argue that church budgets reflect a vision of ministry, and should be used in church stewardship campaigns to offer a plan for funding that vision.

But it all comes down to understanding yourselves as ministers rather than administrators. Yes, you are called to be stewards, but stewardship isn’t about hoarding for a rainy day or living in fear that you won’t be able to pay the next bill. Stewardship comes from an Old English word styward which literally meant “the one who kept the sty” is which hogs were kept. The styward’s job was about providing for the pig’s needs, about feeding them, and keeping them clean and healthy. Stewardship is likewise about provision – making sure that the flock is nurtured and cared for.

So take you authority as ministers of resources. Understand that you are not alone, and that God is always with you. Model love, grace, kindness and gentleness in your dealings with one another and with your colleagues in ministry on other committees in the church. You have been called to this service, and God will do amazing things when you are faithful to that call.

Requiem for a Mentor