Preparing for General Conference: A Reflection

GC2019-St.LouisArch

It is a challenging time for that portion of the Body of Christ called the United Methodist Church. The upcoming special session of the General Conference (held in St. Louis from February 23 through February 26 and called specifically for the purpose of making significant decisions about what our denomination’s way forward will be related to the matter of human sexuality) has generated a sense of anxiety throughout the district that I superintend and, I suspect, throughout the connection. For some, this anxiety is linked to the fear that the denomination will change its current teaching. For others, the fear is that it won’t. As both a District Superintendent and a delegate to the General Conference, my heart and mind are fully engaged in the work that is before us.

864 General Conference delegates from Africa, the Philippines, Europe, and the United States will travel to St. Louis for the event. We will be joined there by hundreds of other visitors, observers, volunteers, marshals, and pages (some from Western Pennsylvania), many of whom will be there on their own dime and time, simply because they believe that the work of the church in St. Louis demands their very best efforts and attention. Bishops will preside administratively over the General Conference’s plenary sessions, but will not have a vote (which is United Methodism’s way of ensuring the necessary separation of ecclesiastical powers and processes).

General Conference, which ordinarily meets every four years (but can be specially called between quadrennial sessions, as is the case this year), is United Methodism’s highest legislative body for all matters affecting the United Methodist connection. It is the only entity that has the authority to make decisions for the entire denomination. That may strike some of you as woefully impractical. What corporation, after all, would ever be able to survive and thrive if its primary governance body included over eight hundred people and met every four years?

And yet, for all of the practical and strategic questions that may be raised in any conversation about General Conference, I am deeply grateful to be part of a denomination whose authority is not centralized. No single leader, bishop, or committee has the authority to dictate the priorities and policies of our church. Rather, our portion of the Body of Christ finds its legislative governance in a praying, searching, occasionally quarrelling, sometimes divided, frequently doxological body called the General Conference. It is this historical priority of “governance by conferencing” that has enabled United Methodism to retain its emphasis on both communal discernment and connectional responsibility.

At various points, we will worship vibrantly at General Conference throughout the course of the upcoming session. I am convinced, in fact, that worship and prayer will be the grandest part of what we will experience together.

We will also turn our attention to weighty and controversial legislation concerning the denomination’s teaching on human sexuality (in general) and the practice of homosexuality (in particular).

For clarity, the denomination’s current position, expressed in the 2016 United Methodist Book of Discipline, is that, while all people are of sacred worth and created in the image of God, the practice of homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” As a result of this institutionally-affirmed incompatibility, the United Methodist Church is not currently permitted to ordain self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. Likewise, United Methodist clergy and congregations are not currently permitted to conduct same-sex marriages on their church property.

A variety of proposed plans and modified plans for a way forward will come before the upcoming session of the General Conference. Some of those plans (Such as the One Church Plan, the Connectional Conference Plan, and the Simple Plan) would remove the restrictive language related to the practice of homosexuality from the United Methodist Book of Discipline, thereby making it possible for individual churches, Boards of Ordained ministry, and pastors to discern personally and contextually what their policies and practices will be concerning marriage and ordination. Many believe that the adoption of one of these plans is urgently necessary in order for United Methodism to become a more just, compassionate, and inclusive church.

Alternatively, there will be other plans coming before the General Conference (such as the Traditional Plan and the Modified Traditional Plan) that would protect and fortify the denomination’s current position on the practice of homosexuality. Many believe that these traditionalist plans are the only way for the church to sustain its Biblical theology of human sexuality.

There will also be legislation advocating for a gracious exit from the denomination for those churches and clergy who cannot in good conscience abide by whichever plan is adopted.

Not surprisingly, there is a great divergence of thought throughout United Methodism concerning which plan represents the healthiest and best way forward. Often, the differing viewpoints lead to a painful sense of division. I have experienced portions of that division up close and personally.

To generate much-needed perspective, however, it should be said that our challenges are probably no more severe or complicated than some of the other seasons the church has faced in its history. I seriously doubt, for example, that the first century church’s dramatic impasse over the practice of circumcision was any less divisive than our current conversations. Likewise, the denomination’s fracture over slavery in the 1800s illuminated just how divided the people of God can be. The challenge of ecclesiastical conflict is not new, but it never stops being hard.

Throughout the last several months, I facilitated many conversations about General Conference and “The Way Forward” in the churches across my district. Some of these conversations occurred in regularly-scheduled church conferences. Others occurred in meetings that were specially called. I tried my best to have an open heart in all of those conversations, listening as attentively as I could, responding as compassionately and engagingly as I could. I am sure that I did better in some of those conversations than others, and I certainly bring a spirit of heartfelt repentance to wherever it is that I failed.

I can still see the faces of people I encountered in those important and high energy conversations. Some asked probing questions, looking to expand their comprehension of the proposed plans. Others asked rhetorical questions, primarily to give expression to their own deeply-held convictions. Some wanted to get to know me personally and to hear about my personal perspective. Others, perhaps driven by a sense of unique urgency, simply wanted an opportunity to inform a delegate of how they wanted him to vote.

And now, here we are. The General Conference is less than two weeks away. My heart is…what?

Heavy?

Broken?

Hopeful?

Grateful?

Open?

Weary?

Desperately prayerful?

All of these, I suppose.

In my next post, I will share some of the personal values that I carry with me into General Conference. In the meantime, I will invite those of you who care deeply about these matters to engage in three specific disciplines.

First, stubbornly resist the temptation to become cynical or resentful about these matters, especially if people attempt to take you down a negative road. In my experience, a spirit of cynicism and resentment often leads to a heart that is cold, a temperament that is dismissive, and a discernment that is clouded by a distorted sense of absolute certainty. The United Methodist Church deserves better than that.

Second, be intentional about reminding yourself and others that our denomination’s difficult conversations about human sexuality are not debates between people who love Jesus and people who don’t, or between people who believe in the Bible and people who don’t. Rather, the current disagreement is between devoted Christ-followers who have come to significantly different conclusions about how parts of the Biblical narrative are to be interpreted, honored, and applied. Remembering this can help us avoid the temptation to demonize those who are on the other side of a debate.

Third, pray without ceasing. Dare to believe that prayer is a sacred and mystical conduit through which the redemptive activity of God makes its way into human circumstances, sometimes transforming the circumstances and other times reconfiguring human hearts so that the circumstances can be more creatively managed. I am inviting you to believe in the power of prayer with me and to pray urgently for the United Methodist Church and its General Conference. Pray for Western Pennsylvania’s delegation and all the delegations. Pray for the Bishops as they preside. Pray for the safe travels of all who will be making their way to St. Louis. Pray that people will treat one another with respect and patience, even when emotions run high. Pray for the protection of tender hearts and the nurturing of right priorities. Most of all, pray that the Holy Spirit will flow through the complicated rhythms of General Conference in order to help the United Methodist Church to bear witness more vibrantly and faithfully to the always-beautiful heart of God.

I am grateful to be part of a church that refuses to turn away from hard and important conversations. Likewise, I am humbled to be part of a church that believes that Jesus does good and redemptive work, even in the messy but necessary conferencing of his people.

‘Tis the Season: A Reflection and a Request for Prayer Concerning the United Methodist Appointive Process

3d68364f3ee0cf714e28f9a2393baaf6

I ask for the prayers of those of you who pray.

I am honored to be part of a ministry team called the Appointive Cabinet. More specifically, it is the Appointive Cabinet of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.

This week, I will join my Cabinet colleagues at Olmsted Manor for a retreat. Part of our work at this retreat will be to clarify our vison and prepare our hearts for the upcoming appointment season—a yearly time of discernment in which we give focused attention to the deployment of our clergy and the making of strategic clergy appointments.

As all United Methodists know, our denomination’s unique system of appointment-making is far from perfect. At times, it groans for redemption along with the rest of creation. While engaged prayerfully and diligently by a Bishop and District Superintendents who pour nothing less than a whole heart into their work, the truth of the matter is that perspectives are sometimes limited. Discernment is sometimes distorted or incomplete. Agendas and priorities are sometimes unintentionally misplaced.

As a result, our appointment system has sometimes led to woundedness. Painful disruption. Skepticism and cynicism born from frustrations over decisions that are seen as imprudent. Frustration over what is sometimes perceived as an inequitable application or expectation of itineracy.

Some have even come to the conclusion that our appointment system is too outdated—or too broken—to be effective any longer.

I am not debating that matter here, nor am I inviting such a debate.

I will simply share with you a perspective that my wife Tara offered to me several years ago. (Tara, by the way, was raised in the Baptist tradition. She lived in the same house for her entire upbringing. She had no idea that she would one day be a United Methodist—and married to an itinerant United Methodist pastor no less!) At one point, when we were approached by the Cabinet unexpectedly about the possibility of a new pastoral appointment, Tara responded in this fashion:

I like that we do not get to select where we live and serve and that congregations don’t get to select their pastors…Strange as it might sound, it feels right for us not to have that choice. So, if I have to decide between relying solely on my own discernment about where to live and serve and relying on the discernment of a Bishop and Cabinet that have been entrusted by the church with the responsibility of determining where we are most needed, I’ll choose the Bishop and Cabinet…not because I believe that the Bishop and Cabinet are always right, but because, concerning our appointment, I am more willing to trust their shared perspective than I am my own preferences. My preferences are too often twisted.

At which point I said to Tara, “Wow. You really ARE a United Methodist, aren’t you?”

I am grateful for Tara’s leadership in that moment. I return to her words often, simply because they remind me of what the United Methodist appointment system can be at its best:

Meaningfully disruptive.

Refreshingly hopeful.

Dynamically creative.

Unsettlingly adventurous.

Heartwarmingly sacrificial.

Evangelically strategic.

Imperfect, but purposeful.

Flawed, but redemptive.

Awkward, but linked to a narrative grounded in a countercultural theology of going where sent for the sake of the Gospel.

And so, I return to my initial request:

I ask for the prayers of those of you who pray.

Pray for Bishop Cynthia Moore-Koikoi, whose leadership I so deeply admire, whose integrity shapes me, and who holds the weight of appointment-making in her heart with consistent grace and wisdom.

Pray for the District Superintendents and the Assistant to the Bishop, that we might approach this appointment season with good priorities, clear vision, a right sense of our own fallenness, and a keen awareness of how deeply we are in over our heads.

Pray for those clergypersons who will be retiring this year and who are preparing for the next segment of their journey.

Pray for those clergypersons returning from seminary or licensing school, eager for what is perhaps their first full time or part time pastoral appointment.

Pray for those congregations that will experience transition in this appointment season, since such transitions often involve painful goodbyes and crucial hellos.

Pray for our appointive process, that it might become an instrument through which God equips the church to engage more comprehensively in its grand and glorious mission: To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Thank you in advance for your ministry of prayer.

Worship: Beyond Combat to Creativity

WorshipArt

(Artwork: “Free, Indeed” by Laura Gentry)

Someone said to me recently that the worship wars are over.

Do you know what I mean by “worship wars”?

I mean the struggle and tension generated by what are often constructed (unfairly and unhelpfully) as liturgical dichotomies:

  • “traditional” versus “contemporary” or “modern;”
  • “high church” versus “low church”
  • “choruses” versus “hymnody;”
  • “high tech” versus “high touch;”
  • “transcendent” verses “relevant.”

Evidence of the tension that I am describing has been plentiful for many years. We find it in divisive church committee meetings and in passionate pronouncements on social media. We find it in churches’ evaluations of their clergy leadership, in clergy’s evaluation of their churches, and in lay peoples’ evaluation of their congregational worship.

As a pastor who has spent the last thirty years of his vocational life planning worship and preparing sermons, I have experienced my own spiritual schizophrenia related to the variety of perspectives on worship. In the congregations that I have served, I have heard people describe the exact same sermon series as “just what I needed to hear” and “frustratingly irrelevant.” I have heard the “modern” worship experiences that I have overseen (and sometimes spearheaded) described as both “contextually attentive” and “shamefully consumerist.” I have heard my own liturgical leadership described as both “creatively evocative” and “out of touch with the common person.”

If these “worship wars” are indeed over, then thanks be to God. In fact, God help us if we persist in warring over a spiritual discipline that has, as its primary objective, the glorification and adoration of the One who formed our lungs and breathed life into them.

And yet…

…And yet, even if the “wars” are over, there remains the difficult work of clarifying and, in some cases, configuring a theology of worship that can inform and illuminate the current practice of worship in the 21stCentury church. While I do not have the wherewithal to say all that needs to be said about this important matter, I have forged two personal convictions that have become both the primary lenses through which I view the discipline of worship and the foundational priorities upon which my own approach to worship is built. I share these two convictions here, not because I am insistent upon their rightness, and not because I am looking for debate, but because the desire of my heart is to further the church’s contemplation and practice of worshiping God.

A Conviction About Worship’s Purpose:
The Governing Purpose Of Worship Is To offer To God The Only Response That God Deserves

I am prone to subordinating worship to my own narcissism, and perhaps I am not alone in this tendency. I have learned about myself that, if I am not intentional about the way I approach worship, worship can become for me merely another means by which to gratify my own personal preferences and proclivities—like watching television or going to a concert or eating at a favorite restaurant.

Did we sing the hymns or choruses that I wanted to sing? Were my favorite singers a part of worship? Did the flow and feel of worship appeal to my artistic sensibilities? Did the sermon inspire me sufficiently? Was the preacher articulate enough and funny enough and relevant enough? Were the people around me adequately friendly?

To be sure, there is nothing inherently evil about such questions. As I have learned in my own journey, however, when these questions become the sole mechanism by which I evaluate my experience of worship, I end up approaching worship with priorities that are shaped less by doxological impulses and more by my own egocentric consumerism. The glorification of God and the offering of self are subordinated to a checklist of personal preferences.

In one of my favorite biblical calls to worship, the Psalmist tells us that we are to “enter the Lord’s gates with thanksgiving and the Lord’s courts with praise” (Psalm 100:4). Every time I read those words, it strikes me that the Psalmist does not express any interest whatsoever in the mood, temperament, or preferences of the worshiper. “But wait! What if I don’t feel like being thankful?! What if I am not in the mood to offer praise?! What if the style of worship or the nature of the liturgy doesn’t speak my heart language?!” The Psalmist does not address such matters, not because the Psalmist is blind to the realities of human preferences, but because he understands that human preferences are secondary to the fact that “the Lord is good” and that “the Lord’s steadfast love endures forever” (Psalm 100:5). The Psalmist, in other words, writes under the conviction that the primary purpose of worship is not to gratify the worshiper but to glorify the Creator, so that the worshiper might “know that the Lord is God” (Psalm 100:3).

I frequently re-read Psalm 100 on days when I am headed into congregational worship. The Psalmist’s words are a powerful and important reminder to me that the most compelling and urgent question for me to ask during worship is never “What am I getting out of it?” or even “Am I being sufficiently fed?” but rather “How much more of my life am I subordinating to the transforming and trustworthy Lordship of Jesus?”

There is an objection to this conviction that I have frequently heard:

This is all very lofty. But what about the people we are trying to reach who don’t yet know that God deserves to be worshiped and who are drawn to a certain kind of presentation and experience of music? Your approach to worship seems to ignore their priorities.

Such an objection is not to be dismissed, especially since it forces us to take seriously the evangelical potential of the church’s worship. But I would offer this caution: The varied and unpredictable preferences of worshipers make a far better servant than they do a master. When worship is subordinated entirely to the personal preferences of a congregation—or to what we think a particular part of the population would find meaningful or engaging—the church runs the risk of losing the beautiful strangeness of its liturgical language. I choose to believe that it is possible to generate artistic freshness, creativity, and even relevance in worship without sacrificing a clear vision of worship’s grand and governing purpose.

A Conviction About Worship’s Content: 
The Worship Of God Demands A Mentality Of “Both/And” Rather Than “Either/Or”

I have heard an “either/or” mentality expressed many times in conversations about worship.

  • “If I were to see drums in the sanctuary, I would walk right out the door.”
  • “We don’t sing hymns in our worship because the language is too outdated.”
  • “We don’t have altar calls because that’s too ‘Baptist’”.
  • “We don’t want to hear personal testimonies in worship because they are too emotional.”
  • “We don’t sing praise choruses because they are too repetitive.”
  • “We don’t sing songs that are more than five years old because we want to be current.”
  • “We don’t need printed prayers or creeds because they are too ritualistic.”

The problem with an either/or mentality related to worship, however, is that it limits the creativity of worship to the perceived boundaries of a particular liturgical style. When the church makes the boundaries around liturgical style too rigid, it risks losing sight of of the expansiveness of a God whose grandness demands a rich diversity and flexibility in worship.

I am not suggesting that it is inappropriate to guard or honor a particular liturgical style. (After all, the acoustics of Westminster Abbey might not be conducive to the dynamics of rock and roll!) The point I am making is that perhaps too often the church has settled for a mentality of “either/or” in the worship of a God who deserves nothing less than a “both/and” creativity.

Personally, I want to be part of worship teams that are asking deeper and more creative questions. Not, “How can we create worship that stays within our particular stylistic boundaries?” but rather, “How can we create worship that best communicates the Gospel with the kind of creativity and expansiveness that God deserves?” Not, “How can we create worship that will resonate primarily with millenials and iGen?” but rather, “How can we generate the kind of creatively diverse worship in which multiple generations can find their voice?”

Am I being too naïve when I envision the theological richness of the church’s hymnody finding new musical expression in modern worship services? Am I being too unrealistic when I imagine traditional worship in which both Bach and Hillsong can be held together with both artistic and liturgical integrity? Am I being too idealistic when I picture a church where worship planning is less about what we aren’t permitted to do and more about what the themes of worship require to find their most creative treatment?

I hope not. Because that kind of worship constructs windows instead of walls, possibilities instead of rigid boundaries, and sacred bridges between that which is ancient and that which is modern. When I spend time engaging in this deeper worship, it helps me to remember that worship will always be more about obedience than it is about technique; more about a transformed heart than it is about a particular liturgical style; more about Jesus than it is about us.

Through a Mirror Dimly

Through-a-glassy-darkly

(Artwork: “Through a Glass Darkly” by Carolyn Pyfrom)

As I ponder both the brokenness reflected by the hearing on Capitol Hill and the pain illuminated by the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, I find myself inwardly occupied by a spiritual aridity that is difficult to describe. I am trusting in the Holy Spirit to take hold of my anguish (and a country’s anguish) and carry it to the heart of God as an articulate prayer.

Never has the phrase “now we see through a mirror dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:12) spoken to my heart with such penetrating truth. Those words call to mind either a narcissism (that prevents us from looking beyond our own reflection) or a blurriness (that prevents us from seeing ourselves and anyone else with the kind of clarity that true love demands). In either case, the hearing in Washington and its aftermath leave me feeling like I am surrounded by dim mirrors and diminished humanity.

I pray, but my words feel empty. Perhaps I am being called to a prayer that is not spoken but lived—the incarnation of an intercession that leads to a stubborn refusal to accommodate dehumanizing relationships and malicious patterns of behavior.

Think about what the air would be like if political posturing were to give way to a heartfelt pursuit of truth or, if the truth becomes elusive, a willingness to accommodate fractured relationships with integrity and compassion.

Think about how relationships would change if the pathological ethos of “boys will be boys” were to give way to an unwavering commitment to raising up (and becoming) men (and women) whose hearts will not tolerate any form of sexual violence or malicious exploitation.

Think about how the national climate would evolve if the American people, irrespective of the direction of their vote, were to experience a grander and more compelling vision of what our country can be, beyond the manipulation, beyond the competing allegiances, beyond the sickening controversies, beyond the partisan distortions.

Think about how the church’s ministry would intensify if its people were to embrace more comprehensively the church’s beautiful and often-countercultural narrative:

A narrative in which greatness is measured by a person’s (or a country’s) commitment to servanthood;

In which truth is told without malice or agenda;

In which women and men honor one another with mutual respect instead of denigrating one another with reciprocated contempt;

In which manipulative rhetoric yields to vulnerable hearts, patiently protected and tenderly pursued.

In that case, perhaps our dim mirrors would at least begin to reflect a brighter light.

When the Church Abuses: A Lament

d2f7a6df97faf1b097506c1f0c69ac22--abstract-paintings-art-paintings

(Artwork: “Suffer the Children” by Janice Nabors Raiteri)

As I hold in my thoughts yesterday’s report of the grand jury’s investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in six Pennsylvania dioceses, I am crying out to God with a lament that feels all-consuming.

Three hundred alleged “predator priests” in the dioceses were investigated and named in the report.

More than a thousand victims, according to the report, can be identified through church records, although many officials believe the number of victims to be much higher than what can be officially determined.

I grieve with outrage over the systematic violence that this report illuminates.

My heart breaks over vulnerable souls violated by the very leaders who had been entrusted with their spiritual and physical care.

I weep over shattered lives, devastated faith, and a broken church (of all denominations, since what happens in one part of the Body of Christ happens to the entirety of the body).

I mourn over a woefully fallen institution that has too often overlooked or even protected both perpetrators and patterns of injustice. (Again, I am speaking about the church in all of its denominations, since ecclesiastical abuse is in no way limited to Catholicism.)

Where is God in this agonizing mess?

I believe that God is where God always is.

Right here.

Right here, intimately and restoratively present with the victims, embracing them with the tenderness that they have been unfairly denied, all the while allowing divine tears to commingle with theirs.

Right here, allowing the divine heart to experience every portion of the agony and anguish of unthinkable abuse.

God is right here, graciously, attentively, and beautifully. Always has been. Always will be.

If we trust what the Bible tells us—that Jesus has the supernatural capacity to experience personally the pain of the atrocities perpetrated against “even the least of these”—then we are right to believe that Jesus was there during every abusive moment, cradling the victims in protective arms while screaming out at the perpetrators, “No! These are my beloved children, and I will not allow your violence toward them to be the end of their story!”

I add my voice to the repentance that all the church’s people must express in the aftermath of these revelations. I also implore all those connected to the church’s ministry to commit themselves both to “Safe Sanctuary” standards and practices and to an ever-deepening diligence when it comes to the care that we offer to all people, children and adults.

Lord, have mercy…

…But, please God, let it be the kind of mercy that unsettles us, brings us to our knees, and inspires us to become a better church, where all people of all ages are valued, cherished, and protected.

Lord, have mercy.

Leading With a Towel In Hand

Ethiopian orthodox art, unknown artist

(Artwork: Ethiopian Orthodox Art, unknown artist)

There are plenty of days when it becomes painfully clear to me how inadequate my leadership has been throughout the various seasons of my vocation. As a leader, my clumsiness has often eclipsed my proficiency.

Still, I spend a great deal of time thinking, reading, writing, and praying about leadership, particularly about the leadership practiced in the ministry of the church. I suspect that I am driven by the hope that I might become a better leader tomorrow than I am today.

In recent days, several convictions about leadership have resonated with particular clarity in my thinking. I share the convictions here, not because I am arguing for their absolute rightness, but because I believe that the journey toward good leadership demands the risk of articulating what one believes ABOUT leadership.

Here are some of my personal convictions in that regard, freshly illuminated by the challenges of a new season of ministry.

Healthy leadership is less about having all the right answers and more about a right engagement with the most important questions. When leaders fall into the trap of believing that leadership is primarily about having right and immediate answers, they run the risk of reducing their leadership to a narcissistic autonomy or a desperate pursuit of techniques and rhetoric. Leadership must certainly lead to some good answers. But the deepest answers come, not through authoritarian pronouncement, but through an individual and communal engagement with the pertinent questions. Such an engagement helps leaders to see themselves, not as autonomous oracles, but facilitators of a deeper and more comprehensive discernment.

Healthy leadership never fixates on a destination at the expense of the journey. Destinations are important. Leaders must have a sense of where things are headed. They must envision a bold and imaginative future. It is possible, however, for leaders to become so myopically focused on the desired destination that they begin to overlook or even ignore the relationships, conversations, and circumstances that form the day-to-day pathway upon which good leadership must travel. Granted, journeys are often messy and unpredictable. Timetables may have to change. Extra conversations may have to be scheduled. Adjustments to the course may have to be made. Even the destinations may have to be modified. Even so, paying attention to the nuances of the pathway is nothing less than essential, since healthy leadership finds its most vibrant and urgent expression, not in the arrivals at destinations, but in a dynamic attentiveness to the journey.

Healthy leadership grounds itself, not in the maintenance of an institution, but in the transformation of an institution’s culture. There is a great deal of institution-bashing these days. To be fair, however, people tend to bash institutions only in those places where the institution is not serving them or providing the things that they personally want. Healthy leadership is tasked with the responsibility of seeing institutions for what they are—broken but potential-rich instruments that groan for redemption along with the rest of the fallen world. Healthy leaders never become preoccupied with institutional maintenance, as though the institution were an altar at which to kneel. Neither do healthy leaders devote their energy to railing randomly against the institution in which they lead, as though the institution itself were nothing more than an enemy to be conquered. Rather, healthy leaders become channels for transformation through which institutions can be reimagined, reconfigured, and reborn. Healthy leaders help portions of their institutions to die with grace when the time for death has come. Likewise, healthy leaders help their institutions to thrive where their institutions are supporting the priorities of their articulated mission.

Healthy leadership does not validate entitlement but entitles that which is valid. There is a common spirit of entitlement that can lead to deep resentment. It often comes from an inflated sense of the uniqueness of one’s own gifts, viewpoints, or trajectory. It grounds itself in a strong sense of what is owed. Healthy leadership seeks to cultivate an environment in which entitlement gives way to the kind of shared covenantal commitment that subordinates self-determined privileges to grander priorities.

Healthy leadership treats vision, not as the property of a charismatic individual, but as the territory stewarded by a missional community. When vision becomes solely the product of an individual voice, the road to egocentric leadership becomes painfully short. Healthy leadership sees vision as something more complex and organic than this. More specifically, it sees vision as the progeny of a creative community seeking to live more fully into its mission. To be a healthy leader is to be an attentive listener as well as a guiding presence—a relational participant in meaningful conversations who helps the community to name, clarify, and implement the route into its best future.

Healthy leadership breathes most deeply the air of confession and repentance. For leaders to lead in healthy and holistic fashion, authentic repentance must become as natural to them as breathing and every bit as urgent. Good leaders become the voice of repentance for the many offenses perpetrated by the communities they lead. They also become vulnerable enough to name their own brokenness, their own insecurities, and their own failures. Only a spirit of consistent and expansive repentance can keep a leader’s heart appropriately attentive to the hearts of others and appropriately broken over the distortions of his or her own leadership.

Healthy leaders recognize that they are secondary characters in the story of their own leadership. Leaders are important, but they are the supporting cast. The main characters are the people they lead. For leaders who follow Jesus, the most central character of all is a Savior who equips our best leadership and who redeems our worst leadership. Remembering this helps leaders to structure their priorities rightly and to value themselves truthfully. Furthermore, a leader who lives out of a spirit of secondariness can more easily subordinate entitlement to gratitude, egotism to servanthood, and resentment to hope.

Hope-Filled Expectations

blog The Good People

(Artwork: “The Good People” by Laurie Pace)

As a recently-appointed District Superintendent, I have spent the last several months prayerfully discerning what it is that I am expecting of myself as both a leader and a follower in this new season of ministry. I have also been reflecting upon what it is that I might be expecting of the clergy leaders with whom I am privileged to serve—and what they might be expecting of me as their District Superintendent.

The following paragraphs are the result of my contemplation about expectations. I shared these paragraphs recently with the clergy leaders of the district I superintend. I offer them here once again. It is not an exhaustive list of expectations, to be sure. Perhaps many others could or should be added. But this list does reflect some of my deepest priorities.

Please know my heart. This list of expectations is not intended to be heavy-handed or authoritarian. Rather, these expectations are the hope-filled expression of a sinner saved by grace who longs to become more fully what Jesus is calling him to be and to become an encouragement to others. Perhaps some of these expectations will resonate with your spirit. I hope so.

A New District Superintendent’s Expectations of Himself
and the Clergy Leaders With Whom He Serves

 1. An Ever-Deepening Love for God and People

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus identifies the greatest commandment in this fashion: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind…and a second [commandment] is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39)

Clergy are expected to grow in their commitment to physical and emotional health, so that they might be energized and equipped to love God with a whole heart.

Clergy are expected to grow in their commitment to the spiritual disciplines (such as prayer, study of Scripture and meditation upon its revelations, confession and repentance, worship, solitude, community, ministries of social justice, and regular participation in the Lord’s Supper), so that they might be enlivened to love God with a devoted soul.

Clergy are expected to grow in their commitment to the disciplines of lifelong learning, continuing education, and theological engagement, so that they might be prepared to love God with an active mind.

2. A Commitment to Personal Integrity

The word “integrity” is a derivative of a Latin word meaning “intact” or “whole.” People of integrity are people who commit themselves to authenticity, wholeness, and ethical intactness in their relationships, their administration, their self-care, their communication, and their personal conduct. Clergy are expected to commit themselves to living and ministering with the kind of integrity that bears witness to a holistic walk with Christ.

3. Participation in Intentional Community

Communal accountability and collegial nurture are essential portions of our discipleship to Jesus Christ, who once promised to be uniquely present wherever “two or three” were gathered in his name. Clergy are expected to commit themselves to a finding (or developing) and experiencing the kind of intentional community with colleagues that invites mutual prayer, encouragement, and conversation.

4. Tithing and Growth in Generosity

In the church’s ministry, clergy set the tone for generosity and boldness in giving.  It is expected that clergy will teach tithing and growth in giving in the churches they serve. Moreover, it is expected that clergy will model these same disciplines in their personal walk with Christ by growing toward tithing (if tithing is not yet a practiced discipline) and possibly beyond it.

5. Respect for Colleagues in Ministry

An eagerness to tear one another down is antithetical to the spirit of love in which we are called to live. Clergy are expected to encourage and support one another, to pray for one another, and to resist the temptation to speak negatively about colleagues.

6. A Work Ethic That Honors the Urgency of the Gospel

Clergy are expected to be disciplined about their commitment to ministry and the consistency of their conscientiousness, in order that every local church or place of ministry might receive faithful, effective, and fruitful leadership.

7. The Honoring of Sabbath

In the often-frenetic pace of life and ministry, clergy are expected to be Sabbath people, experiencing consistent and intentional time away from work for solitude, time with family, and rest.

8. Participation in District and Conference Ministry

United Methodist clergy are joined by a connectional covenant. District and Conference ministry is an important portion of that covenant. Whenever possible, clergy are expected to support District and Conference ministry with their involvement and participation.

9. A Stubborn and Prayerful Resistance to Cynicism and Chronic Negativity

Nothing corrupts the joy and vibrancy of the church’s ministry faster than the proliferation of cynicism and unrestrained negativity. All too often, even the church’s leadership allows itself to be drawn into this counterproductive spirit, choosing disparagement instead of the recognition of possibilities. Clergy are expected to resist such cynicism and negativity, thereby becoming instruments of prophetic joy and hope.

10. An Unwavering Devotion to Primary Relationships

One’s most important and life-defining relationships are never to be sacrificed upon the altar of one’s ministry. Clergy are expected to give their best time and energy to their deepest friendships and their family relationships, so that their covenantal relationships might always occupy a priority position in their stewardship over their life and ministry.

11. A Christ-honoring Witness in All Areas of Communication, Including Social Media

Clergy are expected to communicate carefully, meaningfully, and graciously in all areas of their lives, so that their communication might reflect their journey of sanctification.

12. A Commitment to Scriptural Holiness, Wesleyan Theology, and Connectional Covenant

Clergy are expected to grow daily in their embodiment of a biblical worldview and in their practice of a distinctively Wesleyan theology that reflects God’s prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace. As United Methodists, we are also joined in a connectional covenant that demands a faithfulness to our polity, our parameters, and our practices.