Small Government.
Life after the Sequester cuts.
Buy local. Support local businesses.
Keep our money in our communities.
All these sentiments expressed in the political world reflect a desire to keep our finances close by and our focus on our local communities.
Recently, I’ve noticed at least three situations that cause me to wonder if that same sort of “keep mission and money local” mentality is taking root in the United Methodist Church. Like the Tea Party protesting the tax policies of the Obama administration, this kind of mentality seems to protest sending church voices, leaders, and money beyond their borders to the rest of United Methodism.
The mentality has three embodiments that I’ve noticed so far:
- Only Local Witness – Focus on local missional concerns at the expense of global witness. When one Annual Conference was debating Resolutions on Israel/Palestine, the comment was made (summarized): “why do we do this? What possible change could come from us passing this Resolution about a country half the world away? We are past our heyday of global influence. Why not focus on suffering and injustice in our own communities?” Such a mentality reflects that there is suffering and injustice in our own communities–why not focus all our energies on fixing up our own house before we speak–perhaps flaccidly–on global issues.
- Only Local Leadership – Focus on annual conference leadership at the expense of global church leadership. At one Annual Conference, the Bishop stood and told the gathered body that the Bishop would no longer participate in any General Board or Agency that did not have a local presence in their Annual Conference. This means that if the conference did not have a Conference Board of Church and Society, then the Bishop would not attend the General Board of Church and Society’s events or meetings. Such a mentality reflects that only those general church structures that directly benefit and operate in our backyard are worthy of sending our lay and clergy leadership to–from the Bishop on down.
- Only Local Money – Focus on money going to local/conference funds rather than general church funds. Hacking Christianity did a unique blog series on a Proposal by Andy Langford to divest in the General Church budget and to divert that money to local/district/conference funds. By doing this, they would be effectively removing money from all general church efforts–even those that do good work by both liberal and conservative ends of the denomination. Such a mentality reflects that apportionments are seen not as tithes but as payments to errant parts of the church and local churches should divest in the global church out of protest–even if the good parts get hurt in the process.
I understand this mentality. Indeed, it follows the efforts of the Call To Action: to focus all our resources on creating vital congregations. Any resources that did not do this should not be spent in those areas. And the entire church should re-align its money and ministry to achieve this goal of strong local units.
I don’t disagree with the need for vital congregations and that they are the primary arena of the church. But I wonder now if this movement towards aligning all resources to be locally-based is being usurped by those who want to keep all our resources local instead of seeing the resources return locally.
In other words, there’s a big difference between paying a $5,000 church tithe and seeing every penny return in resources from the global and regional church…and deciding to keep that $5,000 for one’s self. And there’s a big difference between sending clergy/lay leadership to the general church to support everyone…and deciding only to provide leadership to groups that directly benefit one’s region (to one’s own estimation). The formers are connectional and believe we are all in this together…the latters are congregational and believe we need to take care of ourselves first before the rest of the Body.
I hope I’m wrong, so let’s put this out there: what do you think? Is this kind of Tea Party Methodism starting to take root where the global church situation is seen as not worth our voice, leadership, or money? And are you worried that this sort of mentality is taking root at the financial, justice-seeking, and….the episcopal areas of the church?
Have you seen this sentiment expressed in your annual conferences? If so, report below!
Thanks for reading and commenting.
I’m starting to wonder if connectionalism is becoming the litmus test for saying someone is (or is not) Methodist sort of akin to saying someone is “not American” if they don’t share certain values or practices.
I don’t think we should view those who are less interested in connectionalism as “un-Methodist” but we do need to answer the question of what is unique about Methodism. In some ways the Connectional system is a unique part but I the more important question is: do we care about the world beyond our own communities? An over emphasis on the local defeats our efforts to partner with our sisters & brothers around the world to work on issues like eradicating malaria, preventing HIV&AIDS, ending domestic violence, helping victims of disaster, and other critical concerns of the world.
Well, yes. Connectionalism is an essential part of United Methodism. It very much is a litmus test. There are congregational methodist churches if you want the theology without the connection.
Yes, yes, yes! This is precisely what is happening in the American church. In our conference, a proposal to move up the election of delegates to General Conference was pitched as an effort to combat the efforts of general boards and agencies since they have so much time to prepare for GC. It was presumed that their interests run counter to ours!
Whoa! Whoa! Incredible. Did they pass that legislation, Wes?
Yes, we passed the legislation. I believe the real dinner behind this move is an effort to make constitutional changes. Writing and discussing such changes with other conferences and regional bodies will take a lot of time.
Right on! Add to that the anti-union anti-poor xenophobic mentality that drove the divisive straw-man argument behind the attempt against appointment security / full deployment of the clergy, an attempt against the equitable treatment not only of our clergy, but of unreached and underserved communities throughout North America.
In North GA, a proposal from the floor to cut the Conference budget by a few hundred thousand dollars was pitched as an effort to return that money to the local congregations (by way of lower apportionments). To my surprise it was resoundingly defeated, due in no small part to impassioned speeches from individuals in defense of the good work done by the Conference-wide programs (Higher Ed, e.g.).
Surely there’s room to critique the larger body and the way(s) the connection engages in mission and ministry without being labeled a “Tea Party Methodist?” I’m sorry but the comments feel a little self-righteous. Connection is vital but it’s more than just money. And questioning the connectional nature and practices of our church doesn’t make one “anti-connectional.” This is an important conversation to have and one that I would hope could avoid name calling and drawing lines in the sand. But then again, we are an American church obsessed with politics (even more than mission sometimes).
I side with Ben – we don’t need anymore labels or name calling. Politics already commits enough societal sins without our prodding it on.
If there is a rise in”gasp” Tea Party Methodism, perhaps it is being driven by the same factors that have fueled the Tea Party in politics — a general church that is large and distant from most congregations; ever increasing apportionment obligations (look at the cost estimates for the next General Conference); a set of Discipline requirements that are well characterized as a “hair ball” and grow more complex with every General Conference; Boards and Agencies that lobby General Conference (and in some cases even officially publicly criticize the Discipline) for their specific agendas rather than being accountable to General Conference; a polity that is so complex and arcane that nothing significant can get past the Judicial Council, are just a few examples that come to mind. I agree that name calling is unfortunate and inappropriate, so I wonder whether the application of the Tea Party epithet for congregations and conferences that are asking honest questions about the value (n more than financial) received from connectionalism and their support of the General Church is appropriate. Everyone is calling for accountability of pastors, who after all are overseen only by SPRC, DS, and bishops: but the thought that General Boards and Agencies should be effectively held accountable seems a deplorable trend that must be nipped in the bud by application of an epithet like Tea Party. We probably need more connectionalism rather than less; but a big part of connectionalism is communication and that is sorely lacking. Many General Boards and Agencies do not appear to care about the insights and thoughts of mere congregations (they are “prophetic” and we non-seminary educated ignoramuses). I could go on, but overall I see some of the same sort of arrogance in the general church that I see in the federal government. What we need is communication and leadership. What we have is bureaucracy and politics.
That’s an excellent post, comment, John H – and explains the sentiment I am finding around the Connection. A lot of arrogance in the General Boards/Agencies has left a very very poor taste in the mouths of many. Better communication and more contact time with those who support their work would go a very very long way.
This discussion is one of those “stormy petrels” that shows up just before the big blow; in other words, a harbinger of frothy seas ahead. If anything kicked support for connectionalism in the head it has been scene after scene of arrogant disruption and attempted coup de main of General Conference by North American elites. All of this live-streamed into our screens at home…
I appreciate your trying to be generous in your portrayal of my words in your first scenario. You could have pilloried me as I’ve seen you do others with whom you disagree, so I’m grateful that you used a less offensive summary. Still, I don’t think it was right to group my words with the Tea Party, as I believe they are informed by something very different from Tea Party concerns. And Jeremy, I just don’t think it’s helpful to categorize anyone’s statements with a particular political party. It undercuts and caricatures various arguments without giving them a fair listen. I have faith that you will find a way to write articles about real topics, articles that are engaging and stimulating, articles with wide readership, without the use of inflammatory tag lines.
The problem I spoke to is not that we send our money out or that we are concerned with international issues. My opening words on the floor of AC explicitly applauded our call to concern. The critique I shared is that we smugly make pronouncements about our moral indignation as a balm to heal our guilt for being too lazy to actually do something about it. I’m tired of smug Christians wasting everyone else’s time with moral platitudes. Our history is too rich and our call too great to spend our breath trying to solve problems by issuing statements.
We are called to make disciples for the transformation of the world, and it goes in that order. Wesley and the people called Methodists brought the UK out of fiscal depression by teaching spiritual discipline on the micro level, which then spread internationally. Methodists at our best change the world by working from the ground up. Top-down exercises of power, lived out in the UMC making nonbinding social principles, action requests, and resolutions, only serve to water down our energy to act. We can’t walk and chew gum. Our track record for the last 100 years shows this. It’s a real problem that we need to address honestly without being associated with political movements that the majority of UMs turn their noses up at. You can disagree, but please don’t caricature.
I think you misunderstand the Tea Party movement, sir.