Will Power Grabs Harm The United Methodist Church?  This month the General Conference of The United Methodist Church will be meeting.  They will be considering a proposal by our Bishops and some Mega-Church Pastors to restructure much of our Denomination.  Many of our Denominations boards will be eliminated and power concentrated in a small 10 person committee dominated by our Bishops and larger churches.  Likewise, while the system of appointing pastors by a Bishop will remain, they are proposing to eliminate the guaranteed appointment of Pastors.

These changes I believe would have two tragic and perhaps unforeseen effects.  First, by eliminating the guaranteed appointment yet retaining the Bishop's power to appoint clergy, the Bishops will have the sole power to determine which pastors serve churches and which pastors will be removed from the ministry.  It is said that this will eliminate incompetence, yet procedures already exist to remove incompetent pastors and Bishops seldom use this power.

Why is this dangerous?  Sometimes as a matter of conscious Pastors speak in opposition to established policies and procedures.  Sometimes we are called to question the intentions of those in authority.  With this new power Bishops can use the threat of removal to get those who question to "tow the line."  The result will be less diversity of opinion in our clergy and more pressure to conform.  If the appointment system is outdated, how about letting the Pastors apply to churches when their is an opening and remove the middle management of the Bishops and District Superintends.   This would at least make for a less arbitrary and vindictive process.  We should be suspicious of all grabs for power that can inhibit freedom of thought.

Likewise the power grab of eliminating many of our Boards and Agencies can likewise inhibit free thought and expression.  Yes, bureaucracies can at times be unwieldy.  I am sure there are cost savings that can be made by efficiency.  However, we are not only a nation-wide, but a world wide church.  It is important that the concerns of the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, ethnic groups and theological perspectives be respected.  A small group dominated by Bishops will most likely not be representative.

I'm suspicious of all power grabs.  This seems to be another one which is not only being pushed by our Episcopal Leaders, but also by some Mega-church pastors who have been flexing their muscle to get their opinion out there, but also to influence the election of delegates.  Such radical change should not be made suddenly without adequate prayer and study throughout the entire church.  If we trade efficiency for tyranny, we might regret it in the long run

In my 27 years of full-time service in our Denomination, I've seen a lot of changes.  But many of them have been to favor and encourage larger congregations to grow larger and to cripple smaller ministries which may be just as vital in their own settings.  In the past items like Pastor's health insurance was shared among all the churches on their ability to pay by means of the apportionment system.  Now as each church is billed for their Pastor's health insurance a larger burden is placed on smaller and poorer ministries.  Likewise, we are not allowed to seek more affordable insurance outside the church's structure (for example buying into a spouses program).  Cost was transferred from larger churches to smaller churches.  Thus many smaller ministries went to part time service.  This only contributed to the further decline of small churches.

Another change was the elimination of membership size from the apportionment formula.  Most of the costs of maintaining a congregation are fixed costs for building utilities etc.  When membership is not included in the calculation the apportionments go down for large congregations, up for small congregations -- another injustice.

What has been the result of this reward for "growth".  It's actually been an increase in our decline.  Small churches may seem inefficient but they are often filled with a vitality of service and devotion.  Some of them are in rural communities that can't support larger endeavors.  Others are in difficult urban situations struggling to find new meaning and purpose and to reach out with limited resources.  We complain that our small membership churches are loosing more members.  I contend it's not because they haven't been faithful, but because the system as become stacked against them.

This year we saw the "Occupy Wall Street" movement remind us that while 1% may be benefiting from changes in tax policy, the 99% were suffering a great injustice.  In the United Methodist Church, I feel like I'm part of the 99% who seeks to serve faithfully and well a difficult situation, but our system is changing to benefit the 1% who already have much and want to hold on to what they have rather than share to become a blessing to others.

I pray that our General Conference delegates won't be mislead by a movement to trade efficiency for freedom.  I also pray they won't forget about the small churches.  Not every church can be a mega church and not everyone wants to attend one.  If we eliminated all our churches under 100 in attendance would our people really flock to the United Methodist Mega Churches -- or would they find a smaller congregation of another faith?  I am fearful that this drive for efficiency might just leave our Denomination with a few mega churches, many less members and a bitterness from which we will never recover.  If the Christian model of success was a mega-church then Jesus was a failure.  He had 12 disciples and all but one abandoned him when he was on the cross.  Yet that small fearful group changed the world.  Restructuring may be necessary, but grasps for power are always dangerous.  I pray our General Conference can find a better way.