Part 2: Structures in the United Methodist Church Which Hinder (aka, walls to clear)
In the last part, here, I listed these 3 “walls” to clear.
1. The structure itself and how to “classify” a missional community who are able to jump geographical Conferences in a single bound!
2. Old perceptions of “what defines church”? (Don’t we all need to be a mega-church, in one location?)
3. And, the concept and theology of pastoral authority and “ordering the life” of the church.
The great thing about missional communities is that there are literally no geographical boundaries for starting, growing or cropping-up! They are an exponential growth explosion rather than a controlled small flame. They should not stay ‘where you put them.’
The idea is this. If we can plant a missional community, then members of that missional community can plant another. They don’t actually require “the pastor” to say “go forward.” But, if someone moves away to another town, they don’t leave “your church” – they expand your territory! They are resourced and connected with you so that they can start what happened where they came from! What pastor among us would like to stay connected with their parishioners – and know they are still growing in faith?
The United Methodist Church structures for mission by dividing geographical regions into "Annual Conferences" and one Bishop oversees that geographical area. But "missional communities" are not limited by geography. Can the two concepts play nicely together?
And, it means this new community, a child of your original group, could birth another community, creating a grand-child group you’ve never seen or heard about as the pastor! That grand-child group could be clear across the country.
I have discovered a huge wall within the United Methodist Church around the geography of this concept. It’s almost as big and controversial as the immigration question for the United States. At what point does the Bishop of that “clear across the country” group get to say “You’re not United Methodist”? Or, at what point does that “clear across the country” group get to say “We are United Methodist”? Hmmmm. Territories are a controlling influence within the UMC.
In the best of scenarios, the Bishop of the Annual Conference geography is Spirit minded and realizes she or he doesn’t actually establish churches, but that Jesus does and we respond in faith with a “yes.” That’s easier said than done. It’s not only bishops which struggle with how to do this honoring Jesus, it’s also the constituency, and fellow pastors, us pastors who want a bit more control, oversight, and order.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . .” At what point does the system keep the Spirit from controlling? “But Lord, we have this system for making disciples of all nations!” What if it doesn’t quite fit in our geographical system.
Or does it? Isn’t there a way for a missional community to honor the UMC system and Christ? If we believe the System is God’s choosing and we believe Christ is calling a new way of forming and defining faith communities/churches, then I would say this:
There must be a third way – a way to mediate between the needs of both the United Methodist structure and the missional community structure. We are experimenting with those ways.
Water’s Edge Partnership hopes to plant missional communities across the entire Chesapeake Bay, and beyond (like Myrtle Beach and Florida). Boaters are mobile and they don’t stay in one location. Neither does our ministry – we go with them. So, if we leave Maryland waters and go to Virginia, are we Baltimore-Washington Conference or Virginia Conference? The Bay has a larger coastline than the entire West Coast of the United States, and includes within it’s waters 4 separate Conferences and 2 jurisdictions. Phew.
There has got to be a way.
Good news! I am discovering very Spirit led Conference leaders as they grapple with how to name and claim this ministry plant. The first way we tried was by establishing Water’s Edge Partnership as an Extension Ministry. As you probably know there are a few concepts around the Extension Ministry status that works for this whole missional community church plant. First off, an extension ministry is not limited to one Conference and can spread as far as it’s mission allows. Second, it is squarely aimed at ministry outside the walls of the local, existing church.
But alas, extension ministry was denied by the Committee on Extension Ministry of the Board of Ordained Ministry in the Virginia Conference. The Conference couldn’t see how an extension ministry could be allowed to establish a new church start. What part would the Bishop and Cabinet play in deciding where the new church start would be located?
Although I have some issues with that “boxed-up” philosophy, the goal is to press on and find another way to connect a missional community within our United Methodist system. (I remain a fan of this approach, in case you didn’t catch on! My understanding is that the Bishop and Cabinet would be playing the same role as they do now. The Spirit leads, we discuss and the Bishop rules.)
There are two other ways I can see a missional community following the structural guidelines of the UMC.
- Attach ourselves as a new church start with one particular Conference, and as each group begins, establish communication and requests for “new church start” status in the next Conference. The drawback to this approach is it requires a lot of paperwork, Conference relationship maintenance, and meetings! (Red tape at each step.)
- Attach ourselves to one church as the parent church and become an arm of ministry – something like the Missional Communities arm. In other words, see it either as a multi-site establishment or as a missionary outreach with a mobile community. The problem will come when we serve Holy Communion or Baptize!
In effect, there is no perfect solution. Instead it is finding a “bandaid approach” which spans the geography and allows the Missional Community to be encouraged while being fully United Methodist. In that approach, I believe Conferences will have to be completely encouraging of their entrepreneurial pastors and lay persons, while they communicate with their Boards and committees the value of finding a way. The church needs exponential movements of the Spirit – and bold, new leadership for a renewal.
Part 3 coming when I have time! (Climbing over the wall of our concept and theology for pastoral authority and division between laity and clergy.)
