BOA ACTION: Forwarded to General Conference 2011 for consideration.
GCRCC Status: Forwarded for July 2011 General Conference action
GC11 ACTION: Rejected
Introduced by: Ohio Conference Delegation
Written by: Ohio Conference Delegation
Related to Paragraph(s) #: 4110 A
Whereas:
a single leader allows the church (the Body of Christ) to be nimble and responsive, timely and effective and
WHEREAS forward moving and effective organizations are led by a single leader and
WHEREAS a single leader who speaks consistenetly to and for the church provides clarity and continuity and
WHEREAS multiple leaders make it less likely that any one individual takes overall responsiblity for the big picture and
WHEREAS a single bishop would be primarily accoutable to the Board of Administration (independently elected – both clergy and lay) rather than a Board of Bishops (peers), thereby creating clear lines of accountability and authority
Therefore, be it resolved:
that the 2011 General Conference elect one bishop to lead the chruch.
Does the resolution have a direct relationship to the vision and mission of the Free Methodist Church?
Yes.
How will the proposed change help us accomplish our vision and mission?
We, the Ohio Conference delegation are thankful for the Free Methodist Church, our heritage and our leaders, both past and present. Our current Bishops are leading admirably. However, our structure mitigates a cohesive vision and focused mission. This resolution is not a critique of current leadership, rather it is a suggestion about radically changing our structure to free a single leader to more effectively and strategically accomplish what the church calls him or her to do.
WHY THIS RESOLUTION?
Throughout history, when God wanted to do something big in the world, he started with a single person. We need one person who will speak to and for the church as a whole. That person will then be accountable to and responsible for the rest of the church at a level no group of persons can be. It results in clear lines of authority and accountability. A team led by a single leader can be more nimble and responsive. We have often used the analogy that it takes a long time to turn a ship. Perhaps we need a more Biblical metaphor: the church is a body! Bodies are designed to move quickly and responsively. May the same be said of our church!
Moving forward requires a single and cohesive vision. Teams without a clearly identified leader most often operate as a collection of individuals. The best way to build an effective team that functions with purpose is to have a clearly identified leader.
WHY NOW?
We must face the facts. We are not as large of a denomination as we believe ourselves to be. As reported in the 2009 Yearbook, nearly 45% of the Free Methodist Churches in the United States have a morning worship attendance of 50 or fewer. (Citing this statistic is not intended to devalue smaller churches or delegitimize their ministry. However, for evaluation to take place, we must honestly observe the data.) As early as 1853, B. T. Roberts began considering keeping up with population growth as a minimum standard for church growth. (Populist Saints, p. 247.) In fact, we have not consistently held ourselves accountable as a denomination.
In his book, Deep Change, Robert Quinn uses the bell curve to illustrate the lifecycle of organizations. He suggests surviving long term entails willingness to take the risk to jump to a new paradigm (what he calls deep change). He defines deep change this way: It is change so radical that an organization cannot return to the way things previously were. He suggests that all organizations come to points where they must choose between deep change (jumping to a new curve) and slow death (tinkering with systems while remaining on the same trajectory). Sadly, it seems that we have not had the fortitude as a denomination to make deep change. In our opinion, that means we are, in reality choosing slow death.
AREN’T OUR BISHOPS TOO BUSY ALREADY?
This is exactly the problem. Our bishops are too busy! And every time we make incremental change we add more to their plate, not less! They have been shackled by roles and expectations that have defined most of what they do. Much of their time is spent on location in our mission fields physically administering the church abroad. A radical shift in our structure would necessitate a single bishop reinvent the office. It would give permission for him or her to create new roles and expectations, freeing time to focus on vision and mission.
HOW WOULD THE CHURCH BE ORGANIZED?
We understand that this would necessitate a radical change in the organizational structure of the church. As a matter of fact, it would enhance the opportunity to use gift based ministry. As we discover in the local church, a single leader can hone in on areas of need and build a team accordingly. We would expect that one bishop would have freedom to do the same. There would be a heightened necessity for team leadership, as he or she would need to recruit and empower leaders who would focus on specific areas of ministry. There would be enhanced lines of authority and accountability. This structure would also elevate the role of the General Church Board of Administration as they would be the primary body to which this one bishop would report (as opposed to reporting to the Board of Bishops who are administrative peers).
DOESN’T THIS VEST TOO MUCH POWER IN ONE PERSON?
This question is born out of fear rather than strategic vision. As has already been stated, there is always risk in deep change. However, it has been demonstrated throughout Scripture and history that when God wanted to create deep change, he used one individual through whom he worked to lead. We need a single leader to become the primary influencer in our denomination. A single leader–that’s how we structure the local church and our conferences; it is how our educational institutions are led; we recognize its value in our Department of World Missions. Certainly we could benefit from that same organizational strategy in the primary leadership of the church.
The Resolutions Committee rates this resolution as:
(A) Support – recommend adoption
Related posts:
My hope is that this can be discussed and worked through this general conference.
For more thoughts on the one bishop resolution go to http://gc11thinkingtogether.blogspot.com
I would suggest to start with the older posts first. We started this blog long before this space became available.
Letter of Response to Ohio Delegation re: resolution for a single bishop
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Thank you for your desire to see the Free Methodist Church go forward and your intent to foster a growing conversation across the denomination.
We, too, want to see God’s kingdom come and His will done in and through a people He raised up called Free Methodists. Though we connect with you in our hearts, it seems we have some issues to discuss before there is a real meeting of the minds.
Allow us to delineate for you some reasons why we respectfully disagree with your resolution for a single bishop of the Free Methodist Church.
Your claim that “throughout history, whenever God wanted to do something big in the world, he started with a single person” seems to be an oversimplification. It seems apparent to us in Scripture that though God started with Abraham, the primary vehicle that God chose to use to bless the nations and reverse the effects of the fall was initially the nation of Israel. In fact, Israel’s desire for a single, lone king was deemed nearly idolatrous. Since the time Christ walked this earth, God’s work has been entrusted to the church at large, a holy NATION, a chosen PEOPLE.
Your claim that a lone leader will set our church in the right direction seems to be patterned more on American models of individualism than on the biblical patterns of Adam and Eve, Moses and Aaron, David and Jonathan, Jesus and the twelve, Paul and Barnabas and other partners on his missionary journeys, etc. When Jesus sent out the 72, he did it in pairs. Ministry is made to be done in teams. The lone ranger mentality is more American than biblical. The “Single Bishop” proposal seems deeply indebted to corporate American culture, and though having a CEO is more efficient, it is also more prone to abuse and alienates the “people” from leadership.
Free Methodism in particular has always distrusted concentrating too much power in the hands of the few. B. T. Roberts was ousted from the Methodist Episcopal Church at the hands of a few elite powerful men. As a reaction to this, Free Methodist polity was deliberately structured to keep checks and balances against the powerful, and encouraged leaders to listen to the voice of the people. Within fourteen years of our founding as a denomination, our forefathers saw the wisdom of expanding from one general superintendent to two and later more.
The classic Protestant understanding of the priesthood of all believers certainly seems to emphasize the role of the collective people over a privileged few believers, and one of the emphases of the Great Reformation was to take power from the dominate few and return it to the people (hence the Bible being translated into the vernacular, etc.) A move to a single bishop seems to be a step away from that egalitarian emphasis.
In the first centuries of church history, when important decisions were to be made a large gathering or Council of all church leaders was called to make doctrinal and missional decisions, and only later did the Papacy develop followed by papal infallibility. A checkered history of the church under the leadership of the pontiff throughout the Middle Ages substantiates the maxim: “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
One of the things that strikes us as ironic is that in a time when our bishops are calling us to be more missional, this proposal seems to militate against that. Modern literature on missional movements in the church actually emphasizes less hierarchy and not more. Alan Hirsch’s “The Forgotten Ways” examines the first three centuries of the church and also the house church movement in 20th century China — both of which spread organically rather than within a rigid top-down ecclesiological model. One of the basics of missional church models is that they are not highly structured, more democratic, and are generally incompatible with top-down leadership.
Finally, it is important that we speak to the positives of multiple leaders in unity. For the leadership and vision of the church at large, it is a much more powerful statement to say that three bishops are of one heart and mind rather than one person has made a decision. Vision is embodied by shared commitment, not by an authority saying this is the way it should be. Multiple bishops have an opportunity to model to the church in their leadership together the unity of direction we should all share. And, if they can’t agree, what chance does the entire FMCNA have of becoming a “movement” again?
We’d be delighted to dialog more with you on this issue because we are family and we all want what is best for the Kingdom. However, with the aforementioned reservations in mind, we cannot concur with your proposal for a single bishop, and would favor instead, continuing to operate under the leadership of multiple bishops.
Thank you for your prayerful consideration of our reflections,
Your brothers and sisters in Christ of the Wabash Delegation.
Authors: Herb W. Coates (delegate); Greg R. Coates (reserve delegate)
With having come into the FMC from serving twelve plus years in the United Methodist Church, I’m quite used to serving under Bishops who administrate 700 – 900 Churches. How refreshing it was for me to meet our three more personal North American FMC Bishops last fall, and to have their wisdom, faith, and ways touch my heart and life. They are a great credit to the work of God in this world today, and we actually need more of them. Having been pointed to FMC 2011 General Conference Resolution No. 6 by a FMC leader in my home state of Michigan, I had to smile. It would reduce the number of North American Bishops to one, for to more effectively work administration and possibly reduce costs. I can’t help but concur with the Wabash Conference voice above. If a Chief Executive Officer is elected for the FMC, methinks (a British word) that we’d do well to call him or her by the title CEO (or ‘President of the FMC’ like Open Bible Churches and others).
But, we need our Bishops my friends. If we double in size in the next five years as we could and should, I would hope that we’d need at least four more FMC Bishops for the work in North America, seven being a nice Biblical number! Or, if we do need a single national voice for money reasons, please make our Conference Superintendents all Bishops! We need our Bishops. We need an email, call, letter or card from them. They lead people serving people. We need to have them over to dinner in our homes if at all possible, a true high point for any FMC pastor! (Wouldn’t that be great if they could all do 50 dinners a year with different pastors around their region? ‘House calls’ so to say?) If you did not know, if the UMC drifts any farther left we might get an immediate 3 – 5 million UMC members seeking solace within our FMC doors… Now that would push us to elect a few Bishops, don’t you think? I just graduated from a UMC seminary. I’ve served under six UMC Bishops. They’re the most powerful religious persons in the world, per an Episcopal priest friend of mine.
Notwithstanding that the early Church used a group of apostles in leadership, with councils that HAD to work together (now there’s a concept, eh?) and all of it via elders who were chosen for the work with the greatest of gifts and faithfulness. We have such leaders! Let’s keep them please, or even add to them. (And I think that I too have the Holy Spirit.) Let’s not down-size or go corporate. Please. Let’s not see value in having a king. Let’s remember our founder John Wesley, who was a faithful apostle of the movement now claiming us and some 60 million others around the world. He can easily be inferred on the subject. (He challenges me today to write better sermons: “Once in seven years I burn all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better sermons now than I did seven years ago.”)
I need my FMC Bishop friends, and I suspect that my colleague in Evanton, IL needs his Bishop. As well as the pastor in Seattle… I whole-heartedly support our three North American Bishops, true and spiritual modern-day apostles, and I would to God for more such workers ‘in the harvest.’ Please keep our Bishops. It’s time for offense, not ‘reduction’-ary defense. The US is too big and the work is too great for one. Even God is triune! The whole push in the scriptures is for servant-leaders within expansive community, not for corporate (non-profit) kingpins. But if you must have a single North American FMC Bishop, PLEASE get him or her a Lear jet. There’s not going to be enough time for him or her to take scheduled commercial flights around the globe, what with the awesome responsibilities of the work and its focus.
Yours,
Pastor Stephen Reyner
Ironia FMC
Randolph, NJ