108 - Single Bishop

Download paper_108.pdf

Merged into Paper 101

Comments

[Chadwick Anderson]

I guess I don't understand...why does this seem like a good idea? One person over the entire denomination?

[Casey Taylor]

Why not just elect a pope? Better yet - we'll rejoin Rome! :)

[Curtis Turner]

The Roman Catholic Church has five tiers of leadership, the Pope being the ultimate interpreter of church law "God's will."

A Free Methodist "Pope?" I don't think so.

[Sarah Ehlers]

Is this a wise cost saving measure? This idea does not apprear to promote growth. Are we going forward or backward?

[Pastor Jim]

Great cost saving idea. I would suggest though, rather than have one single bishop over the whole denomination. Appoint superintendants as bishop on a rotating basis throughout the general conference. You could delegate the things the bishops do now to the various conferences, saving more cost, and avoid the appearance of any kind of "popery"

[Pastor Jim]

OR... better yet. just appoint all the existing supers as bishops since that is the capacity in which they are functioning and delegate all the things THE board of bishops do to them. saving duplicity of task and title and making more resources available to the local church.

[David Bicksler]

I think the author(s) of this resolution should be commended for starting a discussion among Free Methodists that is long overdue. My greatest concern is that we as Free Methodists (bishops, superintendents, pastors, lay people, and others) are persistently disobeying Christ’s command to go and make disciples (Mt 28:19-20). Jesus said in John 4:35 “open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.” With over 50 years of unfruitfulness in a country that now has over 300 million people, we are either disobedient (as I believe) – or Jesus was wrong about the U.S. and our Bibles are inaccurate (which I don’t believe).

I’ve gathered far more statistics on how Free Methodists are failing to plant churches and make disciples in resolution #910, and in papers and spreadsheets on www.fmnetwork.org, but here’s a few facts for the discussion:

During BT Roberts’ time as the single General Superintendent before 1900, 944 U.S. Free Methodist churches were added in the first 40 years. In the next 105 years (1900-2005), just 50 more churches were added. With just 994 U.S. churches in 2005, we now have 274 fewer churches than our peak of 1268 in 1953, and 195 fewer churches than in 1925. Between 1996-2006 over 348 U.S. churches were closed, discontinued, withdrawn, became inactive, or just vanished. In 2005, most churches were stagnant or declining by having no positive growth in members (60%), attenders (56%), and converts (71%). Just 10% of all churches grew all 3 in 2005. Just 3 out of 28 conference groups grew in all 4 of churches, members, attenders, and converts. Almost 100% of the churches have never planted a daughter church. And if we counted those people who were actively making disciples in each church who obey Mt 28, most churches would record zero since no one is reproducing themselves - including most pastors.

Leaders are responsible for these outcomes. At a minimum, I feel a bishop should have pastored a church that planted other daughter churches, which in turn planted daughter churches. In resolution #910 I recommend that candidates for bishop have created a network of at least 24 churches as pastor before being considered for bishop. I also recommend that once they have demonstrated that fruitfulness, then give them the title and responsibilities of bishop but let them continue in their effective pastoral leadership role to mentor others. My fear is that no one is currently qualified for bishop, according to this test of fruitfulness, so what shall we do if that is so?

The title of bishop was adopted by the General Conference in August 1907, after 46 years of calling the presiding officer “General Superintendent.” This year’s General Conference could change the title of the presiding officer again if the delegates felt appropriate. One option is to have a single General Superintendent (and no bishops) who is the most fruitful person we can find to administrate headquarters, teach, and mentor others. Another is to update the administrator’s title to CEO that would combine the COO from resolution #202 and CFO from #207 into a single management position. To elect people without demonstrated fruitfulness in the vain hope that once elected they will have all the spiritual qualities we need them to have is to repeat the mistake of Matthias in Acts 1 before the Holy Spirit came in Acts 2. Peter and the others felt a replacement Apostle could be selected through human means. But Matthias is not heard of again in the New Testament, while Paul was selected on the road to Damascus to ultimately be the 12th Apostle and write most of the New Testament as letters to churches he founded. So evidently they made a mistake, one we should not make again today in selecting our presiding officers.

If we are disobedient to Christ, then Mt 28 has not even reached us to make us obedient disciples. Repentance and surrender to Christ as Lord is needed before we consider anything else, otherwise many who call themselves Free Methodists may have a shock in the day of judgment when Jesus says “I never knew you.”

Before you comment on this, please read the background in resolution #910 and on www.fmnetwork.org otherwise I fear we “won’t be on the same page” with our discussion. This discussion should include all the GC delegates, indeed all the U.S. churches and conferences, as we all return to obedience to Christ as His disciples.

[Casey Taylor]

Does obedience to Matthew 28 guarantee a numerical result? If I may say so, David, your reading of Matthew 28 and its consequences for us sounds a bit like a mathematical equation. If I'm interpreting you incorrectly or unfairly, please correct me. In any case, this is one of the difficulties I've had with the church growth movement. There seems to be an assumption that numerical growth is a sign of holiness.

Moreover, what case can be made to apply such a stringent guidelines for potential bishops? Can we make the case from the Bible? Can we make it from tradition? Reason? Experience? Biblically, church leaders are not chosen based on their potential "fruitfulness." CEO's do not a pastor/bishop make. Moreover, if we use Paul's selection as an apostle as an example, it would seem a poor example. After all, he did all those wonderful things for the kingdom AFTER being put into a leadership position, not before.

I'll agree to one thing: the FMC needs a good long conversation about ecclesiology. We need a theological explanation as to why we should adopt business models of organization and leadership, such as "CEO."

[David Bicksler]

Jesus described the fields as "ripe for harvest" which means to any farmer that there will be harvest he can measure, put into the barn, and sell at market. So given enough time, there must be a numerical result or Jesus' words don't remain true. The second part is that over 50-100 years, Free Methodists have been on the "field" of the U.S. territory long enough to reap that harvest - if we were seriously trying to obey Jesus. Yet, there isn't the fruit. Since leaders are responsible in large part for outcomes, I recommend we select leaders who can lead us to reaping the harvest already here in the U.S. Just like Apollos was not elected as a leader but was recognized by his fruitfulness as a powerful promoter of Christianity, and Paul was recognized as an Apostle based on the churches he planted, so too Free Methodists should select people for higher office who already have demonstrated fruit. I suggest that bishops be people who have already planted not just one church, but churches who in turn plant other reproducing churches. The hard part is recognizing that we may not have anyone currently qualified, and it may take 5-10 years of work before we have qualified people once pastors start trying this. If we keep doing what we've always done, we will keep seeing the lack of fruit which Jesus wants. Jesus, who doesn't want anyone to go to Hell, wants to count the fruit - not just imagine that it might be there. The unharvested fruit that rots in the field brings the farmer no joy. So too Jesus doesn't want souls lost due to our refusal to harvest them.

[Casey Taylor]

Yet another problem I've had with the church growth movement: redefining the classical definition of "apostle." Apostles are not by definition those who plant churches. Apostles are - first and foremost - those who have encountered the risen Christ and are thereafter sent as messengers of the gospel. Granted, those original messengers (be they the Twelve or the Seventy) most likely planted "churches," but that does not mean that "church planter = apostle."

I admit that we all want to see churches sharing the gospel and seeing people respond positively to the gospel. But their response is NOT ultimately determined by us. They have the choice to decide for or against the gospel, a key conviction of Wesleyans. The sort of evangelistic calculus being proposed here to define bishops sounds much more like a closed-system characteristic of the Calvinist tradition than Wesleyan.

And I still think one bishop - no matter how the role is defined - is a bad idea.

[David Bicksler]

Casey, at Duke Divinity have you read about how churches can spontaneously multiply daughter churches if they are planted the right way, and there is a strong discipleship program across a network of churches with lay church planters doing most of the new training? Have you personally been discipled within a strong, obedience-oriented discipleship relationship, such as the one-on-one Navigators’ training that results in disciples who completely give themselves to Jesus as Savior and Lord (master, owner) of their lives? Since you’re from California, have you ever taken the Perspectives on the World Christian Movement course offered by the U.S. Center for World Missions? If you would read the background I spoke of (all 29 pages of resolution #910, and the papers on www.fmnetwork.org), you would see material that could help you get on the "same page" in our discussion. After you read those, Dawson Trotman’s booklet “Born to Reproduce” and Juan Carlos Ortiz’ book Disciple would be good next. Links to those and other resources are on the web site under Discipleship Resources.

As is, you THINK you know what I'm talking about and keep attacking the "straw man" of the "church growth movement." We’re getting into what I feared – uninformed discussion from not everyone reading the necessary background. I am not talking about human-inspired gimmicks for “growth” but instead the historical way the gospel reached the world. Indeed, you and I would not be calling ourselves Christians if a very long line of obedient disciples of Christ from the first century on had not done what I’m proposing.

I’m also NOT proposing a “single bishop” to be like a pope who orders everyone around and thinks he/she has the sole source of truth from God. I am saying that we should NOT elect unqualified people, and that leaving bishop positions vacant is preferable to the “vote and see what happens” paradigm Free Methodists now use. If no qualified fruitful people can be found to be bishop, we will still need an administrator for headquarters while the churches and conferences start doing what resolution #910 proposes. It is this administrator (who need not be clergy) that I said could be given an updated title other than bishop.

In past General Conferences and even within resolutions listed here, there is a crying out for more information on prospective candidates for bishops because many people realize that those selected have not been the leaders we need. You see this in the “vote for just your own area bishop” to “distribute resumes ahead of time” and comments critical of the “momentum voting” system where candidates are selected in ignorance because across a number of ballots the momentum of people voting randomly happens to go their way. Some people reminisce of the strong spiritual life with BT Roberts as the single General Superintendent, and resolution #108 would like to regain that period of excitement AND spiritual growth AND numerical growth. By the way, the similarities between “random voting” for bishop and the casting of lots that resulted in Matthias are eerily similar, and we too have leaders that don’t distinguish themselves through their fruit.

Again I say that Jesus’ word is true. The harvest of souls IS OUT THERE in the U.S. ready for us once we obey. Yes, people can choose to reject Christ. But, Jesus said there are others who will respond like the seed falling into the good soil which multiplies itself 30, 60, even 100 times. And to obey Christ, anything that hinders must be given up. This includes personal sins, man-made church traditions, and some issues of history and polity you’ve spoken of that keep us disobedient to Christ’s command to make disciples. As Peter said to the religious leaders, “We must obey God rather than men!” when the leaders were in conflict with what God wants to do. Anything less, and we ourselves would not be disciples of Christ. So please, read and learn so we can carry this discussion to a far higher level. You might be used by God someday to found entire networks of new Free Methodist conferences!

[Sarah Ehlers]

David, I can tell you feel very passionately about this issue. Please try not to be defensive. I had voiced a small objection quite a bit earlier in this discourse. I am asking why we would want to decrease the number of workers when there is so much work to do. I think cost savings was mentioned in the resolution "General Conference Financial strain". From what I hear our Bishops are already stretch too thin. I do not understand why we would want fewer of them. "In a multitude of councilors, there is safety."

[David Bicksler]

Sarah, I believe resolution #910 shows us that the “workers” are mostly people from local churches who aren’t paid, and NOT the bishops and other leaders who are far from local ministries that are responsible for nearly all conversions and disciples made. If you look at the 11,790 U.S. conversions in 2005, nearly all of them came from local churches. And churches can plant strong daughter churches themselves using the Patterson model, replacing the ridiculously expensive church planting models we use today that also cause so many church plants to fail.

If we raise up disciplemakers and church planters in local churches using the Patterson model, that will bring far more converts, disciples, and growth than electing 4 or more bishops who don’t have the fruitful experience before being elected. Indeed, if we keep pastors IN their fruitful ministries after electing them bishop, that avoids the cost of bishops (about 0.3% of total church income). Keeping superintendents pastoring churches like Arizona would save even more, about 1.5% of church income. It isn’t just the money, because bishops without church planting and personal disciplemaking experiences actually do more harm because their hearts aren’t right. Effective pastors get expelled inappropriately, living churches get closed, property seized using the Trust Deed clause, and terrible policies are enacted because the priorities of the leaders are on other things besides obeying Jesus’ commands. Look at resolution #901 from the national BOA which wants to seize and shut down even more churches than the 348 we closed 1996-2006 by inserting “permanently” into the Trust Clause for all local churches. I know of a church in California who came into the denomination with a building, then left when the church had a different ministry vision to reach the inner city than the conference. That church which in 2002 had 415 adult members, 350 at worship, and 210 converts would have been forced out without their building, possibly closing their church. Instead, they settled financially with the conference and left to continue serving the cause of Christ. Praise the Lord! With 4 bishops, superintendents, and other lay people on that board, this resolution shows the depth of the problem with the hearts of the leaders. It is one resolution that would best be withdrawn. Most lay people would prefer a weakening of the Trust Deed clause, especially so that it can NEVER seize and close living churches that people have invested so much in. Check the web site for more details on closed churches. Collecting them brought me immense sadness, especially since I was also in two churches treated with hostility by two conferences. Having the wrong leaders also wastes a lot of time for pastors, who are required to go to many unproductive meetings because the leader wants everything to revolve around themselves.

If qualified people can be found, I’d love to have hundreds of bishops and superintendents who lead WHLE pastoring local churches, and forming networks of spontaneously multiplying churches. If such qualified people cannot be found, I’d rather leave the bishop offices vacant with just an administrator. I believe the discipling efforts can occur outside of the bishop structure to teach people in the churches how to start being disciples and making disciples. Patterson (resolution #910) shows us how, and the web site www.fmnetwork.org has resources. So I believe the bishops may be unnecessary, especially if they don’t start with the proper fruitful experience.

[Kristy Andresen]

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the evidence presented that the hearts of our leaders are not right. I can agree that the current structure and responsibilities of our leaders pull them away from active ministry and into administrative tasks. This indicates a problem with administrative structure, not necessarily a spiritual issue.

I believe the statistical evidence presented may point to a larger problem of follower commitment to the task of reaching everyone for Christ. I'm not convinced that that implementing another church growth and discipleship program. I don't deny that it would bring about results, but I question trying to script heart changes by following a cookie-cutter approach to discipleship.

I believe it's more important for all Christians to focus on loving God and out of that love for God to love themselves and others. This requires flexibility and reliance on God (faith & relationship with the Holy Spirit) to assist in knowing how best to show His love at the individual level. In this "method," one approach doesn't fit all and the results are not guaranteed. This difficult, but more effective method of discipling is the one I see used by Christ and his disciples in Scripture.

Our leaders have been calling for this type of outreach through the One More Soul initiative. It is up to us to answer this call.

Kristy Andresen
Everett FMC, WA

[Curtis Turner]

Bicksler's comment on a bishop planting at least 24 churches before being considered for that office is interesting. We know of cases where a person in the Toledo, Ohio, area intends to plant at least 100 churches in his lifetime. He holds a Baptist affiliation but is tied to his denominational preference loosely. As a matter of course he tries to find young men who are called of God to serve as ministers of the churches he plants. He also seeks funding from independent sources to pay their salaries until the churches get on their feet as self-sustaining. It is an interesting model and might we not consider the same one by urging new seminary graduates to strike out and plant a church. Some remarkable churches have arrisen by such a concept of laymen raising up churches in our own denomination. A prominent example might be Waukegan Free Methodist Church. These churches have a freshness and newness and are untrammeled by much of the negatives that have been associated with our past . . . legalism, intransigence, etc.

[David Roller]

Just to chime into the conversation...some interesting comments.
I must react though to the characterization of Bishops' hearts "not being right" just because they are deployed in a task which is not front-lines evangelism or church reproduction.
We all have different tasks within the great body, no reason to suggest that because one task is different from another that somehow one set of workers' hearts aren't right.
Sure, the tasks the FMC currently assigns its supervisors have a heavy administrative component. But, those tasks are being done, by the bishops I've had the opportunity to observe, out of the context of profound personal Christian experience.