Full Inclusion: Reflections on General Conference 2019

I am sure that many of you heard on the news this week that the United Methodist Church (UMC) held a special General Conference last week where they tightened the ban on homosexual ordination and marriage. This morning, I want to share a little history on this issue, explain what happened, and then talk about what this means for First UMC Cocoa Beach. In the process, I will share from my heart about how these decisions have impacted me personally and as a pastor in this denomination.

The UMC has been deeply divided on issues related to human sexuality for a long time. Our Book of Disciple (BOD) states that all persons are individuals of sacred worth and are welcome to fully participate in all the ministries of the local church, including baptism, church membership, Holy Communion, and lay leadership. However, it goes on to say, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and, therefore “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be ordained as ministers, same-sex weddings cannot be held in United Methodist Churches, and our pastors cannot preside over same-sex weddings.

Over the course of many years, a growing majority of American United Methodists have come to believe that this language is discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of Christ revealed in scripture. Some have worked to change church law so that gay and lesbian persons can truly be granted full-inclusion. About 60% of American United Methodists are in favor of moving in this direction, which (according to the most recent Gallup Poll) is consistent with the U.S. population. Approximately 67% (or two of three) Americans believe that marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law with the same rights as traditional marriages. This is especially the case among young people with 73% of Millennials favoring equal rights for gay and lesbian persons.

In contrast about 30% of American United Methodists believe that the traditional language in the BOD is consistent with the teachings of scripture. For them, to remove the language and sanction homosexual ordination and marriage would be to forsake God’s word, encourage sin, and capitulate to the culture. Those who hold this view have fought to retain the prohibitions and to enforce stiffer penalties for bishops and pastors who violate them. For years, they say, the rules have been flagrantly violated and the supervising authorities have turned a blind eye, rendering the prohibitions as worthless as the paper on which they are written.

While the traditionalists have been a shrinking minority in the U.S, we must remember that the UMC is a global denomination. The highest legislative body in the church is The General Conference and is the only group who can decide church law and speak officially for the church. Like the U.S. Congress, this body is composed of delegates that are elected to represent their conferences. Of the 600—1,000 delegates that constitute a General Conference, there are clergy and lay representatives from America, Africa, Asia, and Europe. In the most recent General Conference held last week, over 41% of the delegates came from outside of the U.S. In many of these countries, homosexuality is either taboo or illegal. As you can imagine, many of these delegates (especially in Africa and Russia) hold very traditional views of marriage and are opposed to changing church law regarding this matter.

Over the years, as progressives have sought greater inclusion for LGBTQ persons in the church, traditionalists in the U.S. have partnered with conservative delegates outside the U.S. to thwart these efforts. Our divisions have grown deeper over the years, and at the 2016 General Conference in Oregon the UMC almost split.

Before this happened, the General Conference asked our bishops to develop a plan to keep us together. They formed The Commission on the Way Forward and asked this group to do a complete examination and possible revision of every paragraph of the BOD concerning human sexuality. Again, the goal of the commission was to maintain and strengthen the unity of the church. Much time and effort were put into this process, and while three proposals emerged, a large majority of our bishops recommended what was called the One Church Plan.

The One Church Plan acknowledges that good Christian people have honest disagreements about human sexuality. It also acknowledges that ministry is highly contextual; that churches in Birmingham, AL are very different from churches in San Francisco, CA, and churches in California are very different from churches in Africa and Asia. To keep us together and focused on our mission of making disciples of Jesus, the One Church Plan essentially gives local churches the freedom to make their own decisions on this issue.

Had it been accepted, the default position in the local church would have remained traditional. Unless a large majority of church members wanted to be more inclusive, the assumption would be that they would not receive gay clergy or permit same-sex weddings in their churches. However, congregations that wanted to grant more inclusion by receiving gay clergy and permitting same-sex weddings could do this through a Church Conference with a 2/3 vote. In other words, this would have allowed traditional churches to remain traditional, while providing an avenue for more progressive churches to grant full inclusion to LGBTQ persons. This is the plan that was advanced and supported by a majority of our bishops and approximately 66% of the U.S. delegates.

However, the traditionalists saw this plan as a violation of scripture and planned to exit the UMC if it passed. In response, they put forward the Traditional Plan, which not only retained the prohibitions of current church law but increased accountability by streamlining the process to enforce stiffer penalties for clergy and bishops that violate them. For example, if I were to perform a same-sex wedding, the first offense could result in a one-year suspension without pay, and a second offense could result in the revocation of my clergy orders. Although this was the minority opinion among U.S. delegates, the traditionalists partnered with a large voting block outside of the U.S. to pass the Traditional Plan by a very slim margin, 53% for and 47% against.

Many United Methodists in the U.S. are deeply disappointed, and some feel as if a minority opinion reflective of non-American contexts is being forced on the American church. In fact, entire jurisdictions and conferences are in open rebellion, not to mention countless local churches and pastors throughout the U.S., some of whom are considering disaffiliation from the UMC. Unfortunately, instead of uniting us, this decision has further increased our division.

Now that the Traditional Plan has passed, it must be reviewed by the Judicial Council (which is like the Supreme Court of the UMC) to ensure the constitutionality of all aspects. While there may be some aspects deemed unconstitutional, most of the Traditional Plan has already been ruled constitutional by the Judicial Council and will probably not be reversed. Some take comfort in the fact that the decisions of one General Conference cannot bind the decisions of another General Conference, which means that the passing of the Traditional Plan could be undone in 2020 or in future General Conferences. The likelihood of this is up for debate, but if it passes Judicial Council in April 2019, it will become official church law in January 2020.

Just as the global church is divided on this issue, so is our congregation. We have traditionalists in our church, just as most of us have traditionalists in our family. We must remember that just because someone has a traditional view of marriage does not mean that he or she is hateful or homophobic. People on both sides are often caricatured and mistreated by opponents, but most of my friends who hold a traditional view of marriage honestly believe that they are protecting the church from a corruption of scripture and are following God’s will. They claim to love and welcome their gay neighbor but do not want to be a stumbling block to their salvation by encouraging them to engage in (what they believe to be) sin. You can staunchly disagree with these ideas, you can vigorously debate them, you can protest what you believe to be injustice and fight for change—you can do all of this without assuming the worst about traditionalists, without demonizing and treating them with condescension, bitterness, or hatred. Jesus tell us that we must love everyone, even people with whom we disagree on matters of faith.

For those of you who hold a traditional view of marriage, you are loved by God and have important gifts that help the local church accomplish its mission. As our bishop said, “Too often, your stances have been misunderstood as driven by hatred, as opposed to being of deeply held faith. Your lives have been changed by the good news of Jesus, and you have a deep desire that others know this grace.” If you are a traditionalist at First UMC, I will work to ensure that you are treated with love, kindness, and respect.

It is also important to remember that many in our church and community disagree with the decision of the General Conference, and many LGBTQ persons, as well as their families and friends, are deeply hurt. If you are a Traditionalist, Jesus calls you to love them too, and right now loving them means providing a safe place for them to process and express their pain without judgement. It means listening to their stories and accepting that many will simply not conform to the decision of the hierarchy. Some will leave the UMC and others will stay and continue to fight for change.

As someone with gay and lesbian friends, family members, and parishioners, as someone who endorsed the One Church Plan and sought the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons, I am one of those people who are deeply disappointed and hurt by the General Conference decision. I cried real tears on Tuesday night as I wrestled with the realization that, for me, we have taken a step backward not forward.

I say these things not despite the Bible, but precisely because of my lifelong engagement with scripture. While the decisions of General Conference may be supported by an appeal to the strict letter of the law, I believe that they are contrary to the spirit of Christ, which is the only thing that gives the Bible life and authority. There are 31,102 verses in the Bible, and only six of these verses refer to homosexuality, and even these verses read in the light of the best of modern scholarship do not support the perpetual exclusion of LGBTQ persons in the church. While Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels—not once—he repeatedly insists that the outsider, the marginalized, the oppressed—those whom others regard as sinners—are loved by God and the primary focus of God’s gracious activity. Many will be surprised to discover that the people they reject will be first in the Kingdom of Heaven. In short, I believe that the spirit of Christ that is manifest in scripture as we read it in the light of, not only tradition, but also reason and experience, moves us to be more inclusive, not less.

To all my LGBTQ family, friends, and parishioners, I am sorry for how this decision has wounded you once again. I am sorry that you were told that we have open hearts, open minds, and open doors, that you are a person of sacred worth and welcome in the church, only to be told by the General Conference that you must change a fundamental part of your core identity to be acceptable to God. This must feel like a bait and switch, like a betrayal. I cannot imagine what it feels like to so faithfully give yourself to a church that refuses to bless your most loving and committed relationship, that acts as if your family is not a real family, and that will not allow you to pursue a call to ministry that God has placed on your life.

I believe that you are a child of God, created in the image of God, equal in worth to all in our congregation. You have blessed my family with your friendship and our church with your gifts, and we need you at First UMC Cocoa Beach to accomplish our mission. You are not a problem to be solved but a person of sacred worth to be loved. I see the Holy Spirit alive and at work in many of you. I see it in the way you seek to be a disciple of Jesus and strive to be a faithful part of his church, selflessly serving week after week. I see it in the way you refuse to give up on the church, even though the church has hurt you time and again. I see it in the ways you love others, even those who wound you.

As a pastor, I want you to feel claimed and loved by Jesus, even if the UMC has not made that abundantly clear. I don’t know how all of this will unfold in our denomination, but as long as I am your pastor, you will have a friend that will listen to your voice, value your story, and strive for your full inclusion in the life of the church.

So, what will change at First UMC Cocoa Beach? Nothing. We will continue to serve the mission of God by learning and practicing the teachings of Jesus in ways that create communities of love. In building a community of love, we will live into our core values by being authentic, inclusive, and compassionate. We will continue welcoming all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, gender, or sexual orientation, allowing them full participation in the ministries and sacraments of the church, including baptism, church membership, and Holy Communion. We will encourage all our members to use their gifts by serving in ministry, which may include leadership and staff positions. We will continue to be a diverse group of people working together to bring God’s healing, love, and justice to the world. No one will be excluded or marginalized at First UMC Cocoa Beach.

As we move forward, I pray that the traditionalists in our congregation will not become callous or arrogant, and that those seeking full inclusion will not become bitter and hateful. Despite our differences, Jesus calls us to treat each other with love and mutual respect. It is in this spirit that I encourage us to continue reading the scriptures together, using the best tools of modern scholarship, and to continue dialoguing about this important issue in ways that allow the voices of the marginalized to be heard. Above all things, I encourage us to remain focused on the mission that God has given to our church, to create a genuine community of love, so that we can make our city and world a more compassionate and just place for all. Moving forward, I hope we will remember that we serve a God who brings reconciliation to the broken and resurrection to the dead.

In closing, if anyone has questions about this topic moving forward, or if you have disagreements to discuss or hurts to share, my door is always open. Whether you are traditional or progressive or somewhere in between, if you allow me the honor of being your pastor, I am here for you.

 

Sermon Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4YW50tGRU

iTunes: Search “Pastor Mark Reynolds” in podcast app.

Advertisements

For Christ’s Sake: A Pastor’s Response to the Parkland School Shooting

(Below is a revised manuscript of a message Pastor Mark delivered at First United Methodist Church Cocoa Beach on February 18, 2018.)

 Introduction

I want to begin by apologizing for not mentioning the Parkland school shooting during our Ash Wednesday service. As a parent of four kids, I just didn’t want to admit to myself that this had happened again. But as I read the names and ages of the victims this week, grief and anger washed over me, and I would be derelict in my duties as a pastor if I failed to say something about it.

Honestly, I’m a little anxious. While pastors are called by God to teach people how to apply the values of Jesus Christ to every aspect of life, many of us are reluctant to speak out when shootings happen because the surrounding issues are so politicized. Nevertheless, being a leader entails a willingness to speak from the heart, letting the chips fall where they may. This is especially true for pastors who follow a Jewish rabbi that was crucified by religious and political leaders for speaking truth to power.

I want to begin by honestly acknowledging that I don’t have all the answers. Although I have extensive training in interpreting the gospel and applying it to Christian life, I’m not infallible. I can only speak the truth as I understand it, humbly acknowledging that my perspective has limits and blind spots, just like yours. Second, I must admit that I sometimes fail to practice what I preach. I’ve encountered people with different opinions and reacted in ways that fall short of the ideals I long to espouse. However, if the precondition for casting moral vision is moral perfection, we are all in serious trouble!

The Problem: Everything is Politicized and Polarized

From my perspective, the biggest problem we face today is the inability to talk to each other and collaborate to solve our most urgent problems. Everything has been politicized and polarized.

Some of our most influential leaders are professional politicians, and their jobs largely depend on two things: pleasing their financial donors and maintaining the support of their political base. To protect these things, some sacrifice their own personal identity for their tribe. Both political parties develop their platform, which is the framework for thinking, speaking, and problem solving. Staying within this framework is a sign of loyalty, and loyalty to the tribe promises funding and political protection.

The boundaries of this framework are clearly delineated by professional speech writers, who carefully craft talking points on every issue that could potentially alienate the political base or financial donors. When engaged in public discourse, politicians often protect themselves by parroting these talking points over, and over, and over again. It’s rare when a politician finds the courage to deviate from the party line and speak from their heart, and when they do it often results in marginalization and political attack. In this way, heart to heart conversations and collaborative problem solving are actively discouraged.

Unfortunately, our politicians are not the only ones who have this problem. The Bible says that human beings are fallen creatures, and one implication is our penchant for tribalism. Instead of embracing God’s vision of unity, peace, love, cooperation, and community, we try to secure ourselves by forming exclusive associations with people who look, think, believe, and act like us. Instead of crossing dividing lines to unify people around a common vision of compassion (which is what Jesus did), we fearfully double-down on those dividing lines to protect ourselves from people who are different. In this context, we tend to gravitate toward black and white thinking in which the world is divided-up into insiders and outsiders, allies and enemies, which gives us a sense of belonging, clarity, and purpose.

Knowing that we all have a penchant toward tribalism, politicians on both sides leverage this to their political advantage. They welcome us into their tribe and, working through their spokespersons on cable news networks, train us how to properly respond to any given issue. Again, being a valued member of the tribe means staying within the boundaries of the party platform and repeating the approved talking points. Arming ourselves with memorized soundbites and treating those who disagree as enemies to be defeated plays right into our sinful nature.

All of this comes together to create a hostile environment in which everything is politicized and polarized. The name of the game is divide and conquer, and winner takes all. Conceding anything to the other side, even the smallest point in an argument, is a cardinal sin punishable by exclusion.

Tragically, when we can’t talk to each other, we start thinking that there are no solutions to our problems, which tempts us to capitulate to the status quo—even when the status quo involves repetitive and increasing violence. Since the horrific event at Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012, when Adam Lanza murder 20 first-graders and 6 adults, there have been 239 school shootings in the US, which resulted in 438 wounded and 138 killed. So, the most recent school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which resulted in 17 deaths, is simply one of many school shootings. In fact, studies show that going back to January 2014 there have been an average of five school shootings per month. (Jugal K. Patel, “After Sandy Hook, More Than 400 People Have Been Shot in Over 200 School Shootings,” The New York Times, February 15, 2018)

Working Toward Solutions

As complicated as this issue might be, we cannot accept this as the new normal, and the very suggestion that there is nothing we can do about it should make us all mad as hell. There are things we can do, and to throw our hands in the air as helpless victims is nothing short of sin. We can and must act. As an American, as a Christian, as a parent, as a human being with a conscience, I believe that we should do everything in our power to curtail this madness. And while we cannot place all responsibility on the shoulders of our elected officials, they do have an important role to play as law makers. Everyone agrees, even Libertarians, that the most important job of government is to protect its citizens, and if our elected officials are not willing or able to set aside tribal politics to better protect our kids from gun violence, then we should throw them out of office and elect principled leaders who will.

Many argue that passing more restrictive gun laws will not eradicate school shootings. Pivoting away from the public policy debate, they say that gun violence is a “heart problem.” Since parents have the primary responsibility of teaching their children good morals, the solution is for parents to raise healthy and responsible kids.

There is some truth in this argument. Christians believe that children are a gift from God, and part of our responsibility as parents is to teach our kids about love, compassion, and respect for all people, including those who are rejected, outcast, or ostracized. We should teach them how to identify and process painful emotions like rejection, loneliness, grief, and disappointment. We should have ongoing conversations with our kids about bullying and conflict resolution and cultivate trust in the family so kids feel safe asking questions and sharing what’s on their mind. We should be attentive to red flags in their mood and behavior, which means limiting their privacy. We need to know their friends and the parents of their friends. We need to know what they’re doing on their electronic devices: what apps they are using; what they’re texting, snapchatting, and instant messaging; what they are posting on social media sites; what videos they are watching, songs they are listening to, and video games they are playing. Do any of these things normalize, encourage, or glorify violence and killing? Do any of these things violate our Christian values? If so, we have a responsibility to restrict their access and talk to them about our values. Parents also need to recognize signs of abuse, mental illness, and emotional trauma, getting their kids professional help when needed. And parents are wise to surround their kids with other spiritually and emotionally healthy adults who can have a positive influence.

However, simply focusing on better parenting will not solve the problem. We also need to make changes in our education system. Those who spend the most time with kids other than their parents are teachers. Since many school shootings are perpetrated by disturbed students (or former students), part of the solution will involve shifting our priorities in public education and better resourcing our teachers and schools. Many educators will tell us that the state has become so focused on standardized testing that they have little if any time to teach the kids anything other than what’s anticipated on the next test. But teachers need time for other important things.

They need time to share best practices on how to recognize signs of isolation, bullying, grief, anger, and mental illness in their students. They need smaller class-sizes, so they can get to know their students on a more personal level and better spot red flags. All schools need an efficient referral system and enough school psychologists on staff to triage and assess troubled students. Schools need resources and opportunities for effective bullying prevention programs, diversity training, conflict resolution, and character development. I also think that every middle-school and high school should have a resource officer on campus to deal with more serious problems.

But even this is not enough. Whether we like it or not, there are important public policy concerns regarding mass shootings.

Take for example mental health. Everyone agrees that when we see something we should say something. When someone notices a child exhibiting strange behavior or signs of abuse, trauma, or mental illness, they should try to get that child help. But counseling and therapy are not free. So, if we are going to talk about treating mentally ill or troubled children, then we must also talk about healthcare. It makes no sense to say, “Mental illness is a big part of the problem,” if mentally ill people don’t have access to treatment. It makes no sense for parents, teachers, coaches, and other adults to look for red flags, unless the family of the child can afford to get them help. So part of the solution is to make sure that every child in our country has access to behavioral health services (which means talking about health insurance). No child in this country who is struggling mentally or emotionally should be excluded from treatment because of money.

Finally, we must find ways to put aside our tribal politics so we can have rational discussions about improving our gun laws to curtail gun violence. I hesitate to even say “gun control” because most people assume they know exactly what the phrase means and compulsively start parroting the prescribed talking points of their political party. But when we resist this knee jerk reaction and create space for genuine dialogue, we see a broad range of agreement in our country about specific policy changes that would help reduce mass shootings. Recent studies show that almost 90% of both Republicans and Democrats agree that mentally ill people should not be able to buy guns. Over 80% of both parties agree that people who are on no-fly lists or terrorist watchlists should not be able to buy guns. Almost 80% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats agree on universal background checks (which would include closing the loopholes in personal and gun show sales), and a large majority of Americans agree on banning assault rifles and outlawing bump stocks. Still others agree we should limit the size of magazines and clips. (Ryan Struyk, “Here Are the Gun Control Policies That Majorities in Both Parties Support,” CNN, Updated November 6, 2017.) With these broad agreements between a clear majority of Americans, we should be able to revise our gun laws to make it more difficult for bad people to get guns and commit mass murder.

Are gun laws a panacea? No. Will stricter gun control prevent all gun violence? No. But this is no reason to throw our hands in the air and say, “Well, then, there’s nothing law makers can do about it!” That’s like saying, “If I can’t lose 50 pounds on my diet by tomorrow then what’s the point in trying to lose weight?” There are things our lawmakers can do to help to help reduce the death toll and they have a moral responsibility to do so.

As you can see, people on both sides have part of the solution, but these parts by themselves are not adequate for lasting change. We need people on both sides of the political aisle to bring their part of the solution so we can put all the pieces together for comprehensive reform. However, this will not be possible if money and tribalism render us morally bankrupt and destroy the possibility of collaboration.

 What About God?

While all the things mentioned above are important for addressing gun violence in America, there will be no lasting solutions with God. Human beings are not only physical and mental creatures, we are also spiritual beings. We are created in the image of God, and God desires an intimate relationship with each of us. It’s through this personal relationship with the divine that we find forgiveness and the overcoming of guilt; reconciliation and the overcoming of estrangement; joy and the overcoming of despair; peace and the overcoming of anxiety; unity and the overcoming of tribalism. It’s where we find healing and gain our true purpose in life beyond politics. It is where we learn how to love ourselves and others the way that God loves us. It is where we learn the true meaning of community and how to talk to each other and resolve conflict in healthy ways. It’s where the sacraments of baptism and communion erase all dividing lines and unite us under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

The church has an important role to play by creating communities of belonging, love, compassion, justice, and peace. Many people who perpetrate acts of violence feel misunderstood, isolated, and outcast. They don’t believe that anyone cares about them or that their voice really matters. If the church will create communities of love where people feel genuinely accepted and heard, a place where they can honestly share what’s on the hearts and minds, without judgment or ridicule, then it can play a unique role in healing some of the pain that drives people to kill. When considering school shootings, this is particularly true for our children and youth programs.

Going even further in this regard, the church could help by refocusing on the teachings of Jesus regarding compassion for the lonely, outcast, and rejected. Jesus calls his disciples to reach out in love to these people and offer good news of forgiveness, healing, love, and friendship.

Finally, as United Methodist Bishop, Ken Carter, suggests, we can repent from our participation in a culture of death, grieve with those who are suffering, and pray for the families of the victims. But as important as it is to repent, grieve, and pray, we must not neglect to act. For Christ’s sake, for the sake of the gospel, we must act.

Call to Action

Bishop Carter is inviting all United Methodists to write letters to our government officials, state and national, to insist that they prioritize the safety of our children amidst repetitive and escalating violence. You can find their names and contact information online by doing a Google search for “Florida Elected Officials.” If members will write letters and place them in addressed envelopes, our churches will cover the cost of postage and put them in the mail. The Bishop’s vision is for United Methodist Churches across the state of Florida to collect and send 5000 letters.

(Access the sermon on YouTube and iTunes)

Further Reading:

Bishop Ken Carter’s statement on Florida school shootings.

United Methodist Book of Resolutions, “Our Call the End Gun Violence.”

Pastor Mark Reynolds, “Take Up Your Glock and Follow Me: Whatever Happened to Martyrdom?”

Selecting Leaders in the Church: Nomination and Election

The Lead Team is the highest decision-making body at First United Methodist Church Cocoa Beach. It is composed of approximately eleven people that give oversight and direction to the administrative ministries of the church, including Trustees, Finance, and Staff-Parish Relations. There is also a Lay Leader on this team that represents the laity and serves as liaison for the various discipleship ministries of the church. The process for nominating and electing leaders is prayerful and deliberate.

NOMINATION

Leaders are prayerfully discerned and nominated by the Committee on Lay Leadership (CLL). This team itself is an elected group whose members are selected using the same process detailed below. Like members of the Lead Team, members of the CLL typically serve three-year terms. So how are potential leaders identified and nominated?

Members of the CLL meditate on the criteria detailed below and enter a season of personal prayer asking God, “Who approximates these criteria, and which of these people do you, Lord, want to serve on the Lead Team in this particular season at our church?” As names come to mind in prayer, they are written in a prayer journal and kept confidential. No one shares their “prayer promptings” with others on the team until we all gather for the next scheduled meeting. This season of prayer typically lasts one to three months. When we gather to discuss our results, everyone on the CLL brings their prayer journal and shares the names that God has placed on their hearts. As one person shares a name, the meeting facilitator writes it on the board and asks, “Did anyone else come up with this name?” Then tick-marks are placed next to that name representing the number of people who independently discerned that person. The higher the number, we assume, the more likely God is moving us to give that person serious consideration. We then enter into deeper conversations around the criteria detailed below, until the group reaches consensus of their top pick and one alternate.

The criteria for nominating potential leaders: Character, Culture, Chemistry, and Competency. (See Bill Hybels)

Character: Members of the Lead Team must demonstrate the highest moral character both inside and outside the church. They must also be vested stakeholders who demonstrate faithfulness to the church membership vows. Below are the criteria provided to the CLL for their season of prayer.

 Criteria for Nominating Leaders in the Church

Since the Lead Team is the highest decision-making body in the church, we are trying to discern leaders that are spiritually and emotionally mature, internally motivated, resourceful, joyful, and committed. As Jim Collins says in his book, Good to Great, the first (and most important) task is getting the right kind of person on the leadership bus. Nominations should be led by the Holy Spirit in persistent prayer and guided by our criteria. One the biggest mistakes churches make is to recruit someone to leadership in hopes of getting them more involved in the church. If you want someone to get more involved, help them connect to a small group.

       Potential leaders should approximate the following criteria:

Must have at least one year of consistent faithfulness to the following membership vows:

Prayers:  Consistent daily devotional life.

Presence: Regular attendance in worship and active participation in a group or class.

Gifts: Percentage giving to the church, and working toward the ideal of the 10% tithe.

Service: Serving as the hands and feet of Jesus through the Engage ministries of the church according to their spiritual gifts and passions.

Witness: When clear opportunities arise, they share what God has done for them and invite people to come to church.

Culture: Potential leaders must understand, embrace, and fully support the church’s mission, vision, disciple-making process, and core values. An important part of their job will be to keep these foundational principles before the church and ensure that Lead Team decisions are aligned with them. They must also possess the ability to make key decisions based on our mission, vision, values, and process and not be unduly influenced by personal preference or a personal agenda. Since decisions are made according to what is in the best interest of the whole church, potential leaders must have the maturity to champion the group decision to the congregation even when they personally disagree.

Chemistry: It is important to consider the make-up of the current Lead Team, so we can nominate new leaders that will get along well with others. Healthy teams have good chemistry. They like and trust each other and work cooperatively to make good decisions and get things done. We also look for good theological chemistry. Does the potential leader embrace the mainline theology of the United Methodist Church and the unique theological emphases that make us who we are?

Competency: We want to recruit potential leaders to serve in their “sweet spot” of ministry, at the intersection of their natural abilities and personality, spiritual gifts, and passions, so they can make a unique contribution in helping us accomplish our mission together.

Often, we have more than one person who meets the criteria for a single leadership opening. Then the question arises, “Of all the qualified candidates, which one is the best choice given the specific season we inhabit in the life of our church? Various considerations can help the CLL make this decision.

Once the CLL develops a slate of nominations, the nominees are individually contacted to see if they will prayerfully consider the nomination. After an initial conversation, they are provided with a job description and a follow-up date is agreed upon. They are contacted on the follow-up date and asked to communicate their decision, which is relayed to the rest of the team. If they agree, the CLL includes his or her name on the nominating form in the Charge or Church Conference paperwork. If they decline, the CLL begins the recruiting process with the alternate. If the alternate declines, the team starts the discernment process over again.

 ELECTION

The Charge Conference is constituted by the Lead Team and an outside Presiding Elder, all of whom have voice and vote. Other church members can attend a Charge Conference and have voice, but only elected members can vote. A Church Conference includes all members in good standing and an outside Presiding Elder, all of whom have voice and vote. Churches are expected to have at least one Charge or Church Conference per year for important church business. Part of the agenda is electing new members of the Lead Team and CLL. The slate of nominated leaders developed by the CLL is printed and distributed to all in attendance. The conference is opened for discussion and then a vote is taken. Once elected, members cannot be removed without cause unless they resign.

If you have questions about this discerning, nominating, and electing process, please contact the Pastor or a member of the Committee on Lay Leadership.

(The same criteria is used when selecting staff)