How About a Flat Structure for United Methodism?
The
present United Methodist structure and the vision empower UM bishops and their
middle managers–district superintendents–more than they empower local churches. The DSs as the
denominational middle management attempt to control a church community that is increasingly disenfranchised.
What is wrong with this management approach or with the presence of a middle management layer? This management approach lacks prophetic theological imagination and does not leave much space for God’s Grace. The institutional model of middle managers, who know a little about a lot of things, is coming to an end even in the business world. A flat structure is more open to dialogue and to an adaptive leadership approach.
What is wrong with this management approach or with the presence of a middle management layer? This management approach lacks prophetic theological imagination and does not leave much space for God’s Grace. The institutional model of middle managers, who know a little about a lot of things, is coming to an end even in the business world. A flat structure is more open to dialogue and to an adaptive leadership approach.
The DS’s responsibility is to communicate the bishop’s
vision down to local churches and to require knowing his principles by heart. This
leadership style reminds me of the Soviet government that had been pushing a
new vision down at the nation every five years through the vertical structure.
The program was guarded and managed by apparatchiki – the middle management of the communist
system. The example of prophets in Russia, who always expressed voices from the
margins, proves Brueggemann’s usage of Robert Wilson’s position that the “prophets
are not lonely voices against the establishment.”[2]
I agree with Desmond Tutu that injustice will not prevail
in the world of our God as long as we do not keep silence.[3]
My American friends visiting Russia always asked me the same question: “Why
didn’t Russians rebel? Didn’t you want to change your situation?” Now, living in America, I want to ask the same
rhetoric question to all clergy and church leaders: “Why don’t you do something to change your situation?”
As Leonora Tisdale writes in Preaching as Local Theology, people
fear change because it requires “willingness to sacrifice for the cause.”[4]
It is not safe in the United Methodist Church to resist the top because it can adversely
affect a pastor’s future: a poor
appointment, involuntary retirement, or a leave of absence. Tutu speaks
honestly about the failure of Christian leaders to act and speak against
dismissing and discarding people, but he also believes that not only the
oppressors are guilty but the oppressed as well.[5] Pastors are scared to even assume their passion for
change because “it is precisely what the royal consciousness means to
eradicate.”[6] The
present system may not be perfect but it is familiar and secure, especially for
those who belong to the intimate inner circle.
Superintendents of the UM
church–the middle managers–should be replaced with fluid leadership teams of
three pastors (who would serve their own churches at the same time), whose goal is to empower local pastors and
churches and build them up instead of supervising, micromanaging, and
dealing with conflicts. The pastors should be actively and prayerfully seek their
own renewal and transformation to bring the Kingdom of God closer. Instead of
punishing pastors for ineffectiveness and argumentativeness, the new structure
will trust that each pastor is personally engaged in systemic change and has
the interests of the denomination in their hearts. The role of those leadership
teams is to be in dialogue with local congregations and to communicate each
local church’s vision to the bishop to help him/her shape the vision for the
Annual Conference together. This way, the power and the vision do not go from
the top down but from the bottom up. Church leaders and pastors should be
encouraged to practice dialogue approach in their conversation with each other and with the bishop to experience true
Ubuntu: “A person is a person through other persons.”
Within
this mindset there is full inclusivity and a deep commitment for renewal
instead of bitterness.
Hopefully, by the grace of God, this culture of trust,
respect, and active listening will naturally and prayerfully evoke the Holy
Spirit to guide and to lead the Methodist Church around the world, and the grace
of God will be abundant.
Comments