My institution is embroiled in a discussion “regarding denominational affiliation,” or “our denominational affiliation.” As the Faculty Representative to the Board, I have been trying to listen thoroughly so to represent my colleagues to the Board of Trustees for whatever matters are arising, will arise in the next year of executive leadership transition. But I’m not sure my reticence to lend any voice to the discussion has to do with my conviction that “leadership is listening.” I just can’t get worked up about any part of this discussion. Finally, it arose in me today to ponder on the page a bit. What might I learn about what I am thinking, feeling, here? [Image: inviting all who read to gather around a campfire to listen, prayer, honor the sacred...]
In a variety of ways, we’ve been having this discussion for years now. I’m bored with it, then? It never seems to lead us to greater unity or to greater passion for any shared mission. It has resulted in the departure of a valued colleague and the imminent departure of another, both executive leaders who could not navigate this question together or well. (No one has, to be clear...no critique or blame intended, just recognition of the overwhelming impact of the external upon the internal here).
Secondly, I feel like an outsider who cannot really contribute her views anyway, given my denominational affiliation is still PCUSA (in good standing with the Presbytery of the Miami Valley). The “choice” on the table is to remain affiliated with the United Methodist Church (UMC)...or not… At least that is how the discussion is presented so far, by elder Boomer masculine or masculinized leaders on the Board. It’s their debate and dispute, not really anything but of secondary concern to me.
What if there were a better way to configure the discussion? Certainly beyond an either/or “we are UMC or we are not”? THERE HAS TO BE. How can we co-create a better question, together?
In ways that matter: Clearly United is and will be UMC for the foreseeable future, given we have over fifty years of alignment since the EUB/MC merger of the late 1960’s into the UMC. We don’t stop being UMC in the ways that matter with the drop of a forced-vote decision by a roomful of human beings sometime this year.
When I drop down into prayer, it begins to emerge that this is not really “regarding denominational affiliation” for the bulk of the voices jumping into the fray here. Speaking only for me: it’s not for me anyway. It’s about naming and claiming a Spirit-led mission and vision that the most number of us can really sink our teeth into, can really put a shoulder to the oar and push into…together. As executive leaders have tried to claim, “Don’t we already have that amongst us?” Regardless of whether it was Watson-led, it landed in many of us to adopt the Spirit-led language, from most liberal/progressive on the continuum to the most conservative. Can we commit to trusting one another on the ground–those of us who will remain after this year’s shakedown–and live into Christ’s call to each and all of us?
Why do we continue to push this need for a vote? What is the value of the vote that divides us as the larger UMC denomination defines, pits us one against another in a fight many of us don’t really care about anymore, even hitches us to the past? Cannot we simply live into the interdenominational reality of who we are, letting the University Senate isolate and narrow itself as it will continue to do? We can answer questions honestly that we are UMC in ethos without having them define the discussion.
Maybe a survey for better questions amongst us? Crowd-sourcing wisdom from within? Hmmm...
In the end, loyalty to denominational identities and affiliation is an old Boomer straw-man of division and debate. GenX and below often don’t care, knowing the truth of impermanence. We’ve lived in the prison of “If you can categorize or name it, you can differentiate from it, get free of it,” which is never actually true. More definition doesn’t necessarily lead to deeper communion, Communion.
Maybe what I need on any survey, as it’s developed by numbers-gifted stewards in our midst (for whom I am exquisitely grateful!), is a “I don’t think this discussion matters to us on the ground” category. It clearly has to matter to the President, to the Board, but as we’ve learned these last three years, the life of the seminary is lived on the ground, with how we are with one another. Division has come from above, less so from below.
I covenant to teach my classes, to be there for my students and colleagues, to live into the calling to urge spiritual maturity in an adolescent culture shaped to curate leaders for dying institutions. A vote conforms to the pattern of “shaping leaders for an adolescent culture.” I’d rather teach-out our remaining years, however many there may be, in a seminary committed to spiritual maturity that requires way more courage and self-sacrifice than these old fights crafted by masculinized leaders losing power and status in denominational bodies.
My two cents' worth, on something I don't really care about, with and for people I do love dearly.
Comments
Post a Comment