By Henry Neufeld Dave Black responded to my previous post on the United Methodist Church by referring to some thoughts he has had on his own denomination. I want to quote them here, since Dave’s blog doesn’t make linking to a particular entry possible.
7:55 AM Noted Methodist blogger Henry Neufeld ponders the question, How to cure the UMC? He asks:
How much time needs to go into preserving the organization? Is such time well spent? Those are questions that concern me these days.
For what it’s worth, Henry, I once pondered a similar question regarding my own denomination. The bottom of the bottom line for me?
I came away from the convention with a new realization that a Great Commission resurgence will not begin at the denominational level. It will end there. A Great Commission commitment must begin in our homes and marriages, and then in our local churches, each one of them. This is clearly the pattern of the book of Acts. The church at Antioch, the world’s first missional church, is proof of that.
I hope that all of this gets sorted out at the denomination level (and I predict that it will, eventually). But even if it doesn’t, there is nothing to keep me and my local church from doing all we can to help advance God’s kingdom on earth. (From Dave Black Online)
I have found that the concerns of people who are seeking to be servants and missionaries in different denominations are remarkably similar. We have some doctrinal differences, but we struggle with issues of getting the church active. I believe that if we get people studying the Bible, praying, and seeking the unity of the Spirit, doctrinal differences will tend to fade to the background. They’ll either be found to be non-essential or we’ll discover where we each need to change. I think we can be very patient with “erring brethren.” After all, we are ourselves erring brethren, almost by definition!
What I must keep in focus is simply this: God hasn’t called me to solve all the problems of the church. He hasn’t called me to make sure everyone else is fulfilling the great commission. He has called me to be transformed by looking to Him, and to fulfil my call to service.
I don’t mean that I can “be the church” alone. Rather, I can do a much better job of being part of the body if I’m spending more time correcting my own manifold flaws than I spend trying to correct those of others. Much more time, in fact!
By Henry Neufeld No, not that type of curing. Fixing it. Making it healthy and productive.
Practically every day I find in my inbox, or on one of the various feeds I follow, an article on how to fix the dying United Methodist Church. While there are many disagreements on details, generally everyone agrees that the church is, in fact, dying. Everyone agrees that something must be done! Beyond that, we don’t have nearly as much agreement.
Today it was United Methodist Insight with an article by United Methodist pastor Teddy Ray. In it he notes that there were three substantive changes made at the 2012 general conference and that the judicial council has now struck down all three of them. This illustrates the difficulty of changing a very large structure. Pastor Ray is not ready to give up yet. He links to a number of other articles he has written, in which he tries to point the way to a better future.
One thing he recommends, and I agree, is to avoid getting stuck with committee appointments unless you truly believe you can do some good there. It has been a long time since I’ve been invited to sit on a committee and felt that it would be useful. That’s not a matter of boycotting committees. It’s a matter of carefully considering where you can do the best ministry.
As do many other writers, Pastor Ray comes to the conclusion that reforming the United Methodist Church, but that it might be done and he thinks it’s worthwhile. I’m not sure that his reasons, enumerated in Why I am (Still) a Methodist, are enough. I really appreciate Wesleyan theology, but at the moment I must confess that the main reasons I am still a Methodist are just three: 1) My current congregation has many positive aspects to it, 2) I don’t know where else to go with my theology, and 3) what reason do I have to assume I’d do any better?
How much time needs to go into preserving the organization? Is such time well spent? Those are questions that concern me these days.
By Henry Neufeld A great quote:
We Americans aren’t very good at absolute authority, but we presently have the opposite of it in the UMC – we have an episcopacy shackled to lead, but convenient to blame. It’s a great system to play armchair quarterback in, but it doesn’t make disciples.
Go read the rest. It’s thought provoking.
By Henry Neufeld He recorded his statement before he knew who won so he wouldn’t be biased. It’s a good statement. About a minute and a half in, there’s this:
Regardless of whether our president is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, the mission of our fellowship is the same.
Just so!
By Henry Neufeld Out of the various feeds I follow, I found these:
Eric Dondero thinks you should go so far as to divorce a wife who voted for Obama. “I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted ‘O’. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.” Of course, the candidate who lost was not precisely libertarian, but who’s dealing in nuances?
This CEO read a prayer and then laid off 156 people. Co0nsidering he works in coal, he may have had a point, but I doubt the future changed that much the day of the election.
These are extreme examples, but I’m concerned every time we cut off dialog due to the fact that someone differs from us too much, or seems to disrespect our beliefs. As Christians we should be about reaching out much more than cutting off. (There’s some biblical “cutting off” but that’s for another day.) I am concerned when I see Christians trying to do business just with fellow Christians or trying to listen only to fellow Christians. When we limit our conversation to those who are Christians like us, except, of course, for preaching at people who differ, then it becomes even worse.
I also believe that there are many more people who would support Republican (or Libertarian) economic policies than will support the complete social agenda. Rejecting Republicans this time around may not have had as much to do with “takers” vs “producers” as people are assuming. I remember a Lowell Weicker comment from some years ago to the effect that if we could get the Democrats out of the boardroom and the Republicans out of the bedroom we’d be much better off. Weicker, unfortunately, didn’t live out his plan as far as I can tell, but he wasn’t entirely wrong.
But of course, after a losing election, the reason for the loss is rejection of my pet policies by the lose! 
By Henry Neufeld We all use idioms, mostly unconsciously. There are a number that bother me that are in common usage, such as “I could care less” which developed from the more logical “I couldn’t care less.” But idioms often aren’t about logic. They’re about what people actually say, and what other people understand by what they say.
There’s a great article on this from a few weeks ago on Lingua Franca. Enjoy!
By Henry Neufeld This isn’t one of those “oh no the wrong guy(s) won” nor is it a “yay! the right guy(s) won” post. I wouldn’t be writing either of those if the results had been reversed. I’m interested in a few lessons about the way elections work.
1) Those who lead in the polls believe polls. Those who trail write scenarios. For the last few elections we’ve had some pretty accurate models built from multiple polls. Folks like Nate Silver are more accurate than just reading polls because they test the polls and their models objectively. This combination of polls allows one to minimize, though not eliminate the chance or error or bias.
2) The media can’t handle polls. They just can’t. They constantly report minor variations, changes within the sampling error for the poll, as though they were major changes in reality. They also can’t decide what “tied,” close,” or “substantial” actually mean. If you read headlines, you’ll get misled. I’d recommend that the media start reading the aggregators, Nate Silver, Sam Wang (Princeton Election Consortium), Votamatic, etc. Frankly, I thought they were over-optimistic regarding President Obama’s chances for reelection. After looking at the numbers myself, I had guessed in the 280-290 range. But I was wrong and the aggregators were generally right.
3) Everybody needs to learn how to put numbers in context. This relates to the polls. Is a new poll by the same organization as the last one? Are you comparing the same sort of things? When somebody states the deficit or how much they intend to reduce it, what’s the time period and the starting point for each number?Especially in ads, there was hardly a worthwhile number presented in the entire election cycle.
4) 30-60 seconds is too short a time to tell the truth. I didn’t see a single ad that would pass muster on providing information. I don’t say there weren’t any anywhere, but I didn’t see any, and I saw a lot of ads. If you’re getting any of your information from ads, you probably lack context.
5) For that small deciding margin the election is not about ideology. Look at some of the combinations of people that were elected. Too many people have no idea what they’re voting for or against, and with elections this close, that means often that political decisions are made by the uninformed. Some people may think this points toward one party or the other, or ideologically right or left. My unscientific, subjective impression is that there is plenty of ignorance on all sides. A significant number of the ignorant are actually quite intelligent people. Political information just isn’t enough of a priority for them. It’s hard to be informed because information is hard to find and is hidden behind walls of empty rhetoric. There were even more vacuous slogans than there were falsehoods in this election.
6) Winners talk unity while losers question mandates. It’s a psychological game. The only official mandate is having that nifty check mark by your name. There isn’t a defined super majority that gives one a mandate. On the other hand, our system allows for conflicting mandates, and the result of that should be interesting to watch.
7) Everybody knows how to fix a party that’s suffered a major loss. People are now suggesting how the Republican party needs to change their positions on various issues. While one should always be ready to reexamine one’s positions, you also won’t win by making yourself like the other party. That applies no matter what party you are. If the Republican Party changes its position on abortion, for example, is there any possibility they will pick up enough votes in the center to make up for the ones they lose on the right? I don’t see it. I could suggest issues on which the Republican Party should change as well, but by making themselves more acceptable to me personally, I expect they would shed many other voters.
8) I’d love to see some education going on. The Democrats ran away from the one major piece of legislation they passed while they controlled both houses of congress. Conservatives will say this is because they were ashamed of it. I’d say it falls somewhere between cowardice and bad politics. They should have gotten out there and explained and defended the ACA from the time it was passed until the election. I’m betting that would have improved their results. The Republicans should have gone out there with a more detailed budget proposal and then defended it. You think it would mean they’d lose? Well, just look at what did happen!
9) Money is important, but it doesn’t guarantee success.
I’m going to enjoy watching politics for the next couple of years.
By Henry Neufeld I’ve made a few snide remarks about friends who flood their Facebook timeline with political posts. I wouldn’t want anyone to think this is because I don’t care about politics. In fact, I read a great deal about politics and often research candidates’ positions in some detail if the information is available. I will be voting tomorrow. I’m a traditionalist and like to vote on election day. I have voted at every opportunity since I turned 18. So I’m going to ramble about it a bit!
I’ve said less about politics this year than in previous years. That has more to do with a combination of time and job needs. I’m a publisher. I now publish books by people who take different political positions. I don’t claim neutrality. In fact, I don’t think the major problem with the media is bias; it’s the claim that there is a journalistic neutrality. So as editor and publisher (Energion Publications), I don’t believe it’s my duty to pretend I’m neutral. It is my duty to put my primary effort into producing and marketing the work of those I publish. So I spend more time showcasing their positions than I do publishing my own via this blog.
But don’t imagine that I am not passionate about politics. For me, the claim that God is still sovereign no matter who wins is important. I care enough about the issues involved that if I did not believe that, I would not be so calm or balanced (in my opinion, of course!). So if I emphasize this point, it’s not because I look down on the passion of others. I share the passion. I don’t feel that I’m a more spiritual Christian who has moved beyond mundane, earthly political issues. I haven’t.
Besides time and priorities, however, I will note that much of what is presented regarding the election in social media is not material that engages my attention. There’s a huge amount of snarky humor, most of which is only of interest to those on the same side. Political humor that crosses the partisan divide is more difficult to produce. What bothers me is a lack of listening and a lack of effort to actually communicate with those on the other side, wherever we may start.
Again, I have to deny that I come from a position of superiority. I’m a moderate, and I’m quite good at mentally dismissing the arguments of either side, often without spending the time to give them full consideration. You don’t know how often I do this, of course. (See above under “time” and “priorities.”)
But this sort of writing is really pretty rare in an election year. In general, things written on politics are designed to help one side or the other, and it’s fairly easy to see which, just by watching the emphasis. That’s something I’d like to work on after the election.
In the meantime, unless you truly believe that you should not vote (a moral or ethical conviction), vote! Be passionate about what you do. Don’t let apathy, cynicism, or the idea that your contribution won’t make a difference stop you. Your contribution may be small, but it’s important.
By Henry Neufeld We should be considering these numbers when discussing the deficit. Some of these countries, at least, can afford to pay their own way.
|
|
Recent Comments