The Original Spirit in 21st Century Clothes

A Presentation on Behalf of UBHope to the National Board of the United States National Conference Church of the United Brethren in Christ

February 14, 2005

Anthony L. Blair

On behalf of the UBHope steering committee and those we represent, I express our sincere appreciation to Bishop Hirschy for his invitation to address you today. Over the past year we had sought to be a positive voice in an important debate about our identity and future. Our goal was to articulate principles and values for a revived United Brethren movement. Where we achieved our goals of encouraging the UB people that we were still capable of significant change, we are proud. We realize, however, that some of our words and actions caused pain, particularly to some of you in this room. For that I apologize and ask your forgiveness. We want to renew our relationships and work together.

Last Fall decisions were made by the United Brethren people that narrowed the options this Board can consider. Now the responsibility for our future rests upon all of us, and no single group or faction can or should claim to speak for all. Irrespective of our positions last year, it is incumbent upon all of us in 2005 to again become united brethren in the work of the Kingdom. I am therefore authorized by the UBHope steering committee to announce today that the UBHope organization is officially disbanding.

We believe that the principles and values we have advocated are not unique to UBHope. We did not invent them; they are part of the heritage of our movement. They are our genetic composition, as it were. They will continue to guide us, even haunt us, whether any particular group endorses them or not. In that spirit, we call attention today to such six such principles or values in the hope that we all can embrace these together as a roadmap of sorts for the journey ahead of us.

First, we believe that the problems facing the United Brethren people in the United States are not primarily those of structure or programs or leadership, but are cultural or systemic in nature. By "systemic," we mean both that they are pervasive among us and that they have implications for all that we do. We cannot merely alter structures or change leaders or introduce new programs (although we may end up doing some or all of those things); we must examine the foundational assumptions and behaviors of our system and begin to change things at that level.

And we believe it can be done. Our reason for such optimism is not that we have organizational geniuses among us, although we may. It is because we believe that this is ultimately a work of the Spirit and that the Spirit is still among us. We in UBHope spoke much in the past year of "the original Spirit" of the United Brethren. That was not mere rhetoric. We believe that our founders and other forefathers experienced a gift that is also offered to us. All across this nation, churches identified with the United Brethren movement flounder because they have not claimed their birthright as agents of transformation. It is time to discover our inheritance.

Second, we believe that the Spirit works in diverse ways in diverse contexts. In short, there are multiple models of healthy churches and multiple profiles of healthy ministries. Our task as leaders is to create both the vision and the opportunity for these models and profiles to develop. We need to nurture creativity and experimentation among our people. When we envision the future of the United Brethren movement we see more churches, larger churches, house churches, emergent churches, merged churches, urban churches, rural churches, liturgical churches, Pentecostal churches, traditional churches, and churches in forms that we cannot yet imagine.

There is no "right" way to do ministry anymore, but there are certainly wrong ways. We have failed to hold our churches as accountable as we should. We propose that we UBs agree together on our mission (defined by our vision, core values, and basic beliefs), and then create opportunities for our people to fulfill that mission in a manner appropriate to their context. Those that fail to fulfill the mission we will come alongside. We will offer them encouragement and coaching and support when they seek it. When necessary, we will discipline them. And sometimes--more often than we do at present--we will choose to dissociate ourselves from them.

Third, we believe that our primary purpose in choosing to partner together is relationship. We are all here voluntarily. We have chosen this relationship because, despite all our differences of ideas, something resonates within us when we come together. We are brethren. Therefore, we insist that our structures serve our relationships, not the other way around. And we insist that those relationships be healthy. We are quick to address moral failure, but we have too long tolerated unhealthy relationships under the illusion that the germs will not spread. They have.

We further insist that our relationships not be exclusive. There are many other brothers and sisters who wear labels different from ours; we can and should lock arms with them and partner together in the things on which we agree. The United Brethren were known from the beginning for their ecumenical spirit. We must remember that, and live it out. The motive that animated the join-and-receive proposal must not be extinguished; instead, it must be nurtured within the new reality in which we now serve.

Fourth, we believe that God has blessed us with a heritage of grace in tolerating those who disagree on the nonessentials of the faith. Our Confession of Faith is bold but brief. The United Brethren have always held firm on matters of dogma, or essential truth; have given considerable charity in matters of doctrine, or interpretations of dogma; and have been surprisingly gracious on the non-essentials. We have, however, seen well-intentioned attempts in recent years to define our beliefs more narrowly. We must resist that temptation lest we become just another denomination noted primarily for the peculiarities of our doctrine rather than the power of our lives.

Fifth, we believe that God has impressed upon our conscience a need to be engaged in the transformation of this world. Our forefathers combated slavery and racism, sought to remove the evils of alcohol and freemasonry from our society, and opened doors for women and other marginalized people of their time. Our respect for their efforts has sometimes led us to sanctify or legislate their positions rather than to imbibe their passions. Our world and our time have their own challenges. We need to recover our heritage as United Brethren to become agents of social transformation by speaking on behalf of the powerless, by acting as reconcilers and peacemakers in a conflict-ridden world, and by addressing injustice.

Sixth, we believe that participatory leadership is essential if these principles are to be realized within us. We have been blessed with godly and visionary leadership for a very long time. Our problem has not been a lack of vision, but a lack of ownership and participation at the grassroots. We have repeatedly frustrated bishops and other leaders by nodding our heads in agreement with their words and then practicing as we pleased. This time, the United Brethren people have to be an integral part of the solution. And, it would seem, many are ready to engage us in that discussion, given the energy of their discourse this past year. Let's take advantage of that.

We discovered this past year that we disagree with each other on our philosophies of leadership. Some of us believe strongly in a hierarchical model of leadership, in which leaders decide and subordinates support or get out of the way. Others believe just as strongly in a democratic model of leadership, in which the members decide and the leaders implement or get out of the way. Neither model is sufficient for our needs today, for each emphasizes one party at the expense of the other. Yes, we need strong, courageous leadership that will set expectations and remove obstacles to growth and creativity. And, yes we need empowered ministers and congregations who will use their gifts and their wisdom to find and seek new ways of doing things. We cannot impose a program on them, nor can they violate our values and identity as they create. In short, we need a relationship of shared ownership and co-creation.

I have named six principles that we believe can guide us in making decisions in the days and years ahead as we seek the renewal of the United Brethren movement. I suspect that there is little you have heard here with which you would vehemently disagree, and much that you would publicly embrace. I do imagine, however, that there is some skepticism about whether we can move beyond rhetoric to living these principles. How do we get from our current position to this desired state? That is the most important question in front of us right now.

Timing is key. Many of us here wish to do something fairly radical this year to encourage ourselves and others that we are not going to merely fiddle with the organizational charts but actually make a difference this time around. Others of us here are concerned that we do not rush pell-mell into wild experiments that may damage us for a generation or kill us off entirely. And nearly all of us recognize that the changes required, because they are cultural and systemic, will require time and perseverance and energy. Perhaps the answer is to point boldly down the road we must travel and then take several important, meaningful steps in that direction this year, recognizing that our destination is some distance away.

We therefore propose the following as changes to be considered and implemented in 2005:

1. We propose that we create a working national conference for the United States, and that it be structured as a membership organization. This would mean that congregations and the national conference would annually or biannually confirm a covenant together. That covenant would express our core beliefs and core values, to which all will be held mutually accountable. Member churches would contribute directly to the national conference through a membership fee. Ministers would be credentialed through the national conference.

This change would allow us to create a consistent national identity and maintain national relationships even while permitting diversity at the local level. It also provides us with the opportunity to not renew a covenant with a congregation if they are consistently failing to fulfill their mission. This would replace our current system which, in practice, is "once a United Brethren church, always a United Brethren church," regardless of its actions, attitudes, or ailments.

2. We propose that the national conference provide opportunities for the continuation or creation of smaller groups. Whether these are ultimately identified as conferences, affinity groups, healthy church clusters, or districts is not important. What is important is their function. We would ask that each church be actively involved in at least one such group, because the group will become their primary network and the point of primary accountability for church health, mission fulfillment, and moral clarity.

We would make the choice of a group voluntary and would encourage the creation of secondary level groups for the support of certain ministries or the maintenance of additional networks. We suspect that most churches would choose in the first several years to remain part of a group that resembles their current annual conference, but that new groups would emerge with time. We would permit these groups to establish their own admissions and maintenance criteria, so that churches of like mind or philosophy can band together and certain standards of behavior and healthiness be maintained. We would also give them permission to establish their own internal structures, so that churches can choose to pay for whatever level of support they wish to enjoy by joining groups that offer that.

This change would, in effect, quarantine unhealthy churches and thus force them to consider seriously their own state of affairs. It would eliminate the forced subsidies of larger or healthier congregations to smaller or weaker congregations.

3. We propose that the Discipline be amended so that there are fewer regulations at the national level and more opportunity for the local groups, conferences, or districts to further define themselves within our core values and principles.

This change would allow us to quite spending our energies deciding national policies for which we do not have national agreement (the non-essentials) and instead focus our energies on matters of more eternal significance. For example, each group could decide whether it preferred a stationing, call, or hybrid system for matching ministers with congregations, but all would choose ministers according to certain agreed-upon national standards. And perhaps this is a way that we could finally resolve certain thorny issues like alcohol--by allowing the members of each district to act according to their consciences while all act according to principles of Christian holiness as set forth at the national level.

This change would require us to trust each other--to recognize that those who share the same values do not have to practice them the same way. It would ask of us great maturity, for the temptation to legislate for others is always close at hand. Let's find out if we are capable of this.

4. We propose that a national, cross-functional task force be established to review our decision-making processes and propose systemic changes for the 2007 National Conference. We have said repeatedly that the process by which we make decisions is at least as important as the product of that process; or, put another way, that our character is revealed as much through the context of our decision-making as through the content.

We discovered through this discussion over the past year and a half that we have created some of our own obstacles in this regard. For instance, we have competing leadership structures--one established on a national level and expressed through this body and its elected leaders and another established on a conference level and expressed through its superintendents. Those two groups were, for the most part, not in sync with each other last year. Likewise, we ask our spiritual leader to also be our CEO, which has risks for the prestige of the office and the workload of the person.

This change will allow us to spend some time looking at this issue from a broad-based and comprehensive viewpoint, instead of rushing into a solution before proper analysis. It will also involve non-leaders and non-decision-makers in the creation of the solutions, and thus provide the opportunity for ownership of the process.

5. We propose that we use the resources of the entire evangelical community to infuse new blood and new ideas into our ranks. If we establish a task force, let's invite non-UBs to bring fresh perspectives to our discussion. If we need coaches, then let us find and train good coaches and take advantage of their wisdom. If we need church planters, let us recruit them and put them to work. If we need new models, let us borrow freely from those who are doing well if they fit our context. If we need partners for our youth, women's, global or other ministries, let us establish relationships with any who share our basic vision and values. As I said earlier, this is part of our heritage as evangelical ecumenists.

This change will not only allow us to take advantage of what others are doing well, but it will also help us transcend denominationalist or exclusivist thinking. We are but one small piece of the puzzle. We need both humility and optimism as we endeavor to redefine ourselves.

6. We propose that this National Board, the upcoming National Conference, and whomever among us are chosen to occupy positions of leadership in the two years ahead articulate a clear message that these are new days, that all options are on the table. Should we change our name to indicate that we are starting anew? Should we close down and restart as a new entity, as we encourage some of our churches to do? Should we rewrite our Discipline from scratch, instead of carrying over the assumptions of the past? Now is the time to act if any such actions are required. Our people are more ready than we realize.

This change will surprise people who believe that we are incapable of decisive action and will comfort those who have been impatiently waiting. It will disturb those who are content with the status quo, but the status quo should never be extended too much hospitality in the United Brethren household.

We have laid out before you a number of principles or values and some practical actions that could result from embracing them. There is much more to do, but this is merely a conversation-starter. These ideas represent the thinking of men and women all over UBdom, many of whom I know only by name or email personality. They love God and His Church. They love you and are praying for us today. They are not infallible and neither are we. But we serve a God whose wisdom we can trust and whose Spirit has been a guiding influence in this movement from its first days until now. May that Original Spirit show us how to be bold, wise, humble, and gracious in the task we now take up. Thank you.