How is effectiveness measured?
Monday, October 03, 2011
There's a reason for that. The Call to Action report (or simply "CTA") is likely to dominate the work of the General Conference next spring in Tampa, Florida. In fact, it's likely to dominate a lot of the discussion leading up to the GC and will be on the minds of many in the coming months.
CTA has got the right idea when viewed broadly: our church does great ministry and offers a powerful witness in many ways, but it is also in need of reform. And as I think CTA rightly notes, "reform" is something that involves attitudes and ministry emphases as much as it does institutional restructuring. Ultimately the process of ecclesiastical reform must be holistic in its scope.
But there are some things about CTA that I think need to be critiqued as well. And in a recent column in the Reporter, I try to offer one such critique in the way that CTA uses the language of "effectiveness." Check out the column and let me know what you think.
One clarifying note: I might stress what I'm about to say a bit too much from time to time, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. I've got great respect for the UM Connectional Table and the Council of Bishops, the two groups which are largely responsible for the CTA report. I think all ecclesiastical officers who are in the trenches doing the hard work of ministry at the "institutional level" (and in an age that isn't friendly to large institutions) should be treated with a measure of respect appropriate both to their offices and to the important work they do.
Should conversations be had, debate be joined, and critiques made when needed? Absolutely. That's what practical theology in the church looks like oftentimes. But the fact of such theological reflection should never obscure the proper underlying motivation, which is a deeply collegial one where each person joins with the one he wants to engage rather than against him. We are all brothers and sisters within Christ's family, after all, which is a statement that is more than pious platitude. It is reality that should be lived. And I hope my writing reflects it as well.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 9:57 PM
2 Comments:
Dr. Thompson, in regards to the language in the CTA, and closer to home our ARUMC documents regarding "Imagine Ministry", i am not hearing the language of repentance. I am concerned that we are skipping THE vital step leading to truly "Deep Change". What does "institutional repentance" look like? Is it merely an act of leadership? Public or private? Wesley (sermon 14 at least) seems to reflect on the need for continued repentance, and i am concerned that our "transformation" will be incomplete and hollow if it lacks the fullness offered from a foundation of repentance.
What are your thoughts?
Paul Hill, MTS student
Thanks for that comment, Paul. I would agree with your observation about CTA in the sense that I think the language of the business & marketing world has in some ways replaced our theological vocabulary. That is one of the chief points of frustration I have with the document, which is one thing I point out in my UM Reporter column.
When you mentioned the need for repentance, that is an issue both of language and of action. To be sure, both are needed. But of course, repentance does stand alone. It leads to a new (or perhaps, a 'renewed') form of life that is fundamental to what we, as Wesleyans, understand salvation to be about in this life. And yes, a greater attention to such things is certainly needed to make the CTA report whole.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home