Can United Methodists Really Adapt?

by

A UM Insight Exclusive

For almost 30 years, I have watched The United Methodist Church gyrate from one program to another model to an alternative theory about why our church can’t grow. I have drummed my fingers at countless District Professionals’ Meetings where we have trumpeted the lay witness mission, the Walk to Emmaus, Awakening ’89, Vital Congregations, Creating a Culture of Growth, and most recently the RIPER Model, yet another acronym whose full meaning escapes me. I wasn’t that into it anyway.

Today we’re all about sound bites, so here’s mine: The United Methodist Church is a 1950s top-down bureaucracy in a 21st century bottom-up world.

Since the 1950s, we have come to know about human organizations as complex adaptive systems (CAS). This has led to the understanding that the more organic, the more grassroots, and the more “bottom up” an organization is, the more it will grow and thrive.  CAS "are systems that have a large numbers of components, often called agents, which interact and adapt or learn." (John Holland) CASs are characterised by a high degree of adaptive capacity, giving them resilience in the face of perturbation. The human being is a complex adaptive system. So is the stock market. And the ecosystem. And political parties, the weather, the Internet and cyberspace.

The United Methodist Church has structured itself so it can’t act like an organic complex adaptive system. Its ills are structural and systemic. If more programs and models would save the church, they would have done it years ago. In 2009, the United Methodist bishops in the South Central Jurisdiction set a goal to “lower the average age of church members by a decade in a decade.” Half a decade has now passed, and the average age of 57 in 2009 either remains unchanged or has increased: sources vary here.

Now, bishops are smart people. I know they haven’t been sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs this past half-decade. This is why I say we’ve got a systems issue. The study of CAS is a young science, but its essential thrust is that a healthy organization mimics living organisms, allowing for communication and adaptation throughout the system. Small changes in one part of the system can have major effects somewhere else. And, above all, change doesn’t have to come from the top. Adaptive innovation can happen anywhere.

Too bad our bureaucracy gets in the way. Our church doesn’t govern itself like an organism. It governs like a machine. The top level, the bishops and the General Conference, do the leading, with descending levels of authority. The model is linear, not multidirectional. There are strict rules, and a few decide for the majority. Every four years! It’s generally accepted that a “year” on the World Wide Web is three months or less. How can our church adapt to a rapidly changing culture under those conditions?

Allowing more regional and cultural autonomy would be a step in the right direction.

“Autonomy” is almost heresy in our church. Unfortunately. I hear that there’s a proposal afoot to allow the African church, the European church, the Filipino church, and the American church to each hold their own General Conferences and have their own books of discipline. Each region would comprise its own Central Conference, as is the case in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines now. I also hear of the proposal to grant annual conferences leeway in deciding how to deal with the homosexual issue. These proposals would both be steps in the right direction. To those invested in the bureaucracy, this may sound like anarchy. It’s not. It’s making allowances for regional and cultural differences. In Africa, the Book of Discipline can’t always be used anyway. It’s not written in the local languages. The requirement of a seminary education for ordained elders isn’t workable in Africa either, as most Africans could never afford it. And there are few seminaries in Africa. Regarding policy around gay marriage and gay clergy, granting more autonomy would be an honest recognition of deep differences, and a way to move forward while staying together. It would make our church more “bottom up” and less “top down”.

We also need a few leaders to say to the whole UMC tribe, “Fear not.” And back those words up by giving permission for anyone, anywhere in the body, to communicate with anyone else. Clergy are often afraid to tell a district superintendent or bishop bad news or make a suggestion for fear they won’t be heard or will be demoted in their appointment. Laity also need permission to be open and transparent in their communication with any level of the church hierarchy. I work at a dynamic state psychiatric hospital with a superintendent who understands systems. He has an open-door policy. When he’s in his office, anyone can walk in and say what’s on their mind. There are only two rules. Common courtesy must be observed, and nobody can talk about anyone else without that person also being present.

Flatten out the structure. Ease up on the rules. (Seen the Book of Discipline lately? That’s a lot of rules!) Trust the grassroots more. United Methodists, as a body, are people of good will. Let’s truly be the Body of Christ, a complex adaptive system that combines bodily integrity with environmental flexibility.

The Rev. Ann L. Locasio of Austin, Tex., is a clergy member on leave of absence in the Southwest Texas Annual Conference.