Is Your Connection Strong Enough?

by

This week my nephew and I have been trying to find a good connection. While he is traveling in Panama, the internet signal is not always great, but we seek a technological connection because of our emotional connection. “Connection” implies – whether technologically or emotionally – the ability to communicate.

That is what we have been seeking in the United Methodist Church over the past few weeks – the ability to communicate. It is a vital time to do so, both for our community and for our witness, because there are some within Methodism who believe that it is no longer possible or worthwhile. Regardless of whether we maintain our “Connection,” if we demonstrate to the world an inability to find an internal connection, then we trample on our witness and responsibility to communicate love.

We have clearly not lost our technological connection, but our communication is still breaking down because of the weakness of our ability and desire to form an emotional connection.

The cause may well be in the fact that “Connectional” is not a strong enough word for what we are called to be as the Body of Christ. By setting the bar at “Connectional”, we have set it far too low – leaving us with the ability to communicate but not necessarily the desire to do so.

We are “Connectional” when we, as insiders, know that we are working together – promoting our “brand,” protecting our pensions, and supporting our institutional structures.

We are “Collaborative” when the world around us knows that we are working together – promoting peace, seeking justice, and creating a community that communicates the unconditional love of God.

“Connectionalism” is the bare minimum required for an institution with bureaucratic overhead to exist and is, therefore, not inspiring but merely functional.

“Collaboration” is something that is rarely seen in a divided and competitive world and is, therefore, very inspiring to those who witness it.

Now, before the defenders of “Connectionalism” jump on the defensive, let me say that I am a huge fan/proponent/defender of true connectionalism – which is exactly why I am writing this. Unfortunately, our current form of “Connectionalism” is hampered in its ability to convey collaboration to the world, and thereby, inspire the world. We are not short on the desire to be heard, but we are running low on our ability to listen to one another.

It is possible for us to be collaborative as a connectional people, but it is also possible for us to merely maintain the “the form of religion without the power”; like a married couple who is no longer putting in any effort but merely going through the motions for the financial security of the arrangement, or for “the good of the kids” until their inevitable split occurs upon the graduation of the last child.

In order to be collaborative, we must be seeking to create something together. Offering something to the world that is a common product of our labors together.

To be collaborative, therefore, we must prioritize our common identity and common efforts above our individual progress and success.

The current functioning nature of our itinerancy system does not lend itself easily to that communal mindset.

In our pursuit of accountability within a declining structure, we have demanded results from our leaders at all levels and turned our focus to measuring their “success” by worldly and economic standards because they are measurable and quantifiable. In addition, our system of itinerancy has long relied upon tenure, connections, or quantifiable results to inform decisions about the placement of individuals. This system has, in some places, become an inconsistent system and sometimes even an unjust one.

The main signifier of our “Connectionalism” – our itinerancy – has therefore become more conducive to competition than to collaboration.

I get it. We all have our challenges. Either you are single and dreadfully aware that an isolating placement is not conducive to your emotional health and sense of thriving. Or you are married with a couple of children and are concerned about being in a context where your spouse can find a job and your children can be in a good school; and on top of that, you’ve got college bills to think of in a few years, and how are you going to afford to help your kids get a “good start” in life on your current salary. Or you have put in your thirty years or so and watched for decades as long-tenured pastor after long-tenured pastor get the “good appointments” before you, and now it is your turn and you are entitled to it – and God forbid someone take what you have waited patiently and sacrificed for your whole life.

The reality that the hierarchy of financial compensation within our itinerant structure, as well as the differences of regional and cultural affinity within our individuals, leads to the potential for competition. When the system seems to reward individual “success,” it applies a competitive rather than a collaborative connotation to the word “Connectional” regardless of its denotation.

This leads us to our current conversation, where those who have the worldly markers of success and therefore possess tacit power within the movement, trade “open letters” in an effort to discern what the United Methodist Church is going to mean when it claims to be “Connectional.” I see this as productive.

What I see as even more productive is when each of us has the courage within our local settings, communities, conferences, etc., to resist competition and strive for collaboration. When we are willing to look at the United Methodist Church across town that is trying to do exactly the same project that we are, and instead of trying to do it better, find a way to do it together.

What is more important to our reputations within the Connection is what we are capable of producing as individual leaders.

What is more important to the world around us is what we are capable of producing as a community together.

While the secular news media may be more than willing to give us free publicity through commentary on the potential of schism, your community is looking to you – United Methodist clergy or laity – to show them either collaboration or competition.

They don’t know what “Connectionalism” means – and they don’t need to – but they do know what love and unity feels like. If you want “Connectionalism” to mean love and unity, if you want that to be what the church is known for, then be brave enough to live it.

Whether or not our Connection is strong enough to weather the storms that will come is up to you.

The Rev. Hannah Adair Bonner is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church and a member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. She currently serves with St. John's Downtown in Houston, TX. She loves weaving words, stories and spiritual insights into both the written and the preached word. She reflects on her adventures at Soul Unbound. This article is reprinted with permission from the collaborative blog, UMC Lead.