First of all, thank you all again for the time and effort you are putting into these MUCH needed conversations. Yours is a thankless task, but as a small representation of the laity, its refreshing to hear these conversations happening amongst the clergy.
That being said, your conversation here sparked 3 questions/comments for me. I apologize if this isn’t the best place to pose these. I welcome direction if I should aim elsewhere. (Also sorry this is so long. @Meredith L. Griffin Jr. gets it…sometimes you just have alot of words to say) ;)
1) You all seemed to unilaterally and speedily agree that membership in a band should be a requirement for pastors. (I heartily agree) And yet, it seems that not only is it not a requirement, I’ve never even heard it suggested in the ways you all are talking about it. (Not that I’m fully immersed in the world of Wesleyan clergy). Meredith was spot on in what he said about internal-v-external accountability. From my seat right now neither really seem to be occurring consistently in the denomination. Are any of you aware of pockets or districts of TWC where the recommendation for band membership is encouraged strongly or even required? If so, what has been the fruit of this? If not, what is the hesitation for making this a more strongly held position?
2) A parallel to this question relates to the qualifications for leadership for the laity outlined in the discipline(260-268). These seem to clearly push for holy living, but don’t really point to any specific “band-like” expectations (265-8 is the closest to “band” language that I see). In my church when we nominate someone for a lay leadership role the ONLY thing I have ever heard used to disqualify someone is their tithing (leadership points to 265-3 as justification for this…of which I’m not convinced). I have NEVER heard discussion of whether someone was actively involved in an accountability community, discussion on the fruit we have seen in their life, or even of any interview process where we were able to discern the fruits you all discuss (and which are supported in scripture). Perhaps my church is the unhealthy exception, but it seems that we have taken the list in 265 and bent it to our own needs for expediency and comfort (we don’t discuss service, abstinence from alcohol, personal discipleship, etc). I wonder if as a denomination we recognize that we cant hold our laity to a standard that we aren’t holding our clergy to? So by avoiding the issue with clergy we not only have leaders who aren’t in these healthy groups, but we now have congregations who also do not understand the value of bands and groups.
3)The discussion on metrics particularly grabbed my attention because I am so weary of hearing reports on tithing and attendance with no discussion for all the other ways a ministry can be fruitful. Again, maybe this is a byproduct of an unhealthy church and other churches are doing this well (but this discussion makes me think this is a systemic issue). Matt I hear your acknowledgement of the tension that exists here and I wonder if this is a place where secular research can give the church some guidance? In the social sciences we regularly make use of both quantitative and qualitative research. It sounds like our churches are limited to quantitative data to prove their health. Not a bad thing, but not comprehensive. If we want to not only tell our stories but MEASURE our stories, those techniques exist, we just need to become more well versed in them. Brene’ Brown, for example, has written extensively on shame and vulnerability and her research is almost exclusively qualitative. There are established ways to do this kind of data collection, and I think would offer some really beautiful ways to grab “metrics” of church health that don’t show up in a bar graph of attendance trends. Maybe I’m stating the obvious and you guys have a room full of researchers doing this very thing. But talking about lived experiences and stories as if they are “unmeasurable” simply doesn’t represent where the research methodologies are in our current era. We can do this. The fact that we aren’t is either ignorance or laziness. (Read that as a challenge not a disparagement).
Keep up the hard work. You have a supporter in SC cheering you all on!
First of all, thank you all again for the time and effort you are putting into these MUCH needed conversations. Yours is a thankless task, but as a small representation of the laity, its refreshing to hear these conversations happening amongst the clergy.
That being said, your conversation here sparked 3 questions/comments for me. I apologize if this isn’t the best place to pose these. I welcome direction if I should aim elsewhere. (Also sorry this is so long. @Meredith L. Griffin Jr. gets it…sometimes you just have alot of words to say) ;)
1) You all seemed to unilaterally and speedily agree that membership in a band should be a requirement for pastors. (I heartily agree) And yet, it seems that not only is it not a requirement, I’ve never even heard it suggested in the ways you all are talking about it. (Not that I’m fully immersed in the world of Wesleyan clergy). Meredith was spot on in what he said about internal-v-external accountability. From my seat right now neither really seem to be occurring consistently in the denomination. Are any of you aware of pockets or districts of TWC where the recommendation for band membership is encouraged strongly or even required? If so, what has been the fruit of this? If not, what is the hesitation for making this a more strongly held position?
2) A parallel to this question relates to the qualifications for leadership for the laity outlined in the discipline(260-268). These seem to clearly push for holy living, but don’t really point to any specific “band-like” expectations (265-8 is the closest to “band” language that I see). In my church when we nominate someone for a lay leadership role the ONLY thing I have ever heard used to disqualify someone is their tithing (leadership points to 265-3 as justification for this…of which I’m not convinced). I have NEVER heard discussion of whether someone was actively involved in an accountability community, discussion on the fruit we have seen in their life, or even of any interview process where we were able to discern the fruits you all discuss (and which are supported in scripture). Perhaps my church is the unhealthy exception, but it seems that we have taken the list in 265 and bent it to our own needs for expediency and comfort (we don’t discuss service, abstinence from alcohol, personal discipleship, etc). I wonder if as a denomination we recognize that we cant hold our laity to a standard that we aren’t holding our clergy to? So by avoiding the issue with clergy we not only have leaders who aren’t in these healthy groups, but we now have congregations who also do not understand the value of bands and groups.
3)The discussion on metrics particularly grabbed my attention because I am so weary of hearing reports on tithing and attendance with no discussion for all the other ways a ministry can be fruitful. Again, maybe this is a byproduct of an unhealthy church and other churches are doing this well (but this discussion makes me think this is a systemic issue). Matt I hear your acknowledgement of the tension that exists here and I wonder if this is a place where secular research can give the church some guidance? In the social sciences we regularly make use of both quantitative and qualitative research. It sounds like our churches are limited to quantitative data to prove their health. Not a bad thing, but not comprehensive. If we want to not only tell our stories but MEASURE our stories, those techniques exist, we just need to become more well versed in them. Brene’ Brown, for example, has written extensively on shame and vulnerability and her research is almost exclusively qualitative. There are established ways to do this kind of data collection, and I think would offer some really beautiful ways to grab “metrics” of church health that don’t show up in a bar graph of attendance trends. Maybe I’m stating the obvious and you guys have a room full of researchers doing this very thing. But talking about lived experiences and stories as if they are “unmeasurable” simply doesn’t represent where the research methodologies are in our current era. We can do this. The fact that we aren’t is either ignorance or laziness. (Read that as a challenge not a disparagement).
Keep up the hard work. You have a supporter in SC cheering you all on!