The Re-Districting Debate

A very wise person once said, “The highest form of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.”

The United Methodist Church exists in a world that is constantly changing, yet we often seem slow to adapt. A few conferences in the United Methodist Church have taken bold steps in redistricting to help local churches in their mission of making disciples. These conferences are attempting to respond to changing culture and demographics. The Florida and North Alabama Conferences come immediately to mind. Florida recently downsized from 14 to 9 districts. North Alabama voted in January 2006 to downsize from 12 to 8. The resulting dramatic decreases in the number of districts were intentional. Both conferences wanted to force the new districts to implement new and radical ways of doing ministry. This past year, Bishop Timothy Whitaker of Florida penned a letter to North Alabama making the case for dramatic cuts in the number of districts. He shared how Florida was compelled to think and act differently about district structures because they made the decision to downsize radically. If they had only downsized by one or two districts, they would have been tempted to engage in business as usual. This would have led to overworked district superintendents and would have proved all the naysayers correct. Instead, they acted decisively which forced fundamental change.

The South Georgia Conference formed a task force in 2005 to study district structures. South Georgia has discussed this issue before. In years past, those who fought against downsizing and restructuring insisted South Georgia’s growth would be hindered if the number of districts were cut. South Georgia has shown more net losses in membership than gains in recent years. Maintaining the number of districts is apparently not the answer for producing evangelistic growth in our conference.

Maybe it is time to think in new, unconventional ways. Maybe we should take a new approach. Other conferences could study North Alabama and Florida to see what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to restructuring districts. North Alabama is asking some challenging questions about the work of districts. Some of the questions they are asking include: “Can a group of elders assist the DS in the supervision of churches and clergy?”; “What projects will occupy the DS?”; “What will be the priorities in the DS's time?”; “What will the DS say NO to that previous DS's could not?”; “Will the districts set up an accountability team for the District and who will serve on it?”; “How will the new DS and district keep itself spiritually formed and theologically committed rather than simply administratively, bureaucratically preoccupied?”; “How will the new district constantly evaluate itself and its faithfulness to its mission?”; and, “How will it hold itself accountable to results and outcomes of its work?”

Reducing districts is not a magic answer, but it might be one bold change that could ignite the creative energies of a new generation. It would certainly force us to do ministry differently. It would compel us to utilize new decision-making processes, and call us to work more closely together, strengthening our connection.

Finally, many people I have talked with would like to see radical downsizing of districts solely because it would save money. The financial impact could certainly open up other avenues for ministry and allow the strategic reallocation of staff, but our primary reason behind making these changes should be missional.

Some people might say change for change sake is unwise. Why risk it? Another wise person once said, “If you always do what you’ve always done, then you always get what you’ve always got”. It might be time for a change.

A Church of Statistics or Stories?

As I perused the annual conference recaps for the Southeastern jurisdiction, I found some interesting paradoxes. The statistics state that only five of the 15 conferences in the Southeastern jurisdiction showed an increase in membership. North Georgia led the way reporting over 4,000 new members. Ironically, of the five conferences reporting an increase in new members, none were able to report an increase in worship attendance (according to summaries listed at UMC.org). Only one conference in the Southeast showed an increase in worship attendance (Kentucky) and that conference showed a decline in membership. However, while every conference showed a decrease in either membership or worship, every conference told wonderful stories! They reported a variety of wonderful ministries, new and exciting opportunities, vitality in new church development, and the continuing development of new leaders. The statistics led to confusion about the state of our church, but the stories led to hope and joy.

What do the statistics really tell us? Is the picture as grim as the numbers say? If we are ever to get a handle on what is truly going on, we will need to adjust our learning processes and cease putting so much emphasis on the statistics. Many in our church scan over our yearly, quarterly, and monthly statistical reports like Wall Street analysts reading the Fed reports. “Did you see so-and-so church lost 30 members the first half of ’06? They must be having huge problems,” we state with scientific certainty. After all, we are children of rationalism and numbers don’t lie. We believe we know the truth because we know the numbers.

The only way you can really know someone is to listen to their story. Margaret Wheatley, in her book Finding Our Way: Leadership for Uncertain Times, states that we tend to treat organizations (churches, in our case) more like machines than living systems (organisms). We look at the output and production and make our pontifications about the state of things in the church. We formulate steps, plans, and methodologies so churches can follow someone’s “Five Easy Steps to Church Growth”. These plans and platitudes treat churches like machines that just need to be operated correctly to be productive. We say the church is a body – a living organism - but we often treat the church like a piece of machinery. It is time to rediscover the stories.

What are the stories behind the numbers? Do we know? Do we care? We can make the statistics say anything we want. We can spin the increase in giving to counter the loss of members in many ways. For example, many of the conference recaps heralded the increase of overall giving for 2005. What many did not clearly state was that overall giving included gifts toward relief efforts for natural disasters. Very few conferences actually paid a higher percentage of denominational apportionments over previous years.

The point is this: Why do we feel the need to allow the statistics tell the stories? Let the stories speak. The stories are rich and powerful. Why does almost every district in our church take half of the monthly district newsletter to list statistics (apportionments paid and net gain/loss in evangelism)? Stories would be better use of our space than statistics. Narratives of resurrected lives speak with more integrity than numbers.

There are stories behind the numbers. Stories of lives changed, hearts reborn, and relationships healed. Let us take time to rediscover the power of stories before we lose our hearing from the cacophony of statistics.