Is Adaptive Change What We Need? Reflections on the UM Leadership Summit

In the world of 24/7/365 social media, I realize I am a dinosaur in the amount of time that has passed since last Wednesday's UM Leadership Summit. For the five people out there who are not aware of what the summit was, it was a collection of leaders in the United Methodist Church who led the entire denomination in a live web feed discussion concerning the issues and concerns regarding the Methodist church. The primary focus was the Call to Action Report which calls for confession from us all that we have not been as intentional as we should in making disciples. The study also spent $500,000 to define and identify "vitality" in vital congregations. You may decide if the money was worth it or not, that's not what I want to discuss. I am more intrigued by the primary use of the word "adaptive" which is used significantly and defines the way in which we deal with the challenges. (Call to Action, pg. 22, pp. 25ff)

As a student of systems theory, organizational culture, and learning organizations, I was most fascinated by the leaders' use of the word "adaptive". Bishop Gregory Palmer uses it first when he states in the video (at 37:41 and 37:56) what our "adaptive" challenge is: Redirect attention, energy, and resources to increase the number of vital congregations. The actual report itself has an entire section devoted to "Adaptive Challenges" (pp.25ff)

I understand that anyone can define any word to mean anything they want, but I'm not sure what we need is "adaptive learning". Maybe its what the institutional church and leaders desire, but its not really what true reformation is all about.

Peter Senge, noted systems theorist, learning organization guru and author of The Fifth Discipline, defines a "learning organization" as "an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. For such organizations it is not enough to merely survive. 'Survival learning', or what is most often termed 'adaptive learning' is important - indeed it is necessary. But for the learning organization, 'adaptive learning' must be joined with 'generative learning' - learning that enhances our capacity to create." (The Fifth Discipline, pg. 14).

Adaptive challenges and adaptive learning are all rooted in the struggle to survive. There is nothing created or recreated in adaptive learning. Adaptive learning is kin to the old adage "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." Adaptive learning is reactionary and is motivated from fear of survival. Adaptive learning also usually comes from the top down as the institution or organization meets survival challenges and works diligently to stay alive.

Generative learning, on the other hand, creates something new - or recreates that which once was vital. Generative learning is closely connected to the scriptural word metanoia. Metanoia is in no way connected to adapting. It has always been connected to conversion and recreation. The great central truth of our faith in Christ is that the dead can live again and that mediocre living can be recreated to something abundant! Abundant life (vitality?) is our fundamental need which is why the word "vital" is central in the Call to Action Report. Unfortunately, as with any large initiative coming from the top, it is extremely difficult to step away from the drive to survive. The drive to survive (adaptive) is not the same and the drive to live creatively and abundantly (generative). This, in my opinion, is why the creators of the report feel the urgency to increase reporting and accountability. While rooted in something that seems generative, it is totally adaptive and rooted in the fear of death. "Maybe, if we watch our numbers more closely and measure everything more carefully, we will become more vital." It's like watching a pot of water waiting for it to boil but never turning on the heat.

In the Call to Action Report, they write "Adaptive change and leadership are not possible without an authentic purpose and vision; powerful, cohesive, guiding coalition; strong standards, and accountability." In truth, adaptive change is entirely possible without purpose and vision. Dying churches engage in adaptive learning every day and it hasn't really changed anything because they are not expanding their capacity to create! The essence of adapting is merely adjusting to the external factors to survive.

Do we merely need to survive? If that is all we are after, then I say the Call to Action Report is just what we need. More reporting, more dashboards, more numbers, and more measurables.

Or do we want to breathe new life into these dry bones? If that is what we are after, it will start in the local church, with local laity, and local pastors who will define vitality rather than live into definitions from Nashville.

So, do we really desire to live and create?

Reflections from the National Gathering of the Orders of Elders

On February 1-3, 2011, the Rev. Karen Kilhefner (South Georgia’s Chair of Deacons) and I journeyed to Orlando, Florida for the National Gathering of the Orders of Elders, Deacons, and Local Pastors. Approximately 80 gathered to discuss three major study reports from General Conference and engage in a time of visioning. There is agreement at every level that the United Methodist Church must recapture its core mission – to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. On the first night, we discussed three current major General Conference reports.

The Call to Action Report (www.umc.org/calltoaction) – This ambitious report calls for challenge and change at every level of the church. It includes a radical confession: we have not taken upon ourselves the yoke of obedience and we have not done all we can to make disciples. We have pursued self-interest. We allow institutional inertia to bind us. A few key recommendations of the Call to Action report are: 1) We need to focus on lay and clergy leadership development to train strong, courageous, and collaborative leaders. If the church is to be transformed, it starts with each one of us – making a difference where we are every day. 2) We must have vital congregations. What are vital congregations? The Towers Watson Report, sponsored by the commission, detailed characteristics that vital congregations all share; effective pastoral leadership, multiple small groups for all ages, mix of traditional and contemporary worship styles, a high percentage of spiritually engaged laity who assume leadership in the local church and beyond, topical preaching, and longer pastoral appointments. 3) We must have measurable goals and meet them. What should we measure? The top measurables are; growth in worship attendance and small groups (including children and youth), cultivating increases in stewardship, growing spirituality and leadership of laity, longer tenure for pastors, and more dedication to missional tasks.

The Ministry Study Commission Report (www.gbhem.org/ministrystudy) While this study looks at many aspects of ministry, the two issues that led to the most discussion at our gathering were in the areas of ordination and guaranteed appointments. 1) Ordination - The Study calls for the church to once again change our ordination process. They recommend doing away with ‘commissioning’. They want ordination as ‘elder’ to occur earlier, taking the place of what we now call ‘commissioning’. Once ordained an elder, there are still two years of evaluation. After two years, there is an interview with the Board of Ordained Ministry. If approved, the already ordained elder would then become a ‘full member’ of the conference. There were many questions and concerns about this at the national gathering. Is membership in an annual conference of greater importance than ordination? A large reason for our concern and confusion was the commission’s rationale for making the change. The commission believes our current system of ‘commissioning’ is confusing to our members and to other denominations. Many of us felt this was not a well grounded rationale to make this change; especially since their theological statement for the report is extremely sparse and gives no understanding of our Methodist understanding of ordination. We wanted to see more work on the theology of ordination, or else another group may come and recommend change again in four years! 2) Guaranteed Appointments – The Ministry Study Commission is calling for the General Church and conferences to define effectiveness and use measurable outcomes to determine if clergy should be transitioned out – basically, the church will do away with guaranteed appointments. In our discussions, we raised the issue that the Discipline currently has a process for exiting ineffective clergy – we just never use it. The commission calls it cumbersome and long. But, instead of refining the current process and keeping guaranteed appointments, the report recommendation is to create and craft a new exiting program and remove the guarantee of appointment altogether.

The Church Systems Task Force (found at www.gbophb.org)is primarily focused on how church systems affect clergy health and well-being. It lists many negative health factors in our church such as; stress of the appointive process, job satisfaction, personal finances, lack of friends, and (my favorite) poor eating habits due to work in churches. I can assure that I did not vote against pot-luck dinners or fried chicken!

Idea sharing and visioning were also a large part of our gathering. Some conferences are attempting to push for ‘renewal leaves’ in their conferences – mandated leaves in the year that a pastor moves to a new church or every six years if they are not moving. Another idea some conferences are pursuing is a 360 degree review process for ordained elders. This evaluation process would take place every five years and include: church feedback, peer feedback, supervisory feedback, psychological feedback and even a credit check (financial feedback). As conferences work to set standards for effectiveness, these types of reviews may be more common.

The South Georgia Order of Elders - I am proud to tell you that South Georgia is one of the leaders along with several other conferences in establishing new, supportive connections for elders. During the clergy session of the 2011 Annual Conference, I will update you on our S3 program and discuss several new South Georgia initiatives for clergy. Here’s a peek:

S3 - The S3 program started last year by the Order of Elders is building new groups for deep, authentic connection rooted in accountability and support. Two new groups were formed in 2010 and two more groups will be selected to begin in the summer of 2011. South Georgia currently has six S3 groups totaling 40 elders and deacons – that is about 18% of our actively serving ordained clergy!

Covenant Care for Clergy – A Covenant Care Team is being formed as I write this article. This team will be fellow clergy who give leadership and intentionality as Care Guides. They will connect and create small groups for clergy. We will also utilize retired elders as spiritual mentors/guides to support active clergy through encouragement and prayer. All this will be directed by our Covenant Care Team, a part of the Order of Elders.

Leadership Cultivation Project– We are working on a new project for elders in South Georgia that will help cultivate leadership skills for effectiveness in the local church – particularly as it relates to revitalizing mid-life, mature, and declining congregations. The focus will be on two categories of leaders – new elders (1-5 years) and elders in mid-ministry (approximately 15-20 years). This year-long group will include teaching, mentoring, and engagement in an actual learning project in their local church that the participant designs. Effective leadership can be learned!

Annual Gathering of the Order of Elders– I am also working to make the dream of an annual elders gathering a reality. In addition to special speakers, there will be time for idea-sharing, community building and Sabbath together. You will hear more about this soon.

I believe strongly that if our denomination is to become all God wants us to be, we must act. We cannot wait on General Boards, Bishops, or Superintendents to do this work for us. It is time for the clergy to lead in South Georgia and beyond. Lord, enable us to start a movement and change the world!