My denomination’s National Board met last Monday and Tuesday, and they were in the mood to do something drastic. I must commend them for leaping to some significant changes. I’m skeptical, but then, I’m still in the frame of mind that any “solution” we devise will be a very distant second-best to the humongous opportunities and synergies which we would have enjoyed by combining into the Missionary Church. But that’s not gonna happen, so I need to get over it. No sense continuing to wallow in sour grapes.

So, what is the United Brethren Church gonna do?

The initiative to join the Missionary Church emerged from a full-day long-range planning session by a group of a dozen thoughtful leaders. Last summer, I was privileged to eavesdrop on a two-day Missionary Church denominational planning meeting with about 50 people from across the country. I was impressed with the thoughtful, thorough way they approached things.

I wasn’t impressed with how we did it. I would have preferred that we start by determining such things as purpose, who we want to be, what we want to live and die for, what we want to excel at. Then structure around that. We just talked about those things, a scattershot approach, without settling on anything. Then we jumped right to structure. The first motion, the one that got the ball rolling, was to do away with the annual conference structure we’ve had for about 200 years. Whatever structure we ended up with, it would start with that building block. Like saying, “Let’s design a new car, but no matter what else it includes, it must have a V-6 engine.” My goodness that’s a stupid analogy, but my brain’s analogy-coming-up-with engine isn’t working real well right now.

Anyway, we’ll do away with conferences, group all 250 churches across the country into “cluster groups” of 5-7 churches, and let the bishop appoint all of the cluster group leaders. Interaction, accountability, pastoral development‚Äîmost things will occur within the cluster group context. Are we going to be a top-down organization, or a grassroots organization? We heard two proposals early in the meeting, and they were at odds on that point. But from the looks of it, we’re going to be top-down, which means we need to make sure we have the leadership that can make this radically-different structure work, and which can instill in our ministerial ranks the mindset needed to make it click. No matter how you look at it, a huge amount of leadership energy over the next 6-10 years will go into getting this structure in place and working out the bugs. It won’t be easy.

“Okay, Steve, rather than just gripe, give us an alternative.” That’s fair. But I’m sorry, I don’t have one. This may, indeed, be the best option out there. I’m cynical about how we got there, just as some people were disturbed with the process which led to the recommendation to join the Missionary Church. But I always say that process is an easy target; if you don’t like something, you can always find fault with the process–it’s not something that requires significant brainpower. Regardless of the process, if a solution is the best solution, then admit it. All things considered, I may need to do that in this case.

That’s all I’m gonna say for now. It’s enough.