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.

Back in early December, a friend and I discussed the question, “What does the United Brethren Church really care about?” This was after we learned that the constituency had definitely voted down the idea of combining our denomination into the Missionary Church. We felt that as a denomination, we needed to decide what it was we really really really cared about. What it was we would emphasize, put our energy behind.

We settled on a couple of things that we do, indeed, care about. We treasure our focus on biblical absolutes, while remaining open on theological and behavioral practices on which the Bible doesn’t clearly take a stand. As our documents say, “The church’s historic position has been to stand firm on biblical absolutes, allow freedom where the Bible allows freedom, and maintain unity when disagreements arise.” I’m a huge supporter of that statement. It very much defines who I am. In the debate over joining the Missionary Church, this principle was regularly emphasized (with some ridiculous insinuations that the Missionary Church is legalistic). But is that statement enough identity to justify our existance?

We’re also proud of our heritage. We haven’t done anything particularly noteworthy since 1889, when we split off from the main body, but our heritage prior to that point is pretty impressive. That, too, is something we care about. But is that enough?

I’ve been pondering this further the past few weeks, as I’ve been redesigning the denominational website. It’s due for an upgrade. In designing the homepage, I dearly wanted a tagline which would sum up the essense of who we are as United Brethren in Christ. “A church committed to….” But we have no such statement, nothing which says, “This is what we care about.” The Missionary Church has a great statement, which is prominent on their website: “An evangelical denomination committed to church planting and world missions.” Their actions prove that that’s more than just a statement. They truly care about church planting and world missions, and excel in carrying out those agendas.

We believe in church planting and missions; we know they are important and we make efforts. But I can’t say those are things we deeply care about, because you just can’t find the evidence. Sure, there are individuals and whole churches that can correctly claim to care deeply about church planting and/or missions. But we don’t as a denomination. And I can’t point to anything else. Evangelism? Growing healthy churches? Meaningful worship? More things we merely think are important–not things that in any way define us.

So, I resigned myself to designing the site without any catch-phrase or slogan.

Next Monday and Tuesday, our National Board will hold a special meeting to begin addressing the question, “Where do we go from here?” To answer that question, we need to decide, “What do we really really really care about?” Not, “What are we interested in or believe is important?”, but, “What do we want to be known for? What do we want to excel at? And what are we willing to put our sustained attention behind?”

I’m anxious to see how the delegates tackle such questions.