We had a big surprise at work on Monday, and it was a very cool thing. Mark Beers and Wes Kuntzman, two United Brethren ministers (Decatur and Monroe, Ind.), delivered a big box of goodies to each us at the United Brethren Headquarters. That’s ten boxes of goodies. LOTS of goodies. We’re talkin’ a full turkey, a half-ham, a sack of potatoes, two litres of pop, a box of Stovetop Stuffing, a jar of gravy, a bunch of oranges (very sweet!), a bag of M&Ms, and probably some other stuff I can’t remember offhand.

These care packages actually came courtesy of the United Brethren church in Daytona, Florida, where Chuck McKeown is the pastor. Wes Kuntzman is from down there, and that’s probably the connection. Daytona is really passionate about doing “random acts of kindness,” and this was just an example. They probably figured maybe we were feeling somewhat blue as a result of the October UB election (and we are), so this was a wonderful bit of affirmation. They’ve been doing creative acts of kindness for people in their community for years–merchants, civil servants, neighbors, anyone. Reach out in love without expecting anything in return.

Mark and Wes had fun delivering the goodies (Wes wore a little Santa hat), and had two helpers (college students, I think). We’re talking big, heavy boxes. Pam and I are going to do the ham tonight; I’m not sure when we’ll get around to the turkey. We didn’t need any of this. But I’m still shaking my head at the thoughtfulness of the people in Daytona. Thanks, Pastor Chuck!

In my continued bummed-out state, I don’t exactly draw encouragement from the UBHope discussion forum. Lately, posts there have revolved around removing from leadership, and banning from future leadership, persons who were in favor of the referendum to join the Missionary Church. I, quite obviously, am one target of that. So are the Bishop and the ELT members.

Taking it further, as one person seems to, would exclude the pastors of 11 of the 12 largest UB churches (maybe all 12–I’m not sure where one of the pastors stood). The ministers with the strongest track record in knowing how to grow a church tended to be in favor of the referendum. So, who will next hold the reigns of the denomination? Will it be proven church-builders? I think not. They wanted to do away with the denomination. They lost. As it is written online, “How will those who were lead advocates of the ‘dissolution’ movement and who made substantive negative comment(s) about the denomination, regain the trust of those who had, and continue to have, respect and regard for the denomination?…Can the laity re-establish trust with its current denominational leadership?”

One person wrote, “I don’t think you have to fear the current leaders relinquishing power. I think you have to worry about a dearth of people ready to take over leadership.” That was countered by someone who responded, “The ‘dearth of people ready to take over leadership’ will be hard challenged to do worse that the current leadership.” Thanks for the affirmation.

This brings to the forefront something which is new to the UB church, and which has bothered me for several months now: the severe criticism–even mockery–of persons in leadership. I’ve not seen this before in my days in the UB church (all 48 years of them). It’s a door that has been opened, and which the UBHope mailings over the course of the past six months have exacerbated. It’s open season on the leadership.

I doubt that this level of criticism has existed in our midst since the days of Milton Wright (who, arguably, set the pattern and then led a division in the church in 1889). We justify Milton Wright’s actions and attitude by pointing out that the church he departed from is now the United Methodist Church, and aren’t we glad we aren’t part of the UMC? But as I have read about Milton Wright, I have noticed a spirit about him which bothers me greatly. And I think that spirit has been revived during the past year.

The door is open–it’s okay to severely criticize our church leadership, to second-guess their decisions, to even ridicule them (as we’ve seen in emails and anecdotes which have made their way to the HQ offices). And that will make it extremely difficult for a new bishop and new leadership groups to lead. This, I’m afraid, will be part of the lasting legacy of UBHope.

Okay, I sound embittered. Actually, it’s just frustration. Where will God lead us in the future? That’s the question on everyone’s mind.

Today, we’re announcing the results of the UB elections. Actually, I posted the results on the UB website yesterday, but without fanfare. The referendum intended to unite the United Brethren church with the Missionary Church failed, getting just 43% of the votes of UB members in the United States. I’m crushed. Have been for a week, actually, since I’ve known for that long that it would die.

The strongest opposition came from a group called UBHope, a group which I helped create (inadvertently) by launching a denominational discussion forum. That’s where the UBHope people got acquainted. Stupid, stupid me.

Posting on the web was one of three parts of the plan to announce the results to the UB constituency, which is the responsibility of the bishop. But within hours of the results appearing on the website, UBHope sent an apparently already-prepared email newsletter to its own email list (which is pretty large). So, many UB people will hear the results first not from the Bishop, but from the group which fought so hard to defeat the referendum. It never crossed my mind that they would do that; otherwise, I would have waited to post the results on the web. Again, stupid, stupid, and terribly naive me.

The UBHope newsletter did a lot of preaching about kingdom-building and church growth and etc. The thing is, the churches that are fueling the bulk of the growth in our denomination are, for the most part, led by pastors who favored joining the Missionary Church–our larger churches, and our smaller progressive churches (like Anchor, my own church, which voted 35-0 in favor). And most of the people behind UBHope don’t exactly come from cutting edge churches, though you wouldn’t guess that by reading their progressive-sounding materials.

Oh my, I’m sounding like a very sore, embittered loser. In the grief process, I guess I’m in the Anger stage. Somewhere far out ahead lies Acceptance. I wonder when I’ll arrive there. I’m venting here, on this little blog designed for my own amusement. I think I feel better already.

I’ve heard lots of “exit polling” from the October elections in United Brethren churches regarding the referendum on our denomination joining the Missionary Church. Here’s my guess: it’ll pass with a 55-60% yes vote. We’ll know soon enough. Conference boards of tellers are now compiling the results from conference churches, and they’ll be forwarding the results to the Bishop’s office. Maybe in a couple weeks, we’ll know.

Right now, we’re kind of in the eye of the hurricane–things are fairly calm. Have been, pretty much, since local church voting started at the beginning of October. But once the results are announced, things will heat up again, one way or the other. It’s hard to predict what exactly will happen under any scenario. But it’s good to be optimistic.

I remain very excited about the synergies that can happen in bringing our denominations together. It certainly won’t automatically make our churches healthy, and nobody’s claiming that that will happen. But there is a lot we can do together, and the United Brethren church is just too small‚Äîas a group of churches‚Äîto do a lot of things by ourselves. Plus, we’ll be good for the Missionary Church‚Äîa fresh infusion of good churches and seasoned leaders with new energy. And we’ll bring fresh perspectives, as outsiders always do. Like I said, it’s the synergies that really have me cranked.

If it fails, the United Brethren denomination can “keep the church doors” open indefinitely. But I’m concerned about long-term effectiveness. We’ve been on a certain trajectory for over 15 years, a trajectory toward being a group of merely affiliated churches that do less and less cooperatively. I don’t like that trajectory. Some people might prefer that, but I like the idea of being a denomination where churches cooperate to do meaningful things. That’s what I remember from my childhood and early adult years. That’s what I feel we can regain by uniting with the Missionary Church.

Some people argue that this issue is dividing our church. Well, there are certainly differing opinions about whether or not this is a good thing. But as a pastor pointed out to me earlier this week, we’re actually trying to do something that brings applause in heaven‚Äîuniting churches. Where you see dividing, I see uniting. For the sake of more effectively building the Kingdom.