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.
