 | |
| Bishop Larry M. Goodpaster UMNS photo by Ronny Perry |
By Bishop Larry M. Goodpaster*
From the very beginning, the people who follow the theology
and the dreams of John Wesley and Francis Asbury have had an uneasy relationship
with bishops. One proposal before 2012 General Conference delegates recommends
creating a “set-aside bishop” without residential responsibilities. Naturally,
this has prompted comments for and against the idea.
Let me share some of our thoughts as we — the Council of
Bishops — have studied, prayed, talked, discussed and debated in bringing forth
a proposal for the president of the Council of Bishops to be relieved of
residential responsibilities for a period of four years.
First, we all agree that the church’s most important task is
mission. The bishops are committed to leading the church toward the mission of
making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. How do we
do that most effectively? We believe we do it through vital, healthy, thriving
congregations connected first to God and then to one to another in the common
mission field of a neighborhood, a community, an area, a country and the world.
The adaptive challenge that has emerged from the Call to
Action and from our work over this quadrennium is to redirect the flow of
attention, energy and resources toward increasing and sustaining the number of
vital congregations. This should not surprise us since it is already in the
Book of Discipline: “The local church provides the most significant arena
through which disciple-making occurs. It is a community of true believers under
the Lordship of Christ” (Par. 201). The bishops see the importance of providing
leadership that encourages, inspires, motivates and challenges United Methodists
to be about the mission of the church.
Second, the Discipline and our constitution say that bishops
provide spiritual and temporal leadership for the whole church. However, for
the most part, the paragraphs that describe the work of the bishop (Par.
401-435) describe a manager, not a spiritual/temporal leader, of the
denomination. How do we do that? Your bishops have been engaged in continuous
conversation and study on adaptive leadership, focusing on the work of Ronald
Heifetz and others who write and teach about leadership in the 21st century.
We understand that the hierarchical world no longer exists,
that command and control does not work. There are those who believe this might
be a shift in the balance of power or too much authority invested in one
office. However, we understand and are learning to practice a collaborative,
transformative, adaptive leadership. The person would be held accountable by
the Council itself and through both conference and jurisdictional committees on
episcopacy.
‘Challenging the
church’
The opportunity to provide a Council of Bishops president
who is relieved of residential responsibilities is not about power, authority,
hierarchy or command and control. It is about mission and vision. It is about
challenging the church in every part of the world to move forward in
accomplishing its mission.
Third, I am finishing two years as president of the Council of Bishops, while providing residential leadership for the Western North
Carolina Annual (regional) Conference. It has become nearly impossible to be
president of the council, dealing with demands, requests and assorted other
matters, and to lead an annual conference at the same time. This flat world
with instant communication continues to change and challenge the work of the president
of the Council of Bishops. Working to keep up with all of those changes, plus
serving in my primary assignment as a resident bishop, has meant investing more
time and energy in both, with less time for rest and reflection.
As we currently operate, we expect and demand much of one
person. As I have looked back on my two years in these dual roles, I realize there
have been very few days off and shortened vacations. In order to do both
assignments, the president must clock 12- to 14-hour days, and “smartphones”
make us available 24/7 in all time zones of the world.
I have been most fortunate to have a retired bishop (Neil
Irons) serving part time as an executive secretary and assisting the work of
the council. He helps me and, especially, the council move through the
paperwork and the many requests, reports and other things that require our
attention. The small office space we have in the United Methodist Building in
Washington provides a place for Bishop Irons and our full-time administrative assistant,
Jo Ann McClain. Both are most efficient and helpful in supporting the president
of the council.
In addition, the council elects a retired bishop to serve
part time as our ecumenical officer. Over the years, we have had some strong
leaders in that position. However, it sends a confusing message to the
ecumenical community. Who is the head of the communion? Is it the council
president? Is it the ecumenical officer? Is it the United Methodist Commission
on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns? For the last four years, Bishop
Sharon Rader has served as our ecumenical officer. She and I receive numerous
invitations to represent The United Methodist Church, so we communicate often.
In response to those invitations, she responds and participates as much as
possible, and we communicate regularly about our shared work. We often share
the participation, and often ask other bishops to represent us. Thus, there is
neither consistency nor a clear message to the wider world and our ecumenical
partners.
‘An already
time-consuming job’
The requests and demands to travel, itinerate and speak on
behalf of the Discipline, our identity as United Methodists, our Wesleyan
heritage and our unique mission and ministry demand more time and energy than
one can do in an already time-consuming job.
Finally, we believe that the president of the Council of
Bishops will help lead the bishops in staying focused on the adaptive
challenge. The bishops have said, “We want to expend our energy, resources and
attention on developing, nurturing and increasing the number of vital
congregations. We want to begin to organize the work of the Council of Bishops,
to have conversations across the entire church. We understand what it is to
work collaboratively and collegially, and that is the way a president without
residential responsibilities would lead.”
Contrary to what some have speculated, it is not as if we
would be the Council of Bishops or its president or any other group standing
hierarchically over anyone else. Rather, having a set-aside bishop would offer
a way to unite us so we could move forward toward the mission — encouraging
spirituality and accountability among the bishops.
In my two years serving in this office, I have learned how
little power, authority and permission the president actually has. There has
not been a month that I have not received a letter from a conference somewhere
in the world, wanting the president to intervene in some conflict or problem
facing an area. Of course, the Discipline is very clear about the process, and
it includes only those who are bishops in the region. What such requests do,
however, is cause anxiety among the people and many prayers from me. Nothing in
this proposal changes any of that, but it does open the door for the president
of the council to keep everyone focused on the mission and to ensure that the
processes outlined in the Discipline are carried out.
My sisters and brothers, it is all about the mission and how
we connect and collaborate in moving the church forward. A president of the
council without residential responsibilities begins to help us focus, sharpen,
align, and move with passion for the sake of Jesus Christ.
*Goodpaster, president of the Council of Bishops, serves the
Charlotte Area of The United Methodist Church.