Bigger Than Sex: Trust Deficits in the United Methodist Church
Photo by Artur Rutkowski on Unsplash
In 2010 the United Methodist Church entered an extensive study. “The Call to Action” interviewed thousands of laity, clergy, bishops, and staff. It issued a final report prior to the 2012 General Conference, calling for major action in nine specific areas of church life, such as reforms in clergy and episcopal systems and setting metrics for expectations and effectiveness for clergy. Small fragments of some of the nine major areas were adopted by some annual conferences. The re-formation of the denomination envisioned through the process didn’t happen, and most of the proposed fruit of this labor largely has been forgotten amid other denominational travails.
One of the most significant challenges for the church discovered amid the multitude of interviews was not the debate on homosexuality. The study uncovered a profound, systemic, and deep lack of trust. This attitude affected bishops, clergy, laity, young, old, ethnic and racial minorities, and theological liberals, conservatives and moderates. Distrust of the system, of boards and agencies, of processes and people, of the treatment and appointment of clergy, of the treatment and use of laity, all were part of the mix. Distrust of the nature and scope of theological education and many of the materials produced by official sources for local church usage made the list, from players representing a wide theological spectrum. Lack of trust in motives, intentions, and clergy preparation and support loomed large. Trust deficits are a greater threat to the healthy future of the church than the sexuality debate.
Without a foundation of trust by stakeholders (those who are affected by an institution), that institution cannot survive, much less thrive. Without trust, especially in a volunteer-driven organization, leadership cannot lead, vision cannot be cast, and strategic planning becomes irrelevant. Several years ago Stephen Covey wrote The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything. Those in secular life know well that trust is indispensable to success.
At the human level, part of the effectiveness of Jesus as a leader rested in the fact that his disciples trusted that Jesus knew what he was doing and trusted that he had their best interests at heart in whatever he called them to do. Gospel hymns include “Trust and Obey” and “Tis so Sweet to Trust in Jesus.” To speak of a person coming to “trust Christ” is a figure of speech for that person’s conversion and commitment to Jesus. Saving faith is active trust, or as Luther said, “casting ourselves on Jesus Christ for life and death.” Trust is the living, active, restless dimension of “faith.”
Trust is not the relational habitation of the current United Methodist Church. Glide Church, once the crown jewel of progressive Methodism, left the denomination, publicly expressing distrust for the bishop as one seeking to bend that church to a “traditional” and “conservative” vision, two words guaranteed to create uproar in the Bay area. Granger Church, the largest United Methodist church in Indiana, departed due to distrust of the appointive system in replacing their beloved founding pastor as he faced terminal illness. The largest churches in Georgia and New Jersey have been thrown into recent uproar over mistrust of the intention and integrity of the episcopal process of appointments. The largest church in Illinois has announced departure, not trusting in the viability of the denomination’s future, following by roughly four years the departure of the largest church in Mississippi for virtually identical reasons. Numerous churches of all sizes are facing similar pressures. The Call to Action research in 2010 warned us trust deficits are a profound threat to the church.
Some young adults have resisted expressing a ministry through the denomination, distrustful of its direction and its future. Some, angered by the outcome of GC2019, do not trust the integrity of the “system” and feel free in conscience to disobey it. The block election outcome for 2022 General Conference delegates that effectively excluded whole perspectives from representation has had the consequence of gutting trust in the process by those excluded, whether that exclusion was in the oxymoronic name of “inclusion” or “biblical truth.” Numerous persons who affirmed the truce called at GC2016 to empower a Way Forward process found their trust betrayed two months later by the election to the office of bishop a person the Judicial Council subsequently would declare to be an invalid candidate for the position. The sexuality debate is a symptom of how the church’s trust deficit is expressed, but the lack of trust is the deeper culprit.
When couples would come to me as a Navy chaplain to see if it was possible to rebuild trust in a marriage wounded by infidelity during a deployment, the first questions always were these, addressed to both partners: What specifically would it take to begin the process of rebuilding the trust needed to reclaim your marriage? What would you have to do or change, and what would you expect your partner to do or change for this to happen?
Certain qualities can nurture a sense of trust within an institution. Certain actions can build authentic trust within the individual, among others in the group, and across the divides of laity, clergy, bishops, staff, and agencies. Stephen Covey, in his previously cited work, offers “four cores of credibility,” qualities that lay the groundwork for deepened systemic trust: integrity, intent, capabilities, and results. Applied to the church one could say that trust can be enhanced when it is clear that leadership has the following:
Personal and theological integrity (not crossing their fingers while affirming the creed or Matthew 25:31ff);
Intent that is transparent and consistent in policies and personal interactions;
Capabilities indicating mastery of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and tools needed for effective ministry in the trenches or in supervision;
Results, reflected in a track record of measurable and sustained effectiveness.
Consider the selection of bishops. Racial, gender, age, or ethnic profiling kindle distrust among the disfavored “white male” clergy and dishonor minority candidates by inference that their own actual quality is subpar. Consider the longstanding wisdom that the best candidates for bishop have served as a District Superintendent. That is true, provided the candidates filled the position and did not simply “occupy” the position. A system that resists metrics of effectiveness, often with the true but misused protest of “faithful, not successful,” can select senior leadership who are earnest and well-intended, but have never actually planted or grown any congregation they served. When the Call to Action called for metrics of effectiveness as a buffer against mistrust in the quality of leadership, one can understand why.
Concerns expressed in the 2021 appointment season over the timing and nature of surprise moves of some traditionalist clergy by progressive bishops reflects issues of trust. Motivation, intention, and faithful obedience to the disciplinary process have become suspect for many, undercutting the dynamic trust crucial to the appointive process. Bishops, in turn, protest that they have made such appointments in alignment with disciplinary requirements and suggest that political spin or pastoral personal preferences are behind many complaints. Again, the debate on all sides can be framed fairly around a variation of the Ghostbusters ditty, “Who ya gonna trust?”
The envisioned Global Methodist Church will not draw a pass on the challenges of trust. “Trust the process” — favorite guidance for veterans of Clinical Pastoral Education — is a harder sell when the process is brand new. The inevitable initial glitches, miscommunications, and unclear expectations surrounding matters of money, programing, connectional support, and clergy placement will be rich breeding grounds for potholes and pitfalls in the trust walks the new expression will need to make. Acknowledging the learning curve, embracing and acting on a willingness to change when issues are identified, and consistent and transparent communication can help ease the transition.
Consider these trust enhancers for all parties: transparency (previously mentioned) in intention and practice in the appointive and supervisory processes; highlighting and affirming pastoral and evangelistic “best practices;” creation of a career ministry progression so clergy and churches alike can see what metrics of effectiveness and demonstrated skills and abilities must be met for consideration to serve in specific settings; seamless rather than selective obedience to the common discipline of the church (and not simply over issues of sexuality); clear and measurable alignment of the mission of making disciples to the existing boards and agencies of the church. Healthy organizations welcome such constructive engagement; dysfunctional organizations distrust such efforts. Rather than continuing to point out the problem, asking stakeholder clergy, laity, and bishops what would have to happen to create or deepen healthy trust and taking specific steps to respond to the replies can invite all players to become part of a larger solution.
Trust deficits are real and will convey both to the post-separation church and the Global Methodist Church. Name the demon. Tease out its effects. Act in faith to pare its claws. Such is the Kingdom way amid the larger “Wicked Problem” facing the church. It can, it must, be done.
Dr. Bob Phillips is a graduate of the University of Illinois, Asbury, Princeton, and St. Andrews. He retired as a Captain in the Navy Chaplain Corps and served eight years as Senior Pastor of First UMC in Peoria, Illinois. He is in a three-year appointment as an Honorary Research Assistant at St. Andrews, studying the “Wicked Problem” of the United Methodist Church.