Why One Bishop

General Conference is just a couple weeks away and there are several resolutions that are before us. Some ideas like the single leader resolution seem foreign and unwise to some. But others in very significant places are headed the same directions many in the FMC believe we should go. Some changes are the wave of the future, to best facilitate true progress in the present culture of faster decision-making and larger churches. Check out Keith Drury's blog. He is one of the most respected and articulate Wesleyan leaders. Talks of merger between Wesleyans and Nazarenes have surfaced again, and his very casual, practical comments illustrate that our challenges are not unusual, and that there are very workable and positive alternatives to "the way we've always done it."

Here are some excerpts from Drury's blog of 4/19/2011 that are relevant to our recommendation for becoming more efficient and effective in ministry. (See Drury blog of 4/19/2011 - http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/nazarene_wesleyan_merger.htm).

If I were a Nazarene I’d try to Merge with the Wesleyans - Keith Drury

If I were a Nazarene I’d try to get my denomination to merge with the Wesleyans. Here’s why:

• Low Taxes. Wesleyans have low district, educational and denominational taxes—usually about 10% combined—and there’s talk of lowering it even more next summer. If Nazarenes joined the Wesleyans they could keep more of their own money locally.

• Localism prevails. Among Wesleyans the local church really is at the top of the food chain—not the district or denomination. Wesleyan pastors have more power than DSs or GSs; pastors dominate Wesleyan boards and committees and as speakers at all conventions all the way to the top—if I were a Nazarene pastor I’d want to get in on this.

• Pension is funded. Wesleyans don’t tax this generation to pay for the previous generation’s retirement, but actually save all pension money pastors put in to pay that individual pastor’s pension. If I were a Nazarene I’d want to merge to get in on this sound plan.

• Mega church friendly. Wesleyans like churches in the thousands and the denomination pretty much lets these church do whatever they want. Beyond that, Wesleyans have a tax cap—after a certain point churches don’t pay a cent of taxes on the rest of the money they receive. If I were a Nazarene mega church pastor I’d want to get in on this.

• Fewer General Superintendents. Many Americans wonder why a denomination needs a bunch of GSs when the whole USA only has one President. Wesleyans have only three GSs, but they are probably headed next summer to reduce that to one. If I were a Nazarene I’d want to promote that idea and doing it by merger would be the easiest way.

It is our desire that we make decisions that assist the Free Methodist Church in effective ministry. May God guide us all in decisions for our future.

Ohio Delegation

Perspectives of a Businessman - Jeff Flowers

I am a business man in a partnership. We purchased the business in 1989 from our fathers for whom we had worked the previous 13 yrs. and who had been in partnership since 1970. We became partners because of our fathers' decisions to retire and each of us had a desire for ownership; and frankly neither one of us would have been financially able to handle the purchase on our own. I love my partner like a brother. We have grown the business through the years and with the exception of this recent economic downturn, we have been pretty successful. I guess we still are pretty successful, in that we have survived it to this point.

When I was first exposed to the consideration of a Single Bishop concept, I began to think about how good it has been to be in partnership through the years. After having a number of months to think more about it, I have come to some interesting conclusions.

1. Being partners has been a benefit for us as individuals and not necessarily a benefit for our company. I believe that shared responsibility for the direction of our business has allowed or maybe even caused us each to be less inventive, less focused and less aggressive. It has been nice to have someone to share the responsibility with, but either one of us would have been capable of establishing a support staff to do the same thing.

2. I'm confident we have missed opportunities several times over the years that could have taken us to the next level because we were not in total agreement about the concept. By not responding quickly and decisively as opportunities arise, soon they no longer exist. I believe that either one of us could have achieved greater things in our business had we followed God's leading and been personally responsible for the outcome.

3. So who did we hurt besides ourselves for not being all that we might have been? How many more employees and their families could we have provided opportunities for? How much more could we have given back to the community and to our families?

My situation is insignificant compared to the implications we are talking about with the church. I firmly believe that we can be most effective for the Lord going forward with a single, focused and enthusiastic leader.

Jeff Flowers
Ohio Lay Delegate

The Strength of the Twenty-first Century Church - Dan Hostetler

It has been my experience over the years, and many more than what I care to mention, that the strength of the present day church has been usurped by the “joint custodial” aspect of maintaining “what is” rather than embrace change. Too often we shy away from change just out of fear of change.

As a lay leader I find it rather disparaging to try to stay in touch with the three Bishop leadership. Although each in and of themselves, have an amazing ministry, I would rather withdraw from trying to glean through all of their writings and teachings and directions and retreat to my corner of the world, trusting someone else to continue to sum up how the three are trying to present us, the Free Methodist Church, and who we really are. I realize that we have a Book of Discipline and that is all well and good but modern day thought doesn’t want to be bogged down with “old school”. thought. We are in need of someone to lead us, live it out in front of us, challenge us in where we need to go as a church, and as we hear this leader, and if we are challenged in it, we’ll join forces. But, with the three bishop scenario, it is cumbersome at best and discourages many of us so that we move away from the challenge rather than engage.

I have been through the making of “joining together” church conferences and conservative and liberal thought processes within the church and the strength of all those changes came about much more effectively when one leader took charge and then moved ahead with a team that made these changes with the end result having a much greater impact. I would think the same in this, with one Bishop, not just for movement sake, but to move ahead with more clarity and expediency in a more relevant twenty-first century church.

All the arguments for and against need to be looked at, dissected but not to the point that it bogs down and dies. We are asking that we look at this change in order that we can be more effective in “modern day” ministry. We are not a “custodial people” and as such, what’s it going to take to be relevant, embracing change to impact a world much more effectively. That’s our calling - that is, as we go, making disciples, etc… Can we embrace this change for the sake of being more relevant and effective? A great question I know. But one that needs to be addressed, again, not for change sake but that we can have the greatest platform to move the church forward in a day when the “status quo” is no longer good enough or acceptable.

Respectfully submitted by Dan Hostetler
Ohio Lay Delegate

Structured for Effective Ministry - Jerry Mitchell

During the summer of 2003 I was sifting through some papers my father had accumulated over 70 years of ministry. He had just died in Wilmore, Kentucky a few days earlier and the memories of his faithful service came flooding in on my heart and mind. What got my attention halfway through the search was a packet of letters which were correspondence between my father, then a leader in the Wesleyan Church, and a bishop in the Free Methodist Church. It was obvious that both were strongly in favor of merger between the two denominations that was then the great opportunity to move ministry forward. It was also obvious that they were aware that opposition to what they saw as both progress and necessity was looming large. What impressed me about the passion expressed in the words written approximately 40 years ago was not the arguments for or against merger, rather it was the belief that streamlining would enable the new entity, whatever it was to be named, to be able to reach the lost in a way that was unhindered by the cumbersome chains of traditional orthopraxy.

Tradition prevailed and two small denominations lumbered into the 21st century showing flashes of brilliance but for the most part failing to provide that spark of ingenuity and leadership to the local church, the place where it all gets done.

During the past couple years I have had the honor to serve on the leadership team in Ohio. During that time I have become friends with men and women who have a passion for the Free Methodist Church and passion to see that church become innovative in its structure and effectiveness. It has become clear to me that good intentions and honest effort can lead to stagnation and decision making driven by the need for survival. Until we understand that survival is not a glorious thing we are doomed to mediocrity. And that leads us into the discussion of the day. As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, what is the best leadership structure to foment spiritual revolution? A Biblical case can be made for and against most attempts at ecclesiastical reformation, so being on God's side is certainty for all of us who choose to engage the conversation.

The call for the church to consider one bishop reflects on no person or persons, but rather calls into question the validity of system. Many wiser and more familiar with the history of the church have presented their case for system change. In agreement with and in addition to these comments I add the following:

• A single Bishop will provide greater clarity of vision.
• A single Bishop will allow for clearer channels of communication.
• A single Bishop will prove to be more easily accountable.
• A single Bishop will allow for greater decentralization.
• A single Bishop can move more effectively in the greater Christian community.
• A single Bishop allows the church to be more nimble and responsive. And finally,
• A single Bishop by necessity forces the grassroots to step up to the plate.

Whatever the outcome of this resolution, I hope it will not be said of this generation that it was dismissed due to lack of thorough examination or an appeal to "what has been". I hope it will be said that we so value victories of the past that we chose to surpass them in the future.

Jerry Mitchell
Ohio Conference Leadership Team

Addressing “Extreme Poverty” in our Own Country - Natura Wright

The statement on the FM “Embrace” Video, “The Worldwide Church is bigger and broader and healthier than the North American Church.”, stoked a fire in my belly, and stirred the following thoughts:

There is extreme poverty in the United States of American, it may not be seen in distended bellies and dehydration, but it glaringly looms in hollow eyes, increasing suicide, a generation raised by the morals of our media and the deterioration of God’s design of marriage and the family. I believe the growing distaste for the “Church”, of our culture, and of many young adults who grew up in the church, is a litmus test for the lack of relevance and transformational impact we are making. Can we say the church in North America is growing if the spiritual vacuum in lives, and in our country is growing? I greatly value and am supportive of foreign missions. My concern, sometimes unpopular, is that I (we) can be satisfied with sending money, or people, for cross cultural and short term missions.

According to SonLife, “Growing a Healthy Church”, on a scale of M1 to M7 in the process of development in the skill level of fully trained disciples, this is M3 Ministry or ministry to non-peers – ie, cross cultural sharing of faith, missions projects, etc. We need to build upon this to M7 Ministry, or the development of totally new relationships with peers for the purpose of evangelism and discipleship, developing a strategy and ministry to reach our peer community for Christ.

We need to become a dynamic movement in our ordinary, everyday lives, which can only happen where we live in our own neighborhoods and communities. We need to roll up our sleeves, be willing to get our hands dirty, and go among the darkness in our own yards with the light and hope and healing and transformation power of Jesus Christ. Does this sound a little militant? I hope so, and my heart is that we as a church are transformed from good church attenders to Warriors in a mighty movement to take ground for our great God’s Kingdom. I also believe that the more mature (M7) and healthy we are as a movement of God, the more impact we can make worldwide.

If we, as the Free Methodist Church, recognize the worldwide church is much healthier and dynamic than the Free Methodist Church of North America, we must not take that lightly. We must examine ourselves and our systems, and be willing to do the hard things that bring deep change, a change that moves us toward health and becoming the dynamic movement that our God intends His Church to be.

Natura Wright
Ohio Conference Delegate