Moving Methodism: On power

Who has power within the British Methodist Church?

This is a critical question for those interested in "Moving Methodism". Who has the power to move things forward? Equally, who has the power to stop progress?

As part of Moving Methodism we want to move beyond the old, tired narrative which focused on expectations of failure and powerlessness. That narrative is neither accurate nor worthy of the God we serve or the traditions of our faith.

The old narrative on power was for everyone, whatever their position and role, to moan that they had no power to do anything. Clearly it was inaccurate as I have heard it from everywhere and it could not be true for every person and role. Very often it indicated a lack of self awareness and reflection (theological or otherwise). Equally often is was an excuse for inaction.

Here are 10 "Moving Methodism" assertions about power within Methodism:

1. Power is a Gospel issue. Jesus sets an example of how to use power that stands against the ways of the World. All uses of power must be held up to and evaluated against the light of the Gospel in particular to the model of power shown by Jesus.
2. Power that is not used in Gospel ways has no place in "Moving Methodism". We reject power that is used for personal gain and that does not show grace, compassion, mercy, love, justice to all.
3. We rejoice that the structures of Methodism do not concentrate power in the hands of a few and reject the narrative that claims people in Methodism are powerless.
4. We believe all Methodists need to honestly explore and reflect on the power they have within the Church and consider how they can use it for "Moving Methodism" in gospel ways.
5. Prayer is an often underrated aspect of power and "Moving Methodism" is committed to our tradition of prayer and supports all initiatives aimed at encouraging Methodist to pray. "Moving Methodism" recognises that God uses prayer to change us and seeks to be responsive to God's guidance, leading and gifts. We commit ourselves to pray for "Moving Methodism".
6. "Moving Methodism" believes in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring life to God's people, to restore, renew and transform. We celebrate the gifts that God showers on people and commit ourselves to sharing and using those gifts in the Misio Dei (Mission of God).
7. "Moving Methodism" values the structures of our Church. We celebrate the ways in which they connect us together and allow us to support each other in God's mission. We are committed to using our God given power through these structures in a reflective way. That means we are open to change and transformation of these structures where that will bring life, hope and grace, but it also means we will not subvert or manipulate these structures.
8. "Moving Methodism" rejoices in the image of God's people as a body and recognises that power wielded by individuals is incompatible with this image. We therefore commit ourselves to work with others and look for and celebrate the gifts and power that God gives others.
9. We believe that the purpose of power is to build the Kingdom of God, we celebrate the power that God has given us all and pledge to use it to build that Kingdom, not in our own strength but through the power of the Holy Spirit at work in us all.
10. We believe in the powers of grace, forgiveness, reconciliation and self-sacrifice shown in the life and death of Jesus and believe that these can lead us through death into resurrection and new life.

Comments

[PamBG]

I think that Methodism is - among other things - an institution.

And there is 'institutional power' within institutions.

For example, I feel that I spend a lot of time trying to fill offices that have to be filled but that aren't necessarily needed. For example, folk in my churches are collectively happy to perform all the functions of stewards, but very few people actually want the whole package. So we spend lots of time that we really don't have to spend trying to get folk to be stewards. You can multiply that comment by 3 for Pastoral Visitors.

Probably like most ministers, it's this 'institutional' aspect that frustrates me the most. When Martyn Atkins came to our ministerial synod, he asked the question why many younger people grow up Methodist and then become lay or ordained leaders of more independent churches. I reckon that part of the reason is that, in a congregational structure, the congregation is free to choose the structures that work for them.

[Dave]

Pam,

Thanks. I am sure you are right about there being institutional power. I do believe that we need to ensure that power is also exposed to the light of the gospel and I am confident that at least in general (and certainly in intention) this power is expected to be used in kingdom ways for the purposes of the kingdom.

Yes it can feel cumbersome. But I often feel we are poor at looking below the surface to think about the why of the rules I also think we are far more conservative in their application than is required. There is far more freedom in application than we often assume or work to.

Take Church Stewards. Typically the focus has been on the "jobs" to do with preparing for and clearing up after Sunday worship. But when we read CPD we see that the key role, the most important task of the Church Steward is the Spiritual leadership of the congregation - wow what a different emphasis to when I first became a Steward many many years ago. My grateful thanks to Terry Hudson who as our minister dragged the Stewards (at times kicking and screaming) back to CPD and our real role in the Church.

For me part of "Moving Methodism" is going to be helping make all the roles in the Church go for their potential rather than go for the downward spiral of expectation. For there to be a resurrection there does have to be a death and maybe in some cases what needs to die is our limited expectation, limited implementation and failure to be all that we are called to be. That will be painful in some places (nobody to be a proper steward then close as a society and become a class of another Church, or join with other churches to become cluster), in many others it will be a relief and of course this needs to be handled with grace etc - but there are many times th. There are times when the best (most loving etc) thing we can do for a Church and it's members is help it die with dignity and grace.

As for the Independent Churches I don't know many people in this situation. However, I am absolutely 100% behind a connexional form of Church that actually does a great job of protecting us from abuse of power, that protects us from the cult of the individual etc.

We do need to push more at all these issues and be eager to move beyond the status quo in ways that honour the loving and living God we serve.

[PamBG]

Dave - It was actually the leadership aspect of Stewards that scared the proverbials out of people in one church. Leadership is precisely what they don't want. Yet, there ARE natural leaders in the group; but they don't want to be called Stewards.

I take your point, but if we were free to designated the roles ourselves, those two things could be separated and the people who want to do the preparation for worship and nothing else could do that and the people who wanted to do the leadership could do that. Instead we spend a lot of time trying to imagine how square pegs can be fit into round holes.

[Dave]

CPD 633. Form a Leadership team. Stewards are part of it by default. However the Church is encouraged to bring others into the leadership team (Church Council appoints).

Then you can have Stewards who are only interested in the day to day routine of preparing for services and a complete leadership team who handle all the other stuff.

I have one case where several of the Stewards did not come to the leadership meetings for this sort of reason. As all were appointed by the Church Council it allowed us to move forward, keep to the rules and not fit anyone into the wrong shaped role.