logo

What's in a name?
Bureaucracy and brand
By Rob Renfroe

This past October, the Rev. Dr. R. Clayton Childers wrote a provocative and widely-distributed article titled "Why Not Use the Name United Methodist?". Childers is director of conference relations for the General Board of Church and Society.

Dr. Childers used his article to bemoan the fact, discovered by one of the Board's interns, that a dozen of

 the denomination's largest churches "made little or no mention on their websites about being United Methodist." The question he reports wrestling with is: "What is it about United Methodism that is so troubling that pastors and congregations would no longer want the name?"

As the pastor of adult discipleship of one of our denomination's ten largest churches, I found the article intriguing. Not because we don't use the name United Methodist-we do. It's on our website, the sign on the corner, and our business cards.

But what I found intriguing and sad-but not at all surprising-was the thrust of the Childers article. There was no mention of contacting the churches in question or listening to their rationale. Instead the article was little more than a litany of all the reasons churches should use the name United Methodist. "United Methodist is one of the top two religious 'brands' in the United States." Our logo "is one of the most readily recognized symbols." And "our 'Open Heart, Open Minds, Open Doors' advertising is paying dividends."

So, why would churches fail to advertise their United Methodist connection on their websites? The answer is in Childers' next sentence. "So, I cannot believe that the name United Methodist is itself the problem. Consequently, I have to believe it must be a problem of local church leadership."

Unfortunately, but predictably, this is the typical, institutional response common among many of the persons who have led our denomination during the past decades of decline: "People aren't doing what we want them to do-what's wrong with them? Local churches aren't doing what we think they should-they have a problem."

When I was in seminary, the UM institution became concerned that many United Methodist students were not attending UM seminaries. The response was not, "What's wrong with our seminaries?" "Why do our students believe they can be better prepared for ministry at a non-UM school?" "What aren't we offering?" or "Have we lost touch with traditional Methodists?"

Instead, the response was "How can we make it harder for students to go to non-UM seminaries and receive what they believe is a better education?"

Of course, they found a way. The institutionalists changed the standards and disqualified the seminary I attended and many other fine (predominantly conservative) schools that had a history of training effective United Methodist pastors. An institutional question resulted in an institutional solution. And the church has continued to decline.

If many of our largest churches feel uncomfortable emphasizing their United Methodist connection, shouldn't the question be "Why?"? And shouldn't it be asked of the churches and pastors that could actually answer the question? Personal musings are fine, but unless one has the gift of clairvoyance, they rarely provide valid insights into the motives of others.

Many of us who feel more often criticized than listened to would love to be in conversation with those who lead our boards and agencies. And we suspect that maybe, just maybe, the institutionalists could learn something from the answers they would hear if they only cared to ask. But to ask questions and to listen to the answers, one would have to see the pastors of large (and small) UM churches as brothers and sisters, persons of integrity, and colleagues-not as "problems."

What is perhaps most sad in the Childers article is the lack of self-awareness. When I served on the General Board of Church and Society, the Board voted to send petitions to General Conference to redefine marriage and to deny that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of Scripture. At one board meeting, a well-meaning woman asked me if, when I went home after our meetings, I told my church about all the things we discussed. Perhaps too honestly, I simply said, "I don't want the people in my church even to know that this group exists."

There is little awareness among many who hold institutional positions within our denomination and who make statements that reflect on the name "United Methodist," that their attempts to lead our denomination away from traditional, biblical positions really do create problems for the majority of us who bear that name. We contribute our tithes and offerings that pay the salaries of denominational officials who sully the name and our thanks is the distribution of articles that attack the "problem of local church leadership."

Ironically, Childers' article was written while the Board of Church and Society is involved in a suit before the Washington, D.C., Superior Court (see the November 26 United Methodist News Service article by Kathy Gilbert). At issue is the Board's use and possible misuse of a $2.6 million dollar trust established for the purpose of "temperance and alcohol problems." As it turns out, for decades the trust has been used to fund the general work of the Board.

While serving on the Board, I asked questions about the suit that had not yet gone to court and was told that the suit was necessary because there were groups that were attacking the Board and the cause of social justice. When I made a motion that every Board member be given a copy of the trust so we could read it for ourselves, I was voted down. And after the suit had been filed, when I asked why we were employing a legal strategy that had not been authorized by the Board, (i.e., asking the court to allow the Board to use the funds for purposes other than those specified in the trust), I was told that these matters could not be discussed with me. At that point, I resigned.

Why do some United Methodists downplay the connection? It's a good question. One that Dr. Childers should have asked the large churches that he chides in his article. Better yet, maybe he should ask the Board he represents.

Rob Renfroe is the pastor of adult discipleship at The Woodlands United Methodist Church in The Woodlands, Texas, and a former board member of The General Board of Church and Society.



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine