Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Church Merger, Division, and the UMC



I came across some reflections on mergers in business that made me think about some of the mergers of which I have been a part. Most importantly, while in Vincennes, IN, I was the first pastor of the merged congregation now known as Community UMC. It was the result of the merger of three congregations, one of which had been a former Evangelical United Brethren Church. Each congregation had their unique gift to offer to the merger. At least two of the three did not have to merge, in the sense that they could have continued onward for many more decades just as they were. Yet, a respected layperson in the community began to discuss the possibility of merging. Through several months of discussions, eventually they voted to merge. A fourth congregation voted not to join. The congregations knew each other well. They started doing more things together. They pondered what they could do together for the cause of Christ that they could not do separately. They received some very good encouragement from the District Superintendent and from the Annual Conference. They had good lay leadership and they kept open lines of communication. They faced the challenges with courage.

I do not follow such matters in corporate America closely. It can have the appearance of love-struck teenagers looking to date and acquire the objects of their affections. Sometimes, an older, powerful company lusts after the smaller but “sexier” one. Sometimes, it seems like the partnership of two desperate and lost souls. Of course, such adventures may cost billions rather than a dinner and a movie.

The Disney and Pixar merger was almost like a fairy tale as two creative entertainment companies became partners and generated more creativity and, of course, money. In contrast, the merger of Exxon and Mobil was a re-marriage of two companies that derive from Rockefeller in the 1800s and made the largest company in the world.

            Some mergers simply do not work.

            - The New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads merged in 1968 in the face of declining rail travel, but filed for bankruptcy just two years later, effectively killing large-scale passenger rail service in the United States.

- Time Warner and AOL merged, but quickly became a dial-up marriage in a DSL world.

A KPMG study said that the failure rate is 83%, which might lead us to ask the question of why it is so hard for people to get together, whether we are thinking of marriage or the merger of two corporate cultures. In that mix would be the difficulty of two or more denominations merging to form a new church.

Why are mergers so difficult?

Paul J. Siegenhaler, in an article in August 2010, points to a number of reasons why mergers fails. The lack of due diligence in researching one another (which amounts to ignorance of each other), poor communication and governance, lack of courage in making important decisions early, weak leadership, and a lack of a shared vision are just a few of the problems that can lead to an eventual divorce or Chapter 11.

Perhaps the biggest reason, however, is the inability to merge two different cultures into one new and cohesive culture. When employees get used to doing things one way, it is hard to do things another way. When one denominational culture and goals overshadow the other, it is little wonder that one of the ecclesial partners feels slighted. It is difficult to move forward when one side of a partnership undervalues the other, be it in a marriage, a company or a church.

What makes a merger work?

The best mergers, on the other hand, do the relational math differently. In a bad merger, 1+1 often equals a sum of two different cultures in conflict with one another, or, perhaps even worse, the sum of 1+1 equals 1.5, where one of the partners devalues and treats as unequal the other. The best merger math is 1+1=3, i.e., a brand new culture emerges that takes the value of both and adds to it. Both partners leave behind the things that divide them and invest in something completely different that adds value to everyone. In other words, be clear on what matters and why. If the merger or acquisition is not going to allow you to serve some customer better than the entities could do separately, walk away. You must create value before you can capture it.

The divisions of liberal and conservative, high church and low church, eastern and western, Protestant and Catholic, individual gospel and social gospel and even traditional and contemporary have done precisely the opposite of what Jesus intended and prayed for us.

If you study the history of the church, you discover that the church is far more about spin-offs and breakups than mergers. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to God, said Paul, but the churches find it hard reconcile to each other. The articles on the success and failure of mergers suggest the practical difficulty. The culture and values of a body of people are important and deserve respect. Differing aims, refusal to adapt, and differing values, will split apart an existing group and keep unification from occurring.

I am not sure if I dare to offer this, but the United Methodist Church is slowly allowing differing values to erode its life together. We seem to have developed two differing cultures. A strong statement of that for which we stand, in the midst of such differences, becomes difficult if not impossible. Of course, our mission is to make disciples for Jesus Christ to transform the world. How we do that when we confronted by the emerging two cultures is becoming increasingly difficult to determine. We get “nasty surprises” at meetings. We keep trying to resource congregations and pastors for the conversation, but it seems as if we glide along the surface. Having an honest conversation is difficult. How we resolve differences is unclear, given that bishops can enforce the Book of Discipline, or not, without consequence. Resolving such differences would mean courageous leadership. Instead, we have weakness. To use a boating metaphor, we are like a ship on a stormy sea. It needs strong leadership to move through the storm together. The most heart-wrenching issue of all, however, is that the world needs Jesus, now more than ever. As the world dissolves into increasing violence, the responsibility of the church to point the way to Jesus becomes harder to fulfill. The external pressure would be difficult enough. The church has increased the pressure on itself as it experiences the polarization of the two cultures.

            The United States developed two differing cultures in the 1800s. Yet, at a theoretical level, they had so much in common. Inaugural addresses affirmed the commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They happily contrasted America with the royalty still dominating in Europe. Yet, we had presidents who thought it was OK to buy and sell slaves. They owned slaves, and therefore, at some point, had to buy them. The South was so afraid to lose the way of life that depended upon slavery that it successfully made it illegal to discuss slavery in the Congress. They called it the gag rule. When John Quincy Adams finally got the rule rescinded, the floodgates opened. The South wanted to spread slavery to the West. When the Supreme Court entered the debate and said that a southerner could move anywhere in the country and keep his slave, division and war became just a matter of time. America had become a house divided. Most southern white persons would never see the incongruity of holding to the idea of liberty and the practice of slavery. Most northern white persons wanted America united in its affirmation of liberty. Most of Latin America and even the royalty of Europe had banned slavery and the slavery trade. Only the South lived in the contradiction of slavery in practice and liberty in theory. The only way to resolution was division, which was what the South sought, or forcing the abandonment of slavery, which was the path of the North.

            Some United Methodists want to affirm the LBGT agenda. They want to “affirm” in the sense of suggesting that one can express their Christian faith and life in these ways. They seem to view any opposition as bigoted and hateful.

            Some United Methodists want to affirm what we might call “traditional Christian values” in many areas of life. However, the focus of the discussion today is sexuality. The point is not some notion of legalism. The point is offering loving guidance in area full of the potential for pain. The morality we see in Jesus in the affirmation of marriage, the morality of Paul regarding vice and virtue, as well as the morality expressed in the household rules, have been the staple of Christian morality. It has been the basis of the church offering the guidance that the home, consisting of husband, wife, and children, is a place for the formation of Christian virtue, especially as we learn love, forgiveness, compassion, and faithfulness. The household rules, for example, assume the priority of the husband, doing so in a way that transforms the husband into a loving partner with his wife. It transforms the master of the slave into one who cares for and respects his or her slave. If followed, the household rules would end both “patriarchy” and “slavery.” For persons who hold such views of values, the agenda of the LBGT community represents and embodies the sexual confusion of our time. It opens the door to immense pain and hurt as people experiment outside the lines drawn by the affirmation of husband/wife/child. Fears that the agenda will undermine the family in general, and therefore the stability of society, may or may not materialize.

            How are we to treat our neighbors? Of course, we treat them with love and respect. Jesus did not say that we love our neighbors only if they behave a certain way. I can offer personal examples of people who are not living by what I have identified as “traditional Christian values.” I know Christians who have not. In fact, in the world today, it would be a rare person who has completely lived by “traditional Christian morality.” It has probably always been rare. Our sexual desires are strong.

Yet, and I offer this cautiously, is the ideal not worth holding forth? The point of such values is not legalism. The point is the kind of life that will shape character in a Christ-like way. I have heard the testimony of many persons who will discuss their sexual encounters with shame and pain. Is it best to hold forth the ideal of loving, faithful relationships between a man and a woman?

           

No comments:

Post a Comment