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?
