A professional clergy is critical for the vitality of the United Methodist Church. Well-educated and experienced clergy are able to provide high quality services to congregations and also effectively interpret the mission of the church for their local context. But there is a big problem.

Fully-credentialed clergy in the United Methodist Church are ironically both very expensive and underpaid. They require support structures and salaries that often tax congregations' ability to pay. They often launch their careers with significant educational debt, and need fair compensation for their work and skills. Consequently, more and more full elders (FE) are serving multi-point charges, spreading their cost across multiple congregations but also spreading the pastor thin. The effectiveness of the minister's work is reduced and the congregations must expect less and less from their pastor, reinforcing congregational decline.

A number of features of how the United Methodist church treats clergy (mainly associated with the guaranteed appointment) make change difficult, perhaps impossible. Reviewing the various ways such features restrict possibilities for clergy and churches is a worthwhile endeavor. I want to suggest here that there are some basic themes that might be considered as part of a new model for church leadership, if there were no such restrictions.

One Elder, One Church

Multi-point charges add a layer of complexity that is difficult for solo pastors to navigate. Though the idea of the "circuit rider" is a historic element of the Methodist tradition, the current construction of the multi-point charge bears little resemblance to this historic artifact. Instead of being a creative solution the the challenges of the American frontier, we are now stretching clergy thin while failing to meet the needs of churches and communities. As United Methodists, we could lean in to the united part of our identity and consolidate our churches into multi-site congregations with a unified budget and structure. The program of the church would be planned by one body and duplication could be reduced. The worship life could leverage technology to allow for remote participation so that worship services could also be consolidated. Church sites could be configured for different purposes to allow for diverse programming that meets the needs of congregations and communities. Importantly, clergy work would be more focused and streamlined.

Pastoral Teams, Not Lone Rangers

Local pastors and lay speakers have often become replacements for the idea of a full-time elder. This puts unreasonable expectations and stresses on leaders and congregations. Instead, local pastors and lay speakers and other lay leaders should form leadership teams to serve one congregation that may now have multiple locations and serve a larger geographic area. Cultivating a team ministry, under the supervision of one or more elders, would go a long way to improving clergy morale and effectiveness. The challenge of leading a congregation and ministering to a community is best addressed within the context of a supportive, effective team where each member is focused on using their strengths.

Property For Mission

In this vision, churches will have to evaluate their property and ensure they are resourced for effectiveness. The UMC can not afford to maintain buildings that are no longer meeting the needs of their communities. That said, local churches are often faced with extinction as their only option when considering the sale or re-purposing of their property. If, instead, congregations were consolidated into more viable organizations, property could be assessed in a more objective fashion without an existential threat. A single leadership team, overseeing the ministry of a multi-site church, could look at property as a resource for ministry and make decisions on how to allocate their resources for their region and community.

Redefining "Effective" Ministry

The fact that the church continues to be in an age of decline should not be ignored or sugar-coated. Any meaningful strategy for churches going forward must account for this decline as cultural trends continue. What was once considered success for a congregation may no longer be appropriate. Most UMC congregations can plan now for their future viability by focusing on issues of long-term sustainability. There is no doubt the world needs the UMC, but there is also no doubt that the UMC is not gaining traction in this moment, and may not for another generation or longer. Taking action now to preserve our core institutional values and structures will ensure that the UMC will be there for the future.

There are no simple solutions to the many problems facing the UMC. Over the years, I've watched the church take many different approaches, from the "church growth" movement, to new church starts, to sophisticated marketing campaigns. I believe we have to do more to make the work of our clergy doable. If our local churches can not move forward in rewarding ways, nothing else we do will be able to succeed. Clergy need space and time to think creatively about their context and to develop appropriate programming and strategies for their context. Potential candidates for ministry need to believe they are entering a dynamic, exciting but also possible career. A future church will be equipped with a focused leadership team lead by an ordained elder who is well educated, professionally trained and supported.

Earlier this year, I was feeling the weight of the various tragedies in the world that have combined to give many people an enduring sense of dread. I didn't want my dread to have the last word, so I thought I would read some relevant books and share some reflections online on my very rarely read blog. And then I thought, why not also try Substack.

A lot of folks seem to have turned to Substack. It provides an old school blogging platform with solid community-building tools. It was nice to see some old friends find me there and comment on my very few posts. But almost as soon as I started that effort, I learned some discouraging things about Substack.

To be fair to Substack, I am not a very reliable blogger. I just write some stuff when I feel like it. I don't care if I build an audience. I am in it for myself.

But to be fair to the rest of the universe, Substack has some serious issues.

Here are a few, with links:

• Substack Has a Nazi Problem
• Everyone Has a Substack. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
• Substack's Nazi Problem Isn't Going Away

I have never beleived the arguement that platforms are innocent of the content they spread. If you make a dollar off of spreading the content, or off of advertising associated with content, then you are implicated in that content. I think of social media platforms like Substack the same way I think of publishers in old media. If they publish something, it reflects on them. They may puslbish something contorversial or something they don't agree with, but they have guidelines that describe the editorial borders they will not cross. They hold their content to a standard of basic decnecy at the very least.

Substack has reiterated the old "free speech" argument. The problem is that they are actively promoting content and providing an avenue for that content to proliferate. The internet itself is an open and free platform. Anyone can build a website on their own and publish their ideas. They don't need Substack's help to do it. No social media platform is responsible for protecting "free speech." You wouldn't expect a newspaper to publish a racist rant in the interest of free speech, because the editors of the paper also have freedom of speech. If Substack had any decency, they would not allow indecent content on their platform.

I don't believe in censorship. But I do believe in integrity and responsibility. It is Substack's responsibility to ensure it's platform is not spreading hate and misinformation. They have chosen not do this. I choose not to use them.

Overstatement is a domain I own. I pay for the hosting (it's real cheap!). What is here is simply mine. No nazis. Just the stuff I want to post. It doesn't have convenient sharing features or social commenting, but it also doesn't have all the problems that come with those "features." It's just a place for me to post some times when I want to for whatever reason.

The basic concepts in Servant Leadership have had an enormous impact on leadership thinking and culture. Even today, the idea of servant-leadership is referenced by thought leaders and consultants like Simon Sinek. Nevertheless, the fuller implications of Greenleaf's work seem to me to be neglected. Reading the original book again, I am struck by the many ways Greenleaf extends the idea of servant-leadership beyond his introductory essay. The popular notions of servant-leadership fail to capture the expansive implications Greenleaf saw for his ideas to impact our society and institutions.

Chapters 2 and 3 shift the focus from "servant-leaders" as individuals and apply the concepts to institutions. Because servant-leaders are a different kind of leader, the institutions in which they thrive will take a different form. But the measurement of success that Greenleaf advocates is the same for institutions as for individual leaders:

Greenleaf is particularly critical of boards of trustees, both of corporations and in the non-profit sector. I have served on boards that fit his description well - boards with little energy, little passion, little engagement. I have seen boards that were simply stuck in old traditions and routines, too comfortable with business-as-usual to dare to strive for excellence. Greenleaf believes that the consequences of such indifference are dire:

Fundamentally, institutions do not receive the attention and affection they need. We often fail to afford the kind of care and concern for our institutions that they deserve, perhaps taking for granted that others will fill the gap or just succumbing to our general suspicion of and frustration with institutions. What is needed is a renewed commitment:

I do think that in the years since Greenleaf's book was released, much work has been done to address non-profit boards and to foster more engagement and accountability among board leadership. I am less familiar with work in the business world. But one particular idea from Greenleaf remains, so far as I know, wholly unaddressed. Greenleaf calls for a transformation of the role of executive director/CEO. This idea I found quite compelling, and wholly absent in my personal experience:

Instead, Greenleaf borrows an idea from ancient Rome - primus inter pares or "the first among equals." It isn't clear exactly how this would work, though Greenleaf does his best to outline the change in roles. As best as I could understand, both in the executive leadership of institutions and on their boards, a primus inter pares would serve as a key facilitator who employs the principles of servant-leadership to move their colleagues to consensus. Coercion would be lessened or eliminated from power structures and persuasion would become more important. The best ideas would, in theory, win the day and consensus would ensure institutional strength, alignment and excellence. No single person would be expected (or allowed) to direct the institution without building a consensus from a group of peers. Boards would hire leadership teams - not just the ED or CEO - and all of the team would be accountable to the board. In Greenleaf's imagination, much more would be expected of boards in terms of time and energy than they typically offer. But the work would be spread across more people who are working together to build consensus out of a passionate commitment to the institution.

I really do wonder if this was every earnestly tried. It feels to me that in the years since Greenleaf's work we have actually moved in the opposite direction, expecting more and more from our top leaders, and rewarding them with extravagant salaries and lavish praise. It is not at all evident that we have better institutions and a better society as a result. Would our institutions be more excellent, as Greenleaf understands define excellence, if they had adopted an executive structure like he suggests?

In light of our current cultural moment, Greenleaf envisioned something strikingly different.

It is not hard to imagine that our leaders are suffering from a severe lack of serenity and fulfillment.

A few additional notes:

• Looking to the next chunk of the book, I intend to skip ahead a bit and write a post on Greenleaf's thoughts about servant-leadership as they apply to the church. This is really what I am most interested in, so I look forward to completing the relevant sections and compiling my notes here.
• A recent study released by the Pew Research Center suggested that church decline in the U.S. may have stalled or plateaued. (If a trend stops at a low point, should I say "valleyed"??) This article in the New York Times offers a summary. It is not clear if this change in trends is a positive thing - for Christendom or the world.
• I have found Rev. Benjamin Cremer's substack to be helpful these days. Check it out if you need something more (or better) to read.

A quick follow up to my last post regarding the story of the Four Chaplains.

As time passed, the story of the chaplains' heroism spread, resulting in a movement to award the chaplains the Medal of Honor. However, the Medal of Honor is reserved for heroism while engaged in combat with the enemy. Consequently, it was deemed that the chaplains did not qualify.

Congress decided, in 1960, to create a special medal to honor the chaplains, specific to them and to be regarded as a rough equivalent of the Medal of Honor. The Four Chaplains' Medal was presented to descendants of the chaplains in 1961.

I think it is the rarest such honor ever given by Congress.

A little over a week ago, a group of people gathered in a small chapel in Gilman, Vermont, about twenty miles north of where I live in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. The people assembled in the chapel, named the Reverend George L. Fox Memorial Chapel celebrated and remembered the chapel's namesake. Many years ago, the chapel had housed a Methodist congregation and Reverend Fox had served as its pastor.️

What had made Fox worthy of a chapel named in his honor was a decisive moment during World War II when he exemplified servant leadership. Serving as a chaplain aboard the USS Dorchester, a transport ship moving troops across the Atlantic, Fox was one of four chaplains on the boat. A German submarine managed to torpedo the Dorchester, and the ship rapidly began to sink in the icy waters. Facing death, the ship's crew began to panic.

Fox, and his three colleagues, saw this as their chance to serve. Doing what they could, they helped organize the evacuation, gave assurances to the crew to maintain calm, and handed out life jackets to save lives. Having saved as many as they could, the chaplains - from different denominations, faiths and backgrounds - joined hands, sang hymns and prayed as they went down with the boat.

The primary feature of servant leadership is that it always puts others first and seeks ways to serve people. It is this feature that gives servant leaders their unique influence and power. People are inspired to follow leaders whom they trust will prioritize their interests. In the extreme example of Rev. Fox, it is not hard to imagine how terrified young men were able to find their way to safety because of Rev. Fox's sacrificial commitment to lead them out of danger. When people believe their leaders will offer their very lives in service to them, they in turn become servant leaders to others in response. Just knowing that Rev. Fox served a congregation so geographically close to me is inspiration in it's own right!

Reading Greenleaf's Servant Leadership today creates a sense of temporal distortion. The writing style and examples that Greenleaf employs often feel dated or even obsolete. That makes the reader wonder if the book might be irrelevant today. The approach Greenleaf takes, which is admittedly non-scientific and based on his own hunches, seems particularly out of place in our data-driven, evidence-demanding world. And yet, Greenleaf's insights are often quite interesting and profound. He is clearly making his suggestions and observations based on a wealth of experience and good sense. It is a worthy read.

There is an excellent preface to the 25th Anniversary Edition I own, written by Stephen R. Covey (remember that guy!). I would suggest that the preface is probably a better introduction to "servant leadership" as an idea for contemporary readers than the first chapter of the book itself. Nevertheless, once Greenleaf starts hitting his stride (or I just became more accustomed to his writing style) the first chapter offered much upon which to reflect.

Greenleaf was writing in the late 60's and early 70's - a period of time when our country was facing significant social transformation and turmoil. While the dynamics were different than our current conditions, remarkable similarities can be found. A few of note:

• a deep loss of trust in institutions
• generational shifts
• social upheavals along racial/gender lines

Greenleaf speaks powerfully and directly to all of these issues. His answer is the development of servant-leaders to lead the transformation of essentially all social institutions. The servant-leader is defined as servant first. That is the critical distinction. Greenleaf is really more interested in results, and the test of the successful leader ( servant or otherwise) is expressed clearly:

That series of questions merits our consideration in light of our current crop of national leaders. Are they asking these questions of themselves? Are we measuring their success on those terms?

Greenleaf goes on to describe the basic character of a servant-leader. A few key quotes:

I picked these quotes in part because of how strongly they contrast with our current cultural moment. Our leaders do not listen, but demand to be listened to. Exposure of any kind, positive or negative, is considered a win, while any kind of withdrawal is a sign of weakness. Followers aren't so much cared for as manipulated and coerced.

These are the fundamental observations that have led me to think that "servant leadership" is due for a revival in our institutions. Greenleaf found hope in his troubled times, though he cautioned:

I fear he was right here. We have progressed in some areas, regressed in others, but we find ourselves again divided over cultural issues that have allowed authoritarian-minded leaders to wedge their way to the highest offices of our nation. Is there any other way forward besides servant leadership?

A few additional notes:

• I initially thought I would be able to read and write a lot over the last few days, but I have been much slower than I expected. Some personal matters have taken my time, and they will not be resolved for a few more weeks, so I expect my pace to be slow.
• I have mixed feelings about Substack. I like the social integration features, but I hate the iOS app, which doesn't have the kind of granular control over notifications I wanted. So I silenced them all. Also, I always worry about how long services like Substack will last, as many similar services have come and gone. So I will be cross-posting my content on my personal blog, Overstatement where I have more control.
• No one reads this stuff anyway. I just do it for myself.
• Finally, a statement from Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America responding to accusations of mismanagement and fraud at the ELCA aid organizations. The statement is a powerful contemporary example of what servant-leadership looks like.