NCNYUMC.ORG |

This BLOG will contain submissions to the Connections which are too long, and also responses to those submissions. This is a managed BLOG so please email any submissions to Sharon Fulmer, the editor of Connections. These can be included in the body of the email or attached to the email.

1. Some questions and thoughts on merger by Dr. Ronald Bretsch, Norwood UMC
1a. A clergy perspective by Rev. Allan Ferguson, Homer UMC
1b. A members concern by Stephen Yorton, Carthage UMC
1c. Concerns about the Merger by Charlene Rouillier

2. End conflict with love and unity by Rev. Allen Lum (Retired)

by Rev. Allen Lum, Retired

To the Editor:
Gen. 19:1-29 - Judges: 1-30

(Ancient Near East Eastern world values are different than today's. There was a sacred obligation of hospitality for travelers and to remain outside in a desert country at night you could be exposed to death. A woman was considered inferior to a man so they favored to protect a visiting man than a woman in their own household or they would not offer their own to protect a man from abuse.

To abuse a man was the worse kind of insult and was a practice of demeaning an enemy's person. Sodom is mentioned several places in the Bible, but not in relation to sexual acts, but lack of hospitality (Luke 10:12, Mat 10:15). Sins of the city are: greed, injustice, inhospitality excess wealth, indifference to the poor & wickedness. Lev. 18 & 20, known as the Holiness Code - “You shall be holy for the Lord God is Holy”, is not properly used by those opposed to homosexuality. Why? Israelites wanted cohesiveness, cleanliness in all their lives, to keep their manner of worshipping God, & their own identity. Thus, the code to define religions, civic & cultural identity and difference from the Canaanites and Egyptians. Israelites could not adopt other customs nor intermarry others. Actions undermining male gender supremacy - death penalty for any action making a person ritually unclean.

Jesus' concern was purity of the heart, (Matt 5: 10-11, 18-20) “Love God & your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 20: 36-40). Taking texts out f of historical & cultural text does violence to Bible, to homosexuals and the opposite of hospitality.

Romans I points out that all are sinners and are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Condemnation of contemporary homosexual marriage may seem out of place used in Romans I for they distort the interpretation of Paul's message.

Natural Law: Biologist Bruce Bagemihl documented homosexual relations in 450 different animal species. Same sex behavior in courtship & parental activity as well as copulation, so citing male-female relations as universal in nature are in error.

Sexual orientation in a part of nature and may be God given in homosexuality as is heterosexuality (basic in DNA). Life left-handedness, most people are one or the other, and some both. Homosexuality is no more idolatry than heterosexuality is so motivated.

Today, population growth is the biggest driver of atmospheric pollution. Same sex marriages are less likely to contribute to resource depletion and extinction of natural resources. Therefore, reduce suffering due to hunger and lack of sufficient resources.

I believe John Wesley said, “Live and let live.” There are some who wish to take the Bible message literally, but I'm convinced that the interpretation must be considered in the context of history and peoples culture to grasp its intent. Those who wish to live by Jewish law should remember to keep the whole law. But as for me, I choose to live by the teachings of Jesus. It is better to live by love and forgiveness than to live as the proud Pharisee (who is judgmental).

Unfortunately, if we use judgment which Jesus warns against, and so does Paul (in Romans, Chapter 2, and 14), will we not ourselves be under judgment?

We are to be disciples and examples to the entire human race, revealing the life giving fruit of the spirit as United Methodists. Let us not honor a ruling of the Social Creed above that of which the Scriptures teach. Let not our good, our live for others be accepted as evil when Jesus command us to love others as we love ourselves.

When counseling reveals maturity of two persons and genuine love and willingness to maintain a home as two responsible adults, I believe that the church and society should honor that commitment and support their covenant. We need to get on with the work and witness of the church in the world, making disciples of all nations. A divided church will only destroy itself. In love and unity, we shall together all praise God and all His wonderful works.

Let us end this conflict in love and unity by allowing two persons (heterosexual or homosexual) who make a life-time commitment to each other, to have a celebration and be supported in church and society equally.

Rev. Allen Lum (Retired)

by Ronald Bretsch, Lay Leader, Norwood UMC

In the spirit of Wesleyan conferencing, I share questions and related thoughts regarding the proposed merger of ours with three other New York State annual conferences. Our North Central New York Conference's task force has advanced reasons for a merger in partial response to “Can we merge?” The answer to that question, from the beginning, has been “yes”. (This became apparent to me at the task force's second meeting.) The more important question of “Should we merge?” has not been similarly addressed. Advantages have been publicized; disadvantages have not.

There are reasons why we should not merge. However, rather than advocate for that position, I wish to raise here some questions or items that have not been asked in the greater public forum. Each one of us as members of the North Central New York Annual Conference will respond in June at our conference session on the bases of prayer, analysis, and our individual consciences.

The Laity and Lay Participation: In dialogue with various laity (not pre-selected) from the new, large Illinois Great Rivers Conference and the new, large New England Conference, I have been told that lay participation on the new conferences' committees has diminished – and is of concern. The number of laypersons willing and/or able to travel much longer distances has decreased; the pool of available laypersons has shrunk. A result has been that laity who do serve, come more from the geographical center of the conferences and not from the more distant edges. As well, this has resulted in a lessening of diversity in various forms and a narrowing of “focus”, in contrast to the diversity of thought and opinion that laity previously contributed.

Questions: Will lay leadership in a new annual conference the size of upstate New York most predictably decrease? remain about the same? increase? What will happen to the diversity that diverse lay leadership brings to conference-level decisions and programming increase?

With the documented societal trend of less participation in institutions and formal organizations by younger generations (in contrast to the G.I. generation), will lay participation lessen – or increase – in a larger conference that by definition would be “more institutional” and distant in nature?

The Clergy and Clergy Participation: Clergy can be appointed anywhere within the annual conference in which they are members – not within the conference as it existed at that time each became a member. Although consultation prior to a new appointment will take place between the clergy person and her or his D.S. and the bishop, in reality some clergy will be appointed in the future to regions of the state (or in Vermont ) not previously imagined – or desired.

Questions: Even with consultation prior to a new appointment, is it fair to expect a pastor in Plattsburgh or Malone to move to Frewsburg or Jamestown ?

Will local churches be better – or worse – served by a pastor whose heart or mind is not in the new appointment?

As with laity, will clergy participation in a much larger conference be increased – or lessened – as well as will our present diversity of clergy input be maintained -- or will it move geographically “to the center” -- and theologically to entrenched homogeneity?

Are there theological and other differences such as “openness in dialogue” (or the relative absence of same) and other conference “cultural norms” that exist among the four conferences, to which a pastor would have difficulty adjusting?

For how long will former conferences' mind-sets continue to operate within given geographical regions? Will practices change just because of structural changes?

The Episcopacy - Questions:

Is it rational or reasonable – and humane or charitable – to expect one person to fulfill the multitude of varying “in area” and “general church” responsibilities that our Disciple requires of each and every bishop? If each of the two bishops now serving in upstate New York is extremely stretched (as is the case), how could one bishop do all that is required, to say nothing of what may additionally be wanted by and in a newly merged conference in its first years? Bishops are not super-human.

What is the evidence now about the quickness with which we burn-out our good episcopal leaders?

Will local churches and local church folk feel more – or less – connected to the bishop, who in our denominational polity holds the key connectional office? Will they know the bishop more – or less?

Will the general church be better served with one, not two, bishops from upstate New York – to serve on general agencies? on the Council of Bishops and its initiatives? as connectional leaders to the churches growing in Africa ? as our chief ecumenical officers? as persons with “general supervisory responsibilities for the whole church”?

Will the quality of clergy willing to offer themselves as candidates for the episcopacy be increased – or decreased? Will we have more – or fewer – persons in the Northeastern Jurisdiction willing to serve in such a large, merged conference?

Are we concerned about the physical health and the welfare of persons whom we consecrate to the episcopacy? Of their spouses? Of their children?

District Superintendent - Questions:

Will not the already increased-size of districts and the resulting increases in workloads of our district superintendents, be further increased with only one bishop? How will the local churches, the districts themselves, and the district superintendents themselves, be improved or enhanced with greater workloads?

Will the connections between local churches and the districts, and between local churches and the annual conference be eroded – or improved?

Clergy and Lay Representation on our Northeastern Jurisdictional committees:. Representation on our N.E. J. committees is based mainly upon annual conferences. If we move from being four annual conferences to being only one annual conference, we would lose both voice and vote in jurisdictional committee work, decisions, and outcomes.

For example, we now have four laypersons and four clergy persons who serve on the N.E.J. Committee on Episcopacy – the group that, among other things, appoints bishops to annual conferences and areas. I assure you, most directly, that without those several voices, we would not have had a change in our bishop in 2000 – a change for which Christ's Realm and we are beneficiaries.

Question: Do we want to diminish our voice and vote in the Northeastern Jurisdiction, in episcopal – and other jurisdictional – decisions?

Clergy and Lay Representation in the General Church: Although general church work is not as directly based upon annual conferences (as is jurisdictional work), the annual conferences are of consequence in determining the future policies and practices of the denomination. One of only several examples is the “weight” that a petition to a General Conference carries with it when it has been endorsed by annual conferences.

N.C.N.Y. Annual Conference has shown leadership (arguably more than any of the other three in upstate New York ) at General Conferences on topics that we as an annual conference have approved or feel strongly about. (Indeed, on at least one of these important topics, our annual conference holds a position that is directly opposed to what is popular in one of the other three conferences.) Ours is not a silent annual conference at General Conferences.

Questions:: Would our leadership at the general church level ( i.e ., the various boards and agencies, General Conferences, etc .) be advanced – or diminished – by having only one annual conference voice, as opposed to four?

Would our North Central New York Conference perspectives on various topics be diluted, by merger – or, possibly, not see the light of day?

“Forced Merger”: It is not rational for us to vote for merger based on any assumption that we will have to merge in 2012. For one thing, the General Conference in 2008 will be presented with at least two very major general church reports that could drastically influence the structures and roles of annual conferences and bishops. For another, the Discipline provides that if a jurisdiction loses a bishop, it has a quadrennium in which to make the adjustment: 2008-2012. The N.E.J. College of Bishops, the N.E.J. Episcopacy Committee, and the General Council on Finance and Administration all recognize that.

Questions: Can we predict what the actions of the General Conference will be in 2008? Even if we could, do we want to speed up the process of merger by saying, “Here we are? Merge us. It's in our best interests to merge.”

I think not. Whether or not we want to merge should be based, as Bishop Fisher has shared, upon our own evaluation – and not on a fear of what others might or might not do to us. There are many possibilities in the future life of the Church, including our life as an annual conference.

“Large" - Questions: How does the nature of an annual conference change after it has become large? Or, how are large annual conferences different in “culture”, ways-of-doing-things, norms, inter-personal relations?

Large annual conferences “do church differently”. From my observations, it is done more hierarchically, more “old boyish/old girlish”, less diverse theologically, more regally and “institutionally” regarding bishops, more “distantly” from local churches, and more clergy-focused – despite the best of intentions. There is something about large organizations and bureaucracies that “formalize” relations, that enhance “we v . they” thinking, and that isolate individuals and villages.

In the corporate world (not my personal model for “church”, but one sometimes cited by others), the 1970s and 1980s corporate cry of “bigger is better” has given way in the past decade to “smaller is better”.

For better or for worse, the annual conference for United Methodists is the central unit. We, in our own then-new annual conference, tried – not with a great deal of success – “to move programming from the annual conference level to the district level”. Looking at our own N.C.N.Y. track record in the 1990s does not give one hope that “programs will move to the districts”.

Does God's Realm in – and outside of – upstate New York benefit from a merger of the four annual conferences? Or, can we achieve more by increased inter-conference cooperation and by maintenance of our separate identifies and good work? Where we can agree, can we not walk and work together? But, where we disagree, do we not show more light to the world by our separate identities?

I love our sisters and brothers in Troy , Western New York, and Wyoming annual conferences. (I, personally, especially like the progressive, independent, cheerful, Yankee thinking – and service -- that comes from Troy!) We can do more by cooperating together – as our talks on merger and recent experiences have shown us. But, there also are significant and numerous reasons for continuing our own separate witnesses.

In the end, this does not have to be a “take-it-or-leave-it” proposition – and I hope that it is never cast as that. Several good and talented persons have worked on the Task Force. There is much to be learned from their work. But, from my perspective, it does not require – nor necessarily warrant – merger.

Ronald Bretsch, Lay Leader
Norwood United Methodist Church

I concur with everything Ron Bretsch has said about the proposed merger with regard to the laity – and add it applies to the clergy equally well. As an elder with 20+ years of experience I can say with confidence our existing conference does not use clergy talent – or recognize clergy talent – well. The appearance of old boy/old girl networks even now has deprived our existing conference of much creativity and mission-seeking activity of both the former CNY and NNY Conferences.

I proposed a motion to Conference to survey the churches and the clergy – both ordained and licensed – to see how many churches and clergy looked forward to merger, and how many wanted to escape if they could. That motion was voted down. The question still remains: how many people want this to happen? What will the cabinet do if 10 percent of the clergy feel as I do and seek retired status or appointment beyond the local church instead of full membership in a larger body? How will the conference trustees and chancellor handle 120 property matters if 10 percent of the congregations say they do not wish to be part of a larger conference? Two of Jesus' parables on discipleship force me to raise these questions. Luke 14:27 ff includes these matters:

“Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. ‘Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw it away. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!'"

I fear we have already lost some of our saltiness and our Christian mission, especially when it remains for the conference lay leader during the most recent session to challenge us to rediscover our compassion and ministry in the world. We must also ask the negative questions openly rather than direct listening and discernment sessions with the question "what does God yearn . . .?"

Allan Ferguson, Pastor, Homer UMC

By Stephen Yorton

As I become more familiar with the planned implementation of the New Conference recommendations, I am more confused at the justification for this planned merger. I know that to question the document “ Listening for God's Call in a New Day” invites criticism of living in the past and not the future, but I work in the real world of day to day practical implementation.

Having gone through four Federal Agencies' reorganizations (realignment, downsizing, right sizing, consolidation, etc.) I have seen first hand what happens when a bureaucracy (and believe me the UMC is a bureaucracy) takes on this mission. All energies (and I mean all) have to be devoted to accomplishing the consolidation plan and that drains your time, money and resources dry. Without a detailed implementation plan you will spend three to four years just trying to decide where you will put the desks.

The second problem is the impact on human capital. The UMC relies heavy on a volunteer base, and the confusion and dissatisfaction with the reorganization will have a direct effect on the moral of both the paid personnel and the volunteers. There is a lot of truth and reality in the saying “Change is good...you go first.” In fact even with a detailed plan there is no way to perceive of all the problems and expenses. One of the first problems will be if the computer systems, software and hardware are not compatible, what system do we switch to? How will it be paid for? Do the churches that have the system selected have to help pay for the costs the other churches will incur to change their systems?

As I read the “Frequently Asked Questions” I am more at a lost in the reasoning of the merger. Let me summarize: (1). There are no perceived financial savings, (2) personnel costs outside of the duplicated conference offices will not decrease, (3) personal contacts and onsite meetings will be decreased due to increased travel times. In all likelihood the Bishop will have to have regional assistants to oversee the district superintendents to handle day to day operations because his or her time will be taken up on Strategic Planning and Implementation. Communication efforts will have to be increased at least three fold to compensate for the lack of one on one development, planning and implementation. The message “Didn't you read my e-mail?” will bring on a new meaning.

Having been a state engineer for the USDA Rural Development for all of New York State, I am acutely aware of the impact of increased travel time. Travel in a car is total non productive time. When you have to travel six to eight hours (one way or round trip) to attend a two hour meeting, the only thing you have accomplished is aiming a car down the highway and getting physically and mentally exhausted in the process. The answer is more teleconferencing. Great, where will you setup the regional centers? Will it be district wide or will the larger more affluent churches become the resource centers? I have often wondered would Jesus have done the “laying on of hands” by electronic means?

If the conference wants to become more viable and thriving it needs to find ways of reducing the financial burden on the member churches. With decreasing enrollment, churches are spending more of their time trying to raise money to pay for pastoral health care costs, rising apportionments, pastor retirement plans, increased utility costs and building maintenance, etc. This effort saps the available resources for Christian outreach.

Instead of a total consolidation maybe the four conferences should develop cooperative agreements and consolidate their health care, retirement, and disability insurance and use their combined numbers to reduce these entitlement costs. Once this is accomplished more ways may be discovered through increased cooperation. Bigger is not always better especially for volunteer organizations. We should have learned that lesson just by observing the fiasco the American Red Cross has created for itself.

Change for the sake of change is no reason, I'm sure that many valid points both pro and con have been given for this merger along with prayerful considerations but from first hand experience I question the statement in the New Conference recommendations that all the members of the four conferences support this move. I would challenge that fact, since I believe that the majority of the members in these four conferences are not even aware of this plan, let alone support it.

Stephen Yorton, member, Carthage UMC

by Charlene Rouillier

I just wonder if the small churches will "get lost" in the largeness of this merger. I already feel that our small rural church only exits within the Methodist church to pay apportionments. Our little church does a geat deal, and i mean great deal, to support local need - food pantry, supporting a local shelter, helping local families, etc., etc. etc. We have not been able to pay apportionments for some time. It is a struggle to keep the lights on. Yet we have an active, vibrant Sunday School, an active and growing mission in Vacation Bible School, we send approximately 10 children to Camp Aldersgate every summer (totally scholarship), have an active elderly ministry, repeating - support a local shelter which touches many lives in our community, and could go on and on. We, at a local level are doing what Christ would want us to do. Are we going to be lost in the bureacy (sorry, can't spell that word) of a larger conference? What will happen to the struggling rural churches that meet a need in the local communities? And what will happen to the lovely buildings that house God's worship localities. Will they become an empty blight on our communities? A church in the middle of a community that has been a symbol of God's love for decades, that becomes empty and unused will not further Christ's discipleship. Is large really a good thing? Just a few thoughts.