District Superintendents - What's in a name?

Good morning God,
I've been wondering as I read through this month's council papers what difference will a change of title make to the work of the Church.
On it's own - probably very little, but joining up some dots provides a very interesting picture.
The structure of the British Methodist Church is four-fold. We have Local Churches, Circuits, Districts and the Connexion or Conference depending on how you want to think about it.
This provides us with Ministers, Superintendents, District Chairs and the  Conference/Connexional Team presided over by the President and Vice president of Conference and the General Secretary and Connexional team secretaries.

Contrast this with the largest Methodist denomination - the United Methodist Church who have a different sort of four-fold structure of local Churches, Districts, Conferences and General Conference.
This is served by Elders, District Superintendents, Bishops and their General Secretaries - one for each Global Board.

Now add into this mix the 'Regrouping for mission' or 'Mapping a way forward'  programe of British Methodism which is an encouragement to create circuits as large (if not larger) than many Districts were. Add the call to change the names of our District Chairs and Connexional Team secretaries.. and what do you get?

Could it be a gentle but inevitable and predictable mapping of the UK Methodist structure to the UMC structure..?
Circuits are slowly disappearing, being replaced by smaller Districts overseen by District Superintendents. (the name change suggested for chairs) Our Connexional Team being headed by Connexional Secretaries with particular areas of responsibility.

Which leaves only one more office/name change - and we have already been warned that we will have to make some bold and difficult decisions about the episcopate - Bishops.
Only, in our case, the current thinking seems to be that the preferred choice (of those who want bishops!) would be the President of Conference: a presiding Bishop (just like in the UMC)

This is not 'conspiracy theory' this is just joining dots and seeing what pictures emerge. A  linking together the consequences of our reports and actions to see where they might possibly take us. I may well be wrong - but its fun to do and an exciting prospect nonetheless.

Of course the dots could also be seen as preparation for fulfilling the current Anglican/Methodist covenant. The loss of circuits and a mapping of smaller 'Districts' to Deaneries where District Superintendents become area Deans and the president of Conference becomes the Bishop. (But this picture is much less 'artistic' and 'fun'  to draw - in my opinion.)


The name changes and the push for the removal of circuits by the 'regrouping for mission' program do seem to suggest that strategically thinking, the UMC is the most likely candidate for future belonging and collaborative work.



Personally, as I have stated before I would rather see British Methodism relate more closely to the UMC. If we are going to enter into covenants or consider greater collaboration then why don't we look to other Methodist denominations first? The UMC approach to ministry, their unashamed ownership of Wesleyan theology, their evangelistic zeal and commitment to world wide mission have much to offer us: And we have much to offer the UMC - not least our greater inclusivity in ministry and membership and our commitment to combined social justice and political activism.

So it would seem there might be three options on the table:

• Fulfill the Covenant with the Anglican Church and become a Methodist Concordat within the Church of England
• Gently merge with the URC
• Become the British Conference of the United Methodist Church.

Add to this the ecumenical programs of both the British Methodist Church and the United Methodist Church and the picture becomes even more interesting. It could well be possible to fulfill the basic requirements of the Covenant AND our current relationships with the URC  - by being part of the international dialogue between the Methodists and these denominations.

So what's in a name God?

Well, in my opinion these changes might open up the future and enable British Methodists to recognize that they are part of a massive world-wide movement based on the theology of grace given to us by Wesley.
They suggest a common structure throughout world-wide Methodism and so may provide access to the ecumenical relationships that exist between global rather than local denominations. This might be a faster route to the interchangeability of ministry than the Covenant.

And they make great fun for people like me, who like to guess where we might be going in the future - and how we might be getting there.


Not that there is any real evidence of any deliberate action being taken for any of this to happen of course.

Just a bit of fun - but the change of name gets my vote as a step in the right direction.

Thinking theologically about British Methodism Ltd.

Good morning God,
Yes.. I've simmered down a little - enough at least to begin to think this through theologically rather than just emotionally. I want to get at the root of what really disturbs me in the way in which our Church is now being managed: I have, after all, been a great advocate of British Methodism, our theology and polity alike... So what is it that distresses me so much?

It's your seeming absence God.
Its the way in which all the things that bind us together as Church rather than institution, are so often missing from our communications, the Scripture, the theology, the faith hope and love.
Instead we have summaries of impact including risk assessments of what we propose to do...
It's the way in which we seem to have so little confidence in your ability to lead us that we are determined to do it all ourselves.

We have decided our priorities
We have fixed the buget
We have created our governance structures
We have rewritten our language and modus operandi 
All of which now allows us to determine how best to 'manage' the work of your Church - and decide what work we will do - and how to communicate it - based on OUR priorities of course, and the money available.

It can appear God, from our Conference and Council papers, that we have decided we can do quite well at being the British Methodist Church, without you.

I know that there are good, well meaning and capable people working within Methodism at every level - circuit through to Connexional team. People who are committed to serving you God to the best of their ability. Even those within the Connexional Team who have no faith or are of a different denomination, are required to uphold the stated priorities of the Methodist Church. The things that distress me are not their fault! They work hard at their jobs/ministry.

I cannot blame one individual or group of individuals or governance level for what distresses me now - I can only blame the apathy of the Methodist people themselves.

We have allowed this seemingly inexorable slide into secular religion by taking no real notice of what is being done in our name. It's perfectly possible in British Methodism for members and ministers alike to pay no heed to what the Connexion is doing. But by ministers and members taking no interest in, and not challenging the reports presented to Conference we have allowed you, our faith, language and theology - our very identity - to be replaced by what can often appear to be a godless secular business, complete with tiered management structures, officers, secretaries, senior managers etc, professional business and financial correspondence and a grim determination to complete a merger with some other 'company' before we go bankrupt.

As a former managing director of three IT companies, I am all too aware of the necessity of good management in business. I approve of good employment policies, sound accounting and risk assessments.

But I don't believe your Church was meant to be a pseudo business. I find nothing in Scripture to support that idea, no model of Church or community that can be used to justify or uphold this current seeming obsession with fiscal management, risk aversion and irreligious language.

Scripture seems to say that Your Church is not a business - it is a body: a disabled body, I grant - but a body nonetheless. It is, you tell us, the body of Christ on earth. I recognise that because of who we are, it is still significantly limited in its abilities and restricted in its movement, especially when it is not properly formed, missing its feminine qualities, or when it is dis-eased and suffering. But it is YOUR body, not ours. You shape and form us according to your will.
 So..
The life-blood of this body should be your Spirit, God - not money.
The body needs to be fed with your Word, not with our jargon.
This body needs to be held together by YOUR priorities - not ours!

But what does this mean in practice?
It doesn't mean that we throw away good practice in terms of oversight - but it does mean that we understand oversight less in terms of human resources, line management and power, and more in terms of pastoral care of the body of Christ.

It undoubtedly does mean we learn once again to 'manage' a little less and be prepared to take more risks - as you call us.. (regardless of the budget implications!)

It means being prepared to put YOUR priorities first - not ours, and learning once again how to speak the language of faith. How to communicate to one another in ways that also communicates your grace and your purpose rather than just our standing orders or budget implications.

It means being confident enough in your leadership of us to not need 'independent consultants' to tell us how well we are fulfilling our calling.

So yes - It means taking the focus off us,  and onto your creation, your people.
And I guess that means not being ashamed of the name that you gave us, the Word that inspires us and the task to which you have called us.

We have nothing to do but save souls...

Do we really need independent consultants to tell us how to do that?

British Methodists Ltd.

Good morning God,
What does it say about a Church that invests so heavily in 'independent consultants' to structure and restructure its existence?
Looked at positively I would say it might help us to hear the opinions of those who have not yet come to Christ, to determine where we fail to persuade them of the good news. But of course, that's not the area that the independent consultants are looking at: what obsesses our Church at the moment is management, management and more management.

Managing Change, Managing vision, Managing Staff, Managing for the future, Managing Leadership, Managing policy, Managing training, and of course, Managing decline -

Dear God we are drowning in bad mangement, policies, reviews, restructuring, regrouping, reorganising - when surely all that is needed is good ministry - lay and ordained?

I don't believe that independent business consultants can help us out of the Methodist Church's current predicament of how to renew confidence in the gospel so that we proclaim it with conviction and hence inspire others to follow Christ.
I dont believe that independent business consultants can help us to make more disciples of Jesus Christ.
All they can do is highlight how insecure we are in our calling by recommending proposals that make us behave more and more like a corporate business. I wouldn't mind - if it weren't so obvious that this 'business' has no idea what product or service it is selling, but  appears to exist merely to ensure that it exists!

We speak less and less about you God and more and more about how to manage our existence.



I don't blame the independent consultants for their recommendations - either at Connexional level or at District level - after all - we brought them in.

The blame lies fair and square on our own heads: The lack of confidence that YOU are leading us at every level of the Church, that you are with us, creates general uncertainty and makes us ask - where are we going, what should we be doing? But shamefully for a Church, we then turn to the secular world for inspiration and answers, rather than to you.

It's sort of obvious isn't it?
The lack of good pastoral care for one another leads to the necessary imposition of line management.
The lack of loud and clear inspirational proclamation of the Gospel in word and deed from ministers and members but especially from our appointed 'leaders', be they Connexional secretaries or District Chairs, leads inevitably to a confusion as to what we exist for - which filters down to every level.

And I have reached the stage where I alternate between anger and despair. Between wanting to resign my ministry, and wanting to fight for the right to minister according to how you have called me.
It's getting to the point where I no longer know whether I am supposed to be a minister or an employee of the Methodist Church.  Do I now 'work' for the Methodist Church - or am I in a covenant relationship which allows me to fulfill my calling from you God?

As a minister, I can understand and accept the discipline of the Methodist Church. As an employee I would never tolerate such 'working conditions', but would be demanding that the terms of my 'employment'  be revised to accord with European directives concerning work-life balance,

As a minister, I believe in the covenant relationship which means that the Church will safeguard my physical and Spiritual health and well being: that I will be 'watched over in love' and supported and enabled to do the work of God. ... but that's the real problem isn't it?  I might believe in the Convenant relationship, but that doesn't make it real. It doesn't seem to work in practice as all too many ministers (including myself) have discovered, resulting in increased demands from some for a more 'secular' form of oversight.

Tell me God, is it too late to ask for and work towards being a connexional church where the Circuit Superintendent is a mature minister of 15 to 20 years who sees themself as the first among equals rather than a line manager?  Where circuit staff, with circuit stewards, consider the work of God and the pastoral care of God's people the most important items on the agenda of any meeting? Where circuit leadership teams don't exist because the circuit meeting is still the place where decisions are prayerfully taken and where lay and ordained watch over one another in love and work together to ensure the necessary work of the Circuit is done? Where District Chairs are seen as the pastors to the ministers, rather than the disciplinarians of the District and where the Connexional Team exists to support and enhance the ministry of the whole people of God and knows that it is part of the wider Connexion, upheld by all in love and prayer?

The London District is exploring the option of replacing a Chair (we have 3) with a Chief Executive or other 'senior management' post at an appropriate time.. That just about says it all for me - for the Gospel to flourish we just need the work of the District to be better managed by a Chief executive.
Please God, do we really need so many tiers of governance and management for such a small Church? How on earth did we manage when we were a growing Church without any of this?
(could it be that we were a growing Church then precisely because we didn't have so many tiers of governance and management?)

I grieve deeply because the Methodist Church as 'Church' just doesn't make sense to me any more. Wesley would undoubtedly disown us on the grounds of our current polity and practice, and it seems almost offensive to refer to ourselves as 'Church' when we place so little confidence in Scripture, in your leadership, and in our ability to respond to your calling of us to proclaim the good news.

Perhaps its time to take one further recommendation from independent business consultants - We need to rebrand and rename ourselves so that people can understand what we are really about:
how about - British Methodists Ltd?
(with apologies to the original Methodists)