Questions for Candidates
1. Why are you willing to be considered
for election to the episcopacy? How would you
describe your strengths in ministry? For the office of Bishop?
The members of our delegation were asked
to trust our discernment process as we considered Episcopal
endorsement, and not to refuse participation. For several
years, individuals have invited me to consider the Episcopacy.
During the two-month period of discernment, laity and clergy
colleagues identified in me gifts for the office of Bishop
and encouraged me to use those gifts for the church. After
much prayer and conversations with family, staff, and church
members, I consented to trust the discernment process and
see in the endorsement a mark of God’s calling. For me,
the outward call--the invitation and encouragement that
comes through the body of Christ–has preceded the inward
call, the inner assurance that serving God faithfully requires
openness to this. I’ve reached an assurance that my decision
is for the church and not for me, and I have accepted the
endorsement, humbled by the affirmation of my delegation
and enthusiastic about the prospect of meeting people from
throughout the Jurisdiction to talk purposefully about
the work of the church.
My willingness to be considered grows from
a desire to contribute the best I have to the purposes
of Christ and to the church I love, to use my talents and
resources to help the church fulfill its mission, to use
my passion and skill and leadership to help the church
change lives, influence society, and redeem the world in
the spirit of Christ.
I bring a deep passion for ministry, a love
for the church, an inclusive and collaborative style of
leadership marked by unrelenting forward motion in fulfilling
Christ’s mission. I’m an able communicator and a skilled
administrator. I can visualize where an organization needs
to be when the task is complete and work with people to
take steps to arrive there together. People describe me
as able to keep myriad details in mind while maintaining
focus on the big picture, as able to articulate purpose
thoughtfully and effectively, as gracious and fair in my
treatment of people. I offer a fresh vision and innovative
approach to complex issues. I listen to voices that are
sometimes not heard. Lay and clergy trust my motives, competencies,
and spiritual grounding. My local church work has taught
me to love congregations, and to work in constant collaboration
with laity. My work in South Texas has taught me to value,
support, and develop multi-cultural ministry. My work on
the Board of Ordained Ministry, the Order of Elders, and
General Board of Higher Education has provoked in me an
urgency for recruiting, enhancing, and supporting quality
church leadership, lay and clergy.
To the office of Bishop, I bring a pastoral
heart, a collegial leadership style, effective organizational
skills, extensive cross-cultural experience, an ability
to work with people across the theological spectrum, and
a willingness to make hard decisions. As evidenced in the
churches I’ve served, I bring a considerable experience
in leading through change, and helping churches transform
their ministry in a way that invites and involves younger
generations and that expands the focus of ministry beyond
traditional cultural boundaries. The vision of an annual
conference does not come only from the Bishop, but emerges
as a shared vision from the spirit of God working through
the lives of people to address the challenges before them.
I believe I have the gifts and leadership ability to be
an effective Episcopal leader with a style that is gracious
and flexible, open and accessible, but always focused on
service in the spirit and name of Christ.
2. What do you consider the critical
issues facing the United Methodist Church? How would
you respond in your role as bishop to each?
A. Local churches need to reconnect with
a sense of mission. The mission of the United Methodist
Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Paragraph
122 of the Discipline says we make disciples as we, “proclaim
the gospel, seek, welcome and gather persons into the body
of Christ; lead persons to commit their lives to God through
baptism and profession of faith in Jesus Christ; nurture
persons in Christian living through worship, the sacraments,
spiritual disciplines, and other means of grace...; send
persons into the world to live lovingly and justly as servants
of Christ by healing the sick, feeding the hungry, caring
for the stranger, freeing the oppressed, and working to
develop social structures that are consistent with the
gospel...” Local churches need to find something in this
description and make it their own, their passion and purpose.
Churches need a purpose that draws them out
of themselves, moves them beyond simple self-preservation
and institutional survival, and renews in them a sense
of Christ’s purpose that connects them to the community
and world around them through evangelism, mission, social
witness, children’s ministries, seniors’ programs, or to
fulfill whatever task God has given them to address. Too
many churches are closing in on themselves and becoming
less relevant to the people around them. In rapidly growing
areas with shifting demographics, reconnecting to the mission
of the church may require crossing boundaries of race,
language, and class in a more intentional way. In areas
of declining population or economic setback, this may mean
asking what God would have us do to influence the community
in a positive way and help its people adapt the new realities
with hope and compassion. Some churches discover their
purpose by connecting to people in other parts of the world
through mission.
Churches need a profound “why” to drive their
mission, an understanding that Christ calls us to ministry
despite all the obstacles that sometimes seem so obvious.
With a “why” clearly in our hearts, we can discover the
“how”, the steps that will help us remain faithful.
The role of the Bishop is to remind churches,
pastors, and laity at every opportunity of the significance
and urgency of our mission, that God has placed us together
in the United Methodist family for a purpose. Bishops invite
and encourage risk-taking, celebrate innovation, and demonstrate
through their personal witness what it means to offer oneself
in service to the purposes of Christ.
B. The recruitment, education, deployment,
support, and supervision of capable, gifted pastoral leadership
must be a priority for the future of the church. Many conferences
experience a shortage of Elders, and almost all conferences
see fewer and fewer young adults offer themselves to full-time
Christian service. Local pastors offer excellent ministry,
but many conferences are asking more of their local pastors
than they can possibly give. Persons who enter full-time
ministry at middle age are bringing unimaginable riches
to the church, but their abundance obscures the shortage
of younger adults who are discerning God’s call to ministry.
Bishops must work with the Board of Ordained Ministry,
the Board of Laity, and with conference youth leaders to
help create a “culture of calling” in local churches, youth
and campus ministries, and at gatherings of laity. Laity
and pastors must become more intentional in identifying
people who are gifted for ministry, and inviting them to
explore how God may be calling them into leadership in
the church, either as ordained clergy or as lay church
leaders. Helping to develop quality pastoral leadership
may be where a Bishop can influence a conference the most
during his or her tenure, and it should be among the Bishop’s
highest priorities. Conferences need to explore new ways
to train and prepare for ministries in cross-cultural settings.
Most pastors enter ministry under the influence, encouragement,
and prayerful support of many lay people, and so we need
to invite laity to focus on their essential role in cultivating
talented people of all ages for service in the church.
C. A third critical issue is that many of
our congregations do not reflect the community where their
churches are located. Through demographic shifts in the
community around them, many of our congregations address
the needs of only a small segment of the population. The
future of our church depends upon our ability to figure
out how to invite, involve, and develop leadership and
ministries that are more diverse and inclusive. Adapting
to these changes will not cause us to lose our identity,
but will help us reclaim our identity and our purpose.
Bishops should cast a vision of multi-cultural
and multi-racial ministry. We need to become a denomination
that easily and naturally invites, welcomes, and assimilates
into ministry and leadership people who are different from
the majority in the congregation. My passion for bi-cultural
ministry and my experience in South Texas have taught me
that congregations can adapt their worship and congregational
culture to become more inclusive. I believe the conference
has an obligation to encourage and support training for
pastors in cross-cultural and bi-lingual ministry and in
work among lower income families who are represented less
and less in our congregational life in United Methodism
in the United States. John Wesley feared that we might
become an affluent church and lose the spirit and power
that drove Methodism in our early days. We have become
an affluent church, and now I believe Wesley would have
us ask how God would want us to use that affluence for
the purposes of Christ. Part of the answer lies in our
revitalizing ministry among those who are living in poverty.
D. A fourth critical issue is continued
development of lay leadership at the local, district, and
conference level. In some conferences, a real partnership
exists between laity and clergy in prioritizing, planning,
and completing work. In others, laity are only invited
into ceremonial roles in planning, but are asked to help
fund and support projects they’ve had little participation
in preparing. Laity are major stakeholders in any decision
the conference makes and yet often have little influence.
The key challenges our church faces in the future will
not be addressed or resolved by clergy alone, but only
with the full participation, ownership, and leadership
of laity. The Bishop plays the pivotal role in demonstrating
partnership ministry by including laity in all significant
conversations, prioritizing, and planning for ministry
at all levels of the church.
3. What would be your leadership
style regarding the local church, the districts, the
conferences, and the general church?
Regarding the General Church, I would limit
involvement as much as possible to focus attention on the
Episcopal Area to which I was assigned.
Within the conference, I would help in defining and refining a clear, shared
vision, and work to assure that resources, plans, and programs are aligned
with the priorities of the conference. I would practice a collaborative style
that involves significant conversation and engagement with those who hold a
stake in decisions we make. I would work closely with Conference committees
and staff, including CFA, to know the impact of Conference decisions on local
church ministries. At the District level, I would seek to meet with laity and
with clergy for conversations about the local church and the conference. I
would solicit feedback and evaluation. As shepherd and pastor, I would lead
in prayer and worship, and seek to offer support and encouragement to pastors
and churches in special need. Lay and clergy who attend annual conference should
leave at the end of our sessions with a clear sense that their time has been
well-spent, has served the highest purposes of the church, has made a difference
in the lives of people for Christ, and that they have been treated fairly,
their opinions have been heard, and the spirit has been present, even when
decisions are made with which they disagree.
Our future depends upon the effectiveness of the local church in making disciples
of Jesus Christ, and so I would seek as much contact as is practical in local
churches, attending services, preaching, and volunteering for hands-on mission
projects.
In all my work, I’d represent the role of Bishop as accessible, approachable,
gracious, good-humored, energetic, thoughtful, encouraging, Christ-centered,
given to service, and inviting into the ministry of the church.
4. When divisions and polarities
exist within your area or within an annual conference
in your area, how
would you respond?
Conflicts are inevitable in organizational
life. Bishops are called to strengthen the unifying elements
of our common life without compromising the mission of
the church. While they should not foster unnecessary controversy,
they also should not fear conflict. No organization progresses
toward its mission without resistance and conflict, and
if they wish to lead the church, Bishops must demonstrate
an ability to handle the stress of occasionally disappointing
people.
I respond to divisions with a conciliar,
non-reactive posture that keeps people engaged in dialogue.
I remain accessible and foster a sense of fairness, and
I immerse the process in prayer. I try not to avoid or
deny the presence of real differences and divisions, and
I seek to listen and help others with an awareness of the
pain and fear that those involved may be feeling. The goal
is to orchestrate conversations so that people with differing
views learn from one another and achieve a workable respect.
I seek to cast a vision of the church and of ministry in
Christ’s name that moves people beyond their mutual mistrust
toward a new future. I remind people why it’s worth it
for the purposes of Christ to come out on the other side
of conflict at a better place. I take the long view. Most
conflict does not arise overnight, and resolution, healing,
and reconciliation take time.
Conflict is exhausting and exacts a toll,
but it is the terrain through which every Bishop must walk
to unify the church and lead it forward in its mission.
Passionate disagreement should be possible and permissible
within our covenant. The Bishop’s role is to create an
environment in which the conflicts and passions diminish
their destructive potential and the church can constructively
harness their energy.
5. Describe your understanding of
the consultative process as it relates to Staff Parish
Relations Committees of local churches and to clergy
and their families?
The principal purpose of the appointment
process is to further the mission of the church. Consultation
is a means used to assure that appointments are made strategically
and appropriately, with due consideration to the needs
of churches and of pastors and their families. Churches
need to have a voice. The local church must be able to
clearly state its mission, and the qualities of leadership
necessary to be effective in that setting. And pastors
need to be able to express their sense of call and readiness
for the work of ministry in various settings. The Cabinet
plans strategically, taking into consideration the present
and future needs of churches and the importance of professional
development and of long-term deployment.
The consultative process is on-going, requiring
many points of contact between local church, pastors, superintendents,
and the Bishop. While there may be local variations, the
consultation process must include at least these key elements:
an opportunity for church Staff/Pastor-Parish Relations
Committees to express their priorities and needs to the
Superintendent; a parallel opportunity for pastors to communicate
their sense of call and the particulars of their family
situation; a more lengthy conversation between the Superintendent
and those churches and pastors anticipating a move; a thorough
inventory session with the Cabinet and Bishop that culminates
in matching the needs of the churches with the gifts of
the pastors in the most strategic deployment possible for
the mission of the church; the appointment of pastors to
churches, communicated through the Superintendent, followed
by introductory meetings; the fixing of appointments, unless
extraordinary concerns arise that cause the Cabinet to
reconsider.
A few additional observations: First, most
consultation processes would be strengthened through greater
communication with the SPRC by the District Superintendent.
Second, the appointive process will continue to become
more difficult and complex until we address issues of clergy
recruitment, training, competency, and supervision. Third,
despite all the studies supporting the effectiveness of
longer pastorates, most conferences still move pastors
too frequently, and conversations that initiate moves come
more often from clergy than from SPRC’s. Fourth, most Cabinets
wait too long to deal decisively with ineffective clergy.
Fifth, clergy and churches alike would benefit from transition
seminars that help clergy and their families deal with
the challenges of relocation, and that equip SPRC’s to
handle the emotional and practical concerns of pastors
leaving and coming.
6. Should the church define the
limits of our theological pluralism? If so, how? If not,
why not?
For generations, the United Methodist Church
and its predecessor churches have been anchored by a standard
of beliefs contained in the Articles of Religion, the Standard
Sermons of John Wesley, and Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
on the New Testament. This establishes a core, and limits
only those beliefs that violate the core. It focuses our
common beliefs while allowing for disagreement in non-essential
matters. I do not think it is necessary to try to further
define those standards. This Wesleyan core defines our
theological identity while inviting continued theological
exploration. Our theological task requires a continuing
effort to understand the content of the Christian faith
and to apply it to our contemporary world. One of the tasks
of a Bishop is to encourage and invite theological dialogue,
exploration, learning, and growth, and to see that the
work we do together rests upon a foundation of faith derived
from scriptural witness and our Wesleyan heritage.
7. What vision do you have for the
United Methodist Church for the 21st Century?
The mission of the United Methodist Church
is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. I pray the church
moves away from mere institutional survival and beyond
internal conflict to live out the full meaning of its purpose.
My vision is of a strong and growing United Methodism,
confident in its mission, effectively shaping disciples,
offering ministries of justice and compassion, with congregations
that reflect the great diversity of our communities. The
Episcopal office and denominational agencies exist to serve
this mission, primarily as it is fulfilled in the local
church.
I pray for a unifying spirit in the church
that pulls us out of ourselves, beyond our lesser allegiances,
and to a higher understanding of the Body of Christ. Connectionalism
is not a bureaucratic strategy that John Wesley invented;
it is a spiritual reality that John Wesley discerned, that
our purpose, task, and responsibility for Christ’s work
extends beyond our own particular locus and point of reference.
Connectionalism is at once persevering and resilient while
also fragile and easily fragmented. For the purposes of
Christ, United Methodists must accept the gift and task
of communion and work for its fulfillment.
I pray for better plans and processes by
which the church recruits, trains, deploys and supervises
committed, capable clergy. This involves an invitational
posture toward gifted people who may be considering the
call to ministry, supporting our seminary students, encouraging
cross-cultural experience, and developing support systems
for clergy that keep them in touch with their calling and
with their colleagues. I envision a partnership in ministry
between clergy and laity in which pastoral ministry is
marked by excellence and laity are equipped for their calling,
effective in their discipleship, and full participants
in the ministry of the church.
I envision a church that comprehends and accepts a global mission. A global
church joyfully accepts the task of ministry together with cultures around
the world, and strives for a culturally and racially diverse church at home.
United Methodists must determine how to make disciples, model justice and peace,
and form congregations in creative ways that reflect the diversity of our communities
and the global scope of our mission.
8. If you could have your wish,
what changes would you make in the way in which the United
Methodist Church is structured and where would accountability
lie for any boards, commissions, committees, and councils
that might exist in the structure?
Most restructuring ideas involve ways to squeeze budgets, lay off people, consolidate
functions, and make the organization more efficient. We should support efforts
that reflect better stewardship and accountability. But most reorganization
plans for the general church help us avoid the issues that obstruct our effectiveness.
They do not help us deal with the real threats to our future, such as the aging
of our congregations, the difficulty in recruiting and developing quality clergy
leadership, the inability of most of our churches to reflect the racial and
cultural diversity of their communities, and the challenge we have in assimilating
young adults into spiritual leadership in our churches.
At some point, the United Methodist Church will have to face the fact that
our concept of connectionalism is evolving and cannot be defined principally
by our support of General Boards, that congregationalist sentiments are rising,
and that local control is going to be more important in the future than it
was in the past. Members prefer local missions to conference missions, and
conference projects to general church priorities. We have real theological
conflict and regional differences in our connection that create mistrust and
suspicion. The dialogue that helps us come to terms with these significant
issues is unlikely to take place at General Conference because the setting
does not lend itself to careful, reflective resolution of significant conflicts
of interest, ecclesiology, or theology.
Here are a few principles that guide me
in my understanding of structure. First, all local and
denominational structures are more effective when they
reflect the mission of the church. Second, we should increase
cross-board communication and collaboration to make our
ministry more effective and reduce duplication. (Like other
people, I could tell many stories of negative or confusing
experiences with General Boards.) Third, agencies must
be accountable to their Boards of Directors and board members
must take the task of accountability seriously. (My involvement
in the creation of a Finance Committee for the GBHEM is
an example.) Fourth, we should maximize flexibility at
the local level to help churches adapt their structure
to their mission. Fifth, all agencies and boards need clear
lines of accountability so that there is always an answer
to the question, “Who is responsible for....?” Finally,
at the conference level, the Bishop should work closely
with CFA, the Conference Council, the Board of Laity, the
Trustees, and the Board of Ordained Ministry. The Bishop
should know the impact of decisions about insurance and
pensions on the life and ministry of the local church and
the pastors who serve them.
9. In what ways would you lead the
Annual Conference(s) in being sensitive, missional, and
inclusive of ethnic persons, women, clergywomen and clergy
couples, both in general terms and in relationship to
cabinet appointments & conference leadership?
In appointment making, in the selection
of the cabinet, and in the nominations process at annual
conference, the Bishop has the responsibility for reflecting
the diversity of the church. The “glass ceiling,” the narrowing
of options for appointments for ethnic persons, the perception
that clergy couples represent a problem for the Cabinet,
differing standards for different ethnic groups--in faithfulness
to our mission and in accordance with our commitment to
open itineracy, the Bishop has the obligation to avoid
these corruptions of our covenant.
The Bishop’s cabinet must be inclusive.
Inclusiveness must play a major role in the nominations
processes to committees, boards, task forces, and in leadership
of worship. It is through our practice of inclusiveness
that we are able to hear perspectives we do not ourselves
possess. The more diverse the leadership of the conference,
the more likely we will make decisions that serve the whole
church.
10. Where do you see the priorities
of your ministry as an Episcopal leader, and how will
you balance these priorities with other responsibilities
of the office and your family?
Professionally, my first priority would
be for the area I serve, to provide vision, direction and
leadership to the conferences. The Bishop should be highly
visible, engaged in the work of the conference, and work
actively with laity and clergy to support the mission of
the church.
Personally, I have a young family with boys
in high school and junior high. This presents a different
image to the role of bishop than many conferences are accustomed
to. I’ll be carving out time for my boys’ choir concerts,
scout camp-outs, and chess tournaments. I enjoy canoeing
and kayaking with my sons, and I’m a dedicated runner.
I will seek sanctuary from time to time with family or
alone by taking study or work trips to Central America.
I see these activities as significant for myself and my
family and also as important to model for the conference.
Pastors need physical and emotional distance from their
work and they need to be anchored by an identity beyond
their pastoral role. I take this seriously. Clergy self-care
has been the focus of much of my writing and retreat leadership
among clergy. Pastors need outside experiences and activities
that give delight, and that make family and play and art
a part of their being.
11. Tell us about your faith journey
including a high point in your ministry and one of your
greatest disappointments.
In Spring, 1995, I experienced the period
of my ministry most deeply marked by disappointment. I
was serving my sixth year as pastor of First Church, McAllen,
and we had developed a long-term plan for ministry downtown
and were pursuing the plan with enthusiasm and success.
We had seen attendance double, evangelism was flourishing,
mission was thriving, and we’d had hundreds complete Disciple
Bible Study and the Walk to Emmaus. The practice of tithing
was sustaining ministry in astounding ways. We expanded
and remodeled our historic facilities and were actively
seeking more property for parking. We negotiated for a
key piece of property, the lynch-pin for further development
and growth downtown. In March, we agreed to purchase the
property. Two days later the property owner backed out,
and increased the price to a cost the church could not
prudently pay. I was devastated by the news, as were the
Trustees and other leaders of the congregation. With the
loss of that property, our long-term future viability was
at stake. We could maintain ministry at current levels,
but the strategic plan for downtown would never come together
as we had hoped. The same day that the property deal failed,
my father-in-law died unexpectedly, and I received news
that a close colleague in ministry had died of breast cancer.
I went through a period of personal grief and loss, and
tried to fathom the meaning for the future of First Church
with the futility of our long-term plan. The personal losses
caused me to reconsider the purpose God has for my own
life in the time I have left to live, to love, to minister.
It became an opening to re-examine my call and what God
was preparing me for. The church set-back caused me to
rethink the nature of our mission and to try to discern
a future that was faithful to God in light of the limitations
we faced.
In May, we held a Trustees lunch meeting.
The mood was grim. People ate in silence. The chair talked
through the property deal in solemn tones. Nobody commented
or asked questions. I felt as hopeless as everyone else.
Then a young woman put down her sandwich and said, “It’s
not just about the parking, is it? It’s about the fact
that we have out-grown this facility, that we don’t have
room for our children. It’s about the fact that my own
parents can’t attend here because this building is not
handicapped accessible. God is asking us to think about
something we never would have thought about before. The
long-term future of our church is somewhere else.” Immediately
an active and positive discussion ensued about relocation.
I was amazed! At the end of the meeting, the Trustees voted
unanimously to recommend to the Board a feasibility study
on relocation. Four months later, after careful study and
much prayer, consultation, and communication, the church
voted overwhelmingly to relocate. The Spirit moved through
the congregation with power and excitement as we came to
a new vision of our future, and we dedicated ourselves
to the task of building a faithful, welcoming, mission-focused,
bi-cultural church that would serve this community for
generations to come.
The high point of my ministry is the current
period of the church’s life, after relocation in May, 2002.
We are now ministering in 80,000 square feet of new buildings
wonderfully designed in the same South Texas Spanish Romanesque
style that we had downtown, positioned on 18 acres at a
highly visible intersection. Our attendance has doubled
again since 1995, and we have received nearly 250 new members
since our relocation 18 months ago. One third of our new
members are Hispanic and more than half of our new members
are young adults. The church and school employs forty-five
people, including three pastors, a Christian Education
Director, a Parish Nurse, a Border Missions Coordinator,
a Day School Director, and several other specialized part-time
professionals. Our budget increases by more than 15% per
year and in each of the last six years our income has exceeded
expenses by more than $30,000. We’ve completed three major
capital funds campaigns, including one for our future sanctuary
that exceeded all expectations by raising 4.65 times our
previous year’s budget. The church is thriving.
The two events are connected. God was working
in the difficult challenges and hopeless moments to refine
our vision, redefine our purpose, and restore a greater
future than any of us could imagine. God gave us the courage,
through our loss, to risk a new direction. We would not
be the church we are today if we had not experienced the
failure of our original plan. I would not be the pastor
I am today without the loss and grief of Spring, 1995.
12. As a bishop how will you most effectively motivate both clergy and laity
for ministry?
It is the Holy Spirit who motivates clergy
and laity to compassion, service, worship, and sacrifice.
The role of Bishop is to point to the life, death, and
resurrection of Christ, and by personal example and prudent
leadership, to invite people to participate in the greatest
task ever entrusted to us, the task of offering Christ
and the abundant life that comes with a life lived in relationship
to God and one another.
|