EPISCOPAL
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
South Central
Jurisdiction
John Michael (Mike) Lowry
(53: March 1, 1950)
14706 Bitternut Woods, San
Antonio, Texas 78249
(210) 492-5861 (home); (210) 696-1033 (office)
mlowry@uumcsatx.org
Married for 27+ years to Jolynn Darland Lowry (Instructor of Psychiatric Nursing, The University
of Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas)
Children: Nathan
(25), Engineer with Draper
Laboratory living in Cambridge, Massachusetts Sarah
(21), Senior at Southwestern
University, Georgetown, Texas Ordination: Deacon, Northern
Illinois Conference, 1974
Elder, Southwest
Texas Conference, 1978
Educational Background
Earlham College,
B. A., Political Science/Religion Interdepartmental 1972
Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University,
M. Th. (M. Div.) 1976
Austin Presbyterian
Theological Seminary, D. Min. 1985 “Evangelism on Promise”
Appointments
Associate Pastor Plymouth Park UMC, Irving, Texas 1976-1977 (Appointment
to attend school but served full time, post Seminary
graduation)
Pastor St. Paul’s UMC, Kerrville, Texas 1977-1980
Sr. Pastor Wesley
UMC, Harlingen, Texas 1980-1984
Sr.
Pastor Asbury UMC, Corpus Christi, Texas 1984-1997
Sr. Pastor Bethany
UMC, Austin, Texas 1997-2001
Sr. Pastor University
UMC, San Antonio, Texas 2001-present
District Offices
Building and Locations – McAllen District, Corpus Christi District (Chair) District Council on
Ministry – McAllen District, Corpus Christi District
District Superintendencey
Committee – McAllen District, Corpus Christi DistrictDistrict Committee on Ministry – Corpus
Christi
Spiritual Director, Corpus Christi Emmaus Community
Various other task forces,
et. al.
Conference Offices
Board of Ordained Ministry Chair 2000-present
Vice-Chair
1996-2000
Executive
Committee, Board of Ordained Ministry 1996 – presentChair, Committee on
Continuing Education 1992-2000
Commission
on Religion and Race
Board of Global Ministry Chair,
Committee on Church Extension
Conference Task Force on the District Superintendency
Council on Church
Revitalization and Extension (Chair)
Teacher Local Pastors’ Licensing School
Covenant Connection Supervised Years
of Probation Committee member
Candidacy mentor, Probationary Supervising
Pastor, Local Pastor mentor
Other Areas of Service
Co-Pastor, Rich
Square Friends Meeting, Indiana 1972
Teacher
of Evangelism at the Perkins Course of Study School 1978,
1979
President of the Harlingen Ministerial Alliance 1983
President,
Family Counseling Service of Corpus Christi, 1990, 1992
Spiritual Director
for approximately 19 Emmaus Walks/Chrysalis Flights
Perkins School of
Theology Executive Committee 2002 - present
Perkins School of Theology Alumni
Council 2000 – present
Delegate to General Conference 1996, 2004
Church
and Society Committee 1996
Committee
on Conferences 2004
Delegate to Jurisdictional Conference 1996, 2000, 2004
Teacher
and leader of workshops
on evangelism and church growth
both within and beyond the Southwest Texas Conference
Presenter, South
Central Jurisdiction Senior Pastors of Large Church Network,
2003
Founding member of the New Hope
Association (a clergy group dedicated to bringing innovative ideas of
leadership to the Southwest
Texas Conference)Regular contributor to The Abingdon Preaching Annual
B’nai B’rith
Award
in Social Ethics 1976
Asbury UMC was
given the Moore Award in Evangelism
three times during pastorate
Second Mile mission giving tripled while
at Bethany UMC
Supervised and facilitated a new church
start while at Bethany UMC University United Methodist Church in San Antonio became a 5-Star church in mission
giving for the first time in its history
Churchmanship Award
for UUMC from San Antonio Community
of Churches, 2003
1. Why are
you willing to be considered for election to the episcopacy? How would
your describe your strengths in ministry? For
the office of Bishop?
Since our delegates decided to enter into a
discernment process, I have been in prayer about a call to the episcopacy. Each time I have asked God to show me a sign, I would
shortly thereafter visit with
someone who requested that
I be open to such a call. With
the Southwest Texas Conference Delegation’s endorsement, I
humbly offer myself for prayerful consideration by the South Central
Jurisdictional Conference.
Now,
more than ever, I believe we
stand in need of leadership that envisions a greater future than merely
managing the current disputes before us. The
church needs leadership with
a vision for the future consistent with
a God who is “able to accomplish abundantly far more than
all we can ask or imagine.” (Ephesians
3:20) During my ministry, I
believe I have offered the following
gifts for the work of Christ
through His body, the church: a) visionary leadership; b) preaching/teaching;
c) interpersonal pastoral relationship and ability to work well with
the laity; d) administrative skills to manage and lead a large organization
(University United Methodist Church currently has over 5,100 members with a staff of approximately 85 full and part-time);
e) leadership skills in staff and clergy development; f) the ability
to handle crisis and pressure with
grace and faithfulness.
My vision is of a church for a new day
and a new century committed
to Christ and advancing the Kingdom of God. Episcopal leadership must step forward with
a servant heart, a willingness
to risk in leadership, and a humble spirit that leaves no room for
ego or pride. Bishops must lead
by example, offering themselves up for Christ and His church. I believe I would
bring the episcopacy the following
strengths:
1. A
passion for Christ and His Church with
a vision of what the church
may become.
2. Giftedness in administrative
leadership.
3. The
ability to work well with
and lead diverse Christians in holistic faithfulness.
4. Theological
acumen.
5. A
recovery of the teaching office of the episcopacy through teaching
and preaching excellence.
2. What do
you consider the critical issues facing the United Methodist Church? How would
you respond in your role as bishop to each?
(1) In
a letter to Samuel Walker (1754), John Wesley wrote: “I have
one point in view—to promote,
so far as I am able, vital practical religion; and by the grace of
God to beget, preserve and increase the life of God in the souls of
[people].”
I dream of a church awakened and alive to life lived with and for Christ. For
far too long we have given,
at best, convoluted lip service to the notion of a true fusing of evangelism
and missional outreach in the deeds of love, justice, and mercy. Original Methodism, at its heart, grasped this
great union of evangelism and social action/mission. I envision a church
reborn in mission. I see a church
committed to evangelism, leading others into the saving grace of relationship with Christ. I
see a church committed to advancing the Kingdom of God through
love, justice, and mercy. My
life and ministry are dedicated to proposition that vital faith in
Christ be reclaimed with
this twined emphasis.
Out of such conviction, I believe
that the greatest issue facing the United Methodist Church is
not one of the more obvious “hot button” issues (e.g., war, homosexuality, abortion). The greatest issue facing us is the recovery
of mission. We are to be biblically
grounded in a way that does
not succumb to dangers of rigid fundamentalism. Far
too many churches, pastors, and lay people hold essentially a chaplaincy
model of ministry – “take care of us.” We are called to give up ourselves in ministry
and mission advancing the Kingdom of God. For far too long the false and corrosive distinction
between evangelism and social
action has divided us as a church and left us both morally and spiritually
bankrupt. Methodism must reclaim
its place and purpose as a movement of Christ committed both to sharing
the gospel of salvation and to the advancement of the Kingdom “on earth
as it is in heaven.”
Elements of this vision include a radical emphasis on lay ministry. True faithfulness to Christ and His Kingdom work never has been nor will
be the preserve of a clergy club. Spiritual
formation and missional outreach that engage laity in leadership and
service are central to both whom we
are and what we
are to be about. The ministry of the laity is a core component
of our future. This future lies
in reclaiming the great mission of Christ to make disciples of all
peoples. The church exists as the body of Christ to
give herself away for the
sake of the last, the least, and the lost.
If deep recovery of lay ministry forms
the first critical task, twined with
it must be the raising up of clergy who
are professionally competent and passionately committed to the cause
of Christ. A host of issues present themselves for desperate
need in our time: reconnection
and recruitment of a younger generation of clergy, building supportive
community both spiritually and socially for clergy, invigorating the
quality of theological discernment, recapturing the sense of being
a movement (not an institution) for the Lord, rediscovering the call
of Christ to reform the social structures that contribute to injustice,
poverty and deprivation, etc.
A third
element of this vision for the future involves helping our lay, clergy
and member churches of the Methodist movement engage with
a post-Christian culture. We live
at the epicenter of the one of the largest mission fields on this planet. We are called by God to engage in outreach
to all elements of our society. Diversity
and multi-cultural ministry are not only the wave
of the future but a description of the present age we
are called to serve. The
time has come to stop talking about being inclusive and be inclusive. Minorities, women,
and others often excluded are to be treated with
full equality and respect.
In
light of the above, I would
do all in my power to support
and encourage those churches and pastors that are engaged in evangelism
and missions of love, justice, and mercy. As
a first step, I would seek to make recovery of mission (evangelism
and deeds of justice/love/mercy) the dominant prayer issue in the life
of the Episcopal area. What we pray about we
inevitably act upon with divine
guidance. Secondly, I would work with
laity and clergy to focus our missional efforts in a manner that has
the greatest potential impact to advance the Kingdom of God. Thirdly,
new church development is
a critical strategy for both evangelism and social outreach. Fourth,
I would use the teaching office of the episcopacy as
a tool to exhort, encourage, and enhance all such ministry efforts. Fifth, I would
invite the Area to examine budgetary priorities in light of this emphasis.
(2) The most viscerally public issue we face as a church is our response to our homosexual
brothers and sisters. At its heart,
the crisis over homosexuality is the presenting issue of a deeper theological
malaise. As Chair of the Board
of Ordained Ministry, we have
had seminary graduates come before us who
could not explain any doctrine of salvation (liberal or conservative;
from seminaries across the theological spectrum). The
role and place of biblical authority is an open question. We have for too long confused tolerance and
diversity with confusion and
indifference. I believe we must recover what
I choose to call "core orthodoxy." Holy
Scripture must serve as our primary source and norm in lively conversation with
the other three elements of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. We
must reject both rigid fundamentalism and liberalism that negates appropriate
doctrinal boundaries. On one occasion,
I listened to someone who
should have known better describe
Methodism as offering the ability to "believe whatever
you want." Such is not the case. Our way
out of this morass is not enforcement, witch-hunting
or heresy trials. In the Believers theology
material, Dr. Justo Gonzales speaks of understanding what is inside the foul lines and what is outside the foul lines. This is an apt description of the issues before
us. As episcopal leader, I would seek to use the teaching office to raise the
level of theological discourse. Together we
must openly engage in a wide variety of conversations that respect differences
and do not seek to demonize those with whom we
may disagree. I have had good working relationships with
Associate Pastors from across the theological spectrum. There is a great deal of room between the foul lines but there are foul lines. A creative mixture of views and healthy discussion are not to be feared. God is with
us.
On
the more specific presenting issue of homosexuality, I believe the current Discipline is
correct. We must always be engaged in loving and caring ministry. We must not be afraid to delineate appropriate
boundaries. Bishops are covenantally
bound to uphold the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.
(3) The third major issue is the need to reclaim
our identity as United Methodists. We
are inheritors of a Wesleyan tradition that was
not an institution but a movement for Christ. Our
hallmark is as a connection in covenant with
each other. This applies to churches,
clergy and laity alike. We need
to reinvigorate such faithful connection to each other and to Christ. The general drift towards
splintering and special interests must be addressed in a forthright manner. I
believe the best means of addressing the identity issue is through dialogue
and teaching. One very practical tool would be the use of Connected in Christ as
developed by the Arkansas Area (or something similar in focus).
While
there is more to be said, I hope that the above concerns may serve as
a starting point for the task before us. The
best to be said is that “God is with
us.” We must not fear or despair but embrace the future with
joy in service to the Lord.
3. What would your leadership style be regarding the local
church, the districts, the conferences and the general church?
Leaders
lead. However,
leadership must not be confused with
coercion or domination. Prayer,
dialogue with study, careful
and faithful listening, and collegial respect are the hallmark of my
personal leadership style. A wide
variety of viewpoints are
both sought and appreciated. I
operate out of a standpoint of presumed trust. I
am not afraid to make decisions but believe deeply in prayerful listening
and open consultation with
those involved.
4. When divisions and polarities exist within your area or within
any annual conference in your area, how would
you respond?
When faced with divisions and
polarities, the first role of a bishop must be spiritual discernment
and careful non-anxious listening. Throughout
my ministry, I believe I have demonstrated an ability to handle conflict without
flinching and with a graciousness
that reflects the gospel. I
am comfortable with a wide
variety of views. The United Methodist Church has
a wide fence line.
We must remain open to living with
a wide spectrum of views and positions. Coercion
rarely works. My own
Quaker background has taught me to seek a consensus where
possible. Where it is not possible,
it is important that all be fairly and reasonably heard. With divisions and polarities among clergy,
I believe a reasonable framework
is to encourage personal caring and sharing that bridges the differences. I readily and repeatedly employ Roy Trueblood’s Partners
in Ministry methodology to build understanding if not agreement.
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
Bishop and Cabinet are to consult with
both Staff-Parish Relations Committees and clergy to “achieve an effective
match of charges and pastors.” (see The Discipline, paragraph
432) “Consultation is not committee selection or
call of a pastor. The role … is
advisory.” (see The Discipline, paragraph 431) I understand consultation as an open and honest
discussion of needs, concerns, and desires. Prayer should play a critical role in guiding
all parties involved. Where a
pastoral change is a distinct possibility, I would
expect the District Superintendent to be in personal conversation with both the Staff-Parish Relations Committee and
the clergy involved. The role
of the District Superintendent is central and must be respected by all
parties involved. As a matter
of principle, I would not go behind the back of a District Superintendent. I would
seek to make myself available (with
the District Superintendent present) in each District to Staff-Parish
Relations Committee representatives and clergy who
desired to speak with me personally
about an appointment.
6. Should the
church define the limits of our theological pluralism? If so, how? If not, why
not?
With respect, the church has
defined the limits of theological pluralism. The
First Restrictive Rule directs our attention to paragraph 103, Section
3 “Our Doctrinal Standards and General Rules.” The pressing concern is what such limitations mean and how we are
to exercise faithfulness to the existing doctrinal standards we do have. Wesley's
famous phrase – “If thy heart is as my heart, then give me your hand” – is
given based on the common ground of a theological core. Albert
C. Outler in his marvelous work Theology
in the Wesleyan Spirit comments that Wesley offered a short list
of Christians essentials – “(1) original sin, (2) justification by faith
alone, and (3) holiness of heart and life.” (p.
23) To Outler’s core list of orthodox
essentials must be added other elements such as the doctrine of the Trinity.
I believe
that we must hold firmly to
an orthodox core while allowing a lively discussion as to our understanding of
that core. The rigid extremes
of fundamentalism and unchecked unitarianism are to be resisted. To return to Dr. Justo Gonzales' baseball images of foul lines, there is a great
deal of space for discussion and debate within
the foul lines of a carefully considered orthodoxy. Current enforcement mechanisms in the Discipline are adequate.
7. What vision
do you have for the United Methodist Church in
the 21st century?
I
have substantially answered
this question in #2(1) above. The United Methodist Church is
to be a movement in mission for the Lord both in evangelism and the deeds
of love, justice, and mercy, reaching out to the last, the least, and
the lost. This mission is global not parochial. The church universal and local is to be a mission
post for the advancing Kingdom of God. I see a church boldly enlivened to give up
its life with and for Christ
for the sake of the world.
8. If you
could 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, commission, committees and councils
that might exist in the structure?
In
a word, simplify! We have a structure that, at present, is far
too complex and institutionalized. In
principle, I would place as
much authority and accountability as possible as close to the local church
and annual conferences as possible. Restructuring
should take place along the lines of the mission of the church. General
Boards, agencies and commissions exist to serve the church and enable
the church to accomplish its mission and not the other way
around.
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 and conference leadership?
To
repeat, we live at the epicenter
of the one of the largest mission fields on this planet. We are called by God to engage in outreach
to all elements of our society. Diversity
and multi-cultural ministry are not only the wave
of the future but a description of the present age we
are called to serve. The
time has come to stop talking about being inclusive and be inclusive. Minorities, women,
and others often excluded are to be treated with
full equality and respect. Both
the Cabinet and conference leadership need to be fully inclusive. With respect to the appointment of clergywomen and clergy couples, therre must be no boundaries. I would
have little patience with
churches that are not open to accepting a female pastor. The
issue for the church of Jesus
Christ is not gender or ethnicity but faithfulness
and competence. The reality of dual-career families necessitates
appointment making that is sensitive and open to the needs of both spouses whether
or not they are a clergy couple. We
need not fear the difficulty of making appointments but rather be prayerfully
open to the new reality that ministry in our age engenders.
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?
11. Tells us
about your faith journey including a high
point in your ministry and one of your greatest
disappointments.
I was raised in a small farming community in northern Illinois. During my childhood, my family was semi-active in the Marengo Methodist Church. My
senior year in high school brought a dramatic change. Our
family moved overseas to The Republic of China (Taiwan) where
my father assumed the position of High School principal and Assistant
Superintendent of Schools for the Taipei American Schools. Moving
from a small town to a cosmopolitan foreign capital was an eye-opening experience. During this period, I wrestled
deeply with my faith and future. For
a period of time I was active in a Protestant Chapel youth group and
then went through a searching
period of basic agnosticism.
I went to college with the dream to be the next Clarence Darrow (a famous defense attorney). In my sophomore year, while
taking a course in Christian Theology, I was
led back to Christ by my professor, Dr. Dick Davis, after a period
of agnosticism. I was
actively involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement and participated
in some civil rights demonstrations during this period. In
my own struggle of faith,
I felt an increasing call to ordained ministry, which
I resisted. Grudgingly, I tried
seminary for a year. At the
end of that year, I left with
no intention to return. I came
back for good about halfway through the next semester. In my rebelliousness, I have experienced God’s
pardoning grace and received confirmation of my call to ordained ministry.
Perhaps
my greatest disappointment as a pastor was
also my greatest growth and
learning. After serving one year
as an Associate Pastor, my first church as a solo pastor was
a great joy. I went
to a church on the precipice of closing with
an average worship attendance
of 57, and, within a relatively
short period of time, we had
more than doubled in worship
attendance, begun a Sunday School, engaged in significant missional outreach
in the community. I went
to my next appointment believing the church did not exist that I could
not turn around. In my sinful
arrogance, God humbled me. After
four years of trying, I could not see that my leadership made any appreciable
difference. In a crisis of both faith and vocation, God
brought me to my knees in submission. I
learned (and have had to periodically relearn) to rely not on myself
but on God. Luther’s great hymn “A
Mighty Fortress” is embedded in my psyche. “Did we
in our own strength confide,
our striving would be loosing.” I
found out just how true that is.
Ironically enough (or perhaps
it is not ironic at all), my greatest high point in ministry came in
the following appointment. I
spent 13 years at Asbury United Methodist Church in Corpus Christi, Texas. Following
an outstanding founding pastor, our ministry flourished. We went
from 527 members to over 1100. We
ran out of room to grow at
our initial location and relocated to new ten-acre
site. During that period with those wonderful
people, our outreach in missions and service grew as well. We were
recipients of a Pax award
and sponsored a conference (back in the 1980s) entitled “Peace on Trial:
Terrorism in Today’s World” and were
among the first congregations in the Coastal Bend to engage in an AIDS
care ministry and a food ministry to the homeless. Asbury
never flinched from the tough social issues of our time while
simultaneously showing dramatic
conversion growth. On a number of occasions, our adult professions
of faith were greater than
those we received on transfer. Three
times the congregation won the Arthur Moore Award
for Evangelism. They are truly
a remarkable congregation, and I will
always count it a high point in my ministry to have been their
pastor. For me, the combination
of evangelism and mission outreach to the last, the least and the lost was inspiring and continues to provide a vision of what the church may become under the Lordship of Christ.
12. As a bishop
how will
you most effectively motivate both clergy and laity for ministry?
I
do not believe that we motivate
anyone. Motivation is essentially
internal. It takes place through the workings of the human soul and the Holy Spirit. On a more secular level, I would refer to the works
of Jim Collins in Good to Great and Built to Last for evidence
to support the internal understanding of motivation.
What
I do is seek to share the faith in word
and deed with transparency
and vulnerability. In sharing with others in the great cause of Christ, motivation
takes place. As Bishop, I envision
a primary responsibility to cast a vision of the advancing Kingdom of God. To that work
I commitment my life.
My vision is of a church for a new day
and a new century committed
to Christ and advancing the Kingdom of God. Episcopal leadership must step forward with
a servant heart, a willingness
to risk in leadership, and a humble spirit that leaves no room for
ego or pride. Bishops must lead
by example, offering themselves up for Christ and His church. “Now to
him who by the power at work within
us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we
can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus
to all generations, forever and ever.” (Ephesians 3:20-21)
|