as many of us realize, The United Methodist Church is aging, and our numbers are declining:
- The average United Methodist is 57 years old.
- In some countries, notably the United States, we are not effectively reaching youth and young adults; United Methodists under age 18 account for 4.6 percent of church membership.
- The number of ordained and commissioned elders under age 35 is a mere 850 in the United States.
- Membership globally is increasing, but U.S. membership has slipped below 8 million for the first time since the 1930s, even as non-white and immigrant populations in the United States rapidly grow.
- While total giving in the United States has increased, the number of givers has decreased.
- Research reveals a deep yearning across the church for a common focus on mission and ministry...
***One quick piece of information before I get started on this, if a child or youth or anybody in your church asks if there will be a camp for them this summer, 2015, please answer "Yes." We don't know exactly where it will be yet, but we will know soon. It will be different, but there will be something, and it will be great because I know the people like me who are committed to making it great.***
I'm not saying that anything has been hidden, or that we've been deceived. I'm saying this change in direction has more to do with combining Camping & Retreat Ministries with Youth Ministries (CCYM) into the new "Next Generation Ministries" than we may realize. So, a lot of the conversations leading up to this change were a part of aligning the conference ministries with the mission statement: "leading congregations to lead people to actively follow Jesus Christ." (side note: I've always thought the word "actively" was unnecessary or redundant because isn't following an action? can you passively or inactively follow? I think those would be "not following".) The impression that people seem to have is that this emphasis is just a Missouri Conference thing. It bothers a lot of us because it appears to make us more congregational in polity rather than connectional. For example, I've seen this post passed around on the interwebs, and it's titled "Disconnecting Missouri Methodism." The fear that we are becoming more congregational may be valid (I don't think so), but it's not a Missouri specific thing.
In addition to our mission statement, the Missouri Conference of the UMC has the following vision: "Growing, fruitful, vibrant congregations changing lives through Jesus Christ." This also puts an emphasis on local congregations, and seemingly away from our connectional nature and more towards congregationalism. However, this is not just a Missouri thing. It's a Council of Bishops and Connectional Table thing. It's a denomination thing.
A while back (2008), the Council of Bishops and The Connectional Table announced the "Four Areas of Focus." You can read an overview of it at the umc.org website. Among those four foci (is that how you pluralize that?) is...drum roll please..."Growing Vital Churches." Specifically, the focus is on planting NEW churches (actual wording is "new faith communities") and creating NEW ways for people to connect with God and The Church. But, they also include renewing existing churches. If you dig deeper and click the link to find out what they mean by "Growing Vital Churches," you will find more details for the vision of what exactly a vital church is. One of the components of a vital congregation is..."strong children's and youth ministries." (Note this as an emphasis on "Next Generation Ministries.")
What prompted this vision for our denomination? Why is there an emphasis on strengthening local congregations? Why emphasize children's and youth ministries? Here's what the website says:
The vision of emphasizing these Four Areas of Focus is "not for the next quadrennium, but for as far as the eye can see." We will be living into this vision for many many years to come. I think it's a great vision for us to strive for wholeheartedly. (Personal Confession: In fact, I wish I would have paid more attention to our Bishop announcing this stuff and found all of the material on the website sooner.) In order for us to truly be connectional and accomplish this vision, we need Vital Congregations. Without vital congregations, we won't have a denomination to be connected to. The good news is, someone has done a lot of work to show us how to develop a vital congregation. The website has this PDF document that your church can use as a guide to implement what they call "drivers of vitality," which are things that help the church fulfill the vision of a "vital congregation." The first (of sixteen) drivers of vitality is focused on small groups for all ages. The next two are focused on Children's and Youth Ministries. So again, there is an emphasis on "Next Generation Ministries."
I'm pointing all of this out because I want us to see that this is bigger than just the Missouri Conference, Bishop Schnase, Rev. Garrett Drake, and the Camping & Retreat Ministries Board. Sure, maybe the Missouri Conference is somewhat of a pioneer on shifting the focus to local congregations since this began for us prior to 2008, but still, this is not about people leading us away into congregationalism. This is about the future of The Church, our church, the United Methodist Church.
On the one hand, it looks like we've taken support away for Next Generation Ministries because first we closed our campus ministries, now we're closing campsites, and soon CCYM will be different. But in reality, we haven't had this type of concerted focused effort and alignment of resources to reach the next generation and form new communities of faith that reach the next generation. I give kudos to our Bishop for slowly (he's been here 10 years now) and persistently leading and influencing us to re-align our mission and vision and way of doing things (budget and staffing) to actually catalyze next generation ministries in our local churches. Did you see the stat above? The Average United Methodist Is 57 Years Old. Our conference leadership is being intentional about trying to change this. (And I am unique: one of only 850 people in the world who are under age 35 and ordained UMC clergy. Woo Hoo! Go me! Maybe if the process didn't take so long we'd have more, but that's a whole 'nother issue.)
These two emphases, vital congregations and next generation ministries, are critical for our church worldwide, and especially in the US. This vision is an effort to recapture the original Methodist Movement, not an institution. The Movement was always focused on small groups in local congregations who lived out their faith in their local communities. The local congregation (the people, not the building) is the primary locale that people connect with The Church.
To sum it up, I'm trying to say that this change is connected to more than just finances or ambitions. I'm trying to say that this is not us devolving into congregationalism. This is not denominational leadership sticking more to selfish ambition of growing a great organization. No, instead, this focus is deeply rooted in a desire to see us living as followers of Jesus Christ, disciples who care for the poor, lead our communities with integrity, and improve world health (historically Methodist emphases). We do this at the most basic level through our local congregations in communities, cities, towns, neighborhoods across the globe. People connect to people. The Church is people who connect people to the person of Christ. This vision is not necessarily trying to save a denomination, but it's trying to do the important work of continuing the Methodist way of Following Jesus Christ. Even if the denomination ever goes away, I think there will still be people who follow the Jesus Way in a Methodist Style, and I think these Four Areas of Focus capture that and it's well worth giving my life to...even if I won't get to use the same camp facility that I have grown to love.
Ok, I'm a fairly new blogger. So I don't really know exactly what I'm doing. But I'm finding that I've made a mistake here. I used an inflammatory title and phrasing to get clicks, readers, and a response. Unfortunately, doing that has misconstrued what I am trying to say and accomplish. Yes it got me noticed. But it did not end up representing myself well. I'm not backtracking on my ideas, but I am sorry for how I chose to express them. It was offensive to those who are deeply grieved, and it gave the impression that I don't care. I do care, a lot. That's why I am writing about it publicly.
Having had some more time to think about it, I would like to summarize my main thoughts about this change to MO UM Camping. ALSO, I will be an equal opportunity offender because I have another post I'm working on that would probably offend the "other side" (I don't like splitting this into sides because we are one church, one team) as well. Here's the summary:
This Surprises And Hurts
I do think/feel the communication of this was handled poorly. It does feel to me that there was a lack of transparency in how this decision was made and carried out. All of the truth may have been told, but because of the way things were communicated it gives the impression that we may never really know. Although, I'm not sure there were many other options when it comes to a change/decision of this magnitude.
The decision to close campsites hurts me and all of those who are and have been connected to United Methodist Camps in Missouri. I had God-experiences (and other memories) at 3 out of 4 of these camps both as a youth and an adult. So I'm not overly attached to one campsite in particular. It doesn't seem to bother me as much as some of my friends and the students I've ministered with at the campsites. What's important to me is providing the spiritual opportunities for teenagers to experience and know God in life-changing ways. That can (and does) happen anywhere. And I'm excited to see it happen in new places and in new ways.
We Are All On The Same Team
The Camping Board and the Conference Staff and Mission Council who were involved in this decision are part of the Missouri Conference. I am part of the Missouri Conference. Anyone baptized in or who is a member of a United Methodist Church in Missouri is a part of the Missouri Conference. We are in this together. There is no "us vs. them," but only us. We are on the same team. Also, even more importantly, anyone who is a baptized Christian actively following Christ is a part of the ONE BODY of Christ. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. AND, we are all made in God's Image and therefore connected to one another.
We share a covenant together. Those who are ordained in the UMC share a publicly ritualized and deep covenant with the Church and one another. The covenant of ordination as Elder is one of leadership in the United Methodist Church. It involves a commitment to integrity. There have been some so hurt and grieved by this change that they are calling into question the integrity of the people who made this decision. This needs to stop. Yes we are all broken, and we are sinners, and no one is perfect. But this covenant means we are forgiving, and we trust that no one is intentionally and maliciously trying to do harm. If there has been impropriety, the proper response would be to approach it with grace, truth and love. As my father always taught me: "two wrongs don't make a right." This is an opportunity to show Christ's love and build up the body of Christ, not tear it down. You would only be hurting yourself.
I appreciate how Rev. David Israel has emphasized that our entire Missouri Conference played a role in under-funding camps. He basically says that the fact that we have gotten to this point is more of a "shame on us," rather than a "shame on you." We need to come together and work together because we have the same purpose: To Make Disciples of Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the World. These are your teammates, brothers & sisters, not enemies.
CampS will Continue
I have posted on Facebook to the students I lead for a week at Camp Jo-Ota, that somehow, some way, we will do something. Not only this, but there WILL be camps this summer of 2015. They will be in a different place. They will not be what past camps have been. They will be different. But, God is already there. God is already at work. Students will experience God and make commitments to follow Christ. AND, even though some of us may refuse to admit it, this may become more than we could ever ask or imagine. Not because this is the best decision. But because that's just how awesome God is. New life (resurrection) isn't just something God does, it's who God is. That's what Jesus is all about (John 11:25), "resurrection and life." This decision does NOT reflect a lack of commitment to camping and "the next generation." In fact, it is the exact opposite. This decision was made because of a deep commitment to camping/retreats and "the next generation." (I really appreciate Rev. Trevor Dancer's "bird's eye view" of the change, which speaks to the commitment to reach "the next generation" not just for 5, 10 or 15 years, but well beyond that.)
Local Churches Need to Reach Youth
There are nearly 1 million school-aged people across our state. According to the reports that each of our local churches turn in to the Annual Conference, only about 60,000 of those are connected to a local United Methodist Church. That's six percent. (**See note below about camp participation numbers.) We shouldn't be satisfied with this. If our local churches had been living out a deep commitment to reaching school-aged people, then our camps would have been so overflowing that it would have been easy to maintain and operate them. I believe many of our churches and leaders (pastors) have neglected this mission field. There are a lot of reasons for that. But a lot of our churches do not have anyone or very few people under age 50. I've served churches where myself and my family were the youngest ones by a generation or more (until I worked to start a youth ministry). This is what I was trying to say when I said "no one cares, or at least no one is noticing." Sure, there are a good number of people who care and who are noticing, but when compared to the general population, it's not many. The people who care and are noticing are those who have a connection to United Methodist Camps in Missouri. Sadly, that's a small number. Not because the site directors and other camp staff or camping board did a bad job, but because local churches have failed to reach young people. Now, it's not ALL churches. There are quite a few who are doing well in this. But a majority of us are not. Even some of our larger churches have small youth ministries. There is no quick fix or magic bullet for this. But we must not give up or expect someone else to do this for us or think "it will just happen". We must persevere and keep trying to reach young people.
Outward-Focus, Outreach, evangelism, or whatever you want to call it
Some have responded saying that over-emphasizing evangelism is bad because you need to feed people before they can feed others. This makes logical sense. Another person responded saying that families need to do a better job of shaping their children as Christians at home (I totally agree with that), and church should be a place where families learn how to do that (I agree). I still say outward-focus is key to a healthy church. That doesn't mean you neglect equipping people for ministry and a life of Christ-following, but it does mean we are always pushing each other back into the world, much like the hymn "In the Garden" says near the end:
I'd stay in the garden with Him [Christ]...But He [Christ] bids me go, through the voice of woe, His [Christ's] voice to me is calling.
As for feeding people before they can feed others. I feed myself, most of us do, unless you're an infant. I happen to have an infant in my home right now and at 9 months was already starting to hold his own bottle and feed himself. To use the cliché, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." There's two issues here churches need to work on. One, are we leading people to the life-giving water (or spiritual food)? I say, not if we're contained within the four walls of a building or only in relationship with fellow Christians. When we meet people, we meet God. Remember, every human was originally created in the Image of God. God is already there, but are you taking the risks to meet God among the people of your community. Try it. Take the risk. It is amazing how spiritually nurturing it is to see God at work in people's lives. And God is at work within people, ALL people, whether we/they know it or not. It is our job as Christians to help them make the connection and see God, see Christ.
Second, most of us (Missouri United Methodists or just USA Christians in general) are usually pretty satisfied and content. Our bellies are satisfied, and we have plenty of stuff. And we go around convincing ourselves and others that we are "OK." Sometimes, I'll skip a meal or two. Sometimes I'll even complain to someone near me that I'm hungry. I may even exaggerate and say, "starving." And if I'm hungry enough, I find food. I may wait a while and see if someone else is going to take care of me, but eventually, I find a way to eat. And if I'm hungry enough, I'll eat stuff I normally wouldn't, and I'll put forth a great effort to find food and prepare it and consume it. Maybe we need to get hungry again. Maybe we need to get desperate for God again. Maybe we, the Church need to help people be desperate for God again. We are distracted by all of the visible and temporary things we have and enjoy, when what we really need is the invisible and eternal source and author of life, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From the source of these invisible things, we participate with God building the visible kingdom of heaven on earth, in our communities. The invisible is already there, we get to help people see it and experience it.
That's what camping did for me, and many others, and why it's important. But I wouldn't have known about camp, unless a church had first reached out to me and my family. The future of United Methodist Camping in Missouri depends upon how well our local churches are connecting and building relationships with people we don't yet know in our communities. I know that's easier said than done, but I'm committed to continually figuring it out over and over and over again because the same thing won't work for all people, places, and times. But the bottom line is relationships, and at the core of that is love; radical, crazy, risk-taking Jesus-love.
That about covers it. I hope that is more clear and less offensive.
**Note about our camp participation numbers:
The conference released two numbers about how many of these 60,000 participate in camping: 2,075 campers (United Methodists) representing 20% of our (United Methodist) churches. My dilemma is, 2,075/60,000 is only 3.5%, which is way different than 20% or 1/5th. Now, these numbers don't include non-UMC participation and activities at our campsites. The bottom line for me is, I think we could do way better. That doesn't mean the people who have been a part of the camping ministries up to this point aren't valuable. You can't put a price on someone's life or soul. Even if just one person's life was transformed by Christ, then it would be worth it. But I'd still have to ask the question: even though it's worth it, are we being good stewards of what we've been given? Probably not, we need to try something different to reach different people.
Many of my clergy friends are moving and have moved to new contexts for ministry in the past weeks and I thought this is relevant to getting to know people.
When Zachaeus climbs up a tree, Jesus tells him he's going to his house today...at least, that's how the song goes that I was taught. Looking at Luke 19 verse 5, it's pretty clear that Jesus just invites himself over to Zach's house. I don't know what the culturally accepted (or expected) way of doing things was back then, but I know that today in the U.S.A. That's not typically how it works. That's called "inviting yourself over." It could also be called "party crashing." At least Jesus made contact first and gave a warning. Jesus didn't just show up at Zach's private residence, but he did invite himself over.
Can/should we follow Jesus' example today? Is it ok for me as a Follower of Christ to just invite myself over into people's homes to spend time with them? What's the balance between respecting culture and violating etiquette? Let's take a deeper look at the story.
Jesus does not just invite himself over out of the blue. Zach made a clear effort to try and get to know Jesus. Jesus responded and said, "I'm coming to your house." So, it would not be best to walk up to some random stranger and say "I'm coming to your house today." If that "stranger" is an acquaintance (or on the way to becoming one) and shows an interest in you and what you're about, then you can invite further conversation and invite yourself to their home.
Also, notice that Jesus knows Zach's name. Whether it was divine foreknowledge, or if Zach was a well-known public figure, the story doesn't say. But, Jesus knows Zach's name. Again, this is not just a random stranger out of the blue. The story says Zach is a rich leader among tax collectors. Zach is a person of influence, and probably known in the community, which can be negative or positive (in this case, probably negative because he's a tax collector). And Jesus knows his name and calls him by name. I imagine Zach also knew Jesus' name. Why else would he be climbing a tree to try and see him? Ok, maybe he just did it because everyone else was crowding Jesus and Zach just wanted to see what the spectacle was. But even then, the buzz was probably going around: "Jesus is here." So they both probably knew of each other, but didn't necessarily know one another. So if you know a persons name, and they probably know yours, then you can invite yourself over to their home. Are you following me?
Why am I discussing this? Because breaking cultural norms to reach people for Christ is tricky business. I need to fit in culturally, and speak the language, and follow the "rules," but the cause of Christ compels me to push the boundaries and take risks. Inviting myself over is a daunting risk, but if I know the person's name, and they've made an effort to know me, then I'm just returning the favor and seeking to know them more. This is how relationships start, and a relationship with me is a start to a relationship with Christ.
So don't pass up the opportunity to violate etiquette and invite yourself over to strangers homes. They won't be strangers for long, and you have the chance to share your relationship with Christ by starting a new one. Take the risk. It's worth it.
What do you think, is inviting yourself over going too far? How is it different from door-to-door evangelism? I think if you keep the above thoughts in mind and the person is becoming an acquaintance instead of a total stranger, then you're good to go. But honestly, for me, it's a very daunting task to step out, risk rejection and build a deeper relationship with some one I don't know. Again, the risk is worth it for the sake of Christ. I'm working on growing in this area myself, and I'm finding that yes, taking the risk is worth it. I
Ok, I have another chart for you. The last one I stole from facebook.com/journeychurch.org but this time I just kept the layout and changed most of the words myself. I'm trying to highlight a key difference about how evangelism is viewed or done differently. I'm calling it Attractional vs. Relational Evangelism.
In the attractional model, it's all about getting people to come to you. In the relational model, it's about going to meet people where they are in ordinary life and living as a Christ follower. Attractional methodology works to draw a crowd as quick as possible and offer a product (give a sales pitch). Relational methodology takes an investment of time and friendship.
I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive. I think there is possibly a hybrid option here. BUT, I prefer the relational side. It makes sense. I've encountered Jesus Christ and that changes me and how I live. It should be natural that my relationship with Christ has an effect on all aspects of my life, especially all my other relationships. I do not draw myself out of culture, but I engage people through culture, at least the parts where my life intersects theirs.
Relational takes a long-term view of building a relationship. The aim is to populate the kingdom of heaven on earth, not simply fill pews. The Relational Evangelist (which every Christian should be) brings the kingdom of heaven to people where they are, much like Jesus is depicted doing in the Gospels. We work to bring to the world: peace, justice, beauty, creativity, love, blessing, health, reconciliation, forgiveness, redemption--the values/ideas/lifestyle of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of heaven. Relational methodology is about influencing the people around you by the way you live (as Christ).
The problem most of us "church people" face is that we "joined" a church and quit making new friends outside of church. We've disengaged. The way I've been taught to alleviate this problem as a leader is to have "bridge events" where we create space for "church people" to interact and build bridges with "non church people" (lack a good term for that). What if we took a different approach and used the events/activities that are already going on in our everyday ordinary lives?
For example, I recently convinced another church to open their gym for some time for men to play basketball. I saw it as a way to invite people and build relationships with guys I don't know well. It is working. That is happening. But now I feel like I have to pull a "bait-n-switch" tactic to get them to "come to church". A better way would probably have been to go join an already existing basketball league/program in my community. Then I could build relationships and live out my faith in noticeable ways that my new friends would want to investigate further.
A hybrid methodology is possible, but it is hard to avoid feeling a bit deceptive about a "bait-n-switch". The bridge event would need to have no hidden motive other than the stated good that the event does for the community. It would still provide a space for relational evangelists to mix and interact with "non church people" and begin building bridges and relationships. I consider this hybrid because you're still doing some marketing to get people to come to something instead of sending "church people" to go where "non church people" are and build relationships.
What do you think? Am I on target? Any adjustments that you would suggest?
This graphic captures exactly the transformation that I want the churches I lead to go through. This gives me lots of questions to answer:
How do I lead consumers who are so inundated with consumer culture to see church differently? We are so enveloped by consumerism, we don't even realize it. It is that pervasive here in the west as USAmericans. In fact, they way we typically describe the American Dream equivocates our ability to consume with success. So, how do I lead others to see things differently? It starts with me. Seek to consume less, and seek to serve/give more to/for/with God.
How does being Missional change the time that we gather together on Sunday mornings? If an hour or so on Sunday morning is no longer a religious service to be consumed, what drives what we do during that hour or so? In the past, it seems like the songs we sing were chosen largely in part because they were consumable for people. You could probably say something similar about the sermons that are preached. It was an effort to sell God to consumers for what God can do for them. This is so different from the attractional, worship-driven model of evangelism. Is an average attendance number a good indicator for church health? Yes, but is worship the doorway to the Christian life as it has been in the past? It is a good indicator because it means you have more people who are being sent on mission. It can still function as a doorway for some (and even many), but maybe not in the way we've seen in the past. Why do I say this? Because if we're not trying to put out a product for consumption, then are we going to invest so much in doing over-the-top performance type of stuff? Let's be honest, the church cannot compete with Hollywood and professional concert venues--although we've done fairly well in many churches across the country. AND, I just don't think we SHOULD be trying to compete with the professional entertainers because we're not trying to put out a product to be consumed. However, we are trying to communicate and help people experience an Awesome God who can do more than any high-tech entertainment could even dream of. So I'm not saying we abandon all technology and excellence and professionalism. I'm just saying our motivations are different for using it, which will probably change the way we use it. What does that look like? I think we create it as we go in the context we are in, so it will look different for each group of people that gathers. One of my fears with stating it that way, though, is how do we keep worship from devolving into a product to be consumed.
I think this graphic also indicates another shift (transformation) that needs to happen in the churches I lead. A movement away from programs, and a greater focus on people. I feel like we get so attached to our programs so much that we'll do anything to keep them going even though they're not reaching people. The example I've seen is Sunday School. Let me first say that I don't think Sunday School is inherently bad. People learning the bible and growing in their relationship with God is good. The problem is Sunday School has become an institution that we expect new people to be willing to jump into. I've heard church members complain and say, "I wish we had more people in Sunday School." Usually it's "I wish those young people would come to Sunday School." Those of you who are leaders of established churches with declining Sunday School know exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said, people growing in their relationship with God is a good thing. Let's find ways for people to be a part of a group where that happens in their context, whether or not it's a part of the institutional Sunday School--who cares? The important thing is people are growing in their faith and supporting one another in ways that they can't (or won't) in a large group of people.
My one last reflection on this for today is applying this to Holy Communion/Eucharist/The Lord's Supper (or whatever you call the sacrament with bread and wine). The way I've experienced this sacrament in the churches I've been a part of is very individualistic and consumery (yes, I made that word up). Most of the time, it seems like communion is focused on me getting right with God. I remember what God has done for me in Jesus Christ. I consume the gift God gives, and it is my individual transaction. How is the Sacrament of Bread & Wine different when being Sent on mission is emphasized? How is it more communal encouragement and still personal?
I've had more questions than answers, but it's discussion that we need to have.
The title is partly inspired by the recent USA Today article about 50 years of The Beatles, but actually, we've been saying a lot of goodbyes lately, and we are beginning to say more hellos. In the past week we've started the first step in our journey to our new mission field, St. Joseph, MO.
Saying goodbye is not easy or fun. It's awkward with some people, easy with others, and painful with others. And, in this case, it carries on for weeks, even months. Balance that with all the excitement we have of meeting new people, moving to a new place, into a new-to-us house, and new ministry to explore--and we are on a whirlwind of a transition.
First, it is always a tear-filled time when I say goodbye to one mission field and move onto another. I have invested so much into the lives of the people here, and I've seen how much God has worked in their lives through me. It's unbelievable and hard to leave behind. I also see A LOT more work that God has to do in the life of the people here, and a part of me knows that I could still make a big difference. That's what brings tears to my eyes: leaving behind a work-in-progress. But, I guess we are all works-in-progress.
Then, it is so awesome to be heading to something new. It's perfect and full of opportunity right now. It's a blank slate, ready for me to come in and mess it up---er, I mean...well, you know what I mean. It's so exciting to go and catch or start a wave of God's movement in a new place with new people.
Moving is a lot of work. It's emotional and stressful, and hard to leave. But, we are really looking forward to what God has next for us. We say "Goodbye" and "Hello" in a very short amount of time. I'm choosing to think of it as being "sent." We have been formed and shaped by the people we've spent time with here in Paris, MO, and we carry those experiences with us as they send us on to St. Joseph. We are carrying on the Spirit of Christ, and the we leave behind the Spirit of Christ. Oh, there's another song: "Blest Be the Tie that Binds."
Pray for us, and all of the other Methodist Missionaries who are moving this time of year. BTW, we plan to start an email prayer list soon, so check for the subscribe form here on the site. In it, we can keep you up to date on our prayer requests and what's going on as we embark on this new mission. Thanks for the prayers!
I am a United Methodist Pastor, but I'm trying to re-define that as a Missionary sent to my corner of the USA. What would it look like for you to envision your life as a Christian more like a Missionary than a Church-goer?