Hooray! Today I felt USEFUL!

Last night (Sunday) when I came home from church at Prestbury Methodist, my wife expressed concern that I was rather quiet (unusual for me, as those who know me will confirm!). And I guess this was probably due to the feeling of uselessness that is slowly creeping over me.

I suppose this is natural - after all, I didn't suddenly "discover" the Church when I entered the ministry - I have a long history of active involvement. Last year, the level of involvement hit the steroids in a big way as I grappled with the rigours of Phase One - academics, attending college each week, and Circuit work which included pastoral visits, numerous meetings, and preaching twice on most Sundays. And I loved it! Especially the Circuit work, where I really felt like a "real" minister doing God's work.

Then came the end of November, and while I was grateful for the break, doing nothing besides conducting two services for the whole of December made me feel like a bit of a spare part.

And this year so far - nothing! Zilch. Nada. Squat.

So if I was leering at Jenny's husband Grant with a tinge of green in my cheeks on Sunday night, please forgive me. You see, Grant's church life didn't come to an end when Jenny entered the ministry, and he has already got involved at Prestbury as a local preacher, dabbling in the sound, and by all accounts having a whale of a time. Jenny and I, on the other hand, are a pair of lost farts in a perfume factory - simply because (a) the seminary year has not yet got going, and (b) we are under instruction not to get involved in any local church for the first quarter (other than to attend worship) because we will only be formally attached to a congregation from April (which may be a different one to the one we are currently attending).

But today I started to feel useful again. Deciding this morning that doing anything is better than hanging around doing nothing, and seeing as the SMMS staff are running themselves ragged trying to get everything ready for the start of lectures on Wednesday, I volunteered my services in the admin office. Granted, drawing up class lists is not exactly the most exciting job on earth, nor is it exactly rocket science, but I was grateful nonetheless to at least be able to take some load off Ross and his staff.

And tonight I've managed to put another decent dent into a project that I'm currently busy with, together with the Methodist Connexional Office, which is looking at the implementation of the 2009 King Report on Corporate Governance (King III) in the MCSA.

So as I write this, I'm feeling a bit worse for wear (12 hours staring at a PC screen does that to you), but I'll go to bed with a smile on my face, knowing that I can still be useful!

Prayer for those facing adversity

I was reading this psalm in my quiet time this morning, and thought that it would be most appropriate as a prayer by those facing adversity. My prayer is that Paul Verryn (and others) would find comfort in its words.

1 Declare me innocent, O LORD, for I have acted with integrity; I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.
2 Put me on trial, LORD, and cross-examine me. Test my motives and affections.
3 For I am constantly aware of your unfailing love, and I have lived according to your truth.
4 I do not spend time with liars or go along with hypocrites.
5 I hate the gatherings of those who do evil, and I refuse to join in with the wicked.
6 I wash my hands to declare my innocence. I come to your altar, O LORD,
7 singing a song of thanksgiving and telling of all your miracles.
8 I love your sanctuary, LORD, the place where your glory shines.
9 Don't let me suffer the fate of sinners. Don't condemn me along with murderers.
10 Their hands are dirty with wicked schemes, and they constantly take bribes.
11 But I am not like that; I do what is right. So in your mercy, save me.
12 I have taken a stand, and I will publicly praise the LORD.

Psalm 26, New Living Translation

How to fuel speculation by keeping quiet - lessons to be learnt?

What's the best way to fuel speculation when the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan? It's simple: Say nothing.

David Hallam, a Local Preacher who holds various other Methodist Church lay offices within his local Circuit in my home towm of Birmingham, England, has been waging an ongoing war on his blog Methodist Preacher with the "powers that be" of the Methodist Church of Great Britain over a document that is to be discussed this week.

The offending document that has sparked the war of words deals with what the authors regard as "appropriate" use of social media such a blogs, Facebook, and the like. And at first the whole issue seems to be a storm in a teacup, since the document does not appear to contain anything that one wouldn't find in any organisation that wishes to protect itself from abuse. Prohibitions on actions that bring the organisation into disrepute are not generally considered to be unreasonable.

So the Methodist Church of Great Britain (MCGB), it can be argued, is justified in putting together a set of guidelines aimed at protecting its reputation. Indeed, here at home the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, at its 2009 Conference, identified the need to "protect [its] corporate identity and image as their are mushrooming internet sites and social networks which purport to speak on behalf of the MCSA or being 'official' sites. For good governance purposes we are developing policies and guidelines to manage this practice" (MCSA 2010 Yearbook and Directory, Page 15).

The problem seems to come in, however, when an organisation seeks to develop such guidelines without consulting widely within the affected community. David Hallam's beef with the MCGB is largely around the lack of such consultation. While the MCGB document claims that it has consulted members of the UK's Methodist online community, David claims that none of the bloggers that he has regular contact with (himself included) were included in such consultation.

Given David's many years of involvement in both British and European politics (he is a former Member of the European Parliament), not to mention his reputation as one of British Methodism's most controversial bloggers, he was never likely to leave this issue to slip through quietly. And although his blog posts on this issue (see here, here, and here) have been considered by some to be somewhat "intemperate", the fact of the matter is that perception is reality in the mind of the perceiver, and given that we bloggers tend to be a feisty lot who are fiercely protective of our right to freedom of speech, David's posts were always likely to strike a chord with many.

Unfortunately, the official whom David consulted at Methodist House (the headquarters of the MCGB) appeared to have responded in a way that did little to dispel the speculation that the document was an attempt to gag bloggers. In 16 questions posed by David to one Toby Scott from Methodist House, 12 of those (i.e. 75%) were not commented on. Now while I don't want to speculate on Mr Scott's reasons - I don't know him from a bar of soap, nor am I aware of his position or role within the MCGB - not answering three-quarters of the questions posed to you can only add fuel to the fire of speculation that is already raging around this issue.

In my own experience, the more you come clean and tell people what they want to know, the less questions they feel the need to ask, and the more they would give you the benefit of the doubt and regard your motives as being honourable. I say this, not from having been spokesperson of any organisation, but from having had involvement with a number of organisations' finances (including the MCSA, having served as treasurer at both Society and Circuit level as well as serving on the District Finance Committee over a period of 12 years before I candidated for the full-time ministry).

And what I have found is this: 95% don't give a rat's proverbial about financial statements, policy documents, Laws and Disciplines, you name it. And of the remaining 5% who DO care, all they want to know is that things are being handled properly and in the best interests of the organisation.

Only a very tiny minority are passionate enough to make a song and dance out of it if things are not up to scratch. But when this minority gets its cage rattled, they can make waves that send ripples throughout the organisation, and once the "gripe vine" gets going, before too long half of the organisation's members believe its office-bearers are a bunch of self-serving, power-hungry megalomaniacs.

For the most part, organisations are better off imparting information than by withholding it. When South African food retailer Pick n Pay had a food contamination scare in its stores during 2008, it could have kept quiet and claimed that the blame lay with the supplier. Instead, it responded by publicising the launch a full investigation. A hotline was set up for people with concerns to 'phone for information. Full-page notices were placed in local newspapers. And Pick n Pay even offered to pay the medical costs of those who had eaten contaminated food. The result? Pick n Pay as an entity came out smelling of roses, it's trust by the shopping public greatly enhanced.

On a more personal level, two years ago the headmaster of my son's school wrote in the school's newsletter about the problems being experienced with illicit drug use by some of its learners. But instead of pushing his head in the sand and denying the existence of the problem, the headmaster instead acknowledged the problem and outlined the measures that the school was taking in response (counselling, rehabilitation, awareness programmes, and the like). And while I cannot comment on how any other parent may have felt upon reading this news, I for one felt confident that the problem was being adequately addressed.

The moral of the story? For goodness' sake, GIVE PEOPLE INFORMATION! This needs to be regular and timely. Obviously there are always going to be certain issues that need to be kept confidential, but in reality, how often is this actually the case?

Muslim generosity - would we as Christians do likewise?

Today I decided to take my double-cab bakkie (a smallish pick-up truck, for the benefit of our non-SA readers) in for repairs, as the clutch was starting to "take" lower and lower on the pedal and I didn't want to run the risk of it failing completely, as this would not only leave me stranded but also cost me a small fortune. So off I went to GWM Pietermaritzburg, armed with a quotation for the work to be done, and seeing as the 30000km service was already overdue, I decided to have that done at the same time.

The employees of this particular branch of GWM were quite evidently Muslim, if their dress as well as the many Islamic prayers and the like that were pasted on office walls were anything to go by, and the quality of their service clearly went beyong doing just enough to extract some cash from my wallet. I was given a lift back to the seminary after I had dropped the vehicle off; was contacted when the vehicle was ready; and duly collected from the seminary to go and fetch my (now much cleaner) vehicle.

While I was going over the work done as per the job card, the workshop manager asked me what sort of work I did, and when I mentioned that I was a Methodist minister in training, he responded with some frenzied tapping on his computer keyboard, after which he presented me with a bill that was R300 less than the original quote.

Almost tripping over my mouth that was hanging open in amazement, I was led to the accounts office where my credit card payment was to be processed. Electronic devices being what they are at times, the transaction was declined even though my own bank had sent me an SMS to state that the transaction was authorised. Some frenzied 'phone calls from me to my bank ensued, as I was anxious that the money would have left my bank but not been transferred to GWM.

All the while the staff were completely unfazed, even being prepared to release my vehicle to me in the meantime while I sorted things out with my bank over the next couple of days (bearing in mind that they don't know me from a bar of soap, and I've only been in Pietermaritzburg for three weeks). Talk about trust!

Anyway, between Investec and Nedbank we managed to get the transaction processed, although I'm not altogether convinced that the transaction either went through twice or not at all! No problem to my new friends at GWM, who said that they would check their own bank account, and if they were paid twice they would not hesitate to refund me.

But the clincher was as I was leaving. I asked them to contact me urgently should the payment (for whatever reason) not come through on their side, and they responded: "Don't stress about it. You're a man of God - you won't run away".

As I was driving away in my purring, clean vehicle with a clutch that is as light as that of a Toyota Yaris, I was thinking: Here's a group of Muslims, who have demonstrated by their dress, office accoutrements, and actions that they are sincere in their faith. I'm a Christian, and a minister, but they couldn't see that from my dress as I was in shorts and a golf shirt. The only possible clue might have been the small cross hanging from my rearview mirror. Yet they extended me the utmost courtesy, respect, and geneosity, even going so far as to afford me a substantial discount (I know this as a fact, for the major service and clutch repairs came to just over R1600, whereas I'd been quoted R1200 in Johannesburg last month for just an oil change on my wife's Camry). They didn't know me from Adam, but were willing to trust me to come back and make payment for the work done if my credit card transaction had failed.

And I wondered: Would I, as a Christian (if I was still in business and not in the ministry) do the same for an ordinary Joe who walked in off the street? And would I buy his claim to be an imam or a rabbi in training, substantially cutting my profit margin in the process? What's more, would I display the same level of service, courtesy, and trust shown to me today? I'd like to think I would - after all, when I did run a business I always strived to be ethical and go the extra mile. But to this extent? I'm not too sure that my Christian brotherly love would have reached out to the same degree that I received this afternoon.

Clearly I have some repenting to do, for that needs to change. And it ties in with Neville Richardson's prayer this morning in our chapel service, in which we confessed the church's relative lack of response to the Haiti disaster when compared with that of Muslim organisation Gift of the Givers. I'm also reminded of the outpouring of generosity during the xenophobia crisis in 2008, when Muslim and Hindu organisations contacted me with offers of assistance (I still don't know to this day where they got my number from!) - all I had to do was rock up with my bakkie, and they would load up as much tinned food, baby food, and the like as I could carry.

If I truly believe that I serve a living God - One Who loves unconditionally, Who has saved me from my sinful state, and has poured out on me all forms of blessings (both material and spiritual) - I need to start acting like it. Just like Peter, if I claim to love Jesus, then I need to feed His lambs.

So thank you, Lord, for using some of my Muslim brothers and sisters to remind me what true Christian generosity is all about!

A lesson in communication?

One of the great things about social media is that it can be compared to a grapevine on steroids - very little happens without a wide group of people getting to hear about it virtually within seconds.

Two recent incidents involving disciplinary action taken against ministers by the MCSA are a case in point. While one has gone relatively unnoticed by those not plugged into the online community, the other has made national news. Unfortunately, in both cases "official" communication has been poor - at the time of writing this post, the Presiding Bishop's office has communicated with the media concerning the action taken against Paul Verryn, but so far not a peep to any of its ministers on either issue.

In the meantime, members of our congregations are asking questions. They read the newspapers. They watch TV. They read newspapers. And they participate actively in social media. And as their ministers, we are not in any position to give them any feedback beyond what has already been played out in the public arena.

Now granted, one cannot realisticly expect the PB's office to issue statements on EVERY matter, but official silence leads to a "gripevine" that goes bananas. And by the time any official communication is issued (if at all), the flames of speculation have been fanned so much that this gets lost in the din.

The British Methodist Church (MCGB) seems to be grappling with the same issue, especially since some of UK Methodism's bloggers are just as controversial as many of ours - and although, just like here in SA where the issues being discussed are real, the MCGB's feathers get ruffled (just like ours in the MCSA - we're not so different after all!)

And it seems that the MCGB has recognised the phenomenon of social media - the tremendous benefits it has when it comes to communication and comment on matters affecting the Church and wider society; but also the potential damage it can cause to the institution's reputation - and in response, the MCGB has issued a draft document providing guidelines to the appropriate use of social media by those connected to the MCGB (such as ministers and deacons, officers [stewards, Local Preachers, and the like], and lay employees). The full document can be found by clicking here.

True to form, two of Britain's finest Methodist bloggers have been quite vocal about this document, and hold fairly diverse views. David Hallam (a Methodist local preacher based in Birmingham), views this as an attempt at censorship by the MCGB, and the title of his post, Blogger Beware! The Methodist Church Will Issue A Fatwa, makes his feelings on this matter quite evident. He states: "It [the document] refers to public discussions 'as moderated by the Methodist Recorder' (the MCGB's equivalent of The New Dimension). Ah they were the days, when Methodists could only express a view through the pages of the Recorder, who could then be relied upon to 'moderate'. Those days are gone. The issues we need to address are transparency, legitimacy, and building relationships within the denomination. The days of a handful of well-connected people being able to control internal discussion and decisions are in the past. No amount of 'guidelines' and 'disciplinary action' will stop that. If countries like China and Iran are struggling to stifle online discussion how on earth does anyone think the Methodist Church can?"

On the other hand, Richard Hall (a Methodist minister in Wales) has no problem with the document, stating on his post, Methodism And The New Media, that "[f]ar from being an attempt to stifle debate, this paper recognizes that constructive disagreement has been a feature of Methodism which these new media will further encourage" and that "[a] healthy community will not need censorship, even if that were possible. But if you blog as a Methodist, that places a responsibility on you not to write anything that might harm the reputation of the church. It isn’t complicated, and there’s nothing new here really".

Given that here in South Africa there are many connected with the MCSA (clergy as well as lay folk) who are quite vociferous online, seldom shying away from robust debate about various issues, I wonder how we would feel if the MCSA were to put forward a document similar to that currently under discussion by the MCGB? Would we view this as censorship or good practice?

Every organisation I have ever been involved with (which includes four corporates as well as bodies ranging in diversity from The Welsh Male Voice Choir of South Africa, Toastmasters International, and the Scouting movement - and, of course, the MCSA) has, somewhere in its constitution or rules, a requirement that its employees / office-bearers / members may not do anything to bring the organisation concerned into disrepute - and this is a reasonable requirement.

The question, though, is this: When organisations get things wrong - and this is bound to happen in all organisations from time to time - where is the fine line between "speaking out" and "bringing the organisation into disrepute"? I have found that the more open the lines of communication are within an organisation, and the more the "top brass" are available and willing to listen to people's views, the less there is reason to air one's grievances on a public forum.

And while every organisation has its whinge-bags, much of what is written online is a cry highlighting what the writer perceives to be grave injustices within the organisation, which the "powers that be" are perceived to be turning a deaf ear to. And if that is "bringing the organisation into disrepute", how much of this "disrepute" is in fact self-inflicted? All organisations would therefore do well to ensure that its own communication channels before trying to regulate the use of those outside.

Thoughts on the charges against Paul Verryn

I have some mixed feelings upon hearing the news that Paul Verryn, former Central District bishop, has been suspended pending a disciplinary process. The charges laid against him, according to press reports, are around breach of internal church protocal - firstly in terms of speaking to the media, and secondly, in terms of initiating a court action. In terms of our Laws and Disciplines, only the Presiding Bishop is authorised to carry out both such actions on behalf of the MCSA.

My feelings are mixed, firstly, because one needs to understand the kind of person Paul is - he is a man of action. And yes, a number of his actions have caused me to have feelings of frustration (anger, even) during my days as a Circuit treasurer, especially when I was the one who had to try and sharpen my pencil to make sure that yet another "Paul Placement" (additional staff member imposed on the Circuit without any consideration to budget constraints) gets paid. (Looking on the bright side, this DID help hone my budgeting skills, and - often - my faith!) But there have also been actions taken by Paul that have been not only extremely courageous, but exemplify what the Christian faith is meant to represent. I'm talking, of course, about his work with refugees at Central Methodist Mission.

Many can of course argue that while his motivation is pure, his methods may be unsound. In this regard I'm loath to comment, for it's easy to stand on the outside doing nothing but throwing stones, and I don't want to get caught up in that. But the little I have been involved personally has made me realise that it's not about a once-beautiful building, or about numbers - it's about people. And one thing that is absolutely beyond doubt is that Paul cares about people.

Which brings me back to the current disciplinary action by the MCSA. And what this matter as well as that of Ecclesia de Lange seem to indicate is that many people are under the impression that the decision to follow the disciplinary process is one that is taken lightly, as though someone wakes up one morning and decides, among what to have for breakfast and whether to mow the lawn, that someone should be charged. And while it is unfortunately true that there are some who resort to disciplinary action at the drop of a hat, I believe that the MCSA's disciplinary process is sufficiently well-developed to allow for quite a bit of "sifting" before the relevant disciplinary registrar (who is required to have legal qualifications and at least 5 years experience, per L&D) formulates a charge.

Because we (those of us within the MCSA and outside) are not privy to the processes and discussions that took place before the decision to formulate charges was taken, it is inappropriate to comment on whether these charges are "just" or not. The disciplinary process includes means for defence and appeal, and Paul (according to press reports) has elected to avail himself of these processes, as is his right.

It may also appear unseemly on the part of the MCSA to be laying charges of this nature for what are "merely" procedural violations. However, such restrictions relating to who may speak to the media; who may institute legal proceedings; etc. are not unique to the MCSA - I have personally worked for four corporates before entering ministry, and all four have procedures whereby only certain officials (usually a main board director) may carry out such functions.

What is unfortunate is that something that is essentially an internal process has been emblazoned across the pages of the media, resulting in knee-jerk reactions both in support of Paul as well as against him. Some of the comments that have been made on various media platforms go even further, in a number of cases being direct assassinations of Paul's character and integrity. And while Paul may well be seen as a controversial individual by many, he doesn't deserve this.

My prayers, therefore, are that this whole matter can be handled in a caring and pastoral manner, and that this doesn't end up being a "trial by media" - either of Paul or of the MCSA.

Putting God in a box

I've just got back from a wonderful covenant service at Prestbury Methodist Church in Pietermaritzburg, in which Michael Stone reminded us that of our entire liturgy that we use, the covenant order of service is fairly unique for its Wesleyan flavour.

And for me as a probationer minister, the words of the covenant prayer are a particularly strong reminder of how God has called us, and what God has called us to.

I am no longer my own, but thine.
Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.
Put me to doing, put me to suffering.
Let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.
And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
thou art mine, and I am thine.
So be it.
And the covenant which I have made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven.
Amen.

(wording as used in the Book of Offices of the British Methodist Church, 1936).

I sometimes wonder, though, that we pray the words of this prayer, and then shut the book, tick, that's the covenant service done for another year ... yet we pay so little attention to the words that we are praying.

Which brings me to a Facebook entry, posted by Delme Linscott from Howick Methodist Church, entitled "Sacred versus Secular", in which he also ponders the question of people the world over, going to their various places of worship, yet once the minister has said the final "Amen" they take off their "God suits" for another week and return to their "secular" lives.

Last year when I was a Phase One probationer in the Rosedale area of Uitenhage, it never failed to amaze me how one could drive through the area on Sunday mornings and literally see just about the entire community, decked out in their Sunday best, Bible under the arm, off to church somewhere. Yet the socio-economic problems in this particular area are in total discord with this apparent showing of faith. It's almost as though the attitude is that there are six days in which one can screw around, drink oneself into a stupor, and beat on one's wife and children, but on the seventh day one needs to be "ordentlik" (an Afrikaans word for "decent", "proper", or "respectable") and show one's face at church.

It didn't reflect well on my work as a minister!

But according to a recent statistic that I read (I can't remember which - it may have been the last census), 86% of South Africans regard themselves as being "Christian". But the vast majority take "Christian" to mean "not Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu". I also heard that, as a rough estimate, perhaps 10% of those who state themselves to be Christian actually believe in Christ, while only 10% of those venture through the portals of a church on some sort of regular basis.

I wonder how many of those who do in fact attend church regularly, actually have a relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour? This would be reflected, not in the volume of their "Amens" on Sunday morning, but by the volume of their deeds from Monday to Saturday. As St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel of Jesus at all times - and, if necessary, use words as well".

Where do we measure up? Even as ministers - is Christ just something we do for a living, or is Christ a central part of who we are?