Many delegates to the 2003 Annual Conference were stunned to hear Randy Casey-Rutland, in his role as Conference Statistician, report that in 2002 our 735 Florida United Methodist churches declined in membership (by .67% or 2,246 persons) and in worship attendance (by 1.8% or 2,957 persons – reversing an eight year trend of increasing worship attendance).  Yet, business went on without signs of repentance as if these were increases being reported!  According to the Office of Congregational Transformation, about 6% of our congregations are "beginning," 8% are "transforming," 1 to 2 % are "reproducing," 80% are maintaining and 4% are dying.  What this means is that only 16% or less of United Methodist congregations in Florida have a healthy balance between evangelism and sustaining the saints, between out-reach and in-reach, between ministry to their community and care for their existing members.  Rather than acting as if "the world is our parish" many congregations are acting as if ‘the parish is our world.’  In a state where our population has grown 24% in the last decade, the number worshiping in our congregations has increased only 12.6%.  (The portion of Floridians who are practicing United Methodists has declined from 5% in 1960 to 2.1% in 2003.)  In short, many of our congregations have failed to recognize and live out their Christ-commissioned, disciple-making mission (Matthew 28:19-20).

   A sense of congregationalism has increasingly replaced our connectional ecclesiology.  On the one hand, congregations often feel isolated and unsupported within our connection.  On the other hand, congregations often feel independent of and not responsible to the Florida connection of United Methodists.  Apportionments are experienced more as a "franchise tax" rather than an opportunity to participate in shared ministries.  Competition or apathy often characterizes the relationships between neighboring congregations.  Few congregations enter into collaborative ministries with sister congregations.  Community ministries that require more resources (financial, people, spiritual gifts) than one congregation can marshal go undone.  

   Those clergy who have served in other Annual Conferences observe that clergy in Florida tend to function more individualistically and autonomously than in other Annual Conferences.  Often our clergy choose not to get involved in district or Annual Conference responsibilities and exhibit an attitude of, "just leave me alone to serve the congregation to which I am appointed."  Many clergy report that they belong to no clergy support group; they minister in isolation from other clergy.  Rather than "watching over one another in love," a spirit of competition, jealousy, and indifference characterize many relationships between clergy in our connection.  Clergy serving in isolation in maintaining or dying congregation can easily become over-identified with their congregation and thus defensive and/or depressed – leading to greater isolation.

   Our connection is financially dysfunctional.  While Florida’s Conference budget increases over the last five years have risen less than .25% annually, General Church budget increases have risen over 6% annually.  The program ministries in the Annual Conference are now being funded at 60% of budget.  The General Fund Apportionments are being paid on average by local churches at 83.1%; in 1987 it was 90.8%.  Local churches are struggling to keep up with the escalating costs of health insurance, property and casualty insurance, ministerial and staff salaries and pensions.  Districts that are most in need of developing new congregations to reach the expanding population are least financially able to invest in starting new communities of faith.  Clearly, our financial house needs to be put in order. 

   For many United Methodists, the District Superintendent is the human face on our connection.  The local congregation’s connection with the district, the annual conference and the denomination is largely through a single relationship with the District Superintendent -- who meets with them maybe once or twice a year for a charge conference.  In most cases, the entire weight of the connection is suspended by the thread of this solitary relationship.  Most of the District Superintendent’s time is taken up in maintenance and "putting out fires" within their district; little time is left for vision casting, coaching, developing leadership, encouraging the best pastors and congregations or assisting to cultivate new communities of faith.  What happened to the connectionalism that the Discipline describes as a "vital web of interactive relationships?"    

   the work of the Holy Spirit changing the motives driving our behavior,

   new ideas that change the way we make decisions about our behavior,

   and/or changes in our circumstances that force us to learn to act differently. 

   Reducing the number of districts in Florida from 14 to 9 effective immediately following the 2005 Annual Conference – about a year and one half from now.  This would mean that the average number of churches in each district would move from about 50 to about 80 or 85.  This would also give us a year to plan for and work out the many transitions necessary.  The name of all districts would be changed.

   With this significant increase in congregations and pastors, districts will have to organize differently.  (For example, the number of people that the District Committee on Ordained Ministry will meet in each district will significantly increase.)  As part of this reorganization for an enlarged district, we recommend establishing a "Leadership Council" consisting of 12 - 15 of a district’s most spiritually mature and visionary lay and clergy leaders to assist the Superintendent in major strategic decisions.  Membership of the "Leadership Council" would be inclusive of the diversity of people in the District without having representatives from specific groups.  The Leadership Council would also function as the Superintendency Committee, the Board Trustees, the Finance committee, and the Committee on Nominations and Leadership.  Districts would continue to have a District Board of Missions, a District Board of Church Location, a District Committee on Ordained Ministry, a Committee on Clergy Housing, and other groups as needed. 

   We also recommend that each church and every pastor be part of a cluster of 5 to 10 other churches and pastors.  The "Leadership Council" and District Superintendent will consult with pastors and congregational leaders regarding the best ways to form clusters in their district.  Clusters should be indigenous, rather than artificial, and could be geographical, by affinity or missional in nature.  The purpose of the cluster will be to encourage a vital, horizontal connection among pastors and laity and to support the healthy ministry of cluster churches in their community.  While no church or pastor will be mandated to be part of a cluster, this would be highly expected.  It is through clusters that we expect a "vital web of interactive relationships" in our connection to develop naturally over time. 

   Each cluster would typically have a full-connection elder assigned by the District Superintendent as cluster leader.  A cluster leader would minimally be responsible for calling pastors together six times a year.  Together they would explore:

   We recommend that the norm for annual Charge Conferences be cluster conferences organized by cluster leaders and presided over by the District Superintendent.  Most annual Charge Conferences are routine and would benefit greatly by becoming celebrations of transformational ministries in the cluster.  When congregations have particular concerns that need to be addressed individually, the District Superintendent would schedule a single-congregation Charge Conference as in the past. 

   District Conferences would be abolished.  The District Leadership Council would be empowered to review district budgets and to set district apportionments.  The District Leadership Council would also be empowered to choose leadership for district committees and to make nominations to the Annual Conference.  The Annual Conference planning committee is calling for a pre-annual conference orientation gathering in each district with pastors and representatives from each congregation for purposes of voting on a consent agenda; this annual gathering could approve the membership of the District Leadership Council.

   These suggested changes will obviously mandate significant modifications in the role of the District Superintendent.  While we are unclear exactly what these modifications will be, we fully expect four general changes. 

   Encourages pastors and congregations to experience themselves as participants in a living, trusting connection of persons in ministry, thus cutting through an all too common sense of being unsupported by or independent of our United Methodist connection. 

   Promotes taking seriously the vision and mission of the Annual Conference, supporting congregations in their local ministry and discovering collaborative ways congregations can be in ministry together, thus fulfilling God’s dream for our Florida connection.

   Promotes accountability for improving "the eight qualities of healthy congregations."

   Reduces the cost of Superintendency on congregations, thus assisting us to get our financial house in order by liberating approximately $700,000 to be used in mission both locally and globally.  Due to transition costs and the way apportionments are figured, this reduction in costs will not immediately be experienced as a reduction in apportionments, but should after several years. 

   Encourages the development of both lay and clergy leadership in districts, thus strengthening leadership at all levels of our Annual Conference: local, district and conference.

   Encourages the District Superintendent to function less as a maintenance manager and more as a vision leader and coach.

   January 30, the Cabinet will present the "Connecting for Transformation" proposal to the eighth gathering of the Conference Table, to be held at St. John's UMC, Winter Haven, 1800 Cypress Garden's Blvd SE, Winter Haven, FL 33884; (863) 324-6347.

   A conference wide discussion, facilitated by each District Superintendent in her or his district, will begin following the Conference Table.  "Connecting for Transformation" will be posted on the Florida Conference web site and distributed widely.

   Bishop Whittaker will schedule a series of regional meetings with laity and pastors to discuss the proposal. 

   During the Annual Conference orientation meeting, District Superintendents will share updated information on the "Connecting for Transformation" proposal and provide discussion opportunity for lay and clergy delegates. 

   At the 2004 Annual Conference (June 3-6 in Daytona Beach), "Connecting for Transformation" will be presented for prayerful consideration.

   During the fall of 2004, churches in each new district would send representatives to a New District Gathering during which the "Leadership Council" for the new district would be elected.  The Leadership Council would act as the transition team empowered to address issues of nominations, budgets, reorganization, district offices and parsonage. 

   On July 1, 2005 transition to the new district structures would be complete. 

   In lieu of the traditional clergy welcome party, each new District will have a major ministry celebration event for worship, fellowship and vision casting by the new District Superintendent and District leaders. 

   Clusters would be formed and cluster leaders appointed before the end of 2005. 

   Why do we need to change anything at all?

We will not repeat here the signs of needing new wineskins mentioned earlier.
 
What might be helpful is to set the escalating signs of individualism in a broader social context.  David G. Myers, in The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), states that "Contemporary America is the most individualistic of cultures" – and is becoming more so!  We live in an era of "loose connections" in which people visit one another less, belong to fewer groups and more often live alone.  Participation is waning in Scouting, the Red Cross, women’s clubs and fraternal lodges.  People born after 1950 are less likely than those born before to engage in various communal activities: entertaining at home, attending church, voting, engaging in civic activities.  There has been a significant drop in people’s willingness to trust others since 1960.  Myers places the loss of meaning, loneliness and self-indulgence so evident in contemporary American society within the context of individualism gone extreme.  (See especially the chapter entitled "Individualism and Community," pages 161-194.)  As part of this social context, it makes sense that our United Methodist connections have become "loose" in the last fifty years.  It also makes sense that we now need to find ways to reconnect that reflect who we are as persons of faith, lest we simply reflect the society in which we live and not the Lord who calls us together in the church to join him in mission to the world.

It might be helpful, as well, to place the increasing financial squeeze experienced in the Florida Annual Conference in a larger context.  Loren B. Mead, in his book Financial Meltdown in the Mainline?  (The Alban Institute, Inc., 1998) paints a picture of increasingly severe economic pressure in mainline denominations – particularly experienced by small congregations struggling to survive.  Over half of all congregations in the country have fewer than 200 members.  (The median membership of Florida United Methodist congregations is 240; the median worship attendance is 120).  78% of United Methodist congregations nation-wide have budgets of less than $100,000.  Membership trends, after growth in the 40’s and 50’s, are now in sharp decline.  (Since 1960, United Methodists have lost over two million members in the United States.)  While the number of contributors in many congregations is decreasing, budgets are growing faster than inflation.  While the average per-member giving has risen, the increase has gone to cover escalating operating costs for local churches (the rising cost of health insurance and operating aging facilities, for example).  The strongest financial contributors to congregations are generally from the older generation: people whose children are raised and whose mortgages are paid.  Their giving tends to peak when they are in their 50’s and 60’s and then drops off 20 – 50% in the years after retirement.  As the average age of contributors in a particular congregation moves past retirement, resources for income increase decline.  The creative energy of small congregation leaders gets drawn into surviving financially, not into figuring out how better to be in life-transforming ministry in their community.  These trends are reflected among United Methodist congregations in Florida and do not appear to be mitigating.  The proposed package of changes promises, in time, to reduce the cost of superintending to financially struggling congregations.  

   Why nine districts?  Were other numbers considered?

Considerations for establishing district boundaries include the number of churches, transitioning as many previous districts intact as possible, accessibility by roads, need for developing new faith communities, and the relative financial strength of each new district.  According to the Discipline, the Annual Conference sets the number of districts, and the Bishop determines the boundaries of districts.  Though the exact boundaries have not been set, Bishop Whitaker is ready to share his current working model for nine districts.

   Is the proposal in accordance with the "Discipline"?

It is the ruling of Bishop Timothy Whitaker that the proposal is in keeping with The Book of Discipline, 2000.

   Are other Annual Conferences restructuring in a similar fashion?

We know of three Annual Conferences who have adopted or are in the process of adopting similar restructuring plans and we have sought to learn from their experience: the Arkansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin Annual Conferences.  

As a result of a merger between two conferences, the Arkansas conference reduced the number of districts from 12 to 7.  Their primary concerns were financial and the transformation of connectional relations.

The Wisconsin Conference’s proposed plan calls for reducing the number of districts from 8 to 4 and creating "circuits" consisting of "clergy circuit teams," each with 8 – 10 clergy.  Every geographic circuit would be assigned a full connection elder as leader.  The purpose of the circuits is to enhance fulfillment of disciple-making ministry in their area.  It is also hoped that, "The role of the District Superintendent will radically change from primarily a maintenance and management expectation to one of training and coaching for change."  The primary motivation for this proposed change is the transformation of connectional and supervisory relationships, not financial.  (See the Wisconsin proposal: http://www.wisconsinumc.org/superintending2003/SuperintendingTaskForce.htm).   

   How will property and resources in districts be divided?

   How will the relationship of the DS to local churches and pastors change?

Currently, members of local churches seldom see the District Superintendent except at charge conferences, when there is an appointment change or when there is a problem needing outside intervention.  District Superintendents will still consult with Staff Parish Relations Committees regarding pastoral leadership and will still be available for consultation in times of crisis.  The Cabinet is also planning to develop several trained intervention teams to assist District Superintendents in responding to conflict situations or when charges are brought against a clergy.  (These intervention teams are discussed by Roy M. Oswald and Claire S. Burkat in their book Transformational Regional Bodies: Promote Congregational Health, Vitality and Growth, Life Structure Resources: 2001.)  Routine annual Charge Conferences will be planned by cluster leaders as cluster celebrations over which the District Superintendent will still preside.  We hope that congregational leaders will grow to experience "a vital web of interactive relationships" within their cluster that will exceed the support they have previously known from their District Superintendent.  We also intend for District Superintendents to work with church leaders in cluster coaching and training events.

   How will this proposal benefit the local church?

   How will this proposal benefit pastors?

   Does every church and pastor have to participate in a cluster?

   How will clusters be formed?

Clusters will be formed over time through consultation with pastors and congregational leaders and with collaborative oversight by the Leadership Council and District Superintendent.  The desire is for clusters not to be artificial groupings, but to "make sense" within each district.  Clusters may be formed according to proximity, affinity (churches of a similar size) or missional focus (churches developing Hispanic or single parent family or recreational ministries, for example).  Clusters could include the intentional yoking of larger congregations to smaller congregations seeking to transform.  In time, cooperative parishes might evolve in some clusters.  An experimental and pragmatic attitude would govern the development of clusters with the ultimate aim being the enhancement of ministry in local congregations and their community according to the vision and mission of the Florida Annual Conference. 

   Why will every cluster be led by a clergy elder?

Because of the unique ordination vows of elders.  The Book of Discipline (par. 323) states: "Elders are ordained to a lifetime ministry of Service, Word, Sacrament and Order.  They are authorized to preach and teach the Word of God, to administer the sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion, and to order the life of the Church for mission and ministry."  (Emphasis added.)  According to John Harnish in The Orders of Ministry in the United Methodist Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000 p. 68), only elders are set apart by ordination to "order," giving elders leadership responsibility for "ordering the Church for its mission and service, and administration of the Discipline of the church" (par. 303.2).  Harnish quotes Thomas Frank: "The church sets apart persons to represent the community of faith in its definite political responsibilities.  They are in biblical terms stewards (oikonomioi) of the household (oikos) of faith, entrusted with making sure that every member of the house is able to serve (or minister, diakonia) in the most effective way possible" (p. 103).  As cluster leaders elders would be fulfilling, in part, their ordained oversight function as stewards of the connectional household of faith.

  How much money will this proposal actually save the Annual Conference?

While it is difficult to determine exactly, conservative estimates are that this proposal will bring $400,000 in one time savings and $700,000 in annual savings.  This does not mean that the actual 2005 Annual Conference budget will decrease by this amount as other factors may still cause the budget to increase.  Nonetheless, we believe that the proposal is a good step in aligning our resources with our vision and mission, and is thus consistent with the direction in which we must move to restore financial health to our Annual Conference.