However I was really taken with the scene where David Easton, then on Scilly, now at Aberysthwith, gave a short talk about the power of seeds. I really felt that the Spirit moved in those wonderful few sentences.
Now I'm wondering. David is probably Britain's most famous Methodist Minister. I know that in many ways that means very little, but he certainly has the profile. From the obscurity of the Isles of Scilly, two or three hundred people arrive on this blog from search engines every time An Island Parish is broadcast.
David is a bit like Susan Boyle: coming from nowhere and doing something quite remarkable.
So I want to make a revolutionary suggestion. Instead of future elections for President of Methodist Conference being dished out to yet another lacklustre District Chair on a buggin's turn next basis, why don't we nominate David Easton? An ordinary Minister in such a role would do Methodism a power of good.
If you wish to know more about this story click the label below marked "An Island Parish"
Posts
5 comments:
You raise an interesting thought here David. From my perspective I have to say that many of the people who reach the lofty heights of Methodism are virtually unknown to many Methodists and certainly not known in the wider sense. I don't think I had heard of the present President or Vice President before they were elected and I am a Recorder reader!
I have to say too that when I went to conference in 1982 there were many people who got up to speak and if you asked who they were it was met with a you mean you don't know type response. My response was generally along the lines of if I knew I wouldn't be asking.
I suspect that in some respects we may not have changed!!
The only problem with what you say is I am sure someone will point out to you that ALL ministers in Methodism are 'ordinary' ministers but I understand where you are coming from.
I know what you mean about attitudes at conference. You'd hardly believe that these people were representing an organisation with far less active supporters than West Bromwich Albion!
Hello David (and FP).
This is an interesting discussion, but I wonder to what extent the structure of Methodism actually permits people to gain much prominence before becoming the (vice) president.
Typically, it seems that most people who are active members of a church don't often extend themselves beyond it's boundaries anyway. If we hold a circuit service, we can be fairly sure which people from each of the other churches in the circuit will be there.
So a large percentage never get beyond their own church. Next, scale that up to a district meeting or synod, and that becomes even more "isolated".
Take that to the level of Conference, and it's easy to see how apparently stark isolation can set in, with it appearing a bit like a club. How many church council members do you have who are flouting the "six year rule" - surely not so much a rule as a convention.
That seems to be the other part of it - limited number of officers in each church, therefore limited number of officers in circuit, therefore same is true in district and probably Conference.
So lack of active involvement in the wider structure of the church by the membership is one aspect. From the other side (of prospective candidates for the presidency), it's hard to see what they might do to build up a profile. There has been a great opportunity in Island Parish for the incumbent, but that's not open to everyone!
Simon I know exactly what you mean. Every conference edition of the Recorder throws up the same old faces. I went to conference for the first time this year since 2003 and then since 1988. I was amazed at how many faces I still recognised - and none of them seemed to be getting younger!
Perhaps we should start a committee to put David Easton up as President. He is an asset. We mustn't waste him.
PS: I have never spoken to David in my life so sometone who does know him needs to sound him out.
Whilst I'm willing to agree with some - but not all - of the cynicism about the current system, I'm not sure that I think the principle of "famous in the media" is necessarily the best criterion for choosing leaders either.
Because of having lived in London - and not because of being "famous" or "connected" or anything - I have been personally acquainted with a number of the people who have been criticized by name or by implication. Some of them I simply watched from afar. A handful of others I actually count as friends. I can say with wholehearted conviction that just because someone works at Church House or lives in London doesn't make them arrogant, incompetent or heretical pseudo-pagans.
The little I saw of David Easton on television before I left the UK, he seemed a good man and a good pastor and someone who I'd be happy to have as my minister. But I can say the same things about the vast majority of the people I personally know who seem to get written off as useless and incompetent. Maybe we need to get to know every individual personally before we write them off?
Post a Comment