United Methodist Consitutional Amendments & Polity

This will be a long post but an important one. I've been working on this for some time, and starting writing about our church polity years ago. I had a piece published in the UM Quarterly Review and The Circuit Rider about the subject. I want all UM's who will voting at this summer's Annual Conferences to be aware of the gravity of their votes to change the UM constitution.

A Rationale to Oppose Proposed Constitutional Changes

The United Methodist Church has a distinctive connectional polity that promotes a unity of purpose throughout the denomination. Connectionalism is our vehicle for ministry. In these proposed changes to the constitution we are voting on connectionalism and how that supports our shared ministry. While we are a worldwide denomination, we must carefully protect those things that make us uniquely United Methodist. We believe that these amendments fundamentally harm our classic connectional polity.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment # IV, Par. 10 BOD –
Current ¶ 10 reads: There shall be central conferences for the church outside the United States of America and, if necessary, provisional central conferences, all with such powers, duties, and privileges as are hereinafter set forth.

If the amendment is passed and so declared by the Council of Bishops, ¶ 10 would read: There shall be regional conferences and, if necessary, provisional regional conferences, all with such powers, duties and privileges as are hereinafter set forth. (The change in name from “central” to “regional” takes effect January 1, 2013 at which time this parenthetical procedural note will be removed from the Constitution.)

Rationale to Oppose:
This amendment completely changes our structure by creating regional conferences across the entire church. This strikes at the heart of United Methodism. By mandating separate regional conferences, each with the ability to adapt the Book of Discipline as it so chooses (cf. Par. 31.5), this amendment would divide the denomination and cause the demise of one of our most hallowed hallmarks: Connectionalism. This amendment and the others hereinafter identified are the opposite of Wesley’s adage, “The world is my parish.” Separate regional parishes around the world would have very disparate agendas and priorities. We would look like the Anglican Communion that finds itself at odds among its various branches – compartmentalized and competitive. The US Episcopal Church is subject now to the missionary efforts of those from overseas that have a different understanding of theology and culture. This is where we are heading with Regional Conferences in the UMC.

Some of this separation has already taken place because conferences outside of the US can adapt the Book of Discipline (¶ 543.7). There is ambiguity about the purpose and scope of this ability to adapt the Book of Discipline. Some would say that the Book of Discipline limits such adaptations to organization and administration, while others suggest that the changes may be all encompassing. To allow the United States to have the same power would split the church. A better option would be to carefully limit the ways in which overseas conferences can adapt The Book of Discipline. For instance, there is at least one central conference outside the United States that does not have any female clergy, and another that either adapts or takes the opposite view of the Book of Discipline on contentious Social Principles. One central conference already states in their “version” of the Social Principles that “we are not of one mind on the practice of homosexuality,” and does not declare it to be incompatible with Christian teaching. Regardless of one’s personal perspective, one must note the confusion this places in the minds of those who call themselves United Methodist. Rather than expand the number of ways that we can disagree and divide, we should defeat this amendment and study ways to secure what we hold in common.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment # X, Par. 28 BOD –
Current Section V heading reads: Section V. Central Conferences and ¶ 28 reads: There shall be central conferences for the work of the church outside the United States of America with such duties, powers, and privileges as are hereinafter set forth. The number and boundaries of the central conferences shall be determined by the Uniting Conference. Subsequently the General Conference shall have authority to change the number and boundaries of central conferences. The central conferences shall have the duties, powers, and privileges hereinafter set forth.

If the amendment is passed and so declared by the Council of Bishops, the heading of Section V and ¶ 28 would read: Section V. Regional Conferences and ¶ 28. Article I. would read: There may be regional conferences for the work of the Church with such duties, powers, and privileges as are hereinafter set forth. The General Conference shall have authority to change the number and boundaries of regional conferences. The regional conferences shall have the duties, powers, and privileges hereinafter set forth. (The change in name from “central” to “regional” takes effect January 1, 2013 at which time this parenthetical procedural note will be removed from the Constitution.)

Rationale to Oppose:
This Amendment presupposes that there may be Regional Conferences as the worldwide structure of the denomination. This actually fractures our denomination more than uniting it, and allows further fracturing by a 50% plus one vote of General Conference rather than a 2/3 vote of the entire denomination. It is also an expensive restructuring. It adds a Regional Conference structure in the United States on top of Jurisdictions that are all then amenable to a General Conference. This creates a costly extra layer of bureaucracy. In this time of financial uncertainty and struggle, the expense is not justified.

Further, this particular amendment is also ambiguous as it states that there “may be” Regional Conferences. There is a lack of clarity caused by saying in other amendments that there “shall be” Regional Conferences and then saying here that there “may be” such. The discrepancy leaves the denomination open to ways of organizing that may create harmful, unanticipated consequences that could threaten United Methodism’s core interpretation of connectionalism.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment # XIII, Par. 31 BOD –
Current ¶ 31 reads: The central conferences shall have the following powers and duties and such others as may be conferred by the General Conference:
1. To promote the evangelistic, educational, missionary, social-concern, and benevolent interests and institutions of the Church within their own boundaries.
2. To elect the bishops for the respective central conferences in number as may be determined from time to time, upon a basis fixed by the General conference, and to cooperate in carrying out such plans for the support of their bishops as may be determined by the General Conference.
3. To establish and constitute such central conference boards as may be required and to elect their administrative officers.

4. To determine the boundaries of the annual conferences within their respective areas.
5. To make such rules and regulations for the administration of the work within their boundaries including such changes and adaptations of the General Discipline as the conditions in the respective areas may require, subject to the powers that have been or shall be vested in the General Conference.

6. To appoint a judicial court to determine legal questions arising on the rules, regulations, and such revised, adapted, or new sections of the central conference Discipline enacted by the central conference.

7. To appoint a committee on appeals to hear and determine the appeal of a traveling preacher of that central conference from the decision of a committee on trial.

If the amendment is passed and so declared by the Council of Bishops, ¶ 31 would read: The regional conferences shall have the following powers and duties and such others as may be conferred by the General Conference:
1. To promote the evangelistic, educational, missionary, social-concern, and benevolent interests and institutions of the Church within their own boundaries.
2. In those regional conferences where there are no jurisdictional conferences, to elect the bishops for the respective regional conferences in number as may be determined from time to time, upon a basis fixed by the General Conference, and to cooperate in carrying out such plans for the support of their bishops as may be determined by the General Conference. In those regional conferences where there are jurisdictional conferences, bishops shall be elected by the respective jurisdictional conferences.
3. To establish and constitute such regional conference boards as may be required and to elect their administrative officers.
4. To determine the boundaries of the annual conferences within their respective areas.
5. To make such rules and regulations for the administration of the work within their boundaries including such changes and adaptations of the General Discipline as the conditions in the respective areas may require, subject to the powers that have been or shall be vested in the General Conference.
6. To appoint a judicial court to determine legal questions arising on the rules, regulations, and such revised, adapted, or new sections of the regional conference Discipline enacted by the regional conference.
7. To appoint a committee on appeals to hear and determine the appeal of a traveling preacher of that regional conference from the decision of a committee on trial. (The change in name from “central” to “regional” takes effect January 1, 2013 at which time this parenthetical procedural note will be removed from the Constitution.)

Rationale to Oppose:
This amendment clearly reflects a lack of clarity about our connectional structure. It blurs the powers of Jurisdictions and Regional Conferences. For instance, ¶ 31.4 says that regional conferences can determine boundaries of annual conferences whereas ¶ 27.4 and Judicial Decision 447 reserves that right for Jurisdictional Conferences. This is a contradiction that reveals the need for further study on these structural changes before we amend the constitution.
To further illustrate the particular problems of this amendment, the notion of each Regional Conference (¶ 31.6) having its own Judicial Court to adjudicate its particular adaptations of the General Discipline is simply unacceptable. It undermines both the church-wide Judicial Council and our unity. Different Judicial Councils with different agendas will fracture us. This amendment clearly threatens how we practice being United Methodist; creating confusion and Disciplinary contradictions.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment # XXIII, Par. 38 BOD –
Current ¶ 38 reads: The work of the Church outside the United States of America may be formed into central conferences, the number and boundaries of which shall be determined by the Uniting Conference, the General Conference having authority subsequently to make changes in the number and boundaries.

If the amendment is passed and so declared by the Council of Bishops, ¶ 38 would read: The work of the Church may be formed into regional conferences, the number and boundaries of which shall be determined by the General Conference. (The change in name from “central” to “regional” takes effect January 1, 2013 at which time this parenthetical procedural note will be removed from the Constitution.)

Rationale to Oppose:
Judicial Decision 1100 (Fall 2008) has stated that the proposed amendments would create a US Regional Conference or Conferences. To have more than one regional conference in the United States, let alone in the rest of our Connection, causes the UMC to function more like the Anglican Communion and its relationship to the US Episcopal Church. The specter of schism looms large if this amendment passes.

We could spend millions discerning property ownership rather than making disciples of Christ. There would be potential for United Methodists from one Regional Conference to send clergy into another region to start congregations that are allied with its own particular theology. We would have a United Methodist turf war, and end up trying to evangelize each other rather than the unchurched; sending missionaries to our “misguided” counterparts maybe only a few states away rather than reaching out to our hurting world.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment # XXVI, Par. 48 BOD –
Current ¶ 48 reads: The bishops of each jurisdictional and central conference shall constitute a College of Bishops, and such College of Bishops shall arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conference, missionary conferences, and missions within their respective territories.

If the amendment is passed and so declared by the Council of Bishops, ¶ 48 would read: The bishops of each jurisdictional and regional conference shall constitute a College of Bishops. In regional conferences where there are jurisdictional conferences, the jurisdictional colleges shall arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conferences, missionary conferences and missions within their jurisdictions. In regional conferences where there are no jurisdictional conferences, the regional conference College of Bishops shall arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conferences, missionary conferences, and missions within their respective territories. (The change in name from “central” to “regional” takes effect January 1, 2013 at which time this parenthetical procedural note will be removed from the Constitution.)

Rationale to Oppose:
This amendment should be defeated because it presupposes and endorses that there must be Regional Conferences. The passage of this amendment and any others that do more than change the name “central” to “regional” are unsupportable if one holds that our connectional unity is vitally important.

This amendment also reveals the continuing inequity between the church in the US and overseas, allowing for jurisdictional conferences in the US and only regional conferences overseas. This contributes to a US-centric paternalism that is adverse to the unity of the church.

Conclusion: It is important to defeat these amendments and allow the Worldwide Nature of The UMC Study Committee to make its recommendations to the 2012 General Conference. Then, if so inclined, and connectional polity is protected, we can change the constitution. Defeat Amendments IV, X, XIII, XXIII, and XXVI.

Domed and Doomed Christians

As much as I’m an underdog-fan as a Gamecock, I was glad the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl. I like the Steelers because I like the city of Pittsburgh. I’ve spent time there upon several occasions. It’s a pretty city with the Monongahela and the Allegheny rivers meeting to form the Ohio. The tunnels through Mt. Washington are daunting and majestic. The ride up the city’s famous Incline is worth the view overlooking historic Fort Pitt. The PP&G (Pittsburg Plate & Glass) building is an east coast version of the Crystal Cathedral.
The steel mills are mostly closed in this Rust-Belt city, but the Steeler attitude is still present. For the nearly two weeks I was there five years ago, I witnessed the what-you-see-is-what-you-get grit of the people. For instance, practically every day I ate at the Steel City Diner. It wasn’t a fancy restaurant, not even close. It was exactly what the name said it was, a diner. The food was hearty, hot, and hit the spot. The folks working there were personable and caring. The whole city exuded a raw edgy work ethic that was both no-nonsense and refreshing. There was no “putting on airs,” as the old adage goes.
It’s interesting that the Pittsburgh Steelers play at Heinz Field, named, of course, for the famous condiment company that is one of the backbones of the Pittsburgh community. Heinz Field is completely au naturel in both grass and sunlight. The Cardinals play in a facility with a retractable roof. I think there’s something to be said for football teams willing to duke it out in the brutal cold of winter. I think it helps them win, too.
Here’s why. The conditioning of a Super Bowl team requires rain, wind, mud, heat, cold, snow, and sleet. No team will be ready for the challenges of the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl, who hasn’t been through the elements. For my two-cent’s worth, the hardship of the elements builds character and character is what wins Super Bowls. Every team has talent. Therefore, hunger, desire, and character are huge. That says to me, from my experience of their hometown, why the Steelers were able to pull the big win off.
But what has this got to do with Christianity and faith? Christianity that resides in a sheltered environment is domed and doomed. To be Christian is to be in the world, open to all of its elements. Christianity didn’t begin in the protected enclave of a hot-house but in the open-air arenas and coliseums of Roman martyrdom. When pagans saw how Christians fared under the sword, how we weathered the persecutions, and how we died for Christ; they knew there was something “real” about Jesus, and they wanted to learn more.
We don’t play on artificial turf. We live in the real world, and the real world needs us! The earth needs us! I saw a bumper sticker the other day as I was driving down the street: “It’s time to Mother Earth.” At first, slow of mind, I didn’t get it. Then, wham! Yes, it is time for us to nurture this planet. We take and take, and hardly ever give back. Spaceship Earth is in dire need of our protection and stewardship.

Genuine Christianity is involved in an open-air transparent defense of creation and all its creatures. Artificial Christians and sheltered ones need not apply for discipleship. God wants us to make a difference. Can we? If we keep playing on real turf in the real world both history and statistics are on our side in the Super Bowl of life.

SPRC's & Criticism

I have had to be a referree on a bunch of occasions as a pastor, and now as a District Superintendent. Lately it's been a full-time enterprise with churches and clergy dissatisfied with one another and wondering if a move should take place. I hear criticism and wonder, even ask, "Have you shared this with...?" Criticism really cuts doesn’t it? Even when it is supposedly constructive, by its very nature, it has to dismantle something before it can build back up. Have you ever been approached by someone asking your opinion about something and you know that if you really express how you feel that person will be slighted? We have all been in this position. What do we do? Do we lie and say what we think that the person wants to hear? Do we hedge things a bit and word our response in such a way that it goes down more smoothly? Do we dare ask, “Do you really want to know?” By asking the question we have already telegraphed our disapproval.

Caring enough to confront is a difficult proposition at best. If we don’t speak the truth we’re shirking our duty, and if we do we risk losing a friend. Aren’t we supposed to be critical sometimes? Without some judgment the world wouldn’t have standards of acceptable behavior. Christians are supposed to “speak the truth in love.” This is the key to a proper response to unacceptable behavior. Whatever we say or do must be infused with love!

How do referees stand the criticism that they take? Instant replay doesn’t seem to help. Second guessing has increased. The announcers take sides on which way they think that the call will go and exacerbate the controversy. A referee’s plight reminds me of what former hockey goalie, Jacque Plante, said: “How would you like a job where, if you make a mistake, a big red light goes on and eighteen thousand people boo?” Does this imply that there is some truth in the adage: “If one person calls you a donkey, pay no attention to him. But if five people call you one, go out and buy yourself a saddle.”

Some of us, however, referees included, have been saddled with unfair criticism. What to do? Here’s the answer: GET OVER IT! What’s new? This is the way we human beings operate so get used to it. It doesn’t make it right, but it certainly is the way things are. And criticism is often the very thing that we need to hear. Thank God for Moms and Dads who have lovingly instructed their children in what’s right and wrong. However, as Norman Vincent Peale put it, “The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism.”

So, learn from the experience. However vile the source of the criticism, let it work for you rather than against you. Glean whatever you can from the suggestions and do what you think is right. This response to criticism gives you both a listening ear and autonomy. You take the criticism, but you have the autonomy to do what you will with it. Criticism always comes more easily than craftsmanship. It’s a lot easier to tear down than to build up. Some people find fault as if it were buried treasure.

So hear your critics out and then move on. Thousands can offer their public opinion polls about you and they might still be wrong. Change the worst, improve the best, and don’t take everything so personally. Remember the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement. The ultimate answer to criticism is that you only answer to God. God is the final Judge. If you dislike criticism so much don’t do it yourself. Guard your thoughts and assessments. Triangling other people into your spat with a common friend only makes things worse. Sure, nothing gives you more in common more quickly than finding out that you dislike the same thing, but is this really helpful? My advice: Mind your own business, “Speak the truth in love,” and maybe more importantly when you feel unjustly criticized, “Hear the truth in love, too!”

Too Christian to Tell the Truth

High anxiety and the tyranny of the urgent is what I'm feeling because I have just opened all of the Advisory Response Forms about potential pastoral moves. Clergy exist for churches, not the other way around, but I want what is best for both. Sometimes I feel the adage as truth: "If I could buy someone for what they're worth, and sell them for what they think they're worth, I'd be a millionaire." Some of us clergy have unrealistic expectations about the appointments or churches that we deserve. This lack of realistic expectations sets us up to be disappointed or disappointing.

Part of the problem is we're "Christian," which means we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Pastors tell SPRC's that the DS is making them move. Some even tell their families that it's my fault. Then there's the lack of truth-telling that SPRC's do. They don't really want to tell their pastor what they think, and they end up giving an innocuous non-helpful hail-fellow-well-met do-nothing evaluation without "speaking the truth in love" about what makes us clergy more effective in that given context.

I'm doing SPRC training this weekend, and I'm going to lay it on thick about SPRC's doing their job so I can do mine for their church's sake and the clergy's sake. It is going to be an interesting year to say the least. Pray for wisdom, grace, clarity, and truth on everyone's part. It's all about Jesus and growing the Kingdom, not a "protect the fishbowl" for the churches or a "take care of each other" mentality for clergy. It's about effective Kingdom-building.

Inauguration & Football

Football and President Obama have a lot in common as I think of our motto, e pluribus unum, “Out of Many, One.” There are lots of players on the field and staff to coach those who dare to step on the gridiron. As a republic of citizenry we know all too well the country doesn’t fare well unless we pull together. The historic election of President Obama has taken a team effort to battle racism and naysayers. Tomorrow’s inauguration is a celebration of who we are as much as it who Obama is, but back to football as my main analogy-engine.

Now we know that the Steelers and the Cardinals will play in two weeks in the Super Bowl. George Will says that “Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings.” Yeah, right, but I still love football. It has great analogies for life, especially those committee meetings. If we would all huddle up more often and get our heads together, wouldn’t the world be a better place? It takes teamwork to play successful football. Individual stars and goats are part of the action, but it’s ultimately a team sport.

So is life. I first heard my friend and fellow SC UM pastor, Dr. Ted Walter, use this story. A mule named “Jim” was being driven by his owner. It was just the one mule “Jim” who was hitched up to the wagon, when the driver yelled “Giddyup, Jim. Giddyup, Sue. Giddyup, Sam. Giddyup, John. Giddyup, Joe. As the wagon started to move, one of the passengers said: “When Jim is the only one there, why did you call all those other names?” The owner replied: “If Jim knew he was the only one pulling this wagon, he'd never budge an inch.” It takes teamwork, even when it just God and us. That’s a pretty good team, by the way! What is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity but an affirmation of teamwork: One in Three and Three in One.

Life is better when we have relationships with others, work together, all pitch in, and accomplish things. In family life or any other communal atmosphere everything is a “we” thing. I like the Walt Disney Company attitude. If you work at Disney you’re not an employee, but a “cast member.” Each one of us is that important.

I had to decide how important it was last week for me to attend the meeting of the Southeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy in Jackson, Mississippi. After all, a lot of our churchy meetings are usually same-old-same-old from start to finish. It was a long way to drive even at today’s lower gas prices to just “meet and greet” your fellow heads of delegations, but the only way to build camaraderie and fellowship that will get us through a quadrennium of supporting our jurisdiction, annual conferences, local churches, and bishops is to be present with each other. We covenanted to pray for each other and two of us were assigned as partners with bishops to pray and support one another. Lynn Powell from North Georgia and I were assigned Bishop Tim Whitaker from Florida. We want to do what it takes to develop real community.

Dr. Scott Peck of Road Less Traveled fame talks about building community by saying it happens though stages. The first stage is called “pseudo-community.” Pseudo-community is when you get together and there are hugs all around, chit-chat, hail-fellow-well-met surface falderal. It’s not real community, however, if it stays only on the surface. The next stage that does get at the hidden agendas and real needs is “chaos.” Chaos happens when we’re really honest with each other and get things out in the open. After chaos comes “emptiness,” a stage in real community building where people lay aside their own personal wishes for the larger good. The result is real community. Teamwork is a no-brainer for football, republics, presidents, and life!

Daisy-Pickers Miss Real Worship

As a District Superintendent I go to church a lot, mostly for meeting or the sneak-in visits that are par for this time of year. Tomorrow is when churches and clergy have to turn in their “Advisory Reponse Form” indicating whether each would rather stay put or try something or someone new so I drop in a lot to see how things are going. This is not, however, conducive to healthy spiritual life. I find myself sitting in church pews this time of year grading rather than sitting in gratitude. I'm plucking petals from God's daisies of love and essentially saying "I love Him!" or "I love Him not!" with more of the latter than the former.

We love rituals, especially church ones! They give us a sense of order and structure in our otherwise chaotic existence. When we can’t focus or concentrate, we can at least remember the words of the 23rd Psalm or the Lord’s Prayer. When all else fails, we are able to recall the rituals that have sustained us over the years. Their routine nature is precisely what gives them their staying power when adversity strikes.

But most of us abhor anything that is routine. Even in interpersonal relationships we want to spice things up every now and then. Yet, what works better than what has already worked? As someone once said, quite appropriately, “Where water has once flowed it can more easily flow again.” How true! After a year of drought and parched earth, the rains don’t easily cut new channels. They flow down familiar paths. Aesop did say, however, “Familiarity breeds contempt,” but, I dare say, the familiar is exactly what we long for when the rains come tumbling down.

But worship has changed over the years. The liturgical reform movement of the 70’s has continued to this day. It has pushed innovation in worship. Though reluctant at times, we have experimented with new things like contemporary Christian music, Holy Communion by intinction, and “passing the peace” during worship services. Some new-old things have been accepted more easily than others. Children’s Sermons, Advent candles, Chrismon Trees, and the use of the Paschal Candle have pretty much been welcomed.

It’s good to try new things while honoring the old. Jesus had something to say about this when he spoke of new wine in old wineskins. Unfortunately, the common errors of the church are: 1) Confusing tradition with truth, 2) Confusing rhetoric with reality, 3) Confusing practice with presence. Like the Laodiceans in Revelation 3, who had confused their practice with God’s presence, we also can get so busy that we miss what's truly important - not what we do, but to Whom we belong. Therefore, our traditions must be infused with Divine Majesty. Empty ritual doesn’t cut it. For instance,George Barna, who does research on churches, says in his Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, “Seven out of 10 adults (71 percent) say they have never experienced God's presence at a church service.” How sad!

No matter what we do in worship, whether timeless or entirely unheard of, it should highlight and celebrate the real presence of God. According to Ron Rolheiser in his book, The Shattered Lantern: Rediscovering The Felt Presence of God, “God is always present, but we are not always present to God.” Indeed, for God’s epiphanies to become less rare we should open ourselves to God. Old ways, new ways - who cares just so it happens! For those who need it, worship should rattle their very beings with power, or for others’ needs, soothe their souls with the greatest wash of calm ever experienced. Whichever we need, worship is the very place where God’s epiphanies should most easily occur and be recognized. No more Daisy-picking for me when I'm in church!

Risk It All for God!

It's been exactly a month since I last wrote anything. Crazy!? Yes, the holidays were hectic. My mother-in-law got sick. We've spent a lot of time on the road seeing the grandchildren, and... I'm not going to bore you with the details of 30 days of pre-Christmas, Christmas, and post-Christmas events, pottery-making, bowl game blues, New Year's hopes, and our first fake tree ever because we spent the entire 4 weeks on the road and need another 4 weeks of time off to feel normal. Plus, like everyone else, we're pretty bummed about the economy, wars, and everything else. Epiphany season is just in time plus the "Miracle on the Hudson." I need an Epiphany season to remind me that God can do the extraordinary- A "Miracle on the Broad, Congaree, Saluda, Wateree, Pee Dee, Edisto, Santee, Black, Savannah, Seneca, Pacolet, Catawba and whatever other Rivers there are in SC!" As we start ramping up for appointment-making, I especially need more than a few "Aha" moments so that we can make sense of the next to none retirements, hunkering down pastors and churches; i.e., few moves. It's going to be an interesting year to say the least. In spite of it all, my mantra for the New Year and how I'm going to sign off on all my emails is "Risk it all for God!"