Should The United Methodist Church be a global church?
This question takes us beyond our usual
preoccupation with geography and statistics (“Are we a global church?”) to the matter of core identity: “Should it
be our mission as a denomination to
be a global church?” These two questions, related but quite different, often
get muddled in our churchly conversations, as in the popular slogan “the
worldwide nature of the UMC.” The first question is empirical and, depending on
the measures used, can be affirmed or contested. The second is theological, and
brings us closer to what is (or should be) at stake. And here, depending on how
we interpret the theological issues at stake, our answer might be yes or no, or
both. Let me suggest two such issues for comment.
The first issue, raised anew by a number of United
Methodists in recent years, tags the impact of our globalizing efforts on
relations with our Methodist family around the world. Should United Methodists really
initiate mission efforts in places where a Methodist presence already exists? Or
should we rather put our (substantial) resources toward shared mission there? A
perceived United Methodist go-it-alone-because-we-can attitude has caused
considerable resentment in various places. To be sure, United Methodist
unilateralism is by no means unique among the world’s churches, regardless of
tradition or hemisphere, as ecumenism’s current woes attest. So, perhaps a
different sort of question might help us test our global aspirations: Is it our
belief that United Methodism is so
valuable, perhaps even indispensable, that it warrants our competing with our
Methodist kin? Put differently: Is there something so inadequate or missing in
other Methodist expressions that they need our
contribution to supplement, correct, or complete them? If yes, in what does
such United Methodist uniqueness consist? If not, then exactly what ultimately drives
our desire to expand? I for one am quite unsure that we’ve done the work yet to
answer such questions with theological integrity.
Yet, and moving on to the second issue, United
Methodists’ desire to be a “global” church holds great transformative promise.
At present, our “diversity” remains safely separated by oceans, engaged
primarily through mission trips and contentious General Conference debates. What
if we took seriously that “the globe” is now in our backyards? How might such
recognition inspire a U.S. United Methodist Church that is still 93 percent
white to resemble right here the “great multitude that no one
could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages . . .”
(Rev. 7:9)? How might such questions challenge current assumptions about what
“vital congregations” should look like? Or about why, where, and among whom we
should start new churches? How might such an expanded global imagination offer
fresh perspectives on our ecumenical commitments?
To the serious pursuit of such theological questions
in the interest of our “worldwide nature” I say a resounding yes.
This represents a useful set of distinctions. Right now the UM church is less interested in a world-wide ministry drawing on the resources of Methodism than it is in extending the reach of the UM brand regardless of whether other Methodists are present. And really this is only part of the issue. Is there anything so Christianly distinctive and valuable about the Methodist tradition that it justifies our duplication of the ministries of any other Christian? I would argue that the answer is no.
ReplyDeleteMethodism as a distinctive movement was created to do what no other Christian church was doing - first in England then in the U.S. The world-wide spread of its outreach was predicated on much the same idea.
This is no longer the case for the most part. We are not filling in the gaps left by other Christians. Instead we are competing for market share in a global religious market place. This seems counter productive.
And as Dr. Pieterse notes, it is strange when we have a vast diversity close at hand in the U.S. and elsewhere that United Methodists are found. It seems odd to me that the response of the UM in the US to the growing Latino and Asian populations isn't to learn new languages and cultures, but is to build more mono-cultural mega-church fortresses against a changing demographic.
Because the church of Jesus Christ is already global we United Methodists really don't need to be so in the geographical sense. But we certainly need to learn from the global church how it is that we, in these times of change, can actually be local.
United Methodist Insight would like to reprint Dr. Pieterse's excellent post, "Should the United Methodist Church Be a Global Church?" Please reply to one.scribe56@gmail.com
ReplyDelete