Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
The Commission on a Way Forward has been worked to develop plans for a new way of structuring The United Methodist Church to preserve some degree of connection and shared ministry while accommodating different and at times fundamentally opposed views of homosexuality. The commission has indicated that their plan will likely entail a “loosening” of the current UMC connection. If the connection will change, it’s worthwhile to carefully examine the question of what the various central conferences might do in such a loosening of the connection. A previous piece looked at how these issues might play out in Europe and the Philippines. This piece looks at the three African central conferences.
Congo Central Conference
The Congo Central Conference is the largest, fastest-growing, and most cohesive of the central conferences in Africa. It contains the largest annual conference in the denomination (North Katanga). The Congo Central
Conference has more members than the Southeast Jurisdiction and thus potentially has significant clout at General Conference. As with the Philippines, national boundaries and ecclesiastical boundaries largely overlap (though Zambia and Tanzania are also part of the Congo Central Conference), thus reinforcing a sense of shared identity, despite at times violent differences between ethnic and linguistic groups.
In general, Africans have one of the most conservative sets of views about homosexuality of any group globally. That does not, however, mean they are monolithically opposed to homosexuality, nor does it mean that this issue is the most important in the African context. Often, overwhelming opposition actually means that the issue is not important in the day-to-day life of the church in Africa, since such opposition can just be assumed without reinforcement. This is largely true in the Congo.
Often in recent years, the Congolese have voted at General Conference with conservative leaders from the Southeast Jurisdiction. This connection, however, goes back before recent debates about sexuality and other American culture war issues. Half of the Congolese church stems from mission work of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and thus there has been a close connection between Congolese and Southern US-Americans since the start of Methodism in the Congo. That relationship continues today. For example, newly elected bishop Kasap Owan is close friends with conservative North Georgia leader Joe Kilpatrick. Whatever their connections to the SEJ, though, the Congolese are their own people with their own interests and agendas, and it is an unhelpful stereotype to simply assume that they will support a plan simply because the SEJ wants them to.
One of the agendas for the Congolese UMC is continued financial support from the US. The Democratic Republic of Congo is an extremely poor country (perhaps the poorest in the world), and US money pays for churches, schools, hospitals, and even pastors’ salaries. The Congolese UMC is capable of raising their own money at times – they built a $2 million cathedral in Lubumbashi with their own money – and attitudes about dependency are beginning to change. Nevertheless, the Congolese church as a whole would be hurt if they lost funding from the US.
Moreover, the SEJ is not the only region to have close relations with Congolese United Methodists. The West Ohio Annual Conference, for instance, also has a close relationship, especially with North Katanga. West Ohio has, for instance, sponsored the critically important Wings of the Morning aviation ministry in North Katanga, along with Greater New Jersey.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect the Congo to continue as a unit, with the possible exception of its English-speaking annual conferences in Zambia and Tanzania. It is unlikely that the Congolese would support a plan to change standards on homosexuality for the denomination as a whole. Nevertheless, the Congolese might support some sort of plan that would change the denomination if it allowed them to continue to collaborate in mission with a variety of annual conferences across the US. Thus, the Congolese might be receptive to a multiple US denominations approach if it left their relations
with the rest of the denomination relatively intact.
Retired Congolese bishop David Yemba’s role as a moderator of the Commission on a Way Forward and Congolese bishop Mande Muyombo’s and Wings of Caring pilot Jacques Umembudi’s role as members of the Commission on a Way Forward will carry significant weight in promoting the plan to their fellow Congolese United Methodists. In the Congo, as in much of Africa, United Methodists generally follow their bishop’s leadership. Hence, Congolese (and other African) support will depend on whether their bishops see such a plan as beneficial to them and their regions.
West Africa Central Conference
The West Africa Central Conference contains United Methodists in four main countries – Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Cote d’Ivoire – along with smaller mission work in Senegal and the Gambia. Three of the countries in West Africa are English-speaking, while Cote d’Ivoire is primarily French-speaking and was not part of the denomination prior to 2008.
While relations between United Methodists in Liberia and Sierra Leone are often tight, connections among Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, and the other two countries are less robust. The West Africa Central Conference does not collaborate much beyond its
quadrennial meetings. National branches have a degree of leeway in selecting their own bishops, reinforcing a national-level sense of identity. There have, however, been instances in which the WACC
has disregarded national-level opinions in episcopal elections, which has only served to create tensions amongst the national branches.
Civil wars and unrest in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria have left churches there reliant on international economic assistance to rebuild damaged infrastructure, though the Liberia and Sierra Leone Annual Conferences in particular have shown an interest in achieving greater self-sufficiency, meaning they are perhaps less threatened by the economic ramifications of a loosening of the connection than the Congolese might.
In general, views on homosexuality are conservative, as in the rest of Africa. Jerry Kulah, one of leaders of the Africa Initiative and an outspoken voice for maintaining strong opposition to homosexuality in the UMC, is from Liberia. Nevertheless, views are not monolithic. Reconciling Ministries has had productive visits to Liberia.
Still, it is unlikely that West Africans would vote to change the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. West Africans, however, might be willing to go along with a plan for several denominations under an umbrella of the UMC. There are no Liberians or Sierra Leoneans on the Commission on a Way Forward, which could hurt the plan’s chances in West Africa, especially if Jerry Kulah comes out in opposition to it. Bishop John Wesley Johanna’s membership on the Commission will help the plan’s fate in Nigeria.
What will also be interesting to see is whether the West Africa Central Conference would continue to exist in its present formation in a new UMC. The Central Conference is not plagued by the same tensions as the Africa Central Conference (see below), so inertia might be enough to carry it forward. Yet if things are changing in the UMC, it may be a chance for national branches of the UMC in West Africa to reassess the value to them of collaborating through a common central conference. Such reassessment is more likely if they are asked to write a common Book of Discipline. National differences may yield little interest in such a common Book of Discipline.
Africa Central Conference
The Africa Central Conference is the least cohesive of all the central conferences. It contains three lingua francas, five episcopal areas, ten or more different countries, and dozens of ethnic groups and local languages. All this diversity yields a central conference that, quite frankly, has little in common amongst itself. The quadrennial meetings of the central conference are often marked with difficulties regarding language, meeting location, and procedural questions, and the central conference as such has no existence beyond these meetings in the form of joint ministry.
As with most of the rest of Africa, views on homosexuality tend to be conservative, though South Africa, which has relatively liberal views on homosexuality is in this region, too. Forbes Matonga from the Africa Initiative is from Zimbabwe, though the issue of sexuality is not a top priority for most in the region.
Annual conferences here are less likely to be in close relationship with the Southeast Jurisdiction. ACC annual conferences partner with a variety of American annual conferences. For example, the Mozambique Episcopal Area has a close relationship with Missouri. Moreover, for Portuguese-speaking annual conferences, connections to the autonomous Methodist Church in Brazil are important along with UMC connections.
The episcopal areas are also varying degrees of economically self-sufficient. All countries still have economic struggles and benefit from US support, especially for medical infrastructure, but the basic operations of the annual conferences (pastors’ salaries and theological education) are not as heavily subsidized by the US as elsewhere in Africa. The East Africa Episcopal Area has been operating without much US funds for the last several years
because of financial disputes between Global Ministries and US annual conferences on the one hand
and Bishop Daniel Wandabula on the other.
Thus, the Africa Central Conference might be quite open to a loosening of the connection, not only with United Methodists elsewhere, but amongst itself, especially if that yields more autonomy for national or regional level groups. Even before the Commission on a Way Forward, there were proposals to split the Africa Central Conference into four. If the Commission proposes an approach that allows sub-units of the UMC to craft their own Books of Discipline, there is no reason to expect that the Africa Central Conference would try to do that together. Instead, look for up to four separate Books of Discipline for this region – Angola, Zimbabwe, Southeast Africa, and East Africa.
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction, the debate over homosexuality might be primarily American, but if the church is revamping its structures, that process can play out in different ways around the globe. It would be wrong to think that changes in the structure of the church in the US will not lead to any changes in the structure of the church elsewhere.
In summary, look for Europeans to strengthen their connections to each other while connections loosen elsewhere, perhaps implementing a local option to accommodate differences over homosexuality among themselves. Look for the Philippines to continue as is in terms of structure and stance on homosexuality or possibly to seek full autonomy from the denomination. Look for the map of African Central Conferences to be reshaped, especially in the south and east, while all branches uphold current teachings on sexuality.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Whither the central conferences in a "loosened" connection? Part 1
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
The Commission on a Way Forward has been worked to develop plans for a new way of structuring The United Methodist Church to preserve some degree of connection and shared ministry while accommodating different and at times fundamentally opposed views of homosexuality. The commission has indicated that their plan will likely entail a “loosening” of the current UMC connection.
Generally, this “loosening” of the connection has been assumed to imply separate groups (mini-denominations? semi-denominations?) in the United States under some sort of common umbrella. Chris Ritter has provided an analysis of what such a scenario could look like in the United States. Part of the debate currently seems to be over whether there will be two (conservative and progressive) or three (conservative, moderate, and progressive) such denominations.
All discussions that I have seen so far either ignore the question of what will happen to the Central Conferences under such a scenario or assume that the Central Conferences will continue as they currently exist while the US church splits apart (Chris’s piece, for instance, makes this assumption). Nevertheless, if the connection will change, it’s worthwhile to carefully examine the question of what the various central conferences might do in such a loosening of the connection.
This question of the impact of the Commission's work on the central conferences includes not just the question of where various parts of the UMC stand on issues of sexuality, but also what sorts of changes in structure might be prompted globally by a period in which United Methodists are rethinking the nature of their connections to one another. The debate over homosexuality might be primarily American, but if the church is revamping its structures, that process can play out in different ways around the globe. It would be wrong to think that changes in the structure of the church in the US will not lead to any changes in the structure of the church elsewhere.
This post and a following one will give my attempt to analyze the possibilities. This post will examine Europe and the Philippines, while the following one will examine the three African central conferences.
Europe
Many assume that on the issue of sexuality, Europeans are progressive. This is because when Americans think of Europe, they tend to think of Western Europe and assume that the church has the same progressive views on sexuality as the majority of Western Europeans do. Both parts of this assumption, however, are not fully accurate.
It is true that some European Annual Conferences have progressive views on sexuality. The Denmark Annual Conference was one of two challenging the constitutionality of the Book of Disciple language on homosexuality. Yet, I have seen indications that French United Methodists are more conservative on this question than French society as a whole.
Moreover, within Europe, there is a significant divide between Western European and Eastern European views on homosexuality, both within society and within the church. The Estonia Annual Conference passed a resolution affirming marriage as between one man and one woman. Denmark and Estonia are in the same central conference and even the same episcopal area. Hence, significant differences of opinion on sexuality exist within Europe.
Yet to assume that homosexuality is the most pressing issue for the churches in Europe is to misunderstand them on a more fundamental level. The branches of the UMC in Europe are small and exist precariously in the shadow of various state churches. Connections to international United Methodists elsewhere are crucial for European UMs to legitimize their existence in their home contexts.
Because there are three central conferences in Europe, not all European United Methodists need take the same option. Nevertheless, connections amongst European United Methodists tend to be tight, especially between those from the Germany and Central and Southern Europe Central Conferences. Because of the importance of international connection for all European United Methodists, it is reasonable to expect the European Central Conferences to all choose a common path.
That path could, therefore, be the status quo. It could, however, also include the adoption of some sort of local option in Europe that would accommodate the differences of opinion that exist there. It could also include the formation of some sort of regional body that would unite the separate central conferences. Especially if their ties to the US and Africa are loosened, it may be more important for Europeans to strengthen ties with one another. Another version of this possibility would be for European United Methodists to strengthen ties with other European Methodists (British, Irish, Italian, etc.) to compensate for loosened ties with United Methodists elsewhere. Full union with other Methodist churches in Europe would be unlikely because of the amount of work involved, but there might be other forms of possible closer ties.
Philippines
The Philippines are a single Central Conference with a great deal of cohesion as a central conference. The overlap between national and ecclesiastical borders reinforces a sense of Filipino United Methodism. There are several shared institutions and agencies that serve all parts of Filipino United Methodism. While in the US, it can be argued that annual conferences are the basic level of polity, in the Philippines, most of the programmatic activities of the church, which would be annual conference-level programs in the US, are organized at the episcopal area or central conference level. Certainly, there are ethnic and language differences among different groups of Filipino United Methodists, but the sense of solidarity among Filipino United Methodists is fairly high.
The majority of Filipinos are still generally conservative on the issue of homosexuality, but the Philippines has been willing to hold conversations about sexuality at which a range of viewpoints are represent. I don’t expect the Philippines to press for radical change in their own or any other United Methodists’ stance on homosexuality, but neither is homosexuality the presenting issue for debates about orthodoxy in the Philippines. United Methodism in the Philippines largely preserves an older strain of Methodism in which traditional theology with a revivalist twist goes hand in hand with a progressive stance on social issues such as poverty, indigenous rights, and the climate. Filipino United Methodism doesn’t experience the same sort of culture wars and theological wars that the US does.
Thus, the Philippines could likely be willing to continue on in their current arrangement as a central conference with the current BOD restrictions on sexuality. Another possibility, however, would be that a loosening of UMC connections might prompt the Philippines to become autonomous. The Philippines were the only branch of Asian Methodism that did not elect to become autonomous between 1964 and 1972. There have occasionally been pushes for autonomy since then, though they have never resulted in a vote in favor of autonomy. Nevertheless, if the UMC is rethinking its structure, that may present an occasion for Filipino Methodists to rethink their relation to the UMC.
The Commission on a Way Forward has been worked to develop plans for a new way of structuring The United Methodist Church to preserve some degree of connection and shared ministry while accommodating different and at times fundamentally opposed views of homosexuality. The commission has indicated that their plan will likely entail a “loosening” of the current UMC connection.
Generally, this “loosening” of the connection has been assumed to imply separate groups (mini-denominations? semi-denominations?) in the United States under some sort of common umbrella. Chris Ritter has provided an analysis of what such a scenario could look like in the United States. Part of the debate currently seems to be over whether there will be two (conservative and progressive) or three (conservative, moderate, and progressive) such denominations.
All discussions that I have seen so far either ignore the question of what will happen to the Central Conferences under such a scenario or assume that the Central Conferences will continue as they currently exist while the US church splits apart (Chris’s piece, for instance, makes this assumption). Nevertheless, if the connection will change, it’s worthwhile to carefully examine the question of what the various central conferences might do in such a loosening of the connection.
This question of the impact of the Commission's work on the central conferences includes not just the question of where various parts of the UMC stand on issues of sexuality, but also what sorts of changes in structure might be prompted globally by a period in which United Methodists are rethinking the nature of their connections to one another. The debate over homosexuality might be primarily American, but if the church is revamping its structures, that process can play out in different ways around the globe. It would be wrong to think that changes in the structure of the church in the US will not lead to any changes in the structure of the church elsewhere.
This post and a following one will give my attempt to analyze the possibilities. This post will examine Europe and the Philippines, while the following one will examine the three African central conferences.
Europe
Many assume that on the issue of sexuality, Europeans are progressive. This is because when Americans think of Europe, they tend to think of Western Europe and assume that the church has the same progressive views on sexuality as the majority of Western Europeans do. Both parts of this assumption, however, are not fully accurate.
It is true that some European Annual Conferences have progressive views on sexuality. The Denmark Annual Conference was one of two challenging the constitutionality of the Book of Disciple language on homosexuality. Yet, I have seen indications that French United Methodists are more conservative on this question than French society as a whole.
Moreover, within Europe, there is a significant divide between Western European and Eastern European views on homosexuality, both within society and within the church. The Estonia Annual Conference passed a resolution affirming marriage as between one man and one woman. Denmark and Estonia are in the same central conference and even the same episcopal area. Hence, significant differences of opinion on sexuality exist within Europe.
Yet to assume that homosexuality is the most pressing issue for the churches in Europe is to misunderstand them on a more fundamental level. The branches of the UMC in Europe are small and exist precariously in the shadow of various state churches. Connections to international United Methodists elsewhere are crucial for European UMs to legitimize their existence in their home contexts.
Because there are three central conferences in Europe, not all European United Methodists need take the same option. Nevertheless, connections amongst European United Methodists tend to be tight, especially between those from the Germany and Central and Southern Europe Central Conferences. Because of the importance of international connection for all European United Methodists, it is reasonable to expect the European Central Conferences to all choose a common path.
That path could, therefore, be the status quo. It could, however, also include the adoption of some sort of local option in Europe that would accommodate the differences of opinion that exist there. It could also include the formation of some sort of regional body that would unite the separate central conferences. Especially if their ties to the US and Africa are loosened, it may be more important for Europeans to strengthen ties with one another. Another version of this possibility would be for European United Methodists to strengthen ties with other European Methodists (British, Irish, Italian, etc.) to compensate for loosened ties with United Methodists elsewhere. Full union with other Methodist churches in Europe would be unlikely because of the amount of work involved, but there might be other forms of possible closer ties.
Philippines
The Philippines are a single Central Conference with a great deal of cohesion as a central conference. The overlap between national and ecclesiastical borders reinforces a sense of Filipino United Methodism. There are several shared institutions and agencies that serve all parts of Filipino United Methodism. While in the US, it can be argued that annual conferences are the basic level of polity, in the Philippines, most of the programmatic activities of the church, which would be annual conference-level programs in the US, are organized at the episcopal area or central conference level. Certainly, there are ethnic and language differences among different groups of Filipino United Methodists, but the sense of solidarity among Filipino United Methodists is fairly high.
The majority of Filipinos are still generally conservative on the issue of homosexuality, but the Philippines has been willing to hold conversations about sexuality at which a range of viewpoints are represent. I don’t expect the Philippines to press for radical change in their own or any other United Methodists’ stance on homosexuality, but neither is homosexuality the presenting issue for debates about orthodoxy in the Philippines. United Methodism in the Philippines largely preserves an older strain of Methodism in which traditional theology with a revivalist twist goes hand in hand with a progressive stance on social issues such as poverty, indigenous rights, and the climate. Filipino United Methodism doesn’t experience the same sort of culture wars and theological wars that the US does.
Thus, the Philippines could likely be willing to continue on in their current arrangement as a central conference with the current BOD restrictions on sexuality. Another possibility, however, would be that a loosening of UMC connections might prompt the Philippines to become autonomous. The Philippines were the only branch of Asian Methodism that did not elect to become autonomous between 1964 and 1972. There have occasionally been pushes for autonomy since then, though they have never resulted in a vote in favor of autonomy. Nevertheless, if the UMC is rethinking its structure, that may present an occasion for Filipino Methodists to rethink their relation to the UMC.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Comparative Global Wesleyan Polity - Concluding Thoughts, Part II
This is the sixth in an occasional series of articles comparing the different ways in which Methodist/Wesleyan denominations historically related to The United Methodist Church structure themselves as global bodies. Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
This series of blogs has looked at four denominations and compared them to The United Methodist Church and each other: the African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of the Nazarene. The previous post in the series shared some concluding thoughts about what it means to be a global Methodist/Wesleyan denomination. This post will share additional concluding thoughts. These thoughts, however, will not be about being a global church; instead, they will examine church size.
The previous post noted that both in the early twentieth century and in the 1960s and 70s, United Methodists and their predecessors focused on merger rather than crafting international polities. These decisions to pursue merger have had implications not only for the global nature of the church but also organizational consequences that have affected the church regardless of location.
This post is not meant to be a critique of the ecumenical spirit that was a part of previous Methodist mergers. Ecumenism is both authentically Methodist and an important part of the Christian witness to the catholicity of the church.
Nevertheless, other scholars have suggested that ecumenical motives were not the only ones at play in past Methodist mergers. There was also a desire to build a bigger and hence more influential church. This desire for influence was a desire for cultural and political power in the United States and thus US-focused. The consequences of such a desire for size and influence have affected the UMC, and not entirely in positive was.
In fact, comparisons with other Methodist/Wesleyan bodies show two negative aspects to United Methodist’s historic choices for size and influence:
1. The UMC is not only bigger than other denominations; it has more loci of power.
The UMC is relatively top-heavy in its leadership. The number of bishops or general superintendents in other denominations varied, but it ranged from 6 to 20. In comparison, the UMC has 66 bishops. Most of these people are faithful, Spirit-filled people; that’s not the point. The point is just that there are more of them.
This plethora of bishops is a consequence not only of denominational size but also of choices made. First, it is a consequence of the system of missionary bishops that the MEC created but then never fully thought through, in part because of the impending 1939 merger. It is also a consequence of the 1939 merger and the desire of both the Southern and Northern churches to not be led by each other’s bishops.
As a consequence of both choices, the UMC has moved toward a de facto diocesan system of bishops instead of some sort of itinerant general superintendency. This shift has meant more bishops and more administrative functions associated with bishops in each episcopal area.
The United Methodist Church also has more boards and agencies than its sibling denominations, and the boards and agencies have greater autonomy than in other denominations, many of which have a single board model. This is not a criticism of our bishops or our boards and agencies; they all do good and faithful work. Again, the point is that there are more of them.
Here again, size is a factor, but so are historical choices. The UMC has more boards and agencies with greater independence because it often pioneered their creation. Especially the Methodist Episcopal Church had the size and resources to invent a lot of the components of what became the standard template for modern church bureaucracy. That is an accomplishment.
I do not think that The United Methodist Church should undo the accomplishments of its predecessors by eliminating boards and agencies in some sort of purge fueled by anti-bureaucracy ideology. All of our sibling denominations have boards and agencies to help them carry out their ministries. Boards and agencies are an important part of how denominations work together.
What is important, however, is the ways in which boards and agencies communicate and coordinate with each other. There have been significant efforts over the last decade here, and more efforts are on-going. The boards and agencies are significantly less siloed than they once were.
Neither bishops nor boards are bad in and of themselves. Having so many of them, though, means that there are multiple and sometimes conflicting sources of power in the denomination. While this arrangement can ensure a level of democratization, it also relates to my second point:
2. Smaller denominations are more focused in their mission.
Reading through the books of discipline for all four comparative denominations, I got a sense for what ethos united them as a denomination beyond their bureaucratic structures. I’m not sure the same can be said for the UMC.
In part, that’s because the UMC has always been a diverse tradition. In part, that’s because of the large number of leaders and agencies we have. But more than anything, I think it’s a function of size. The UMC and its predecessors have repeatedly favored numeric growth over focused mission, whether that was through pursuit of church mergers or relaxing standards on class meeting attendance. Thus, we’ve had a lot of members with a lot of different ideas about how to be Methodist.
There have been positive aspects to choosing size (ecumenicity, inclusivity, etc.), but there have also been costs. Indeed, the costs have become especially evident as United Methodism has found itself wondering what it means to be United Methodist, where the church should focus, and how (or whether) the church can move in the same direction, questions highlighted by long-running American membership decline and long-running debates about homosexuality.
I am not arguing here that the UMC should break up into smaller denominations for the sake of mission. While that is a possibility, and there would be some benefits, there are certainly costs involved in that choice, too, and I do not suggest that those costs are better.
Instead, I think that the present moment represents an opportunity for the UMC to ask how to (re-)structure itself in a way that will not emphasize preserving the most cultural power and largest group of members possible but instead emphasize enabling its members to pursue the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world in ways that are contextually relevant and recognizes the equality of different units of the church to determine for themselves what those ways are. This is a tall order, but if the UMC wants to continue to be a global denomination, a sense of shared mission is essential.
This series of blogs has looked at four denominations and compared them to The United Methodist Church and each other: the African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of the Nazarene. The previous post in the series shared some concluding thoughts about what it means to be a global Methodist/Wesleyan denomination. This post will share additional concluding thoughts. These thoughts, however, will not be about being a global church; instead, they will examine church size.
The previous post noted that both in the early twentieth century and in the 1960s and 70s, United Methodists and their predecessors focused on merger rather than crafting international polities. These decisions to pursue merger have had implications not only for the global nature of the church but also organizational consequences that have affected the church regardless of location.
This post is not meant to be a critique of the ecumenical spirit that was a part of previous Methodist mergers. Ecumenism is both authentically Methodist and an important part of the Christian witness to the catholicity of the church.
Nevertheless, other scholars have suggested that ecumenical motives were not the only ones at play in past Methodist mergers. There was also a desire to build a bigger and hence more influential church. This desire for influence was a desire for cultural and political power in the United States and thus US-focused. The consequences of such a desire for size and influence have affected the UMC, and not entirely in positive was.
In fact, comparisons with other Methodist/Wesleyan bodies show two negative aspects to United Methodist’s historic choices for size and influence:
1. The UMC is not only bigger than other denominations; it has more loci of power.
The UMC is relatively top-heavy in its leadership. The number of bishops or general superintendents in other denominations varied, but it ranged from 6 to 20. In comparison, the UMC has 66 bishops. Most of these people are faithful, Spirit-filled people; that’s not the point. The point is just that there are more of them.
This plethora of bishops is a consequence not only of denominational size but also of choices made. First, it is a consequence of the system of missionary bishops that the MEC created but then never fully thought through, in part because of the impending 1939 merger. It is also a consequence of the 1939 merger and the desire of both the Southern and Northern churches to not be led by each other’s bishops.
As a consequence of both choices, the UMC has moved toward a de facto diocesan system of bishops instead of some sort of itinerant general superintendency. This shift has meant more bishops and more administrative functions associated with bishops in each episcopal area.
The United Methodist Church also has more boards and agencies than its sibling denominations, and the boards and agencies have greater autonomy than in other denominations, many of which have a single board model. This is not a criticism of our bishops or our boards and agencies; they all do good and faithful work. Again, the point is that there are more of them.
Here again, size is a factor, but so are historical choices. The UMC has more boards and agencies with greater independence because it often pioneered their creation. Especially the Methodist Episcopal Church had the size and resources to invent a lot of the components of what became the standard template for modern church bureaucracy. That is an accomplishment.
I do not think that The United Methodist Church should undo the accomplishments of its predecessors by eliminating boards and agencies in some sort of purge fueled by anti-bureaucracy ideology. All of our sibling denominations have boards and agencies to help them carry out their ministries. Boards and agencies are an important part of how denominations work together.
What is important, however, is the ways in which boards and agencies communicate and coordinate with each other. There have been significant efforts over the last decade here, and more efforts are on-going. The boards and agencies are significantly less siloed than they once were.
Neither bishops nor boards are bad in and of themselves. Having so many of them, though, means that there are multiple and sometimes conflicting sources of power in the denomination. While this arrangement can ensure a level of democratization, it also relates to my second point:
2. Smaller denominations are more focused in their mission.
Reading through the books of discipline for all four comparative denominations, I got a sense for what ethos united them as a denomination beyond their bureaucratic structures. I’m not sure the same can be said for the UMC.
In part, that’s because the UMC has always been a diverse tradition. In part, that’s because of the large number of leaders and agencies we have. But more than anything, I think it’s a function of size. The UMC and its predecessors have repeatedly favored numeric growth over focused mission, whether that was through pursuit of church mergers or relaxing standards on class meeting attendance. Thus, we’ve had a lot of members with a lot of different ideas about how to be Methodist.
There have been positive aspects to choosing size (ecumenicity, inclusivity, etc.), but there have also been costs. Indeed, the costs have become especially evident as United Methodism has found itself wondering what it means to be United Methodist, where the church should focus, and how (or whether) the church can move in the same direction, questions highlighted by long-running American membership decline and long-running debates about homosexuality.
I am not arguing here that the UMC should break up into smaller denominations for the sake of mission. While that is a possibility, and there would be some benefits, there are certainly costs involved in that choice, too, and I do not suggest that those costs are better.
Instead, I think that the present moment represents an opportunity for the UMC to ask how to (re-)structure itself in a way that will not emphasize preserving the most cultural power and largest group of members possible but instead emphasize enabling its members to pursue the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world in ways that are contextually relevant and recognizes the equality of different units of the church to determine for themselves what those ways are. This is a tall order, but if the UMC wants to continue to be a global denomination, a sense of shared mission is essential.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Comparative Global Wesleyan Polity - Concluding Thoughts, Part I
This is the fifth in an occasional series of articles comparing the different ways in which Methodist/Wesleyan denominations historically related to The United Methodist Church structure themselves as global bodies. Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
This series of blog posts comparing the various approaches to being a global Wesleyan/Methodist denomination has thus far looked at four denominations and compared them to The United Methodist Church and each other: the African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of the Nazarene. While it might be possible to continue the series by looking at other churches (the AME Zion, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, etc.), these four and the UMC cover significant and distinct examples of how a Methodist/Wesleyan church might approach being a global denomination.
After surveying these various examples, what are the overall takeaways from this exercise in comparative polity? There are two main ones related to being a global church:
1. There are several ways to be a global Methodist/Wesleyan body, and they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
The AME, the Wesleyans and Free Methodists, and the Nazarenes have each taken distinct approaches to trying to craft a global denomination that is not just dominated by Americans but fully supports and recognizes the gifts, ministries, and voices of members around the world.
The AME pursues that goal through denominational bodies (the Global Development Council and Committee on Global Development) with significant power to make changes in the denomination to better accommodate non-US members.
Both The Wesleyan Church and the Free Methodist Church pursue that goal by allowing the creation of separate General Conferences with separate Books of Discipline, united into one International Conference with a common kernel of shared doctrine and polity.
The Church of the Nazarene pursues that goal through emphasizing three-self theory and the creation of Phase 3 districts around the world which are self-supporting, self-led, and self-propagating.
The United Methodist Church has elements of the AME approach (in the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters) and the Wesleyan/Free Methodist approach (in the provision for central conference adaptation of the Book of Discipline) but has not gone as far as any of these denominations.
Yet the takeaway should be that there are many possible models for The United Methodist Church to adopt as well as the possibility of crafting a unique model of its own.
2. There are windows of opportunities for denominations to make changes to structurally reflect the global/international nature of their membership more fully.
Surveying the other four denominations as well as United Methodist history, it seems there have been three eras in which questions of how to be a global denomination have been particularly pressing.
The first is an era of early missionary expansion. Especially for the Church of the Nazarene, but also for the Free Methodist Church, mission was integral to the beginning of the denomination, and questions of global polity were already being worked out in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The Methodist Episcopal Church, forerunner of the UMC, was also experimenting with its global polity at the same time, creating central conferences and missionary bishops, but the MEC stepped back from fully thinking through the implications of these new structures because it wanted to focus on the upcoming merger with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and Methodist Protestant Church.
The second is an era of decolonialization, staring in the early 1960s and running through the early 1970s. For the Wesleyans, Free Methodists, and Nazarenes, this period was an important time for beginning to shift structures to reflect a more international membership.
The Methodist Church and Evangelical United Brethren has such conversations at the same time, especially through the Committee on the Status of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), but real changes were sidelined because the major focus of the time was on working out the merger between the two denominations.
The third is an era of world Christianity starting in the 1980s or 1990s and running through the present. All four other denominations have made significant changes in their polity in response to shifting trends in membership, with overseas membership increasing significantly and American membership declining or growing slowly.
The UMC has changed the mandates of some of its general boards and agencies and adjusted formulas for membership on boards of directors but thus far has not made the same sort of significant changes the other denominations have. While such changes (including creating a US central conference) have been proposed and even passed by General Conference, major changes have been sideline by ongoing conflicts about human sexuality (which has been much less a debate in the other traditions).
We are not yet done with the era of world Christianity, though. There is still a chance for The United Methodist Church to join with its Methodist and Wesleyan sibling denominations to try to more fully live into the goal of being a global church that unites members from around the world while recognizing and enabling the variety of vital ministries each engage in. Focus on mergers prevented Methodists from taking such opportunities in the past. The question for us today is whether focus on separation will do the same thing.
This series of blog posts comparing the various approaches to being a global Wesleyan/Methodist denomination has thus far looked at four denominations and compared them to The United Methodist Church and each other: the African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of the Nazarene. While it might be possible to continue the series by looking at other churches (the AME Zion, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, etc.), these four and the UMC cover significant and distinct examples of how a Methodist/Wesleyan church might approach being a global denomination.
After surveying these various examples, what are the overall takeaways from this exercise in comparative polity? There are two main ones related to being a global church:
1. There are several ways to be a global Methodist/Wesleyan body, and they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
The AME, the Wesleyans and Free Methodists, and the Nazarenes have each taken distinct approaches to trying to craft a global denomination that is not just dominated by Americans but fully supports and recognizes the gifts, ministries, and voices of members around the world.
The AME pursues that goal through denominational bodies (the Global Development Council and Committee on Global Development) with significant power to make changes in the denomination to better accommodate non-US members.
Both The Wesleyan Church and the Free Methodist Church pursue that goal by allowing the creation of separate General Conferences with separate Books of Discipline, united into one International Conference with a common kernel of shared doctrine and polity.
The Church of the Nazarene pursues that goal through emphasizing three-self theory and the creation of Phase 3 districts around the world which are self-supporting, self-led, and self-propagating.
The United Methodist Church has elements of the AME approach (in the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters) and the Wesleyan/Free Methodist approach (in the provision for central conference adaptation of the Book of Discipline) but has not gone as far as any of these denominations.
Yet the takeaway should be that there are many possible models for The United Methodist Church to adopt as well as the possibility of crafting a unique model of its own.
2. There are windows of opportunities for denominations to make changes to structurally reflect the global/international nature of their membership more fully.
Surveying the other four denominations as well as United Methodist history, it seems there have been three eras in which questions of how to be a global denomination have been particularly pressing.
The first is an era of early missionary expansion. Especially for the Church of the Nazarene, but also for the Free Methodist Church, mission was integral to the beginning of the denomination, and questions of global polity were already being worked out in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The Methodist Episcopal Church, forerunner of the UMC, was also experimenting with its global polity at the same time, creating central conferences and missionary bishops, but the MEC stepped back from fully thinking through the implications of these new structures because it wanted to focus on the upcoming merger with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and Methodist Protestant Church.
The second is an era of decolonialization, staring in the early 1960s and running through the early 1970s. For the Wesleyans, Free Methodists, and Nazarenes, this period was an important time for beginning to shift structures to reflect a more international membership.
The Methodist Church and Evangelical United Brethren has such conversations at the same time, especially through the Committee on the Status of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), but real changes were sidelined because the major focus of the time was on working out the merger between the two denominations.
The third is an era of world Christianity starting in the 1980s or 1990s and running through the present. All four other denominations have made significant changes in their polity in response to shifting trends in membership, with overseas membership increasing significantly and American membership declining or growing slowly.
The UMC has changed the mandates of some of its general boards and agencies and adjusted formulas for membership on boards of directors but thus far has not made the same sort of significant changes the other denominations have. While such changes (including creating a US central conference) have been proposed and even passed by General Conference, major changes have been sideline by ongoing conflicts about human sexuality (which has been much less a debate in the other traditions).
We are not yet done with the era of world Christianity, though. There is still a chance for The United Methodist Church to join with its Methodist and Wesleyan sibling denominations to try to more fully live into the goal of being a global church that unites members from around the world while recognizing and enabling the variety of vital ministries each engage in. Focus on mergers prevented Methodists from taking such opportunities in the past. The question for us today is whether focus on separation will do the same thing.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part IV
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the fourth of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.
There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.
While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.
Institution
Another area in which we at Global Ministries appreciated what WLP said but wished it would go further was in talking about the human dimension of the church. As WLP states, “The truth—the theological truth, even—is that the church is indeed also a very human community, an association of often all too like-minded individuals, and that it does also serve human purposes quite distinct from, and sometimes counter to, the purposes of God.” (lines 406-408). The document also makes frequent reference to the “human uses” of the church and draws on the language of the “visible” and “invisible” church to talk about the distinction between the church as God intends it and the church as humans have made it for their own purposes. We found the recognition of the failings of the church contained in these discussions useful.
Yet we also felt that it was possible to go beyond what was already included in the text. While the text explores “human uses” of the church and “human abuses” of the church, these discussions are not grounded in a theological anthropology or a theology of sin, both of which would give greater insight into what it means to be human and when humans depart from the will of God. As we noted in our discussion, merely being human is not itself problematic. Indeed, in light of the Incarnation, God highly values the human. Wesley affirmed the imago Dei in humanity. Humanity is not inherently deficient or broken, but sin is a rejection of our “humanness” as God created and intended it to be. Thus, the problem is not the church being at times human but the church being at times sinful in its actions and attitudes. WLP does not contradict these theological affirmations, but could benefit by stating them more clearly.
This discussion of the human aspect of the church would also be strengthened by a thorough theology of institutions. At the same time as the church is a movement and a community, neither of which are institutions, it is also an institution. A solid understanding of institutions could also help us better understand Methodism as a movement by allowing us to draw clear distinctions between the two categories. Moreover, many of the conflicts within The United Methodist Church revolve around the institutional structures of the church. A theology of institutions would complement a theological anthropology to help us understand our church institutions in more than a solely functional or merely political way but also help to make sense of the political and functional dimensions of the church.
Admittedly, there are fewer resources to draw on here, as modern institutions are in general under-theologized. Nevertheless, some conclusions are possible. Such a theology of institutions would have to balance the natural human tendency toward organization with the sinful human tendency to use institutions as a means to pursue power, control others, and indulge our base and selfish motives. Thus, a proper theology of institutions should be confessional, prophetic, aspirational, and humble.
There are moments at which WLP does strike confessional notes on the ways in which Methodists and their institutions have failed to live up to the calling of God. It makes brief nods to the racism and colonialism that characterize the history of the church. Yet there is more for United Methodists to confess. We have also sinned in our treatment of women, the poor, immigrants, foreigners, and God’s creation. Moreover, our sins are not entirely behind us. We as a denomination continue to be Americentric in our structures and thinking. We let money distort relationships and the mission of the church. We exclude, denigrate, and discriminate against people based on a whole host of characteristics. We choose our own comfort over God’s calling. We continue to reflect rather than challenge the world around us in too many ways.
Thus, we thought it important for WLP to not only confess the sins of the church but to affirm and model the church’s prophetic calling. WLP chooses to use Christ’s threefold offices as priest, prophet, and king to frame its discussion of ordained ministry. However, this framework seems at times forced to encompass the ways in which United Methodism has structured its ordained ministry. While a prophetic dimension is theoretically part of ordained ministry in the UMC, our theological documents and structural practices frequently discourage the exercise of such an office. For example, we might note here how the 1968 Book of Discipline, quoted and discussed in lines 724-746 of WLP, defines ordination primarily as being entrusted with special authority over Word, Sacrament, and Order. Priestly and kingly functions (as well as administrative responsibilities) are clearly contained within this understanding of ordination, but prophecy is conspicuously absent.
Too often we expect our members and our ordained leaders to keep the system going rather than to challenge it with a prophetic vision of God’s calling for our institutions. Since this document is intended as a teaching document, it should not only reflect the church as it is, but also project a vision of the church as it should be.
Thus, a good theology of institutions must also be aspirational. The prophetic voice should not only condemn the injustices that are but paint a picture of the church and the world as God intends them to be. It should show how our deepest theological convictions are expressed in the church currently but also what a fuller expression of those beliefs would look like – in structures, in practices, in attitudes. At several points, WLP does recognize the aspirational nature of the church as the document describes it, and we appreciated these moments. For instance, WLP recognizes that the Methodist distinctives we proclaim are often aspirational. Such an affirmation seems a very Methodist statement – proclaiming that we are individually and collectively going on toward perfection but are not there yet.
Thus, the final necessary element for a good theology of institutions is humility. In present day American if not global culture, there can seem to be a tension between being prophetic and being humble. Yet this tension resolves when both are properly understood. Prophecy is not shouting loudly about how one is right and others wrong. Prophecy begins with the ability to be self-critical, a deeply humble and humbling activity. Pride binds us to institutions as they are, but humility frees us to imagine them another way, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to grant a prophetic vision for change. Humility allows us to recognize, to borrow an ecumenical term from Karl Barth, that ecclesia semper reformanda est – the church must always be reformed. Finally, recognizing the common root of humble and human, an ecclesiology with humility allows us to embrace an ecclesiology with humanity, even as we reach toward the divine.
There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.
While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.
Institution
Another area in which we at Global Ministries appreciated what WLP said but wished it would go further was in talking about the human dimension of the church. As WLP states, “The truth—the theological truth, even—is that the church is indeed also a very human community, an association of often all too like-minded individuals, and that it does also serve human purposes quite distinct from, and sometimes counter to, the purposes of God.” (lines 406-408). The document also makes frequent reference to the “human uses” of the church and draws on the language of the “visible” and “invisible” church to talk about the distinction between the church as God intends it and the church as humans have made it for their own purposes. We found the recognition of the failings of the church contained in these discussions useful.
Yet we also felt that it was possible to go beyond what was already included in the text. While the text explores “human uses” of the church and “human abuses” of the church, these discussions are not grounded in a theological anthropology or a theology of sin, both of which would give greater insight into what it means to be human and when humans depart from the will of God. As we noted in our discussion, merely being human is not itself problematic. Indeed, in light of the Incarnation, God highly values the human. Wesley affirmed the imago Dei in humanity. Humanity is not inherently deficient or broken, but sin is a rejection of our “humanness” as God created and intended it to be. Thus, the problem is not the church being at times human but the church being at times sinful in its actions and attitudes. WLP does not contradict these theological affirmations, but could benefit by stating them more clearly.
This discussion of the human aspect of the church would also be strengthened by a thorough theology of institutions. At the same time as the church is a movement and a community, neither of which are institutions, it is also an institution. A solid understanding of institutions could also help us better understand Methodism as a movement by allowing us to draw clear distinctions between the two categories. Moreover, many of the conflicts within The United Methodist Church revolve around the institutional structures of the church. A theology of institutions would complement a theological anthropology to help us understand our church institutions in more than a solely functional or merely political way but also help to make sense of the political and functional dimensions of the church.
Admittedly, there are fewer resources to draw on here, as modern institutions are in general under-theologized. Nevertheless, some conclusions are possible. Such a theology of institutions would have to balance the natural human tendency toward organization with the sinful human tendency to use institutions as a means to pursue power, control others, and indulge our base and selfish motives. Thus, a proper theology of institutions should be confessional, prophetic, aspirational, and humble.
There are moments at which WLP does strike confessional notes on the ways in which Methodists and their institutions have failed to live up to the calling of God. It makes brief nods to the racism and colonialism that characterize the history of the church. Yet there is more for United Methodists to confess. We have also sinned in our treatment of women, the poor, immigrants, foreigners, and God’s creation. Moreover, our sins are not entirely behind us. We as a denomination continue to be Americentric in our structures and thinking. We let money distort relationships and the mission of the church. We exclude, denigrate, and discriminate against people based on a whole host of characteristics. We choose our own comfort over God’s calling. We continue to reflect rather than challenge the world around us in too many ways.
Thus, we thought it important for WLP to not only confess the sins of the church but to affirm and model the church’s prophetic calling. WLP chooses to use Christ’s threefold offices as priest, prophet, and king to frame its discussion of ordained ministry. However, this framework seems at times forced to encompass the ways in which United Methodism has structured its ordained ministry. While a prophetic dimension is theoretically part of ordained ministry in the UMC, our theological documents and structural practices frequently discourage the exercise of such an office. For example, we might note here how the 1968 Book of Discipline, quoted and discussed in lines 724-746 of WLP, defines ordination primarily as being entrusted with special authority over Word, Sacrament, and Order. Priestly and kingly functions (as well as administrative responsibilities) are clearly contained within this understanding of ordination, but prophecy is conspicuously absent.
Too often we expect our members and our ordained leaders to keep the system going rather than to challenge it with a prophetic vision of God’s calling for our institutions. Since this document is intended as a teaching document, it should not only reflect the church as it is, but also project a vision of the church as it should be.
Thus, a good theology of institutions must also be aspirational. The prophetic voice should not only condemn the injustices that are but paint a picture of the church and the world as God intends them to be. It should show how our deepest theological convictions are expressed in the church currently but also what a fuller expression of those beliefs would look like – in structures, in practices, in attitudes. At several points, WLP does recognize the aspirational nature of the church as the document describes it, and we appreciated these moments. For instance, WLP recognizes that the Methodist distinctives we proclaim are often aspirational. Such an affirmation seems a very Methodist statement – proclaiming that we are individually and collectively going on toward perfection but are not there yet.
Thus, the final necessary element for a good theology of institutions is humility. In present day American if not global culture, there can seem to be a tension between being prophetic and being humble. Yet this tension resolves when both are properly understood. Prophecy is not shouting loudly about how one is right and others wrong. Prophecy begins with the ability to be self-critical, a deeply humble and humbling activity. Pride binds us to institutions as they are, but humility frees us to imagine them another way, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to grant a prophetic vision for change. Humility allows us to recognize, to borrow an ecumenical term from Karl Barth, that ecclesia semper reformanda est – the church must always be reformed. Finally, recognizing the common root of humble and human, an ecclesiology with humility allows us to embrace an ecclesiology with humanity, even as we reach toward the divine.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
The Middle and the Margins in Methodism
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
American United Methodists seem to have generally come to accept that the proposal of the Commission on a Way Forward will include some sort of “loosening” of the connection that involves separate structures for different groups of American United Methodists under a common umbrella. This being seen as fait accompli, the debate among American United Methodists has shifted to one between conservative incompatibilists (i.e., those opposed to gay marriage and ordination and are unwilling to live in the same structure as those in favor) and compatibilists (i.e., those of whatever opinion on homosexuality who are willing to live in the same structure with those of different opinions).
This debate has progressed along two main lines – one structural and one rhetorical.
The structural question is whether the US should be split into two or three sub-denominations. Many conservative incompatibilists would like the denomination to split into two – a “progressive” denomination for those unwilling to live with the current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to be small, and an “orthodox” denomination that continues current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to contain the majority of the current US church. Conservative compatibilists assume that they would be positioned to control this orthodox-majority church.
Many compatibilists, however, would like the US church to split into three – an “orthodox” denomination for those seeking hardline prohibitions against homosexuality, a “progressive” denomination for those seeking immediate full inclusion of gays and lesbians, and the rest of the denomination, presumed to be the majority, which would tolerate a diversity of opinions, perhaps through some sort of local option. Compatibilists assume both orthodox and progressive churches would be small and they would be positioned to control the tolerant majority church. Thus, the fight between conservative incompatibilists and moderate compatibilists is over who will have control over the majority of the US church.
Along with this basic fight for control through structural arrangements has been a rhetorical fight over which group is the “middle” in United Methodism. American moderate compatibilists claim that, by willing to engage people of all opinions, they are in the middle of American Methodist views on sexuality. American conservative incompatibilists claim that they actually are a majority of American Methodists and, if not, they are certainly in the middle of United Methodist views on homosexuality globally.
Thus, this debate is, at heart, a debate about being in the center and therefore having the power to determine the rules for those on the periphery. Moreover, it is clear that for both sides of the debate, United Methodists in the central conferences and progressive American United Methodists are not at the center and therefore should not have the power to determine the rules for the rest of the denomination or even, in some cases, themselves.* Thus, center/periphery functions as both a geographic and a theological distinction.
There are, however, two good, theological reasons to question both sides’ framing of this debate and their objectives within it.
First, one may take issue with the central objective of being at the center and wielding power. Jesus cautions, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” This is not an invitation to seek the center. Paul adds, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” because we follow “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” Seeking the center is not seeking to be like the crucified Christ.
This rush to the center and avoidance of the margins also goes against the best in contemporary theological reflection on mission. The margins are often where we best encounter God and where God does some of God’s best work. As Together Towards Life states, “We affirm that marginalized people are agents of mission and exercise a prophetic role which emphasizes that fullness of life is for all. The marginalized in society are the main partners in God’s mission.” Seeking the center can take us away from participating in God’s mission.
Second, one may take issue with how the wielding of power is conceived. In Mark 10, Jesus says, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” For Jesus, being a ruler, being great, being at the center, is not about “lording it over” those at the margins; it’s about serving them.
Cast in secular political terms, several commentators have expressed sentiments to the effect that the true moral test of a democracy is how it treats its minorities. The United Methodist Church is a democracy and moreover one that is not set up well to impose the will of the majority upon a substantial minority; hence the large amount of local disregard for General Conference directives.
This is not to say a church can’t set boundaries to its teaching or membership, but does mean that those who would see themselves at the center, whether conservative or moderate on issues of sexuality, should ask themselves what they are willing to do to support the mission, ministry, and spiritual development of those at the margins, whether that’s Filipinos, racial minorities in the US, Africans, American progressives, or Europeans. Last weekend's events in Charlottesville dramatically demonstrate how threatened those at the margins can be from systems of sin and oppression. How can those in the Methodist middle, as John Wesley would say, first do no harm to minority groups and second do good to minority groups’ ministries so that all may stay (and grow) in love with God?
Both sides in the current UMC debate accuse each other of accommodating to the world while proudly proclaiming the counter-cultural witness of their own side. More than anything, the world seeks power and privilege. True Christian witness that goes against the ways of the world seeks humility and gives power away.
*Conservative American incompatibilists say that Africans should be allowed to determine the rules on the issue of homosexuality, where they agree with conservative Americans, but by and large conservative American United Methodists do not argue that we should follow Africans’ lead in other regards, expect perhaps an emphasis on revivalism, which is already a value for conservative Americans and thus not something that they support because they were led to it by Africans. American compatibilists largely do not talk about non-American United Methodists.
American United Methodists seem to have generally come to accept that the proposal of the Commission on a Way Forward will include some sort of “loosening” of the connection that involves separate structures for different groups of American United Methodists under a common umbrella. This being seen as fait accompli, the debate among American United Methodists has shifted to one between conservative incompatibilists (i.e., those opposed to gay marriage and ordination and are unwilling to live in the same structure as those in favor) and compatibilists (i.e., those of whatever opinion on homosexuality who are willing to live in the same structure with those of different opinions).
This debate has progressed along two main lines – one structural and one rhetorical.
The structural question is whether the US should be split into two or three sub-denominations. Many conservative incompatibilists would like the denomination to split into two – a “progressive” denomination for those unwilling to live with the current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to be small, and an “orthodox” denomination that continues current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to contain the majority of the current US church. Conservative compatibilists assume that they would be positioned to control this orthodox-majority church.
Many compatibilists, however, would like the US church to split into three – an “orthodox” denomination for those seeking hardline prohibitions against homosexuality, a “progressive” denomination for those seeking immediate full inclusion of gays and lesbians, and the rest of the denomination, presumed to be the majority, which would tolerate a diversity of opinions, perhaps through some sort of local option. Compatibilists assume both orthodox and progressive churches would be small and they would be positioned to control the tolerant majority church. Thus, the fight between conservative incompatibilists and moderate compatibilists is over who will have control over the majority of the US church.
Along with this basic fight for control through structural arrangements has been a rhetorical fight over which group is the “middle” in United Methodism. American moderate compatibilists claim that, by willing to engage people of all opinions, they are in the middle of American Methodist views on sexuality. American conservative incompatibilists claim that they actually are a majority of American Methodists and, if not, they are certainly in the middle of United Methodist views on homosexuality globally.
Thus, this debate is, at heart, a debate about being in the center and therefore having the power to determine the rules for those on the periphery. Moreover, it is clear that for both sides of the debate, United Methodists in the central conferences and progressive American United Methodists are not at the center and therefore should not have the power to determine the rules for the rest of the denomination or even, in some cases, themselves.* Thus, center/periphery functions as both a geographic and a theological distinction.
There are, however, two good, theological reasons to question both sides’ framing of this debate and their objectives within it.
First, one may take issue with the central objective of being at the center and wielding power. Jesus cautions, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” This is not an invitation to seek the center. Paul adds, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” because we follow “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” Seeking the center is not seeking to be like the crucified Christ.
This rush to the center and avoidance of the margins also goes against the best in contemporary theological reflection on mission. The margins are often where we best encounter God and where God does some of God’s best work. As Together Towards Life states, “We affirm that marginalized people are agents of mission and exercise a prophetic role which emphasizes that fullness of life is for all. The marginalized in society are the main partners in God’s mission.” Seeking the center can take us away from participating in God’s mission.
Second, one may take issue with how the wielding of power is conceived. In Mark 10, Jesus says, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” For Jesus, being a ruler, being great, being at the center, is not about “lording it over” those at the margins; it’s about serving them.
Cast in secular political terms, several commentators have expressed sentiments to the effect that the true moral test of a democracy is how it treats its minorities. The United Methodist Church is a democracy and moreover one that is not set up well to impose the will of the majority upon a substantial minority; hence the large amount of local disregard for General Conference directives.
This is not to say a church can’t set boundaries to its teaching or membership, but does mean that those who would see themselves at the center, whether conservative or moderate on issues of sexuality, should ask themselves what they are willing to do to support the mission, ministry, and spiritual development of those at the margins, whether that’s Filipinos, racial minorities in the US, Africans, American progressives, or Europeans. Last weekend's events in Charlottesville dramatically demonstrate how threatened those at the margins can be from systems of sin and oppression. How can those in the Methodist middle, as John Wesley would say, first do no harm to minority groups and second do good to minority groups’ ministries so that all may stay (and grow) in love with God?
Both sides in the current UMC debate accuse each other of accommodating to the world while proudly proclaiming the counter-cultural witness of their own side. More than anything, the world seeks power and privilege. True Christian witness that goes against the ways of the world seeks humility and gives power away.
*Conservative American incompatibilists say that Africans should be allowed to determine the rules on the issue of homosexuality, where they agree with conservative Americans, but by and large conservative American United Methodists do not argue that we should follow Africans’ lead in other regards, expect perhaps an emphasis on revivalism, which is already a value for conservative Americans and thus not something that they support because they were led to it by Africans. American compatibilists largely do not talk about non-American United Methodists.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part III
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the third of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.
There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.
While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.
Community
Community is an important term for WLP. One of the three core theological convictions that shape the document is, “The saving love of God creates community.” Global Ministries appreciates and affirms this focus on the church as a community. Nevertheless, we also felt there were important ways in which this focus on community could be extended and given additional Wesleyan theological grounding.
Such additional grounding could be achieved by noting the connections between the three theological emphases of WLP: that the saving love of God is for all, that the saving love of God is transformative, and that the saving love of God creates community. Put another way, WLP could enrich its discussion of community by focusing on community as not merely a static state, part of the unchangeable essence of the church, but by focusing on community as an active entity, the body that carries out the works of the church. Such an active understanding of community would highlight the connection between community and mission (related to the first emphasis) and between community and discipleship (related to the second emphasis).
We have already noted the need for a greater mission-orientation in the ecclesiology presented in WLP. In addition to the already given reasons for doing so, such an orientation could help uncover important insights into the nature and activities of the church as a community. The church as a community is always invitational. It is perpetually reaching beyond itself, seeking to bring new members into itself. Even in the face of rejection, the church continues to extend the invitation of Christ to the world, thereby participating in God’s mission of redemption.
Yet to say that the church is (or should be) such an invitational community is to make a claim that sets the church apart from many other communities. Community of any type presumes some level of similarity. All too often, however, similarity implies group boundaries, and those boundaries make it difficult for those outside of a group to join it. In our world today, we see the tragic consequences of such an approach to community formation in nationalism, racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, and sexism. These chauvinistic forms of community wound the world and the church. The church is called to bind these wounds inflicted by false understandings of community and to seek reconciliation in such conflicts.
The church can most effectively do so when it remembers its missional, invitational nature as a community. For the church, unlike almost any other community, the commonality that brings us together also impels us to reach beyond ourselves, rather than focus within or on precisely drawing the boundaries. The saving love of God in Jesus Christ is the commonality upon which Christian community is built (as WLP recognizes). Yet our experience of that saving love must, according to Wesleyan theology, lead us to respond by seeking to share that love with others. Thus, any community that is not actively engaged in God’s mission to share the saving love of God in Christ cannot claim to be a fully Wesleyan expression of the church. We recognize that we as a United Methodist community are still, as WLP puts is, “in pursuit of God’s gift of community,” and thus imperfect in living out this task, but the task should be named.
Just as Christian community cannot be separated from active participation in God’s mission, so it also cannot be separated from the process of forming individual believers as disciples. As WLP notes, “the saving love of God is transformative,” and as it further notes, “growth in love and in the other fruits of the Spirit is possible only in community.” Yet given the emphasis that Wesley and other Methodists have placed on this practice of social holiness – growth in discipleship in community – it is disappointing that WLP does not spend more time discussing this aspect of the church as a community. Classes, bands, and other small fellowships have been central Methodist means to make disciples in community, and it would be nice to see such groups lifted up in the document.
Moreover, a discussion of the relationship between community and disciple-making would be an opportunity for WLP to bring additional Wesleyan theological insights into the conversation. In particular, WLP could talk about the communal practices involved in Wesley’s means of grace. Methodism as an expression of church originated in just such a setting – believers joining together in class meetings and bands to hold one another accountable in their process of growing as disciples. By acknowledging the importance of community as a context for experiencing the transformative love of God, WLP would have an opportunity to exposit key Wesleyan ecclesiological concepts such as discipline. Such a discussion could help laity better understand such historically important practices of Methodism, commend them to Methodists today, and emphasize the practical nature of Methodist ecclesiology.
Furthermore, a discussion of the communal means of grace could further enrich WLP’s exploration of the relationship between koinonia and ekklesia. The two Articles WLP cites from United Methodism’s theological affirmations both mention the sacraments and the word of God. Wesley mentions the importance of both communion and Bible study as communal works of grace. While sermons are certainly not the only means for studying the Bible, they are a means. Affirming communion and group engagement with the Bible as elements of both koinonia and ekklesia would make an important connection between the two, one that highlights our Wesleyan theological heritage.
There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.
While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.
Community
Community is an important term for WLP. One of the three core theological convictions that shape the document is, “The saving love of God creates community.” Global Ministries appreciates and affirms this focus on the church as a community. Nevertheless, we also felt there were important ways in which this focus on community could be extended and given additional Wesleyan theological grounding.
Such additional grounding could be achieved by noting the connections between the three theological emphases of WLP: that the saving love of God is for all, that the saving love of God is transformative, and that the saving love of God creates community. Put another way, WLP could enrich its discussion of community by focusing on community as not merely a static state, part of the unchangeable essence of the church, but by focusing on community as an active entity, the body that carries out the works of the church. Such an active understanding of community would highlight the connection between community and mission (related to the first emphasis) and between community and discipleship (related to the second emphasis).
We have already noted the need for a greater mission-orientation in the ecclesiology presented in WLP. In addition to the already given reasons for doing so, such an orientation could help uncover important insights into the nature and activities of the church as a community. The church as a community is always invitational. It is perpetually reaching beyond itself, seeking to bring new members into itself. Even in the face of rejection, the church continues to extend the invitation of Christ to the world, thereby participating in God’s mission of redemption.
Yet to say that the church is (or should be) such an invitational community is to make a claim that sets the church apart from many other communities. Community of any type presumes some level of similarity. All too often, however, similarity implies group boundaries, and those boundaries make it difficult for those outside of a group to join it. In our world today, we see the tragic consequences of such an approach to community formation in nationalism, racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, and sexism. These chauvinistic forms of community wound the world and the church. The church is called to bind these wounds inflicted by false understandings of community and to seek reconciliation in such conflicts.
The church can most effectively do so when it remembers its missional, invitational nature as a community. For the church, unlike almost any other community, the commonality that brings us together also impels us to reach beyond ourselves, rather than focus within or on precisely drawing the boundaries. The saving love of God in Jesus Christ is the commonality upon which Christian community is built (as WLP recognizes). Yet our experience of that saving love must, according to Wesleyan theology, lead us to respond by seeking to share that love with others. Thus, any community that is not actively engaged in God’s mission to share the saving love of God in Christ cannot claim to be a fully Wesleyan expression of the church. We recognize that we as a United Methodist community are still, as WLP puts is, “in pursuit of God’s gift of community,” and thus imperfect in living out this task, but the task should be named.
Just as Christian community cannot be separated from active participation in God’s mission, so it also cannot be separated from the process of forming individual believers as disciples. As WLP notes, “the saving love of God is transformative,” and as it further notes, “growth in love and in the other fruits of the Spirit is possible only in community.” Yet given the emphasis that Wesley and other Methodists have placed on this practice of social holiness – growth in discipleship in community – it is disappointing that WLP does not spend more time discussing this aspect of the church as a community. Classes, bands, and other small fellowships have been central Methodist means to make disciples in community, and it would be nice to see such groups lifted up in the document.
Moreover, a discussion of the relationship between community and disciple-making would be an opportunity for WLP to bring additional Wesleyan theological insights into the conversation. In particular, WLP could talk about the communal practices involved in Wesley’s means of grace. Methodism as an expression of church originated in just such a setting – believers joining together in class meetings and bands to hold one another accountable in their process of growing as disciples. By acknowledging the importance of community as a context for experiencing the transformative love of God, WLP would have an opportunity to exposit key Wesleyan ecclesiological concepts such as discipline. Such a discussion could help laity better understand such historically important practices of Methodism, commend them to Methodists today, and emphasize the practical nature of Methodist ecclesiology.
Furthermore, a discussion of the communal means of grace could further enrich WLP’s exploration of the relationship between koinonia and ekklesia. The two Articles WLP cites from United Methodism’s theological affirmations both mention the sacraments and the word of God. Wesley mentions the importance of both communion and Bible study as communal works of grace. While sermons are certainly not the only means for studying the Bible, they are a means. Affirming communion and group engagement with the Bible as elements of both koinonia and ekklesia would make an important connection between the two, one that highlights our Wesleyan theological heritage.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Recommended reading: Annual Conferences act on immigration
Immigration is a hot topic in the United States, so it is not surprising that recent UMC annual conference meetings in the US should address the issue. 17 US annual conferences passed some sort of resolution regarding welcoming and caring for immigrants and/or reform of the United States' immigration system. Both Church & Society and UMNS have rundowns of the actions:
Church & Society summary of annual conference actions on immigration
UMNS story on annual conference actions on immigration and other topics
Church & Society summary of annual conference actions on immigration
UMNS story on annual conference actions on immigration and other topics
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part II
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the second of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.
There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.
While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.
Mission
While there are times at which WLP discusses the missional nature of the church, such an understanding of the church could use greater emphasis in the document. Although the document makes regular references to the “mission of the church,” it spends relatively little time exploring mission as an activity of the church or sent-ness as a characteristic of the church, i.e., the church’s missional nature. To make this assertion is not to take issue with WLP’s choice to use the Wesleyan theology of grace as a framework, but to call for the inherent missional nature of Wesley’s theology to be more clearly explicated.
Indeed, many commentators have seen Methodism as a missional movement at its core. Both in its efforts to “spread scriptural holiness” and in its efforts to “reform the nation” (in John Wesley’s words), Methodism has served missional goals, and much of the theology and structure of The United Methodist Church evolved to serve these missional ends. WLP references Russ Richey’s remarks on the missional nature of connectionalism in lines 196-203, but it does not seem to have taken these remarks to heart. An emphasis on mission as part of the nature of the church would seem appropriate, even necessary, for a United Methodist ecclesiology.
Such a focus on mission would be furthermore appropriate because of the significance of ecumenical theological reflections on the missional nature of the church. Several ecumenical theologians have opined on the essentially missionary nature of the church, including such famous statements as Emil Brunner’s “The church exists by mission as fire exists by burning.”
Even if one might like to interject that mission is not the entirety of the church’s nature, it is beyond dispute that mission is a central aspect of both what the church does and what the church is. As Article V of the EUB’s Confession of Faith indicates, the church exists for worship, discipleship, and mission. In this formulation, mission is one of the three primary tasks of the church. WLP recognizes this aspect of the Article but could do more to expand upon it. Such an expansion is especially important given that mission is the only of the three tasks that is primarily focused beyond the church. This makes it an essential task for the propagation of the church throughout time and space.
The outward-facing nature of mission highlights something about the church’s nature as well as its activity. The church is not a closed set. It does not exist merely for the sake of those who are already members of it. Indeed, Anglican Archbishop William Temple famously remarked, “The Church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members” (emphasis added). As WLP recognizes in its discussion of grace, the church is a gift of God to the world. Thus, the church is sent from God to the world; or in other words, the church is an expression of God’s mission in the world. A focus on mission as an essential aspect of the church would help The United Methodist Church reclaim this vital theological insight and move past much of the organizational and theological navel-gazing that has beset the church in the past half century, to deleterious ends.
As this discussion of mission suggests, an adequate ecclesiology must explore the relationship between the church and the world. The world does not define the church, but the church must be defined in relation to the world. World may be taken in several senses here: The church itself is part of God’s created world. The church is in the world but not of the world, in the sense of the social order of things. The church is a sign from God to the world, here understood as that which is not church. And the church seeks the redemption of the world, in all three senses of world.
In its introduction, WLP does mention several significant features of the world today. Nevertheless, after raising these issues, it does not explore them or their meaning for the church today. Issues such as globalization, migration, economic inequalities, and climate change can and should have profound implications for the church, especially a church that views “the world as [its] parish.” Yet WLP does not go into any of these issues.
Some might argue that this omission is an indication of a primarily privileged white, American perspective pervasive throughout the document – only those with such privilege could ignore the implications of these trends in the world for the nature of the church. Such an allegation is another instance in which the document would benefit from more serious engagement with mission as an aspect of the church, as such as discussion would entail a theology of culture. As The United Methodist Church seeks to live into its nature as a “global” or “worldwide” church, it is in sore need of such a theology of culture. How are we to understand the church both as a community that includes people of all races, cultures, and nations and as a collection of particular communities, each shaped by their own cultural understandings of the world? WLP is silent on such questions.
While the concept of diakonia or service is distinct from the concept of missio or mission, the two are related in their orientation toward care for a creation that “groans for redemption.” WLP does make some scant references to mission, but the concept of diakonia is completely missing from the document. Some exploration of this term would help United Methodists understand not only the church’s relation to the world but also its internal leadership structures, as the order of deacons is predicated on this concept.
WLP shows significant interest in ecumenical questions, and this is another area in which a discussion of mission, service, and the church’s relation to the world would benefit the document. The document does note the connection between mission and the unity of the church in lines 91-96, but this insight is not carried out in the rest of the document’s discussion of ecumenism or unity, nor does this paragraph define mission or unity. Yet the challenges of the world are often them means through which individual churches are prompted to work together and recognize their unity in God’s calling to serve the world in mission.
Mission can potentially be a means to foster internal Methodist unity as well, to distinguish between so-called “legitimate” and “illegitimate” forms of diversity (mentioned in lines 599-639). The authors of WLP claim that we possess “no workable means of resolving this question” about legitimate v. illegitimate difference. Could not a focus on mission (as well as an emphasis on the importance of humility and love the authors mention in the concluding section of the document) give us some common ground upon which we could adjudicate our differences? Wesley indicates that missional unity aimed at helping people grow in the love of God and others, which is Wesley’s definition Christian holiness, should create a sense of fellowship among Christians, even when they are separated by significant and deeply held beliefs about aspects of the Christian religion.
There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.
While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.
Mission
While there are times at which WLP discusses the missional nature of the church, such an understanding of the church could use greater emphasis in the document. Although the document makes regular references to the “mission of the church,” it spends relatively little time exploring mission as an activity of the church or sent-ness as a characteristic of the church, i.e., the church’s missional nature. To make this assertion is not to take issue with WLP’s choice to use the Wesleyan theology of grace as a framework, but to call for the inherent missional nature of Wesley’s theology to be more clearly explicated.
Indeed, many commentators have seen Methodism as a missional movement at its core. Both in its efforts to “spread scriptural holiness” and in its efforts to “reform the nation” (in John Wesley’s words), Methodism has served missional goals, and much of the theology and structure of The United Methodist Church evolved to serve these missional ends. WLP references Russ Richey’s remarks on the missional nature of connectionalism in lines 196-203, but it does not seem to have taken these remarks to heart. An emphasis on mission as part of the nature of the church would seem appropriate, even necessary, for a United Methodist ecclesiology.
Such a focus on mission would be furthermore appropriate because of the significance of ecumenical theological reflections on the missional nature of the church. Several ecumenical theologians have opined on the essentially missionary nature of the church, including such famous statements as Emil Brunner’s “The church exists by mission as fire exists by burning.”
Even if one might like to interject that mission is not the entirety of the church’s nature, it is beyond dispute that mission is a central aspect of both what the church does and what the church is. As Article V of the EUB’s Confession of Faith indicates, the church exists for worship, discipleship, and mission. In this formulation, mission is one of the three primary tasks of the church. WLP recognizes this aspect of the Article but could do more to expand upon it. Such an expansion is especially important given that mission is the only of the three tasks that is primarily focused beyond the church. This makes it an essential task for the propagation of the church throughout time and space.
The outward-facing nature of mission highlights something about the church’s nature as well as its activity. The church is not a closed set. It does not exist merely for the sake of those who are already members of it. Indeed, Anglican Archbishop William Temple famously remarked, “The Church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members” (emphasis added). As WLP recognizes in its discussion of grace, the church is a gift of God to the world. Thus, the church is sent from God to the world; or in other words, the church is an expression of God’s mission in the world. A focus on mission as an essential aspect of the church would help The United Methodist Church reclaim this vital theological insight and move past much of the organizational and theological navel-gazing that has beset the church in the past half century, to deleterious ends.
As this discussion of mission suggests, an adequate ecclesiology must explore the relationship between the church and the world. The world does not define the church, but the church must be defined in relation to the world. World may be taken in several senses here: The church itself is part of God’s created world. The church is in the world but not of the world, in the sense of the social order of things. The church is a sign from God to the world, here understood as that which is not church. And the church seeks the redemption of the world, in all three senses of world.
In its introduction, WLP does mention several significant features of the world today. Nevertheless, after raising these issues, it does not explore them or their meaning for the church today. Issues such as globalization, migration, economic inequalities, and climate change can and should have profound implications for the church, especially a church that views “the world as [its] parish.” Yet WLP does not go into any of these issues.
Some might argue that this omission is an indication of a primarily privileged white, American perspective pervasive throughout the document – only those with such privilege could ignore the implications of these trends in the world for the nature of the church. Such an allegation is another instance in which the document would benefit from more serious engagement with mission as an aspect of the church, as such as discussion would entail a theology of culture. As The United Methodist Church seeks to live into its nature as a “global” or “worldwide” church, it is in sore need of such a theology of culture. How are we to understand the church both as a community that includes people of all races, cultures, and nations and as a collection of particular communities, each shaped by their own cultural understandings of the world? WLP is silent on such questions.
While the concept of diakonia or service is distinct from the concept of missio or mission, the two are related in their orientation toward care for a creation that “groans for redemption.” WLP does make some scant references to mission, but the concept of diakonia is completely missing from the document. Some exploration of this term would help United Methodists understand not only the church’s relation to the world but also its internal leadership structures, as the order of deacons is predicated on this concept.
WLP shows significant interest in ecumenical questions, and this is another area in which a discussion of mission, service, and the church’s relation to the world would benefit the document. The document does note the connection between mission and the unity of the church in lines 91-96, but this insight is not carried out in the rest of the document’s discussion of ecumenism or unity, nor does this paragraph define mission or unity. Yet the challenges of the world are often them means through which individual churches are prompted to work together and recognize their unity in God’s calling to serve the world in mission.
Mission can potentially be a means to foster internal Methodist unity as well, to distinguish between so-called “legitimate” and “illegitimate” forms of diversity (mentioned in lines 599-639). The authors of WLP claim that we possess “no workable means of resolving this question” about legitimate v. illegitimate difference. Could not a focus on mission (as well as an emphasis on the importance of humility and love the authors mention in the concluding section of the document) give us some common ground upon which we could adjudicate our differences? Wesley indicates that missional unity aimed at helping people grow in the love of God and others, which is Wesley’s definition Christian holiness, should create a sense of fellowship among Christians, even when they are separated by significant and deeply held beliefs about aspects of the Christian religion.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Recommended Viewings: SAIH Norway videos
After last week's Nordic-inspired reflections on giving, here are some more Nordic-originated thoughts on how to do mission well:
SAIH Norway (the Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund) has put out thought-provoking and entertaining videos meant to cause Westerners to question the stereotypes they have of Africa and aid to Africa. These funny videos could be quite effective at provoking important mission conversations in classroom settings.
First are several videos promoting a non-existent "Africa for Norway" aid campaign for Africans to sent heaters to Norway:
Africa for Norway
Radi-Aid - Warmth for Christmas
The Radi-Aid App
Second are a couple of videos skewering the types of attitudes and practices that go along with Western aid to Africa:
Let's save Africa! - Gone wrong
Who wants to be a volunteer?
SAIH Norway (the Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund) has put out thought-provoking and entertaining videos meant to cause Westerners to question the stereotypes they have of Africa and aid to Africa. These funny videos could be quite effective at provoking important mission conversations in classroom settings.
First are several videos promoting a non-existent "Africa for Norway" aid campaign for Africans to sent heaters to Norway:
Africa for Norway
Radi-Aid - Warmth for Christmas
The Radi-Aid App
Second are a couple of videos skewering the types of attitudes and practices that go along with Western aid to Africa:
Let's save Africa! - Gone wrong
Who wants to be a volunteer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)