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.
In previous posts, I have suggested that one means to greater financial self-sufficiency for the church in developing countries would be to reduce the required institutional framework and that calls for a return to the vitality of early Methodism are misguided if they do not take into consideration the differences in institutional complexity and financial model between present and early Methodisms.
Both posts could be read as critiques of modern, institutional understandings of the church, local and global. I am not, however, trying to paint church institutions in a universally negative light. I am trying to point out that, while modern organizations present themselves as self-evident and inevitable modes of collective life, they are not. They are options we choose. My intent through these posts has been to highlight the tradeoffs involved in adopting a more expensive, more organizationally complex model of the church.
Simpler and less expensive is easier to reproduce. It can spread more quickly because the start up and operation costs (in money and effort) are much lower. It is easier to sustain in a self-sufficient manner even among people with limited financial resources (or time resources, as many in the West experience). These are all advantages of a simple, less expensive approach to church, and these advantages should lead United Methodists to consider such approaches to an extent they usually don’t.
I am not, however, arguing in these posts that all churches everywhere should go back to a very simple, non-programmatic model with minimal buildings and minimal paid workers. I have suggested that such a move might be a good idea in some situations, but I do not mean to suggest that should be how the church should operate always in all situations.
There are some very good things that can come out of a more institutionally complex and more expensive model of church. Mission and education are high on that list. A house church with only a couple of lay leaders and a very occasionally present, minimally paid minister is unlikely to start a school or open a medical clinic. They might be able to send one of their members as a missionary elsewhere, but that missionary might face significant challenges without a support network.
In order to start colleges, operate hospitals, send missionaries, or coordinate disaster relief, one needs a certain level of organizational complexity and financial resources. Moreover, such activities are not bad or un-Christian activities. They connect to central features of Christianity. Education, literacy, and healing have been significant attractions to Christianity for centuries. UMCOR is one of the most universally popular parts of The United Methodist Church, and you can’t have UMCOR without some organizational structure for collecting, dispersing, and monitoring donations.
Hence, there are tradeoffs between simplicity and scope of ministry. Calling these tradeoffs implies that there are benefits and disadvantages to each choice. Neither is clearly better in all situations.
Yet if we recognize that church need not involve an expensive, organizationally complex system and that there are tradeoffs between simplicity and scope, then we can be more mindful about navigating those tradeoffs.
To begin with, we can determine to what extent the organizational and financial model of our church is something that should be standard everywhere and to what extent it is something that should be open to contextualization and adaption. While contextualization is a contentious word in The United Methodist Church currently because of its role in the debate over sexuality, as a general practice not tied to this one issue, contextualization is a natural and healthy part of how Christianity is practiced around the world and across denominations.
Beyond the issue of contextuality, if we recognize the choices and tradeoffs involved in financial and structural models of the church, we can then have honest conversations about how God is calling us to be in ministry. Is God calling us to be a lightweight and easily spread movement, or is God calling us to undertake significant and complex missional tasks? Where do our gifts and graces fall in this spectrum? What do such choices mean about our future? If we recognize these questions as questions, then we can do the difficult work of sorting through them in a way that will hopefully make us clearer about how we intend to serve God faithfully.
Whatever choices we make about finances and structure, recognizing these choices as involving tradeoffs can also help us appreciate that faithful people may have differing answers. The Bible is silent on the issue of finance secretaries, staff-parish relations committees, denominational agencies, and universities. Their existence is not biblically endorsed or prohibited.
Of course, it is possible to present answers about structure and finance that stem from bad motives – fear of the other, fear of change, desire for control, etc. Yet the answer one arrives at is not itself an indicator of faithfulness or faithlessness.
Instead, we must seek to understand each other’s motives, aspirations, and senses of calling that inform our views on structure. To do this, we must get to know each other’s hearts and the heart of God, which is a very Wesleyan undertaking. Indeed, any conversation, even difficult conversations about money and structure, that brings us closer to each other’s hearts and the heart of God is a good one.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Pages
▼
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Friday, May 25, 2018
Hendrik Pieterse: My Hope for Methodism
Today's post is part of a series that features United Methodist scholars and leaders from around the world reflecting on their hope for the future of The United Methodist Church as a global movement within the larger context of worldwide Methodism as a whole. Today's post is written by Dr. Hendrik R. Pieterse, Associate Professor of Global Christianity and World Religions at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.
When United Methodists seek to cast a vision of our “nature” as a church, we routinely employ the terms global and worldwide. Paragraph 123 of the Book of Discipline reminds us of the “global nature of our mission” as a denomination, while ¶125 speaks eloquently of our “connectional covenant” as a set of “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship.”
This is a powerful vision, and I affirm it. In fact, it expresses my hope for United Methodism. It is a genuine hope, but a chastened one, for these claims we make about ourselves remain largely unaddressed and unfulfilled.
And so I think it is more truthful to say we stand at the threshold of becoming a “worldwide connectional covenant.” Our vision describes a United Methodist Church we can become but are not yet. The fact is crossing that threshold requires that we become a worldwide connection in conviction and practice and not just in sentiment and name. Paragraph 125 puts the point provocatively: Our “worldwide nature,” it says, must become a “living practice” in our congregations, woven deeply into their daily being and doing. In other words, our worldwide covenant must take on concrete life in our churches, shaping congregational mission, discipleship, and witness.
This is an audacious suggestion, but difficult to visualize. What would such a living practice look like in our congregations, our conferences, our general church? What needs to happen for it to take form? What values and habits need correcting or abandoning? Which need adopting, retrieving, or renewing? And perhaps most important: Is such an idea even worth considering right now? After all, we find ourselves in a worldwide United Methodist connection fractured by factional standoffs, distrust, divisions, and brinkmanship. For many of us, the idea of a connectional covenant-as-living-practice feels like a pipe dream at best and cynical propaganda at worst. I too share these misgivings, more or less intensely, depending on the day.
So yes, the idea is counterintuitive, to put it mildly. And yet, I believe the vision of a worldwide connectional covenant as living practice might just provide us with a pathway through our current brokenness toward the church we can become but are not yet.
Unlike the Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward, I have no plans to recommend for traversing this pathway. But then, I don’t think plans are where we need to start. Better to start at the level of presupposition, value, habit, and practice. After all, more often than not, fueling our intractable conflicts are unexamined presuppositions, unquestioned beliefs, default habits, and taken-for-granted practices. Let me suggest a couple such habits and practices we would do we to examine as we consider this pathway.
In reflecting on our “worldwide connectional covenant,” let’s focus on “covenant” more than “worldwide.” We seem enamored with geography: where we are located around the globe, where we are growing and declining, which areas need additional or fewer bishops, and the like. These are important concerns. However, in the process we can easily neglect the theological center of the phrase, namely, “covenant.”
As I understand this rich biblical concept, covenantal relationships exist in two modes: Some are symmetrical (the human partnerships) and some are asymmetrical (the divine-human partnership). Paragraph 125 uses phrases like “web of interactive relationships,” “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship,” and “a covenant of mutual commitment based on shared mission, equity, and hospitality” to describe the symmetrical dimension.
What is virtually missing in the paragraph (and in our churchly discourse) is the asymmetrical dimension: We are equal partners with one another, but not with God. The covenant exists because of God’s initiative. Without it, there is no covenant, no “connection.” And that divine initiative—that divine mission—forever transcends our plans and our prognostications, as a grace that always “goes before.” This lends the covenant an eschatological character—open, pliable, expectant. If we believe that God’s mission grounds our “connectional covenant,” too, should we not then be a bit less ready right now to design our own undoing? Shall we not at least hold open the possibility that there is a connection we can become but are not yet?
Let’s resist the temptation to substitute affinity for unity. Against our better instincts, United Methodists tend to think of unity as conformity and compliance and diversity as autonomy and freedom. Paragraph 125 encourages this view by juxtaposing “connectional unity” with “local freedom.” On this view, the freedom to be different must be wrested from the sameness of unity. (Even a cursory reading of the Commission’s deliberations reveals the same understanding at work.)
The very real danger is that such a view of unity can easily justify a move to unity as affinity, as conformity by self-selection. This is particularly tempting when an issue—at the moment, sexuality—becomes the criterion for how, why, and with whom we belong. Such a moribund understanding of unity and diversity puts paid to the possibility of a worldwide connectional covenant. Perhaps it is time to ponder the idea of “connectional freedom”—a freedom found and lived precisely as a connection. Perhaps we discover our unity in and not despite our diversity.
Let’s not use “contextualization” as a strategy for resolving conflict. “Contextualization” and “contextual freedom” have become popular terms in our current discourse, notably in the Commission’s deliberations. The problem is that contextualization is employed as a tool for ameliorating discord, negotiating compromises, and forestalling division.
In fact, contextualization is not a tool or a strategy. It is the church’s obedience to a profound theological truth, namely, that God has chosen to dwell with us as one of us, in the cultural particularity of our cultural forms, our language, our context. That is, contextualization is the church’s acknowledgment of the Incarnation. Unless United Methodists see this truth, we will remain stuck at the threshold of the worldwide connection we can become—or abandon it altogether.
My chastened (at times, anguished) hope is that we will choose to surrender to a connectional covenant yet to be—in which “worldwide” and “global” depict a living practice, a form of discipleship, a spirituality, more than a location on a map.
When United Methodists seek to cast a vision of our “nature” as a church, we routinely employ the terms global and worldwide. Paragraph 123 of the Book of Discipline reminds us of the “global nature of our mission” as a denomination, while ¶125 speaks eloquently of our “connectional covenant” as a set of “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship.”
This is a powerful vision, and I affirm it. In fact, it expresses my hope for United Methodism. It is a genuine hope, but a chastened one, for these claims we make about ourselves remain largely unaddressed and unfulfilled.
And so I think it is more truthful to say we stand at the threshold of becoming a “worldwide connectional covenant.” Our vision describes a United Methodist Church we can become but are not yet. The fact is crossing that threshold requires that we become a worldwide connection in conviction and practice and not just in sentiment and name. Paragraph 125 puts the point provocatively: Our “worldwide nature,” it says, must become a “living practice” in our congregations, woven deeply into their daily being and doing. In other words, our worldwide covenant must take on concrete life in our churches, shaping congregational mission, discipleship, and witness.
This is an audacious suggestion, but difficult to visualize. What would such a living practice look like in our congregations, our conferences, our general church? What needs to happen for it to take form? What values and habits need correcting or abandoning? Which need adopting, retrieving, or renewing? And perhaps most important: Is such an idea even worth considering right now? After all, we find ourselves in a worldwide United Methodist connection fractured by factional standoffs, distrust, divisions, and brinkmanship. For many of us, the idea of a connectional covenant-as-living-practice feels like a pipe dream at best and cynical propaganda at worst. I too share these misgivings, more or less intensely, depending on the day.
So yes, the idea is counterintuitive, to put it mildly. And yet, I believe the vision of a worldwide connectional covenant as living practice might just provide us with a pathway through our current brokenness toward the church we can become but are not yet.
Unlike the Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward, I have no plans to recommend for traversing this pathway. But then, I don’t think plans are where we need to start. Better to start at the level of presupposition, value, habit, and practice. After all, more often than not, fueling our intractable conflicts are unexamined presuppositions, unquestioned beliefs, default habits, and taken-for-granted practices. Let me suggest a couple such habits and practices we would do we to examine as we consider this pathway.
In reflecting on our “worldwide connectional covenant,” let’s focus on “covenant” more than “worldwide.” We seem enamored with geography: where we are located around the globe, where we are growing and declining, which areas need additional or fewer bishops, and the like. These are important concerns. However, in the process we can easily neglect the theological center of the phrase, namely, “covenant.”
As I understand this rich biblical concept, covenantal relationships exist in two modes: Some are symmetrical (the human partnerships) and some are asymmetrical (the divine-human partnership). Paragraph 125 uses phrases like “web of interactive relationships,” “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship,” and “a covenant of mutual commitment based on shared mission, equity, and hospitality” to describe the symmetrical dimension.
What is virtually missing in the paragraph (and in our churchly discourse) is the asymmetrical dimension: We are equal partners with one another, but not with God. The covenant exists because of God’s initiative. Without it, there is no covenant, no “connection.” And that divine initiative—that divine mission—forever transcends our plans and our prognostications, as a grace that always “goes before.” This lends the covenant an eschatological character—open, pliable, expectant. If we believe that God’s mission grounds our “connectional covenant,” too, should we not then be a bit less ready right now to design our own undoing? Shall we not at least hold open the possibility that there is a connection we can become but are not yet?
Let’s resist the temptation to substitute affinity for unity. Against our better instincts, United Methodists tend to think of unity as conformity and compliance and diversity as autonomy and freedom. Paragraph 125 encourages this view by juxtaposing “connectional unity” with “local freedom.” On this view, the freedom to be different must be wrested from the sameness of unity. (Even a cursory reading of the Commission’s deliberations reveals the same understanding at work.)
The very real danger is that such a view of unity can easily justify a move to unity as affinity, as conformity by self-selection. This is particularly tempting when an issue—at the moment, sexuality—becomes the criterion for how, why, and with whom we belong. Such a moribund understanding of unity and diversity puts paid to the possibility of a worldwide connectional covenant. Perhaps it is time to ponder the idea of “connectional freedom”—a freedom found and lived precisely as a connection. Perhaps we discover our unity in and not despite our diversity.
Let’s not use “contextualization” as a strategy for resolving conflict. “Contextualization” and “contextual freedom” have become popular terms in our current discourse, notably in the Commission’s deliberations. The problem is that contextualization is employed as a tool for ameliorating discord, negotiating compromises, and forestalling division.
In fact, contextualization is not a tool or a strategy. It is the church’s obedience to a profound theological truth, namely, that God has chosen to dwell with us as one of us, in the cultural particularity of our cultural forms, our language, our context. That is, contextualization is the church’s acknowledgment of the Incarnation. Unless United Methodists see this truth, we will remain stuck at the threshold of the worldwide connection we can become—or abandon it altogether.
My chastened (at times, anguished) hope is that we will choose to surrender to a connectional covenant yet to be—in which “worldwide” and “global” depict a living practice, a form of discipleship, a spirituality, more than a location on a map.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Structure, Financing, and Early 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.
Many are the voices who call for United Methodists to return to the ways of the early Methodism movement, either in England and/or in the United States.
These voices usually present some theological conviction or devotional practice associated with Methodism’s first several decades, when it was a rapidly growing movement. These arguments assert that if only we modern United Methodists could again believe as the early Methodists believed or practice our devotional lives as they practiced theirs, then we, too, could see the same some dramatic membership growth and spiritual revival that the early Methodists experienced.
While such arguments are not necessarily wrong, they often tend to be overly simplistic and ignore important differences in culture and worldview between people living in the eighteenth century and people living in the twenty first. Devotional practices, therefore, are perhaps easier to reclaim than theological systems, tied as those are to views of the self and society which have shifted dramatically, especially under the impact of modernity.
Yet there is another set of potential problems with such calls to return to the salad days of early Methodism. While a focus on theology and devotion are important and should be central to any truly faithful approach to Christianity, we cannot ignore issues of organizational structure or financing as an important scaffolding for theology and devotion. Yet calls to return to early Methodism routinely do so.
Early Methodism had intense and emotional religious convictions. It had a well-developed system of devotion built around small groups. It was also amazingly unstructured by the standards of the twenty-first century, owned few buildings, and relied on ministers who were paid largely in kind.
Scholars often talk about Wesley’s organizational genius as one of the aspects that made Methodism work. That is true; Wesley’s approach to classes, bands, and itinerant preachers was the stroke of genius that ensured Methodism’s growth. Yet, while early Methodism may have been well-organized relative to other evangelical movements of the eighteenth century, that does not mean it had anywhere near the level of organizational complexity that local congregations or the denomination as a whole had developed by the mid-twentieth century.
Early Methodism had class leaders, who functioned perhaps like lay leaders, but it also lacked finance committees, Sunday School Superintendents, children’s coordinators, office assistants, SPRCs, church archivists, VBS coordinators, choir directors, someone to handle church mailings, nursery staff, outreach coordinators, mission committees, administrative councils, sound board operators, finance secretaries, and in many cases, trustees.
And that’s just at the local congregation level. We could make similar lists for annual conferences and the general church.
Many Methodists would be willing to jettison several of the above-mentioned groups and positions, but I know of no one who would like to do away with the entire lot. It would be impossible to carry on all of the programming or functions that we’ve come to expect of our churches without them. In some cases (trustees and treasurer), it might not even be legal to do without them.
Then there’s the issue of buildings. Many, even most, early Methodist groups either met in people’s homes or in other public venues like courthouses and the forest. While there were some early Methodist chapels, these were the exception rather than the rule, and the buildings were pretty crude in many cases – just large halls. No kitchen, no Sunday School wing, no office space. This made them cheaper, but again they provided no where near the level of amenities that we think of as basic to a church building in modern America.
Finally, there’s the issue of pastoral salaries. While Methodist ministers, most of them itinerant, were always theoretically paid some level of salary, practically they were often unable to collect it from their congregations. They were frequently paid in kind, through food, a place to stay, and perhaps some clothes. They could supplement their incomes through selling books to their parishioners. They had no health insurance and no pension.
While many would like United Methodists to regain their bygone theological fervor and reimplement our disused devotional systems, few if any want us to scrap all of our committees and leadership positions, sell most of our buildings, and be served by itinerant pastors we see once a month whom we are then responsible for feeding, housing, and clothing while they are in town. Few pastors want to give up their health insurance, pension, and paycheck to oversee such a system.
Yet it is at least possible that the theology and devotional system won’t work in the same way without the structural and financial strategies that went along with them. If we want Methodism to grow exponentially, but then we require that growth to include all the expenses and volunteer time associated with 21st century approaches to doing churches, then we may have set for ourselves an impossible task.
I am not saying that organizational complexity, pension systems, or buildings with electricity, plumbing, and air conditioning are always bad things. I am, however, saying that they come at a price and we do ourselves and others a disservice by pretending they don’t.
Many are the voices who call for United Methodists to return to the ways of the early Methodism movement, either in England and/or in the United States.
These voices usually present some theological conviction or devotional practice associated with Methodism’s first several decades, when it was a rapidly growing movement. These arguments assert that if only we modern United Methodists could again believe as the early Methodists believed or practice our devotional lives as they practiced theirs, then we, too, could see the same some dramatic membership growth and spiritual revival that the early Methodists experienced.
While such arguments are not necessarily wrong, they often tend to be overly simplistic and ignore important differences in culture and worldview between people living in the eighteenth century and people living in the twenty first. Devotional practices, therefore, are perhaps easier to reclaim than theological systems, tied as those are to views of the self and society which have shifted dramatically, especially under the impact of modernity.
Yet there is another set of potential problems with such calls to return to the salad days of early Methodism. While a focus on theology and devotion are important and should be central to any truly faithful approach to Christianity, we cannot ignore issues of organizational structure or financing as an important scaffolding for theology and devotion. Yet calls to return to early Methodism routinely do so.
Early Methodism had intense and emotional religious convictions. It had a well-developed system of devotion built around small groups. It was also amazingly unstructured by the standards of the twenty-first century, owned few buildings, and relied on ministers who were paid largely in kind.
Scholars often talk about Wesley’s organizational genius as one of the aspects that made Methodism work. That is true; Wesley’s approach to classes, bands, and itinerant preachers was the stroke of genius that ensured Methodism’s growth. Yet, while early Methodism may have been well-organized relative to other evangelical movements of the eighteenth century, that does not mean it had anywhere near the level of organizational complexity that local congregations or the denomination as a whole had developed by the mid-twentieth century.
Early Methodism had class leaders, who functioned perhaps like lay leaders, but it also lacked finance committees, Sunday School Superintendents, children’s coordinators, office assistants, SPRCs, church archivists, VBS coordinators, choir directors, someone to handle church mailings, nursery staff, outreach coordinators, mission committees, administrative councils, sound board operators, finance secretaries, and in many cases, trustees.
And that’s just at the local congregation level. We could make similar lists for annual conferences and the general church.
Many Methodists would be willing to jettison several of the above-mentioned groups and positions, but I know of no one who would like to do away with the entire lot. It would be impossible to carry on all of the programming or functions that we’ve come to expect of our churches without them. In some cases (trustees and treasurer), it might not even be legal to do without them.
Then there’s the issue of buildings. Many, even most, early Methodist groups either met in people’s homes or in other public venues like courthouses and the forest. While there were some early Methodist chapels, these were the exception rather than the rule, and the buildings were pretty crude in many cases – just large halls. No kitchen, no Sunday School wing, no office space. This made them cheaper, but again they provided no where near the level of amenities that we think of as basic to a church building in modern America.
Finally, there’s the issue of pastoral salaries. While Methodist ministers, most of them itinerant, were always theoretically paid some level of salary, practically they were often unable to collect it from their congregations. They were frequently paid in kind, through food, a place to stay, and perhaps some clothes. They could supplement their incomes through selling books to their parishioners. They had no health insurance and no pension.
While many would like United Methodists to regain their bygone theological fervor and reimplement our disused devotional systems, few if any want us to scrap all of our committees and leadership positions, sell most of our buildings, and be served by itinerant pastors we see once a month whom we are then responsible for feeding, housing, and clothing while they are in town. Few pastors want to give up their health insurance, pension, and paycheck to oversee such a system.
Yet it is at least possible that the theology and devotional system won’t work in the same way without the structural and financial strategies that went along with them. If we want Methodism to grow exponentially, but then we require that growth to include all the expenses and volunteer time associated with 21st century approaches to doing churches, then we may have set for ourselves an impossible task.
I am not saying that organizational complexity, pension systems, or buildings with electricity, plumbing, and air conditioning are always bad things. I am, however, saying that they come at a price and we do ourselves and others a disservice by pretending they don’t.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Recommended Readings on Staunen! European Methodist Festival
European Methodists assemble every three years for a festival titled "Staunen!" ("Amazement"). As the event's website states, "It's not a training course, not a church retreat and also not a group holiday: it's a bit of everything and yet something completely different."
Staunen! 2018 ran May 9-13 in Cuxhaven, Germany. The UMC/EmK in Germany carried several stories reporting on the festival. Reading through the stories gives a sense of the flavor of European Methodism across many countries.
The stories (all in German) are as follows (with English translations of their titles and description):
Traumhafter Auftakt - Dreamlike Start: Pure sunshine and a great festival area frame the beginning of the "Staunen!" Festival.Bishop Rückert invites attendees to "dream."
Schlaglichter der Vielfalt - Highlights of Diversity: The diversity of life is reflected in the program of the European Methodist Festival in Cuxhaven
Eine große Familie - A Big Family: An international festival thrives on encounters and a special flair. Visitors to the "Staunen!" Festival talk about their experiences.
Schritte Wagen - Dare to Step Out: The penultimate day of the European Methodist Festival had two highlights: the open-air worship service and the music evening.
Runter vom Berg! - Down from the Mountain!:The "Staunen!" festival in Cuxhaven ended with a sending church service. The accent on this Sunday was the return to everyday life.
Staunen! 2018 ran May 9-13 in Cuxhaven, Germany. The UMC/EmK in Germany carried several stories reporting on the festival. Reading through the stories gives a sense of the flavor of European Methodism across many countries.
The stories (all in German) are as follows (with English translations of their titles and description):
Traumhafter Auftakt - Dreamlike Start: Pure sunshine and a great festival area frame the beginning of the "Staunen!" Festival.Bishop Rückert invites attendees to "dream."
Schlaglichter der Vielfalt - Highlights of Diversity: The diversity of life is reflected in the program of the European Methodist Festival in Cuxhaven
Eine große Familie - A Big Family: An international festival thrives on encounters and a special flair. Visitors to the "Staunen!" Festival talk about their experiences.
Schritte Wagen - Dare to Step Out: The penultimate day of the European Methodist Festival had two highlights: the open-air worship service and the music evening.
Runter vom Berg! - Down from the Mountain!:The "Staunen!" festival in Cuxhaven ended with a sending church service. The accent on this Sunday was the return to everyday life.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Filipina Theologians on UMC Gender Amendments
There have been many responses thus far to the recently announced non-ratification of two amendments to the United Methodist Church's constitution regarding gender justice.
I am honored to share four more responses, reflections from Filipina theologians. The Philippines was one of the areas of the UMC with the strongest support for the amendments.
The four theologians are as follows:
JENNIFER FERARIZA-MENESES, Executive Secretary, Board of Women's Work, Philippines Central Conference, "In the Imago Dei, We Shall Rise!: A Mother’s Day Reflection for May 13, 2018"
LIZETTE TAPIA-RAQUEL, Assistant Professor, Union Theological Seminary, Philippines, "An Open Letter to The United Methodist Church: On the Rejection of Amendments on Gender Equality and Inclusion to the Book of Discipline"
DARLENE MARQUEZ-CARAMANZANA, Program Secretary, Program Unit on Ecumenical Education and Nurture, National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), "An Unwelcome Gift"
NORMA DOLLAGA, Kapatirang Simbahan Para a Bayan (KASIMBAYAN) / Ecumenical Center for Development, "On the Rejection of an Amendment for Women's Equality: The Never, Never Sweet Sound of Rejection: Now a Parable"
Each piece is published separately on this website and accessible through the title links above. This post serves as a central linking spot for all four posts.
I am honored to share four more responses, reflections from Filipina theologians. The Philippines was one of the areas of the UMC with the strongest support for the amendments.
The four theologians are as follows:
JENNIFER FERARIZA-MENESES, Executive Secretary, Board of Women's Work, Philippines Central Conference, "In the Imago Dei, We Shall Rise!: A Mother’s Day Reflection for May 13, 2018"
LIZETTE TAPIA-RAQUEL, Assistant Professor, Union Theological Seminary, Philippines, "An Open Letter to The United Methodist Church: On the Rejection of Amendments on Gender Equality and Inclusion to the Book of Discipline"
DARLENE MARQUEZ-CARAMANZANA, Program Secretary, Program Unit on Ecumenical Education and Nurture, National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), "An Unwelcome Gift"
NORMA DOLLAGA, Kapatirang Simbahan Para a Bayan (KASIMBAYAN) / Ecumenical Center for Development, "On the Rejection of an Amendment for Women's Equality: The Never, Never Sweet Sound of Rejection: Now a Parable"
Each piece is published separately on this website and accessible through the title links above. This post serves as a central linking spot for all four posts.
Lizette Tapia-Raquel: An Open Letter to The United Methodist Church: On the Rejection of Amendments on Gender Equality and Inclusion to the Book of Discipline
This post is by Lizette Tapia-Raquel, Assistant Professor, Union Theological Seminary, Philippines. The post is written as a response to the recently announced non-ratification of two amendments to the United Methodist Church's constitution regarding gender justice.
On April 18, 1968, my mother and father, Lydia Galima and Jose Tapia, along with an entire community of family and friends, mostly from the United Methodist Church, celebrated my birth as the first child of the union. On 23 April, 1968, the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church likewise celebrated their union to become the United Methodist Church. Thus, our Church and I are both celebrating fifty years this year.
The United Methodist Church has a long tradition of conferencing, ‘holy conferencing.’ We value our connectionalism and our global character despite our diversity as a people of faith. Thus, we gather, time and again, to be in conversation, to intentionally understand and deliberate on issues affecting the Church and our society, to define who we are as a community of faith and to raise our prophetic voice to transform our broken world. This we do because we believe “there is no holiness other than social holiness,” in the words of John Wesley.
The recent rejection of two amendments to the Book Discipline pertaining to gender equality and inclusion exhibits a crisis of faith for many of us called United Methodists, as well as our sisters and brothers in other denominations and faiths. Thus, I feel a need to ask these questions:
How do we understand our Christian identity? Who is this God we believe in and the Jesus we follow? How does it define us as communities of faith and as a Church?
What are we communicating to the women, our daughters and granddaughters, wives and sisters, our women bishops, pastors and deaconesses of our church? What are we teaching the men, our sons and grandsons, our husbands and brothers, our male bishops, pastors and lay? When we refuse equality between women and men, can we honor the women and girls in our churches and value their contributions and participation in our corporate lives?
How will our rejection of equality affect relationships between male and female clergy and bishops, female deaconesses and male pastors, between husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, male and female youth leaders in our churches and societies? How can we give testimony to a just and loving God when we cannot be just and love equally ourselves?
Who is truly welcome in our churches when we vote against inclusion? Can we truly live out our message, “Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors?” How do we authentically advocate for the migrant, the refugee, the suffering and oppressed when we exclude those we have nurtured in and belonged to our own churches because of tradition and rules? By whose standards do we deny others inclusion into our faith community, God’s?
Are we saying that women are not equal to men? Are we saying that not everyone is welcome in our churches? Are we saying that we do not believe that we are all created in the image of God? Are we saying that we cannot live out Jesus’ greatest commandment of loving our neighbors?
I have been raised in a family of United Methodists and have always been affirmed as a female. I grew up with the Church as my second home and learned of love, equality, inclusivity and justice in its Sunday School rooms and big sanctuary. Now, I am fifty years old and on Sunday we celebrated Mother’s Day in churches in different parts of the world. But can we truly celebrate as women and as mothers in our churches?
If we cannot affirm the equality of women and men, and cannot commit to the inclusion of all into the United Methodist Church on its 50th year, what is there to celebrate?
On April 18, 1968, my mother and father, Lydia Galima and Jose Tapia, along with an entire community of family and friends, mostly from the United Methodist Church, celebrated my birth as the first child of the union. On 23 April, 1968, the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church likewise celebrated their union to become the United Methodist Church. Thus, our Church and I are both celebrating fifty years this year.
The United Methodist Church has a long tradition of conferencing, ‘holy conferencing.’ We value our connectionalism and our global character despite our diversity as a people of faith. Thus, we gather, time and again, to be in conversation, to intentionally understand and deliberate on issues affecting the Church and our society, to define who we are as a community of faith and to raise our prophetic voice to transform our broken world. This we do because we believe “there is no holiness other than social holiness,” in the words of John Wesley.
The recent rejection of two amendments to the Book Discipline pertaining to gender equality and inclusion exhibits a crisis of faith for many of us called United Methodists, as well as our sisters and brothers in other denominations and faiths. Thus, I feel a need to ask these questions:
How do we understand our Christian identity? Who is this God we believe in and the Jesus we follow? How does it define us as communities of faith and as a Church?
What are we communicating to the women, our daughters and granddaughters, wives and sisters, our women bishops, pastors and deaconesses of our church? What are we teaching the men, our sons and grandsons, our husbands and brothers, our male bishops, pastors and lay? When we refuse equality between women and men, can we honor the women and girls in our churches and value their contributions and participation in our corporate lives?
How will our rejection of equality affect relationships between male and female clergy and bishops, female deaconesses and male pastors, between husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, male and female youth leaders in our churches and societies? How can we give testimony to a just and loving God when we cannot be just and love equally ourselves?
Who is truly welcome in our churches when we vote against inclusion? Can we truly live out our message, “Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors?” How do we authentically advocate for the migrant, the refugee, the suffering and oppressed when we exclude those we have nurtured in and belonged to our own churches because of tradition and rules? By whose standards do we deny others inclusion into our faith community, God’s?
Are we saying that women are not equal to men? Are we saying that not everyone is welcome in our churches? Are we saying that we do not believe that we are all created in the image of God? Are we saying that we cannot live out Jesus’ greatest commandment of loving our neighbors?
I have been raised in a family of United Methodists and have always been affirmed as a female. I grew up with the Church as my second home and learned of love, equality, inclusivity and justice in its Sunday School rooms and big sanctuary. Now, I am fifty years old and on Sunday we celebrated Mother’s Day in churches in different parts of the world. But can we truly celebrate as women and as mothers in our churches?
If we cannot affirm the equality of women and men, and cannot commit to the inclusion of all into the United Methodist Church on its 50th year, what is there to celebrate?
Norma Dollaga: On the Rejection of an Amendment for Women's Equality: The Never, Never Sweet Sound of Rejection: Now a Parable
This piece is by Norma Dollaga, Kapatirang Simbahan Para a Bayan (KASIMBAYAN) / Ecumenical Center for Development. Ms. Dollaga is a deaconess in the Philippines Central Conference. This piece is written in response to the recently announced non-ratification of two amendments to the United Methodist Church's constitution regarding gender justice. It originally appear on Ms. Dollaga's personal blog, patentero, and is republished with the permission of the author.
“If voted and so declared by the Council of Bishops, ¶ 4 would read:
"The United Methodist Church is part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ.
"The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist church, no conference or another organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, ability, or economic condition, nor shall any member be denied access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition.”
Unfortunately, the amendment on women’s equality did not get enough vote to legislate that very important provision. However, the failure of the church to consider the said amendment does not define the totality of the church. It becomes a parable of the Church’s failure to celebrate grace, inclusive community and a welcoming church for everyone.
The parable goes like this:
“There was once a church who longs to fulfil and live out the message of Jesus Christ. It kept on proclaiming about how Jesus welcomed everyone in the table of communion, including the outcasts and the despicable ones. That Jesus welcomes those who, according to the standard of the empire, are deemed as problems of society. He welcomes even the sinners who discriminated and exploited the people, as long as they are willing to repent and join him in his cause. Jesus loves the children. He welcomed the women as his disciples and entrusted to Mary of Magdala, the most important news of resurrection becomes the theological basis of being church today. Jesus commissioned and sent her out: GO AND TELL. She was an apostle par excellence.
"Yet, as the church lives and ages, it looks like it has forgotten by heart the gift of humanity in female and male persons, in women and men. It has failed remember that our faith impels us to protect each one’s dignity, and nourish the gift of equality given us by God. The church becomes comfortable in accepting the poisonous normalcy of patriarchy that breeds inequality and discrimination.
"But there is a spirit ponders upon the gifts and this spirit that cannot be silenced within the church. This spirit cries out against the church system when the church becomes accustomed to the practice of patriarchy that marginalizes, discriminates, and promotes inequality. Thus, in a practical and humble action, this restless spirit tries to call the attention of the church and offered a proposed amendment. It takes only a practical and logical sense, and deep spiritual eyes to discern the value of the amendment. But lo and behold, this envisioned bequest did not translate into a vote that would make it truly a gift to the next generation!
"Today’s generation could have taken this historic moment to make a decision to truly affirm women’s place in the United Methodist Church’s constitution. Sadly, today’s generation made instead an oversight in perpetuating inequality within the church."
It continues the parable of ingratitude and the inability to celebrate to the gift of community, humanity, and solidarity. The church has become complacent and has let go not only of its priestly role, but also its crucial prophetic task.
The dignity, beauty, grace of LIFE and humanity is God’s gift to us. The protection, nourishment, and solidarity are our ways to honour these gifts. Today, it is not included in the church law, and so we wonder if the church could even speak of it within the ambit of love.
Those who voted for the amendment, and all who voted against it are part of the body of Christ. There are internal contradictions within and amongst us. Paul reminds us that we have to strive to make the greatest gift of love in concrete terms.
One thing is sure: the daughters of Zelophehad of modern times will continue and keep on knocking at the doors of justice and equality. They will not stop until strands of I justice and discrimination in church whether implicit or explicit will be dismantled. This we will do in memory of our foremothers who did trailblazing in eradicating discrimination and exclusion of women from the church and society. There is no other option but to pursue the dream of justice and equality.
“If voted and so declared by the Council of Bishops, ¶ 4 would read:
"The United Methodist Church is part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ.
"The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist church, no conference or another organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, ability, or economic condition, nor shall any member be denied access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition.”
Unfortunately, the amendment on women’s equality did not get enough vote to legislate that very important provision. However, the failure of the church to consider the said amendment does not define the totality of the church. It becomes a parable of the Church’s failure to celebrate grace, inclusive community and a welcoming church for everyone.
The parable goes like this:
“There was once a church who longs to fulfil and live out the message of Jesus Christ. It kept on proclaiming about how Jesus welcomed everyone in the table of communion, including the outcasts and the despicable ones. That Jesus welcomes those who, according to the standard of the empire, are deemed as problems of society. He welcomes even the sinners who discriminated and exploited the people, as long as they are willing to repent and join him in his cause. Jesus loves the children. He welcomed the women as his disciples and entrusted to Mary of Magdala, the most important news of resurrection becomes the theological basis of being church today. Jesus commissioned and sent her out: GO AND TELL. She was an apostle par excellence.
"Yet, as the church lives and ages, it looks like it has forgotten by heart the gift of humanity in female and male persons, in women and men. It has failed remember that our faith impels us to protect each one’s dignity, and nourish the gift of equality given us by God. The church becomes comfortable in accepting the poisonous normalcy of patriarchy that breeds inequality and discrimination.
"But there is a spirit ponders upon the gifts and this spirit that cannot be silenced within the church. This spirit cries out against the church system when the church becomes accustomed to the practice of patriarchy that marginalizes, discriminates, and promotes inequality. Thus, in a practical and humble action, this restless spirit tries to call the attention of the church and offered a proposed amendment. It takes only a practical and logical sense, and deep spiritual eyes to discern the value of the amendment. But lo and behold, this envisioned bequest did not translate into a vote that would make it truly a gift to the next generation!
"Today’s generation could have taken this historic moment to make a decision to truly affirm women’s place in the United Methodist Church’s constitution. Sadly, today’s generation made instead an oversight in perpetuating inequality within the church."
It continues the parable of ingratitude and the inability to celebrate to the gift of community, humanity, and solidarity. The church has become complacent and has let go not only of its priestly role, but also its crucial prophetic task.
The dignity, beauty, grace of LIFE and humanity is God’s gift to us. The protection, nourishment, and solidarity are our ways to honour these gifts. Today, it is not included in the church law, and so we wonder if the church could even speak of it within the ambit of love.
Those who voted for the amendment, and all who voted against it are part of the body of Christ. There are internal contradictions within and amongst us. Paul reminds us that we have to strive to make the greatest gift of love in concrete terms.
One thing is sure: the daughters of Zelophehad of modern times will continue and keep on knocking at the doors of justice and equality. They will not stop until strands of I justice and discrimination in church whether implicit or explicit will be dismantled. This we will do in memory of our foremothers who did trailblazing in eradicating discrimination and exclusion of women from the church and society. There is no other option but to pursue the dream of justice and equality.
Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana: An Unwelcome Gift
This post is by Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana, Program Secretary, Program Unit on Ecumenical Education and Nurture, National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP). Ms. Marquez-Caramanzana is a deaconess in the Philippines Central Conference. The piece is written in response to the recently announced non-ratification of two amendments to the United Methodist Church's constitution regarding gender justice.
On Sunday, United Methodist churches paid tribute to mothers for the observance of Mother’s Day. Once again, the church proclaimed its praise to women (be it that some are just expressions of tokenism) – for their love, for their nurturing, for their care, for their strength amidst suffering, their resiliency and many more adjectives that one may think of.
On May 18-20, United Methodist Women throughout the whole connection will gather and celebrate women’s historic role in the church in Columbus, Ohio. While the assembly aims to foster fellowship among women, it is also meant to equip women for service and collectively experience God’s call to mission. Women of the United Methodist Church are faithful in service, diligent in study and compassionate in doing mission.
These two historic events are about to take place in the context of the church failing to ratify two constitutional amendments: One was on gender equality which declares, “men and women are of equal value in the eyes of God.” The other was pertaining to inclusion which declares that no member will be “denied access to an equal place in the life, worship and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status or economic condition.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to remember that as a church, we stood up against slavery, against forced and child labor, against Apartheid.
We failed to remember our foremothers in the faith who trail-blazed new paths of mission and service.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to honor the dignity of women, the image of the Divine in each and every woman and girl.
We failed to honor the sacredness inherent in each of women’s lives.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to recognize women’s painstaking labor of love for the church and its mission; of their generous giving and sharing of resources till it hurts; of their kind deeds and acts of mercy.
We failed to recognize women’s contribution in their efforts to live out the pastoral and prophetic work of the church.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to affirm the diversity of women’s ministries, of their varied expressions of faith and service, of their deep love for humanity and for the church.
We failed to affirm women’s significant place in the church.
We failed to be the church. We failed before God. We failed the generations that are yet to come. We failed in our mission to be in solidarity. We failed God’s will for the church to have its doors, hearts and minds open.
No thanks for the gift. It certainly is not a gift but a failed mission.
And we, women shall rise. We will not be discouraged nor defeated.
We will persist until discrimination is but a thing of the past.
We will persist until inclusion is a reality.
The non-ratification of the two amendments is an act of injustice to women and the most vulnerable. It is an act of injustice done against the dignity and honor of women. We will be held accountable by the generations that will come.
In the ultimate, the Divine, the giver of life, the author and finisher of our faith, will hold the church accountable.
On Sunday, United Methodist churches paid tribute to mothers for the observance of Mother’s Day. Once again, the church proclaimed its praise to women (be it that some are just expressions of tokenism) – for their love, for their nurturing, for their care, for their strength amidst suffering, their resiliency and many more adjectives that one may think of.
On May 18-20, United Methodist Women throughout the whole connection will gather and celebrate women’s historic role in the church in Columbus, Ohio. While the assembly aims to foster fellowship among women, it is also meant to equip women for service and collectively experience God’s call to mission. Women of the United Methodist Church are faithful in service, diligent in study and compassionate in doing mission.
These two historic events are about to take place in the context of the church failing to ratify two constitutional amendments: One was on gender equality which declares, “men and women are of equal value in the eyes of God.” The other was pertaining to inclusion which declares that no member will be “denied access to an equal place in the life, worship and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status or economic condition.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to remember that as a church, we stood up against slavery, against forced and child labor, against Apartheid.
We failed to remember our foremothers in the faith who trail-blazed new paths of mission and service.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to honor the dignity of women, the image of the Divine in each and every woman and girl.
We failed to honor the sacredness inherent in each of women’s lives.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to recognize women’s painstaking labor of love for the church and its mission; of their generous giving and sharing of resources till it hurts; of their kind deeds and acts of mercy.
We failed to recognize women’s contribution in their efforts to live out the pastoral and prophetic work of the church.
We failed to be the church.
We failed to affirm the diversity of women’s ministries, of their varied expressions of faith and service, of their deep love for humanity and for the church.
We failed to affirm women’s significant place in the church.
We failed to be the church. We failed before God. We failed the generations that are yet to come. We failed in our mission to be in solidarity. We failed God’s will for the church to have its doors, hearts and minds open.
No thanks for the gift. It certainly is not a gift but a failed mission.
And we, women shall rise. We will not be discouraged nor defeated.
We will persist until discrimination is but a thing of the past.
We will persist until inclusion is a reality.
The non-ratification of the two amendments is an act of injustice to women and the most vulnerable. It is an act of injustice done against the dignity and honor of women. We will be held accountable by the generations that will come.
In the ultimate, the Divine, the giver of life, the author and finisher of our faith, will hold the church accountable.
Jennifer Ferariza-Meneses: In the Imago Dei, We Shall Rise!: A Mother’s Day Reflection for May 13, 2018
This post is by Jennifer Ferariza-Meneses, Executive Secretary, Board of Women's Work, Philippines Central Conference. It is written in response to the recently announced non-ratification of two amendments to the United Methodist Church's constitution regarding gender justice.
As the world celebrates Mother’s Day today (even earlier this week), a big portion of my being a woman, a mother, a lay member of the United Methodist Church in the Philippines, is lamenting over the recent news about the failure (by required 2/3 votes) of my Church to affirm gender justice, women’s equality and all persons' full inclusion in the total life of The United Methodist Church. It is distressful to see the results of votes casted upon by several annual conferences, particularly in the Philippines Central Conference where I belong, of which women’s leadership, women's active participation and women's full engagement in almost all aspects and levels of our mission and ministries, are distinctly visible, but fail to be deliberately and justly recognized by the whole Church. The struggle is real, absolutely frustrating, but with the challenging words from our United Methodist women bishops' pastoral letter,
“We weep for the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual harm that is inflicted upon women and girls because of this action. We weep for those who are denied the ability to use their gifts to make a difference in the world. We also weep for those who are not protected from exclusion in the church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition. We see you. We weep with you. We seek your healing. We work for the healing of our church. We strive for a church and world that honors every person as a beloved child of God, made in the image of our Creator.”
Women know and feel… from the core of their heart, mind, soul… that we never lose hope and we dare to fight.
I can say that working and journeying with our women over a decade through the organizations of UMWSCS, deaconesses, clergywomen, clergy female spouses, youth and young adult fellowships in the Philippines Central Conference ensure a possibility, though it seems like impossible in some occasions, that we can create a world of harmony, unity and equality. Our commitment and ministries for women’s empowerment go with our advocacy work for gender partnership – women and men working together and promotion of equal spaces and opportunities for both women and men. Our women have been learning the value and importance of collective action and shared leadership and service. They have been unlearning hierarchical and bureaucratic approaches, behaviors and styles and seeking ways of being inclusive, compassionate, welcoming and nurturing community of God’s people.
While we are forever grateful to our women (and some men) who made a significant impact with all their personal and institutional efforts in the past to advance women’s equality and gender justice within our Church, our present realities send us a clear message - that we must carry on, that we continue to struggle, to resist and that we cannot rest until we “reach a place where we fully embody the gospel promise that, ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus’-Galatians 3:28” (From the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church Statement in Support of Women’s Equality and Full Inclusion, May 7, 2018).
As the world celebrates Mother’s Day today, I pause for a moment with my Mother God… to pray… and sing...
“Our souls magnify the Lord,
And our spirits rejoice in God our Savior,
For God has looked on the humble state of God’s servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call us blessed.”
(Paraphrase from The Magnificat, Luke 1:46-48)
“Our hearts exult in the Lord;
Our strength is exalted in our God.
Our mouth derides our enemies,
Because we rejoice in our victory”
(Paraphrase from Song of Hannah, 1 Samuel 2:1)
We celebrate our being women, created in the image and likeness of God, who are bound to protect and care for the sanctity of life;
Like Mary and Hannah, we speak words of denunciation to powers that be creating unjust systems and oppressive structures that destroy life and human dignity;
Like Mary and Hannah, we desire to take an active part in liberating our people from all forms of violence, injustices, discrimination and oppression;
Like Mary and Hannah, we pray for lasting peace, justice and equality to triumph and flourish;
Like Mary and Hannah, we sing songs of hope, freedom and liberation for our people, for our Church, for our land.
And our prayers and singing will never end… until fullness of life as God has promised, is fulfilled and shared with all.
References:
1. http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/bishops-announce-results-of-five-constitutional-amendments-two-fail-to-get…
2. http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/documents/Detailed_results_of_Annual_Conference_Votes_on_Constitutional_Amendments.pdf…
3. http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/documents/COB_statement_on_women_equality_and_inclusion_May_7.pdf…
4. http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/documents/Pastoral_Letter_from_Female_Bishops_May_7.pdf…
As the world celebrates Mother’s Day today (even earlier this week), a big portion of my being a woman, a mother, a lay member of the United Methodist Church in the Philippines, is lamenting over the recent news about the failure (by required 2/3 votes) of my Church to affirm gender justice, women’s equality and all persons' full inclusion in the total life of The United Methodist Church. It is distressful to see the results of votes casted upon by several annual conferences, particularly in the Philippines Central Conference where I belong, of which women’s leadership, women's active participation and women's full engagement in almost all aspects and levels of our mission and ministries, are distinctly visible, but fail to be deliberately and justly recognized by the whole Church. The struggle is real, absolutely frustrating, but with the challenging words from our United Methodist women bishops' pastoral letter,
“We weep for the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual harm that is inflicted upon women and girls because of this action. We weep for those who are denied the ability to use their gifts to make a difference in the world. We also weep for those who are not protected from exclusion in the church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition. We see you. We weep with you. We seek your healing. We work for the healing of our church. We strive for a church and world that honors every person as a beloved child of God, made in the image of our Creator.”
Women know and feel… from the core of their heart, mind, soul… that we never lose hope and we dare to fight.
I can say that working and journeying with our women over a decade through the organizations of UMWSCS, deaconesses, clergywomen, clergy female spouses, youth and young adult fellowships in the Philippines Central Conference ensure a possibility, though it seems like impossible in some occasions, that we can create a world of harmony, unity and equality. Our commitment and ministries for women’s empowerment go with our advocacy work for gender partnership – women and men working together and promotion of equal spaces and opportunities for both women and men. Our women have been learning the value and importance of collective action and shared leadership and service. They have been unlearning hierarchical and bureaucratic approaches, behaviors and styles and seeking ways of being inclusive, compassionate, welcoming and nurturing community of God’s people.
While we are forever grateful to our women (and some men) who made a significant impact with all their personal and institutional efforts in the past to advance women’s equality and gender justice within our Church, our present realities send us a clear message - that we must carry on, that we continue to struggle, to resist and that we cannot rest until we “reach a place where we fully embody the gospel promise that, ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus’-Galatians 3:28” (From the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church Statement in Support of Women’s Equality and Full Inclusion, May 7, 2018).
As the world celebrates Mother’s Day today, I pause for a moment with my Mother God… to pray… and sing...
“Our souls magnify the Lord,
And our spirits rejoice in God our Savior,
For God has looked on the humble state of God’s servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call us blessed.”
(Paraphrase from The Magnificat, Luke 1:46-48)
“Our hearts exult in the Lord;
Our strength is exalted in our God.
Our mouth derides our enemies,
Because we rejoice in our victory”
(Paraphrase from Song of Hannah, 1 Samuel 2:1)
We celebrate our being women, created in the image and likeness of God, who are bound to protect and care for the sanctity of life;
Like Mary and Hannah, we speak words of denunciation to powers that be creating unjust systems and oppressive structures that destroy life and human dignity;
Like Mary and Hannah, we desire to take an active part in liberating our people from all forms of violence, injustices, discrimination and oppression;
Like Mary and Hannah, we pray for lasting peace, justice and equality to triumph and flourish;
Like Mary and Hannah, we sing songs of hope, freedom and liberation for our people, for our Church, for our land.
And our prayers and singing will never end… until fullness of life as God has promised, is fulfilled and shared with all.
References:
1. http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/bishops-announce-results-of-five-constitutional-amendments-two-fail-to-get…
2. http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/documents/Detailed_results_of_Annual_Conference_Votes_on_Constitutional_Amendments.pdf…
3. http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/documents/COB_statement_on_women_equality_and_inclusion_May_7.pdf…
4. http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/council-of-bishops/documents/Pastoral_Letter_from_Female_Bishops_May_7.pdf…
Monday, May 14, 2018
Recommended Readings: United Methodist Professors of Mission recent publications
Several United Methodist Professors of Mission and other UM & Global contributors have had recent articles published on topics related to mission and the global nature of the church.
Philip D. Wingeier-Rayo published an article entitled "A Wesleyan Theology of Religions: A Re-Reading of John Wesley Through His Encounters with Peoples of Non-Christian Faiths" in Methodist Review. The article is accessible freely online. The abstract reads as follows:
"This article argues that John Wesley’s contact with and understanding of native peoples and non-Christians can be a helpful model for a Wesleyan theology of religions today, when Christians have greater encounters with adherents of Islam and people of other faith traditions. Over the course of his lifetime Wesley grew in his appreciation of indigenous people and members of other religions from an original innocence to natural depraved man to a universal grace of hopeful eschatology for humanity. The early Wesley can be described as naïve and believing in native peoples as “noble savages.” The second stage, or middle Wesley, believed that native peoples and people of other faith traditions fall into the category of “natural man.” Finally, the mature Wesley believed in an eschatological hope for humanity. One can credit Wesley’s maturation process to at least two important factors. One important factor in his growth was the personal experiences with people of a different life experience that created cognitive dissonance for his previous worldview. The other contributing factor to his growth was Wesley’s reading of travel logs, missionary letters and other accounts of the expanding global awareness in 18th century England. Wesley’s sermon “The General Spread of the Gospel” calls for the Holy Spirit to empower Christians to cease to be stumbling blocks and to witness to Muslims and people of other faiths. This requires personal encounters, similar to those that Wesley had with his Jewish parishioners in Savannah. The article closes with an exhortation to those in the Wesleyan tradition to embrace this practice of personal encounters and continual learning, while at the same time maintaining an expectant eschatology of God’s salvific work through the Holy Spirit."
David W. Scott published an article entitled "The Value of Money: Funding Sources and Philanthropic Priorities in Twentieth-Century American Mission" in Religions. The article is accessible freely online. The abstract reads as follows:
"At the turn of the twentieth century, Western missionaries and mission organizations sought to develop financial strategies that would facilitate the further expansion of the Western mission enterprise. Three such strategies emerged: an increasingly sophisticated, corporatized approach to fundraising by mission boards; faith missions that shifted the economic risks associated with fundraising from mission agencies to missionaries; and self-supporting missions that cultivated economic funding available in the mission field. Each of these strategies had different implications for power configurations in the mission enterprise and allowed the values and views of different groups to prevail. The board approach empowered mission executives and large donors. The faith mission approach empowered missionaries and supporters with a conservative theology. The self-supporting mission approach made missionaries arbiters among a variety of competing interests. This economic approach to the study of mission provides new insights into the complex and contested power arrangements involved in Western foreign mission that extend beyond those gained from traditional political and cultural analyses."
David N. Field has published a book entitled Our Purpose Is Love: The Wesleyan Way to Be the Church. While one must buy the book, an excerpt is available through Ministry Matters. The book description reads as follows:
"We live in a time of great division in the world, and too often we find this polarization mirrored in the church. People sitting in the same pew, working in the same office, and living on the same street find themselves at odds with one another politically and theologically on a variety of issues. Conflict seems to reign supreme. As Christians, we know we are supposed to love one another, but even that mandate has come to mean different things to different people. What does it mean to love God and neighbor today—in both the world and the church—and can this be the answer to the conflict that divides and polarizes us?
"In Our Purpose Is Love, author David Field answers this question with a compelling “Yes!” as he challenges us to recognize and reclaim love as the center of our identity and purpose as the church. Field presents a Wesleyan vision of the church as the embodiment of God’s love in the world and explores the implications of this vision for our life together. In this vision, the church is where we become creatures of love, learning to love God and neighbor ever more completely and authentically through the means of God’s grace. As a result, we bear witness to the world by reflecting God’s love more and more perfectly in the way we treat others and order our common life. With a special focus on the importance of unity for the church’s witness, Field invites us to consider the ways in which embodying God’s love can and should influence how we live as individuals and as communities of faith, calling us to reclaim and recommit to love as the center of who we are."
Know of other books or articles by UM & Global contributors that our readers should know about? Send your suggestions to blogmaster David Scott.
Philip D. Wingeier-Rayo published an article entitled "A Wesleyan Theology of Religions: A Re-Reading of John Wesley Through His Encounters with Peoples of Non-Christian Faiths" in Methodist Review. The article is accessible freely online. The abstract reads as follows:
"This article argues that John Wesley’s contact with and understanding of native peoples and non-Christians can be a helpful model for a Wesleyan theology of religions today, when Christians have greater encounters with adherents of Islam and people of other faith traditions. Over the course of his lifetime Wesley grew in his appreciation of indigenous people and members of other religions from an original innocence to natural depraved man to a universal grace of hopeful eschatology for humanity. The early Wesley can be described as naïve and believing in native peoples as “noble savages.” The second stage, or middle Wesley, believed that native peoples and people of other faith traditions fall into the category of “natural man.” Finally, the mature Wesley believed in an eschatological hope for humanity. One can credit Wesley’s maturation process to at least two important factors. One important factor in his growth was the personal experiences with people of a different life experience that created cognitive dissonance for his previous worldview. The other contributing factor to his growth was Wesley’s reading of travel logs, missionary letters and other accounts of the expanding global awareness in 18th century England. Wesley’s sermon “The General Spread of the Gospel” calls for the Holy Spirit to empower Christians to cease to be stumbling blocks and to witness to Muslims and people of other faiths. This requires personal encounters, similar to those that Wesley had with his Jewish parishioners in Savannah. The article closes with an exhortation to those in the Wesleyan tradition to embrace this practice of personal encounters and continual learning, while at the same time maintaining an expectant eschatology of God’s salvific work through the Holy Spirit."
David W. Scott published an article entitled "The Value of Money: Funding Sources and Philanthropic Priorities in Twentieth-Century American Mission" in Religions. The article is accessible freely online. The abstract reads as follows:
"At the turn of the twentieth century, Western missionaries and mission organizations sought to develop financial strategies that would facilitate the further expansion of the Western mission enterprise. Three such strategies emerged: an increasingly sophisticated, corporatized approach to fundraising by mission boards; faith missions that shifted the economic risks associated with fundraising from mission agencies to missionaries; and self-supporting missions that cultivated economic funding available in the mission field. Each of these strategies had different implications for power configurations in the mission enterprise and allowed the values and views of different groups to prevail. The board approach empowered mission executives and large donors. The faith mission approach empowered missionaries and supporters with a conservative theology. The self-supporting mission approach made missionaries arbiters among a variety of competing interests. This economic approach to the study of mission provides new insights into the complex and contested power arrangements involved in Western foreign mission that extend beyond those gained from traditional political and cultural analyses."
David N. Field has published a book entitled Our Purpose Is Love: The Wesleyan Way to Be the Church. While one must buy the book, an excerpt is available through Ministry Matters. The book description reads as follows:
"We live in a time of great division in the world, and too often we find this polarization mirrored in the church. People sitting in the same pew, working in the same office, and living on the same street find themselves at odds with one another politically and theologically on a variety of issues. Conflict seems to reign supreme. As Christians, we know we are supposed to love one another, but even that mandate has come to mean different things to different people. What does it mean to love God and neighbor today—in both the world and the church—and can this be the answer to the conflict that divides and polarizes us?
"In Our Purpose Is Love, author David Field answers this question with a compelling “Yes!” as he challenges us to recognize and reclaim love as the center of our identity and purpose as the church. Field presents a Wesleyan vision of the church as the embodiment of God’s love in the world and explores the implications of this vision for our life together. In this vision, the church is where we become creatures of love, learning to love God and neighbor ever more completely and authentically through the means of God’s grace. As a result, we bear witness to the world by reflecting God’s love more and more perfectly in the way we treat others and order our common life. With a special focus on the importance of unity for the church’s witness, Field invites us to consider the ways in which embodying God’s love can and should influence how we live as individuals and as communities of faith, calling us to reclaim and recommit to love as the center of who we are."
Know of other books or articles by UM & Global contributors that our readers should know about? Send your suggestions to blogmaster David Scott.
Friday, May 11, 2018
What I've learned from 500 posts (and 11K tweets)
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 is the 500th post on UM & Global since its start in March of 2013. A lot has happened in the last five years, in global Methodism and on this blog. This milestone has led me to reflect back on what I have learned in the process of writing and editing this blog and running its associated Twitter, Facebook, and Paper.li accounts. Here's five takeaways, one for every hundred posts:
1. It's hard to predict what will resonate.
I'm sure this conclusion is one many bloggers have reached. The internet is an unpredictable place. Sometimes you put up a post that you think is brilliant and insightful, and it goes nowhere. Sometimes you put up something that seems routine, and hundreds or thousands of people read it. I am grateful for Cynthia Astle of UM Insight and others who find what I write helpful and share it with others. I try to be faithful in putting up content, initially twice a week and recently three times a week, and not worry too much about the fate of any individual piece. Instead, I try to ensure that all of our content, week in and week out, is consistently high-quality and will make UM & Global a site worth reading and worth following.
2. I appreciate contributors to the blog.
This blog was commissioned as a project of the United Methodist Professors of Mission. Much of what appears on the blog is posts that I write (which are now identified as such, in contrast to earlier years), but at least a third has come from others - members of the United Methodist Professors of Mission, pastors, bishops, academics outside the US, and other church leaders. This style of curated blog with a diversity of voices is somewhat unique, but it's clear to me as I look through the statistics that it's often other people that viewers are coming to the blog to read, not me. Other contributors make this blog what it is. I believe one of the important functions of the blog is to give others a voice in conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church. I wish I could do this for a greater number of voices, especially those of Africans, but I will continue to try to provide that opportunity to the extent I can. (And if you're interested in helping identify such voices, let's talk.)
3. I appreciate the United Methodist News Service.
In order to write content for this blog, especially our "Recommended Reading" pieces, I read a lot of United Methodist news. A LOT. I sift through United Methodist Twitter on a daily basis, looking for stories about United Methodism around the world. In the five years I've been reading (and re-tweeting) United Methodist tweets, I have seen a real increase in the amount of international reporting that the United Methodist News Service has done. I think this increase is vitally important for the denomination. Professional journalism matters, especially when it touches on issues outside the daily lives of its readers. It also makes my job possible. Without UMNS stories, I'd have much less of a sense of what is going on around the world. I'd also like to extend special thanks to E. Julu Swen, Joe Ndzulo, and those running the UMC Twitter accounts in Germany, France, and Switzerland, all of whom have also helped inform my understanding of Global Methodism.
4. There's still a lot of Ameri-centric thinking and pat narratives about the rest of the world among American United Methodists.
Sifting through United Methodist Twitter means that I see not only stories about the UMC outside the US, but also a lot of the United Methodist Twitter conversations and blog posts about the UMC inside the US. There are certainly insightful writers and posts from whom/which I've learned about the American UMC and about Christianity in the US generally. I'm grateful for them. But I've also seen a lot of content that overlooks the rest of the UMC outside the US, puts it into American frameworks instead of understanding it on its own terms, and/or describes it using broad and simplistic narratives. This is not always malicious. I think often people are often just uninformed, and I know better than most how difficult it can be to get good, in-depth, nuanced information about United Methodism elsewhere. Nonetheless, there are problematic consequences to such approaches to the UMC outside the US, whatever their origins. I see this as one of the major missions of this blog and its associated social media accounts - helping American United Methodists understand the branches of our denomination outside the US in more complex, nuanced ways so that we can be in better, more informed, and more loving connection with our global sisters and brothers in Christ.
5. UM & Global represents a unique and needed voice.
The persistence of Ameri-centric thinking and overly simplistic narratives about non-American United Methodism means that UM & Global will continue to have a role to play in United Methodist conversations about being a global body. In an age of rising nationalisms, I believe it is important to promote knowledge and love for people from elsewhere. Moreover, I have come to appreciate how unique this blog's role in doing so is. Put simply, there's not a lot else out there in the United Methodist blogosphere or Twitterverse that tries to do what we do - consistently present informed reflections on United Methodist mission, in-depth analysis of United Methodism around the world, and deliberative conversation on the global nature of The United Methodist Church. This is UM & Global's 500th post. But because I believe in the importance and uniqueness of our mission, you can look forward to many more.
- David W. Scott, blogmaster
This is the 500th post on UM & Global since its start in March of 2013. A lot has happened in the last five years, in global Methodism and on this blog. This milestone has led me to reflect back on what I have learned in the process of writing and editing this blog and running its associated Twitter, Facebook, and Paper.li accounts. Here's five takeaways, one for every hundred posts:
1. It's hard to predict what will resonate.
I'm sure this conclusion is one many bloggers have reached. The internet is an unpredictable place. Sometimes you put up a post that you think is brilliant and insightful, and it goes nowhere. Sometimes you put up something that seems routine, and hundreds or thousands of people read it. I am grateful for Cynthia Astle of UM Insight and others who find what I write helpful and share it with others. I try to be faithful in putting up content, initially twice a week and recently three times a week, and not worry too much about the fate of any individual piece. Instead, I try to ensure that all of our content, week in and week out, is consistently high-quality and will make UM & Global a site worth reading and worth following.
2. I appreciate contributors to the blog.
This blog was commissioned as a project of the United Methodist Professors of Mission. Much of what appears on the blog is posts that I write (which are now identified as such, in contrast to earlier years), but at least a third has come from others - members of the United Methodist Professors of Mission, pastors, bishops, academics outside the US, and other church leaders. This style of curated blog with a diversity of voices is somewhat unique, but it's clear to me as I look through the statistics that it's often other people that viewers are coming to the blog to read, not me. Other contributors make this blog what it is. I believe one of the important functions of the blog is to give others a voice in conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church. I wish I could do this for a greater number of voices, especially those of Africans, but I will continue to try to provide that opportunity to the extent I can. (And if you're interested in helping identify such voices, let's talk.)
3. I appreciate the United Methodist News Service.
In order to write content for this blog, especially our "Recommended Reading" pieces, I read a lot of United Methodist news. A LOT. I sift through United Methodist Twitter on a daily basis, looking for stories about United Methodism around the world. In the five years I've been reading (and re-tweeting) United Methodist tweets, I have seen a real increase in the amount of international reporting that the United Methodist News Service has done. I think this increase is vitally important for the denomination. Professional journalism matters, especially when it touches on issues outside the daily lives of its readers. It also makes my job possible. Without UMNS stories, I'd have much less of a sense of what is going on around the world. I'd also like to extend special thanks to E. Julu Swen, Joe Ndzulo, and those running the UMC Twitter accounts in Germany, France, and Switzerland, all of whom have also helped inform my understanding of Global Methodism.
4. There's still a lot of Ameri-centric thinking and pat narratives about the rest of the world among American United Methodists.
Sifting through United Methodist Twitter means that I see not only stories about the UMC outside the US, but also a lot of the United Methodist Twitter conversations and blog posts about the UMC inside the US. There are certainly insightful writers and posts from whom/which I've learned about the American UMC and about Christianity in the US generally. I'm grateful for them. But I've also seen a lot of content that overlooks the rest of the UMC outside the US, puts it into American frameworks instead of understanding it on its own terms, and/or describes it using broad and simplistic narratives. This is not always malicious. I think often people are often just uninformed, and I know better than most how difficult it can be to get good, in-depth, nuanced information about United Methodism elsewhere. Nonetheless, there are problematic consequences to such approaches to the UMC outside the US, whatever their origins. I see this as one of the major missions of this blog and its associated social media accounts - helping American United Methodists understand the branches of our denomination outside the US in more complex, nuanced ways so that we can be in better, more informed, and more loving connection with our global sisters and brothers in Christ.
5. UM & Global represents a unique and needed voice.
The persistence of Ameri-centric thinking and overly simplistic narratives about non-American United Methodism means that UM & Global will continue to have a role to play in United Methodist conversations about being a global body. In an age of rising nationalisms, I believe it is important to promote knowledge and love for people from elsewhere. Moreover, I have come to appreciate how unique this blog's role in doing so is. Put simply, there's not a lot else out there in the United Methodist blogosphere or Twitterverse that tries to do what we do - consistently present informed reflections on United Methodist mission, in-depth analysis of United Methodism around the world, and deliberative conversation on the global nature of The United Methodist Church. This is UM & Global's 500th post. But because I believe in the importance and uniqueness of our mission, you can look forward to many more.
- David W. Scott, blogmaster
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Recommended Readings on UMC constitutional amendments
On Monday, the Council of Bishops announced the results of voting on five constitutional amendments approved by General Conference 2016. See also the UMNS story on the results.
Three amendments - two regarding elections of conference delegates and bishops and one affirming the Council of Bishop's right to exercise oversight over its members - passed.
Two other amendments, both related to gender, failed. The first asserted the equal value of women and men in the eyes of God. The second added “gender,” “ability,” “age,” and “marital status” to an paragraph prohibiting discrimination in church membership.
66.5% of annual conference delegates around the world voted to ratify the first amendment, just 68 votes shy of the 2/3rds majority required for ratification. It had received 93% approval at General Conference 2016. 61.3% of annual conference delegates around the world voted to ratify the second amendment. It was 2,529 votes shy of ratification. It had received 67.8% approval at General Conference 2016. Over 60,000 votes were cast in the ratification process.
The failure of these two amendments prompted the Council of Bishops to issue a statement expressing "dismay" at the results, affirming the equality of women, and confessing ongoing sexism in the church. The female bishops of the church issued a separate pastoral letter expressing "lament" over the results. The full text of the two amendments is in that pastoral letter.
Vote totals by annual conference make clear that the two amendments failed because of overwhelming opposition in some African episcopal areas and in the Eurasian Episcopal Area (Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova). Some African episcopal areas voting overwhelming to ratify the amendments; others voted overwhelmingly to oppose them. Cote d'Ivoire, one of the largest episcopal areas in the denomination, did not vote on any of the amendments.
Vote totals from Africa and the Philippines evidence a much more consensual approach to voting than in the West, a pattern that holds beyond just this one vote. There is no clear account of the balance between episcopal pressure and other social factors for producing such consensus. Jerry Kulah expressed a rationale for opposition to the amendments in Liberia, but it is not clear whether the same rationale was influential elsewhere. When African voters did go against the consensus of their annual conferences, they were most likely to do so to affirm the equality of women and men.
The vote broke down by region is below (Yes = yes to ratification; No = no to ratification):
The Philippines
Amendment I: 89% Yes; 11% No
Amendment II: 82% Yes; 18% No
North Central Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 73% Yes; 27% No
Amendment II: 72% Yes; 28% No
Northeast Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 82% Yes; 18% No
Amendment II: 77% Yes; 23% No
Southcentral Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 72% Yes; 28% No
Amendment II: 68% Yes; 32% No
Southeastern Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 67% Yes; 33% No
Amendment II: 60% Yes; 40% No
Western Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 95% Yes; 5% No
Amendment II: 76% Yes; 24% No
Europe excluding Eurasia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 81% Yes; 19% No
Amendment II: 78% Yes; 22% No
Eurasia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 10% Yes; 90% No
Amendment II: 35% Yes; 65% No
Eastern Angola Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 78% Yes; 22% No
Amendment II: 88% Yes; 12% No
Western Angola Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 84% Yes; 16% No
Amendment II: 89% Yes; 11% No
East Africa Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 34% Yes; 66% No
Amendment II: 16% Yes; 84% No
Mozambique Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% Yes
Amendment II: 100% Yes
Zimbabwe Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 25% Yes; 75% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Cote d'Ivoire Episcopal Area
Did not report results
Liberia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Nigeria Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Sierra Leone Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Central Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 15% Yes; 85% No
Amendment II: 1% Yes; 99% No
East Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 98% Yes; 2% No
Amendment II: 99% Yes; 1% No
North Katanga Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
South Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 11% Yes; 89% No
Amendment II: 6% Yes; 94% No
Three amendments - two regarding elections of conference delegates and bishops and one affirming the Council of Bishop's right to exercise oversight over its members - passed.
Two other amendments, both related to gender, failed. The first asserted the equal value of women and men in the eyes of God. The second added “gender,” “ability,” “age,” and “marital status” to an paragraph prohibiting discrimination in church membership.
66.5% of annual conference delegates around the world voted to ratify the first amendment, just 68 votes shy of the 2/3rds majority required for ratification. It had received 93% approval at General Conference 2016. 61.3% of annual conference delegates around the world voted to ratify the second amendment. It was 2,529 votes shy of ratification. It had received 67.8% approval at General Conference 2016. Over 60,000 votes were cast in the ratification process.
The failure of these two amendments prompted the Council of Bishops to issue a statement expressing "dismay" at the results, affirming the equality of women, and confessing ongoing sexism in the church. The female bishops of the church issued a separate pastoral letter expressing "lament" over the results. The full text of the two amendments is in that pastoral letter.
Vote totals by annual conference make clear that the two amendments failed because of overwhelming opposition in some African episcopal areas and in the Eurasian Episcopal Area (Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova). Some African episcopal areas voting overwhelming to ratify the amendments; others voted overwhelmingly to oppose them. Cote d'Ivoire, one of the largest episcopal areas in the denomination, did not vote on any of the amendments.
Vote totals from Africa and the Philippines evidence a much more consensual approach to voting than in the West, a pattern that holds beyond just this one vote. There is no clear account of the balance between episcopal pressure and other social factors for producing such consensus. Jerry Kulah expressed a rationale for opposition to the amendments in Liberia, but it is not clear whether the same rationale was influential elsewhere. When African voters did go against the consensus of their annual conferences, they were most likely to do so to affirm the equality of women and men.
The vote broke down by region is below (Yes = yes to ratification; No = no to ratification):
The Philippines
Amendment I: 89% Yes; 11% No
Amendment II: 82% Yes; 18% No
North Central Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 73% Yes; 27% No
Amendment II: 72% Yes; 28% No
Northeast Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 82% Yes; 18% No
Amendment II: 77% Yes; 23% No
Southcentral Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 72% Yes; 28% No
Amendment II: 68% Yes; 32% No
Southeastern Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 67% Yes; 33% No
Amendment II: 60% Yes; 40% No
Western Jurisdiction, USA
Amendment I: 95% Yes; 5% No
Amendment II: 76% Yes; 24% No
Europe excluding Eurasia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 81% Yes; 19% No
Amendment II: 78% Yes; 22% No
Eurasia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 10% Yes; 90% No
Amendment II: 35% Yes; 65% No
Eastern Angola Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 78% Yes; 22% No
Amendment II: 88% Yes; 12% No
Western Angola Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 84% Yes; 16% No
Amendment II: 89% Yes; 11% No
East Africa Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 34% Yes; 66% No
Amendment II: 16% Yes; 84% No
Mozambique Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% Yes
Amendment II: 100% Yes
Zimbabwe Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 25% Yes; 75% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Cote d'Ivoire Episcopal Area
Did not report results
Liberia Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Nigeria Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Sierra Leone Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
Central Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 15% Yes; 85% No
Amendment II: 1% Yes; 99% No
East Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 98% Yes; 2% No
Amendment II: 99% Yes; 1% No
North Katanga Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 100% No
Amendment II: 100% No
South Congo Episcopal Area
Amendment I: 11% Yes; 89% No
Amendment II: 6% Yes; 94% No
Monday, May 7, 2018
Recommended Readings: Bishops on A Way Forward
The United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops met last week to, among other things, act on the recommendations of the Commission on a Way Forward regarding proposals for a special called General Conference in February of 2019. This special called General Conference is intended to address the denomination's long-standing division over homosexuality, especially the practices of ordination of LGBTQ+ persons and gay church marriages.
The bishops made a recommendation, which is available in full here. A UMNS news article summarizes that recommendation.
There are three main takeaways:
1. The Council of Bishops has endorsed the One Church Plan, which would remove the restrictive language around homosexuality and make ordination and marriage matters of local and/or regional choice.
2. In their report to General Conference, the Council of Bishops will also include some description of the other two models considered: a Traditionalist Plan than focuses on stronger accountability to current standards on homosexuality and a Connectional Conference Plan that sort the denomination into three separate groups in the US based on views of homosexuality. There is some confusion whether the bishops intended to present these other two plans as legislation for consideration by General Conference or as appendixes to illustrate a historical narrative for how they reached their recommendation.
3. The bishops are not in agreement on which plan is the best. A majority of active bishops has endorsed the One Church Plan, but there is some level of support for each of the other two plans. Two bishops ([1] and [2]) referred to this support as "significant," but it is unclear what the exact level of support for each plan is, and the Council of Bishops has decided not to release vote totals.
More details about the bishops' recommendations will be forthcoming, with a full report issued by the deadline of July 8, and perhaps as soon as mid-June.
The Judicial Council will also be meeting May 22-25 to consider constitutional questions related to the special General Conference and the various proposals.
The bishops made a recommendation, which is available in full here. A UMNS news article summarizes that recommendation.
There are three main takeaways:
1. The Council of Bishops has endorsed the One Church Plan, which would remove the restrictive language around homosexuality and make ordination and marriage matters of local and/or regional choice.
2. In their report to General Conference, the Council of Bishops will also include some description of the other two models considered: a Traditionalist Plan than focuses on stronger accountability to current standards on homosexuality and a Connectional Conference Plan that sort the denomination into three separate groups in the US based on views of homosexuality. There is some confusion whether the bishops intended to present these other two plans as legislation for consideration by General Conference or as appendixes to illustrate a historical narrative for how they reached their recommendation.
3. The bishops are not in agreement on which plan is the best. A majority of active bishops has endorsed the One Church Plan, but there is some level of support for each of the other two plans. Two bishops ([1] and [2]) referred to this support as "significant," but it is unclear what the exact level of support for each plan is, and the Council of Bishops has decided not to release vote totals.
More details about the bishops' recommendations will be forthcoming, with a full report issued by the deadline of July 8, and perhaps as soon as mid-June.
The Judicial Council will also be meeting May 22-25 to consider constitutional questions related to the special General Conference and the various proposals.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Why the UMC is not the SBC
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.
Most watchers of United Methodist news have been eagerly/anxiously awaiting this week the forthcoming announcement by the Council of Bishops on what proposal they will put forward to the special called General Conference in 2019. This proposal, which will presumably be based on the work of the Commission On a Way Forward, is intended to resolve the denomination's decades-long battle over homosexuality, specifically the ordination and church marriage of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Whatever proposal the Council of Bishops put forward, it is unlikely to satisfy the demands of traditionalists in the denomination, who have stated they will accept nothing other than continued adherence to and full enforcement of the denomination's current position prohibiting gay ordination and gay marriage. Leaders of conservative leaders have indicated their intention to put forward their own legislation to accomplish this goal. This legislation could be introduced on the floor, even if the Judicial Council rules that it could not be submitted beforehand.
With these developments, many have wondered whether The United Methodist Church is in line for a Southern Baptist-style conservative takeover. For those unfamiliar, back in the 1980s, the most conservative/fundamentalist elements of the Southern Baptist Convention waged a campaign to gain control of the denomination, marginalizing the moderate wing that had previously been in power.
To assess such a possibility, I've been reading this week Nancy Ammerman's book about this process, Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. It's an even-handed, sociological account of this story. The book is well-written and insightful.
Much of what the book describes rings true to the situation of United Methodism. Conservatives who felt excluded from moderate-dominated denominational institutions seeking to assert their voices. Tightly drawn battle lines over issues, including who should be ordained. A very engaged and politically mobilized group on either end of the spectrum with a larger group in the middle open to persuasion but more invested in the status quo. Increasingly contentious and politicized denominational meetings. A specially designated group created to keep the peace.
Of course, there are important differences, too. 2019 will not be the same moment culturally for the US that 1979 or 1989 was, and the UMC has a substantial non-American constituency, which was not true of the SBC. These differences matter, but the parallels are nonetheless worth noting.
The biggest differences that emerged for me, though, were the nature of what was being fought over and the significance of regionalism in shaping the battle. In the following description, I am not trying to imply that either side in the UMC is theologically right or should prevail. Instead, I am merely trying to describe what I see as the differences between the SBC fight and the UMC fight.
First is the difference of the prize for which people were/are fighting. Southern Baptists were fighting for control of the denominational institutions - an executive committee, 4 boards, 9 commissions, and 6 seminaries. Neither side was seeking to substantially alter any of these institutions, just to be the ones in charge of setting the policy and choosing the personnel for them. To gain this control, Southern Baptist fundamentalists needed to elect fundamentalist convention presidents who would appoint fundamentalist committee members who would choose fundamentalist trustees for these institutions. Thus, in a very direct way, control of the presidency = control of the institutions. Despite being ostensibly congregationalist in their polity, Southern Baptists actually have very centralized denominational authority structures. This was a fight about gaining the reins of that legitimized central authority.
United Methodists, on the other hand, are fighting to set policy that is supposed to determine the behaviors of dozens of annual conferences and their Boards of Ordained Ministry and tens of thousands of elders and licensed local pastors. As United Methodists have already learned on the issue of sexuality, official denominational policy does not translate directly into specific behaviors by annual conferences and pastors, especially when there is substantial regional disagreement with such policies. United Methodists have substantial local and regional ability to resist denominational policy.
This observation brings me to my second point - regionalism. The conflict among Southern Baptists was correlated with life experiences (education, moving to the city or to the suburbs), but it was not well correlated with regional differences. There were slight differences between the Southeastern seaboard (GA, SC, NC, VA, and MD) and the old frontier Southeast (AL, MS, TN), but the conflict existed throughout all regions and was centered on institutions (the Convention meetings and the denominational bureaucracy) shared by all regions.
The United Methodist Church's conflict is highly regional in nature. While variation within regions exists, theological views differ most widely between regions, best dramatized in the US by the Western Jurisdiction and the Southeast Jurisdiction (to say nothing of United Methodism globally). Moreover, the conflict is not just about what denomination-wide policy should be, but about how that policy should be upheld and carried out by regional bodies. Actors at the regional level have additional sets of considerations beyond ideology in how they approach this conflict - they must also consider careers, relationships, impacts on local ministry, etc.
Herein lies the crux of the problem for United Methodist traditionalists. United Methodism, both inside the US and world-wide, has regional power deeply ingrained in its structures. The annual conference has been in many ways the basic unit of Methodism since its beginnings. Jurisdictions have exercised significant powers since their creation in 1939. It is clear by now that traditionalists have sufficient votes to control the policies set by General Conference, but it is equally clear that there are currently no adequate mechanisms for enforcing these policies throughout the connection.
Thus, whereas fundamentalist Southern Baptists were trying to take over the SBC structure as it stood, which could be done by focusing on its centralized power structure, United Methodist traditionalists face a much harder task. They must create new means of enforcement that go against deeply entrenched structures of United Methodist regionalism and allow traditionalists to exert authority in regions other than their own, even when local authorities are opposed to or ambivalent about traditionalist agendas.
It's quite possible that United Methodist traditionalists could pass legislation that would give them greater tools to exert more authorized authority and force across jurisdictional and annual conference lines. Such legislation would, however, require substantial innovations to United Methodist polity. As the bishops have been wrestling with this week, it's always harder to make structural changes that it is to make changes within the existing system. Yet it is still possible traditionalists could succeed in doing so.
It's also clear, however, that progressives, should they want to, would have means to resist this force. Despite traditionalist calls for progressives to take a "gracious exit" from the denomination, progressives have shown no impetus towards leaving and creating their own denomination. It's possible some would reconsider and move in that direction after a sufficiently demoralizing defeat at the special General Conference. But if others wanted to continue their current program of resistance within - raising legal objections through Judicial Council and possibly secular courts, following the letter and not the spirit of requirements, slow-walking the implementation of new polices, etc. - that would be a successful short-term strategy.
If progressives decided to mount such resistance, even in the face of new authority by traditionalists, traditionalists might still eventually be successful in their campaign to drive progressives out from the denomination. Yet it might take another five, ten, or even more years to do so. Even with their clear focus, it took fundamentalist Baptists a decade to solidify their wins. Moreover, such an eventual traditionalist United Methodist victory would involve a significant amount of continued and perhaps intensified fighting in the meantime.
There are many possible outcomes to the called General Conference in February of 2019. Yet it is quite possible that, while this special General Conference is supposed to resolve the debate over homosexuality, it will only shift that fight into other forms. United Methodists may well be still fighting over sexuality and related polity at General Conference 2024 and 2028 and perhaps beyond.
Most watchers of United Methodist news have been eagerly/anxiously awaiting this week the forthcoming announcement by the Council of Bishops on what proposal they will put forward to the special called General Conference in 2019. This proposal, which will presumably be based on the work of the Commission On a Way Forward, is intended to resolve the denomination's decades-long battle over homosexuality, specifically the ordination and church marriage of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Whatever proposal the Council of Bishops put forward, it is unlikely to satisfy the demands of traditionalists in the denomination, who have stated they will accept nothing other than continued adherence to and full enforcement of the denomination's current position prohibiting gay ordination and gay marriage. Leaders of conservative leaders have indicated their intention to put forward their own legislation to accomplish this goal. This legislation could be introduced on the floor, even if the Judicial Council rules that it could not be submitted beforehand.
With these developments, many have wondered whether The United Methodist Church is in line for a Southern Baptist-style conservative takeover. For those unfamiliar, back in the 1980s, the most conservative/fundamentalist elements of the Southern Baptist Convention waged a campaign to gain control of the denomination, marginalizing the moderate wing that had previously been in power.
To assess such a possibility, I've been reading this week Nancy Ammerman's book about this process, Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. It's an even-handed, sociological account of this story. The book is well-written and insightful.
Much of what the book describes rings true to the situation of United Methodism. Conservatives who felt excluded from moderate-dominated denominational institutions seeking to assert their voices. Tightly drawn battle lines over issues, including who should be ordained. A very engaged and politically mobilized group on either end of the spectrum with a larger group in the middle open to persuasion but more invested in the status quo. Increasingly contentious and politicized denominational meetings. A specially designated group created to keep the peace.
Of course, there are important differences, too. 2019 will not be the same moment culturally for the US that 1979 or 1989 was, and the UMC has a substantial non-American constituency, which was not true of the SBC. These differences matter, but the parallels are nonetheless worth noting.
The biggest differences that emerged for me, though, were the nature of what was being fought over and the significance of regionalism in shaping the battle. In the following description, I am not trying to imply that either side in the UMC is theologically right or should prevail. Instead, I am merely trying to describe what I see as the differences between the SBC fight and the UMC fight.
First is the difference of the prize for which people were/are fighting. Southern Baptists were fighting for control of the denominational institutions - an executive committee, 4 boards, 9 commissions, and 6 seminaries. Neither side was seeking to substantially alter any of these institutions, just to be the ones in charge of setting the policy and choosing the personnel for them. To gain this control, Southern Baptist fundamentalists needed to elect fundamentalist convention presidents who would appoint fundamentalist committee members who would choose fundamentalist trustees for these institutions. Thus, in a very direct way, control of the presidency = control of the institutions. Despite being ostensibly congregationalist in their polity, Southern Baptists actually have very centralized denominational authority structures. This was a fight about gaining the reins of that legitimized central authority.
United Methodists, on the other hand, are fighting to set policy that is supposed to determine the behaviors of dozens of annual conferences and their Boards of Ordained Ministry and tens of thousands of elders and licensed local pastors. As United Methodists have already learned on the issue of sexuality, official denominational policy does not translate directly into specific behaviors by annual conferences and pastors, especially when there is substantial regional disagreement with such policies. United Methodists have substantial local and regional ability to resist denominational policy.
This observation brings me to my second point - regionalism. The conflict among Southern Baptists was correlated with life experiences (education, moving to the city or to the suburbs), but it was not well correlated with regional differences. There were slight differences between the Southeastern seaboard (GA, SC, NC, VA, and MD) and the old frontier Southeast (AL, MS, TN), but the conflict existed throughout all regions and was centered on institutions (the Convention meetings and the denominational bureaucracy) shared by all regions.
The United Methodist Church's conflict is highly regional in nature. While variation within regions exists, theological views differ most widely between regions, best dramatized in the US by the Western Jurisdiction and the Southeast Jurisdiction (to say nothing of United Methodism globally). Moreover, the conflict is not just about what denomination-wide policy should be, but about how that policy should be upheld and carried out by regional bodies. Actors at the regional level have additional sets of considerations beyond ideology in how they approach this conflict - they must also consider careers, relationships, impacts on local ministry, etc.
Herein lies the crux of the problem for United Methodist traditionalists. United Methodism, both inside the US and world-wide, has regional power deeply ingrained in its structures. The annual conference has been in many ways the basic unit of Methodism since its beginnings. Jurisdictions have exercised significant powers since their creation in 1939. It is clear by now that traditionalists have sufficient votes to control the policies set by General Conference, but it is equally clear that there are currently no adequate mechanisms for enforcing these policies throughout the connection.
Thus, whereas fundamentalist Southern Baptists were trying to take over the SBC structure as it stood, which could be done by focusing on its centralized power structure, United Methodist traditionalists face a much harder task. They must create new means of enforcement that go against deeply entrenched structures of United Methodist regionalism and allow traditionalists to exert authority in regions other than their own, even when local authorities are opposed to or ambivalent about traditionalist agendas.
It's quite possible that United Methodist traditionalists could pass legislation that would give them greater tools to exert more authorized authority and force across jurisdictional and annual conference lines. Such legislation would, however, require substantial innovations to United Methodist polity. As the bishops have been wrestling with this week, it's always harder to make structural changes that it is to make changes within the existing system. Yet it is still possible traditionalists could succeed in doing so.
It's also clear, however, that progressives, should they want to, would have means to resist this force. Despite traditionalist calls for progressives to take a "gracious exit" from the denomination, progressives have shown no impetus towards leaving and creating their own denomination. It's possible some would reconsider and move in that direction after a sufficiently demoralizing defeat at the special General Conference. But if others wanted to continue their current program of resistance within - raising legal objections through Judicial Council and possibly secular courts, following the letter and not the spirit of requirements, slow-walking the implementation of new polices, etc. - that would be a successful short-term strategy.
If progressives decided to mount such resistance, even in the face of new authority by traditionalists, traditionalists might still eventually be successful in their campaign to drive progressives out from the denomination. Yet it might take another five, ten, or even more years to do so. Even with their clear focus, it took fundamentalist Baptists a decade to solidify their wins. Moreover, such an eventual traditionalist United Methodist victory would involve a significant amount of continued and perhaps intensified fighting in the meantime.
There are many possible outcomes to the called General Conference in February of 2019. Yet it is quite possible that, while this special General Conference is supposed to resolve the debate over homosexuality, it will only shift that fight into other forms. United Methodists may well be still fighting over sexuality and related polity at General Conference 2024 and 2028 and perhaps beyond.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
William Taylor, reconsidered
Today’s post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott. It is the fourth of a four-part series on money and relationships in the global church. Dr. Scott is Director of Mission Theology for the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent official positions of Global Ministries.
Over the past few weeks, I have been raising the question of how United Methodists can face the problem of vast economic inequality in the church in a way that preserves relationship between rich and poor without turning those relationships into ones of dependence solidifying inequalities of power. After looking at asset-based approaches to sharing resources and reducing the amount of structure poorer branches of the church need to pay for, this post will look at means by which poorer United Methodists can generate their own resources, thus reducing long-term dependency of the poor upon the rich.
As it turns out, United Methodists have one of the best exemplars of such an approach to church economics in our own history: Bishop William Taylor. You may never have heard of William Taylor. Yet he was one of the most influential architects of nineteenth century Methodist mission and the global nature of the church that is with us today.
Taylor came to prominence as a frontier preacher in California, global evangelist, and originator of Methodist mission in many countries around the world. He was also well-noted as a proponent of what he called self-supporting mission. Taylor thought that Westerners should not pay for missionaries or new churches around the world. They should be financed through local resources. Essentially, Taylor favored implementing the self-financing pillar of three-self mission theory from the very beginning, not when new churches had reached a certain level of development. Self-support for Taylor was about more than giving by congregations on the mission field, though. It also involved entrepreneurial approaches to church and church-run businesses, so-called tent-making.
Taylor based his theory of self-supporting mission both on the tent-making apostle Paul and on his own life experiences. Neither Taylor nor the dozens of missionaries he recruited and deployed ever practiced this theory in a pure form, but Taylor was the most significant proponent of this approach in his day. He and his missionaries influenced the development of Methodism in India, Southeast Asia, Angola, the Congo, and South America.
There are risks to this approach. The participation of the church in the economy may create moral hazards – opportunities for the church to end up on the wrong side of business ethics. Businesses can and do fail, and church-run businesses are no different. Successful church-run businesses require a good deal of expertise and effort that could go into other aspects of the church. Moreover, this approach requires the local economy to be sufficiently developed to provide sufficient resources and opportunities for successful tent-making businesses. Some of Taylor’s own missions failed for lack of sufficient tent-making business opportunities.
Yet this self-supporting approach undoubtedly gives churches that take it greater autonomy than would be offered by outside funding. The independence of Taylor and his missionaries often created headaches for the mission board, which wanted to exercise tighter control over its missions, but in a post-colonial world in which we seek greater equality between branches of the church, that independence and autonomy are positives. Autonomy need not be antithetical to accountability to the broader church, even as it is opposed to control by outsiders.
Taylor’s ideas and approach were largely marginalized and forgotten in Methodism after his death. They lived on in the approach to mission taken by faith missions. Faith missions, however, became increasingly associated with evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism. Current business-as-mission models, popular in many evangelical circles, are in part heirs of Taylor.
Yet West African United Methodists today are creating some projects that would undoubtedly make Taylor proud. Through church-run office buildings and agricultural projects, these churches are seeking to generate revenues for themselves and reduce their dependence on Western partners. And although such UMC countries as Liberia are poor by global standards, the economy in much of sub-Saharan Africa is growing quickly, meaning there are economic opportunities that the church could seize if it were able.
Where does this financial model leave wealthy Westerners who want to partner with their poorer fellow United Methodists? How can they support other’s efforts at self-support in ways that don’t undermine that very self-determination? Providing financing, including microcredit, and business consulting are certainly two important ways to do so. These must be done, however, in ways that leave the initiative, ownership, and control with locals and ways that respect locals’ own business skills and knowledge and don’t presume that Americans know business best.
Beyond direct support of tent-making endeavors, this approach also suggests the importance of supporting peace-building efforts and infrastructure development as an approach to mission partnerships, as these create the bases for sustained local economic growth. Again, locals must take the lead, but there are still opportunities for the rich who are willing to listen and be led by the poor.
Indeed, a willingness by the rich to listen to and be led by the poor must be at the heart of any attempt to deal with the problem of economic inequality in The United Methodist Church. Yet if the rich are willing to do so, they will find that the rewards include not just a more equitable global church but spiritual blessings for themselves as well.
Over the past few weeks, I have been raising the question of how United Methodists can face the problem of vast economic inequality in the church in a way that preserves relationship between rich and poor without turning those relationships into ones of dependence solidifying inequalities of power. After looking at asset-based approaches to sharing resources and reducing the amount of structure poorer branches of the church need to pay for, this post will look at means by which poorer United Methodists can generate their own resources, thus reducing long-term dependency of the poor upon the rich.
As it turns out, United Methodists have one of the best exemplars of such an approach to church economics in our own history: Bishop William Taylor. You may never have heard of William Taylor. Yet he was one of the most influential architects of nineteenth century Methodist mission and the global nature of the church that is with us today.
Taylor came to prominence as a frontier preacher in California, global evangelist, and originator of Methodist mission in many countries around the world. He was also well-noted as a proponent of what he called self-supporting mission. Taylor thought that Westerners should not pay for missionaries or new churches around the world. They should be financed through local resources. Essentially, Taylor favored implementing the self-financing pillar of three-self mission theory from the very beginning, not when new churches had reached a certain level of development. Self-support for Taylor was about more than giving by congregations on the mission field, though. It also involved entrepreneurial approaches to church and church-run businesses, so-called tent-making.
Taylor based his theory of self-supporting mission both on the tent-making apostle Paul and on his own life experiences. Neither Taylor nor the dozens of missionaries he recruited and deployed ever practiced this theory in a pure form, but Taylor was the most significant proponent of this approach in his day. He and his missionaries influenced the development of Methodism in India, Southeast Asia, Angola, the Congo, and South America.
There are risks to this approach. The participation of the church in the economy may create moral hazards – opportunities for the church to end up on the wrong side of business ethics. Businesses can and do fail, and church-run businesses are no different. Successful church-run businesses require a good deal of expertise and effort that could go into other aspects of the church. Moreover, this approach requires the local economy to be sufficiently developed to provide sufficient resources and opportunities for successful tent-making businesses. Some of Taylor’s own missions failed for lack of sufficient tent-making business opportunities.
Yet this self-supporting approach undoubtedly gives churches that take it greater autonomy than would be offered by outside funding. The independence of Taylor and his missionaries often created headaches for the mission board, which wanted to exercise tighter control over its missions, but in a post-colonial world in which we seek greater equality between branches of the church, that independence and autonomy are positives. Autonomy need not be antithetical to accountability to the broader church, even as it is opposed to control by outsiders.
Taylor’s ideas and approach were largely marginalized and forgotten in Methodism after his death. They lived on in the approach to mission taken by faith missions. Faith missions, however, became increasingly associated with evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism. Current business-as-mission models, popular in many evangelical circles, are in part heirs of Taylor.
Yet West African United Methodists today are creating some projects that would undoubtedly make Taylor proud. Through church-run office buildings and agricultural projects, these churches are seeking to generate revenues for themselves and reduce their dependence on Western partners. And although such UMC countries as Liberia are poor by global standards, the economy in much of sub-Saharan Africa is growing quickly, meaning there are economic opportunities that the church could seize if it were able.
Where does this financial model leave wealthy Westerners who want to partner with their poorer fellow United Methodists? How can they support other’s efforts at self-support in ways that don’t undermine that very self-determination? Providing financing, including microcredit, and business consulting are certainly two important ways to do so. These must be done, however, in ways that leave the initiative, ownership, and control with locals and ways that respect locals’ own business skills and knowledge and don’t presume that Americans know business best.
Beyond direct support of tent-making endeavors, this approach also suggests the importance of supporting peace-building efforts and infrastructure development as an approach to mission partnerships, as these create the bases for sustained local economic growth. Again, locals must take the lead, but there are still opportunities for the rich who are willing to listen and be led by the poor.
Indeed, a willingness by the rich to listen to and be led by the poor must be at the heart of any attempt to deal with the problem of economic inequality in The United Methodist Church. Yet if the rich are willing to do so, they will find that the rewards include not just a more equitable global church but spiritual blessings for themselves as well.