Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Pages
▼
Friday, August 30, 2019
Recommended Viewing: UM Creation Care Summit Videos
Videos of presentations from the 2019 UM Creation Care Summit are now available on YouTube. These videos include both keynote presenters and workshop leaders. For those who were unable to attend the event, these videos provide a good resource to help local churches and students identify the state of the conversation about creation care in the UMC and what actions faithful United Methodists are taking to address this missional concern. A UMNS story about the event provides a background.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
With, Not About, the Central Conferences
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.
During General Conference 2019 and since then, queer United Methodists and their allies have had an important slogan: "with, not about."
This slogan indicates that The United Methodist Church should not talk about LGBTQ+ persons in a way that does not include them in the conversation. Instead, the church should talk with them when discerning matters related to their lives so that their perspectives and insights can inform the whole body's decision-making. This commentary by Jorge Lockward gives a good introduction into the problems that arise when the church talks about without talking with.
A quick review of mission history also shows many of the problems of talking about, not with. Missionaries who sought to impose their cultural understandings upon potential converts without seeking to understand the world and the gospel through the eyes of others often did much harm and were much less effective in sharing God's good news. Those missionaries who were most successful and most beloved by the people among whom they ministered were those who were willing to talk with, not about, native peoples and to learn from and be transformed by them.
Thus, this principle of "with, not about" follows important missional insights from the last century. I have written elsewhere about how mission is a conversation about God's good news, where those conversations take place in the context of relationships across boundaries. Conversation is never one-sided. A conversation about the good news that God has for LGBTQ+ persons is a conversation that must involve them and be informed by their understandings of what is good and how God brings about newness in the world.
Conversation does not presume that one side's pre-existing views will predominate. It is instead a space for each side to learn from and be informed by the other. Ideally, this process of mutual learning will allow God to create something new through that interaction reveals God's goodness in a way that goes beyond the ways that any one party understood at the beginning. But that transformation cannot happen if not all parties feel like they have been heard in the conversation.
Thus, the principle of "with, not about" is a good one and should be affirmed in its usage for the LGBTQ+ community. Yet it should also be extended beyond its present usage.
If it is important to include LGBTQ+ persons as marginalized people in conversations that directly impact their lives and their place in the church, then when we are having conversations that directly impact the lives and place in the church of other marginalized groups, we must have those conversations with and not just about those groups.
In particular, in discerning the future of The United Methodist Church, we must have conversations with, not about, persons in the central conferences.
The possibility of breaking apart the UMC is an issue that directly impacts the lives and the place in the church of members in the central conferences, whose views and voices have traditionally been marginalized in the church. US United Methodists must talk with, not about, those in the central conferences regarding what our relationships will look like in the future, how we can be the church together, and what God is saying to us as a group at this moment.
Note here that I am advocating that we talk about the nature of the relationships we have. I am not saying that pre-existing central conference views on sexuality should predominate. Sexuality is one issue that US United Methodists need to hear more from central conference sisters and brothers, in part so that our understanding of their concerns and perspectives can go beyond stereotypes and charicatures, but it is a part and not the whole of the conversation we need to have.
The real conversation we need to have together is what our mutual relationships will and should look like in the future. There have been several plans that have already come out proposing one way or another of splitting The United Methodist Church. From what I can tell, all of these plans have been drafted by US Americans with the impacts on US Americans as their main concern. To my knowledge, none of the plans thus far have been significantly informed by talking with United Methodists in the central conferences. The plans address the status of those in the central conferences, but in a way that is much more about than with.
This is not an acceptable way to try to discern the future of United Methodism for several reasons. First, it violates the ethical and missional principles set forth in the slogan of "with, not about." Second, from a practical perspective it is likely to fail. Central conference delegates are not likely to vote for any plan that they do not think takes them or their interests into consideration, and no plan is likely to pass without significant central conference support.
The principles of "with, not about" the central conferences is why I'm eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the group led by Bishop Yambasu. That seems to me to be one of the few conversations about the future of the church right now that is following the principle of "with, not about" the central conferences.
Yet whatever form it takes, for United Methodists to figure out a future, even a future of division into multiple bodies, it is crucial that those conversations happen with, not about, all those impacted by such significant decisions - LGBTQ+ persons and those in the central conferences both.
During General Conference 2019 and since then, queer United Methodists and their allies have had an important slogan: "with, not about."
This slogan indicates that The United Methodist Church should not talk about LGBTQ+ persons in a way that does not include them in the conversation. Instead, the church should talk with them when discerning matters related to their lives so that their perspectives and insights can inform the whole body's decision-making. This commentary by Jorge Lockward gives a good introduction into the problems that arise when the church talks about without talking with.
A quick review of mission history also shows many of the problems of talking about, not with. Missionaries who sought to impose their cultural understandings upon potential converts without seeking to understand the world and the gospel through the eyes of others often did much harm and were much less effective in sharing God's good news. Those missionaries who were most successful and most beloved by the people among whom they ministered were those who were willing to talk with, not about, native peoples and to learn from and be transformed by them.
Thus, this principle of "with, not about" follows important missional insights from the last century. I have written elsewhere about how mission is a conversation about God's good news, where those conversations take place in the context of relationships across boundaries. Conversation is never one-sided. A conversation about the good news that God has for LGBTQ+ persons is a conversation that must involve them and be informed by their understandings of what is good and how God brings about newness in the world.
Conversation does not presume that one side's pre-existing views will predominate. It is instead a space for each side to learn from and be informed by the other. Ideally, this process of mutual learning will allow God to create something new through that interaction reveals God's goodness in a way that goes beyond the ways that any one party understood at the beginning. But that transformation cannot happen if not all parties feel like they have been heard in the conversation.
Thus, the principle of "with, not about" is a good one and should be affirmed in its usage for the LGBTQ+ community. Yet it should also be extended beyond its present usage.
If it is important to include LGBTQ+ persons as marginalized people in conversations that directly impact their lives and their place in the church, then when we are having conversations that directly impact the lives and place in the church of other marginalized groups, we must have those conversations with and not just about those groups.
In particular, in discerning the future of The United Methodist Church, we must have conversations with, not about, persons in the central conferences.
The possibility of breaking apart the UMC is an issue that directly impacts the lives and the place in the church of members in the central conferences, whose views and voices have traditionally been marginalized in the church. US United Methodists must talk with, not about, those in the central conferences regarding what our relationships will look like in the future, how we can be the church together, and what God is saying to us as a group at this moment.
Note here that I am advocating that we talk about the nature of the relationships we have. I am not saying that pre-existing central conference views on sexuality should predominate. Sexuality is one issue that US United Methodists need to hear more from central conference sisters and brothers, in part so that our understanding of their concerns and perspectives can go beyond stereotypes and charicatures, but it is a part and not the whole of the conversation we need to have.
The real conversation we need to have together is what our mutual relationships will and should look like in the future. There have been several plans that have already come out proposing one way or another of splitting The United Methodist Church. From what I can tell, all of these plans have been drafted by US Americans with the impacts on US Americans as their main concern. To my knowledge, none of the plans thus far have been significantly informed by talking with United Methodists in the central conferences. The plans address the status of those in the central conferences, but in a way that is much more about than with.
This is not an acceptable way to try to discern the future of United Methodism for several reasons. First, it violates the ethical and missional principles set forth in the slogan of "with, not about." Second, from a practical perspective it is likely to fail. Central conference delegates are not likely to vote for any plan that they do not think takes them or their interests into consideration, and no plan is likely to pass without significant central conference support.
The principles of "with, not about" the central conferences is why I'm eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the group led by Bishop Yambasu. That seems to me to be one of the few conversations about the future of the church right now that is following the principle of "with, not about" the central conferences.
Yet whatever form it takes, for United Methodists to figure out a future, even a future of division into multiple bodies, it is crucial that those conversations happen with, not about, all those impacted by such significant decisions - LGBTQ+ persons and those in the central conferences both.
Monday, August 26, 2019
Recommended Viewing: The US & the Central Conferences at the UM Scholars Conference
While much of the Post-Way-Forward Gathering of UM Scholars focused on the US context, a few presentations looked at the relationship between the US and the Central Conferences.
Darryl W. Stephens presented on "United Methodism at the End of White Christian America." In his piece, he argued that the current conflicts in the UMC have their roots in a world in which white Christians were a dominant cultural force in America, and Americans were the dominant force in the UMC. Yet, white Christianity no longer holds the same dominant place in this country, and the UMC as a denomination has become increasingly less American and more international in its membership. Stephens closes by arguing that "General Conference must address the primary, urgent, pervasive, and political nature of the global challenges in the UMC."
Anne Burkholder's presentation on fine-grained attention to vote counts, however, indicates just how difficult building coalitions for change in the UMC is. She notes how the conversation is at very different places in different countries. Burkholder explains how, despite a centrist-progressive wave at GC2020 delegate elections in the US, US delegates along cannot push forward changes on their own. Yet, as Burkholder notes, it matters what the question is when it comes to anticipating central conference responses. Among the potential questions Burkholder examines is the proposal to create a separate US structure/region/central conference.
Taken together, Stephens' and Burkholders' presentations highlight the important of Americans having conversations "with not about" central conferences regarding the future of the church, a theme I will expand upon in a subsequent post.
Darryl W. Stephens presented on "United Methodism at the End of White Christian America." In his piece, he argued that the current conflicts in the UMC have their roots in a world in which white Christians were a dominant cultural force in America, and Americans were the dominant force in the UMC. Yet, white Christianity no longer holds the same dominant place in this country, and the UMC as a denomination has become increasingly less American and more international in its membership. Stephens closes by arguing that "General Conference must address the primary, urgent, pervasive, and political nature of the global challenges in the UMC."
Anne Burkholder's presentation on fine-grained attention to vote counts, however, indicates just how difficult building coalitions for change in the UMC is. She notes how the conversation is at very different places in different countries. Burkholder explains how, despite a centrist-progressive wave at GC2020 delegate elections in the US, US delegates along cannot push forward changes on their own. Yet, as Burkholder notes, it matters what the question is when it comes to anticipating central conference responses. Among the potential questions Burkholder examines is the proposal to create a separate US structure/region/central conference.
Taken together, Stephens' and Burkholders' presentations highlight the important of Americans having conversations "with not about" central conferences regarding the future of the church, a theme I will expand upon in a subsequent post.
Friday, August 23, 2019
Plan Now: Wyandotte Land Return
Global Ministries' founding 200 years ago was inspired by the work of John Stewart, a self-appointed African-American missionary to the Wyandotte/Wynadott/Wyandot Native Americans in Ohio. Stewart's work led to the conversion of Chief Mononcue, Chief Between-the-Logs, and many other Wyandotte, leading to the formal establishment of the Wyandotte Church and Mission.
When the Wyandotte were expelled from their land in 1843, they negotiated with the US federal government for the Methodist Episcopal Church to receive the land on which the church building sat, and Global Ministries has held that land in trust ever since.
On September 21 of this year, Global Ministries will return that land to the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma in a public ceremony in Upper Sandusky, OH.
More information about the land return can be found through a Global Ministries press release and an article from the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference.
To register to attend the land return, visit this Global Ministries page.
When the Wyandotte were expelled from their land in 1843, they negotiated with the US federal government for the Methodist Episcopal Church to receive the land on which the church building sat, and Global Ministries has held that land in trust ever since.
On September 21 of this year, Global Ministries will return that land to the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma in a public ceremony in Upper Sandusky, OH.
More information about the land return can be found through a Global Ministries press release and an article from the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference.
To register to attend the land return, visit this Global Ministries page.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Knut Refsdal: Consensus-based processes in the church
Today's post is by Rev. Knut Refsdal, District Superintendent for The United Methodist Church in Norway. Rev. Refsdal here explains the consensus-decision making model used at this year's Norway Annual Conference meeting.
Given the situation the church finds itself in after the specially called session of the General Conference earlier this year, there was a great deal of excitement before our Annual Conference in Norway in June. It was therefore of great importance how the various cases were handled.
From the Cabinet's point of view, we decided early on that we would try to facilitate consensus-based processes. This is a process where we search for a common opinion without using formal voting and where we engage in a genuine and respectful dialogue. This is important for a church. As a church, we are called to work against all forms of divisions so that God's reconciled fellowship can become visible. We do this also in the way decisions are made.
Consensus doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone agrees. We also say that we have reached consensus when one of the following happens: Either that all those who have the right to make decisions agree on a result or most agree and that those who disagree accept that they have been heard and that they can live with the result. Thus, agreement on a result is not limited to confirming the wording of a proposal. It may also be that a consensus has been reached on another result, such as agreeing to reject a proposal, referring a case to further processing or confirming that one can take different positions in relation to the case in question.
Consensus is a willingness to explore and develop alternative ways of decision-making than what are often called "parliamentary methods." The latter aims to structure debates and proposals in such a way that they can lead to majority decisions. We know these methods very well in the church These are not methods that emphasize a goal of unity, nor are they methods that necessarily foster collaboration and broad participation and inclusion. I would say the contrary, these often promote factions with the result that one easily ends up with winners and losers in a process, which can be detrimental to internal relationships and make decisions more difficult to implement.
The goals for consensus processes are therefore: Better decisions, better implementation of decisions and better group relationships.
The following are some key principles that underpin consensus as a form of decision:
Inclusive and participatory: In a consensus process, everyone affected by a decision is included and encouraged to participate and contribute towards a final decision. Likewise, the goal is to address the needs of everyone involved in the process. Consensus is therefore a search for common opinion, understanding and will without the use of formal voting and where one strives for more voices to be heard.
Consensus seeking: Consensus is a process that seeks to reach as much consensus as possible on a decision. There is therefore a great deal of room for dialogue, consultation, exploration, questions, reflection and cooperation that increases respect and understanding.
Process-oriented: Consensus emphasizes the process towards a decision, not just the result. Therefore, all participants' views and perspectives are respected and appreciated. This means that one invests a lot also in the way a decision is made, not just in the decision itself.
Collaborative oriented: Consensus is dependent on the willingness to co-operate. All participants are encouraged to help shape matters in such a way that it can lead to a result that safeguards everyone's concerns. This is based on the belief that, by listening to everyone's perspectives, the community is better able to make decisions that most people can agree on. Consensus therefore presupposes that everyone listens with openness and humility in order to also seek the insight of others, and this implies an attitude of respectful expectation since everyone is working towards a common goal. In the concept of consensus, there is therefore an expectation of a willingness to put the interests of the whole above one’s own preferences. In locked situations, therefore, all parties must be encouraged to work together to find solutions that everyone can live with.
Relationship-building: Consensus seeks to build good group relationships through decision-making. This is intended both to create a foundation for future decisions and to improve the implementation of decisions.
At our Annual Conference, there were three proposals on the table regarding the decisions at the specially called session of the General Conference: One proposal supported the Traditional Plan. Another proposal included a statement for full inclusion. A third proposal called for more theological studies. Many voiced their opinion in the dialogue and two more proposals were presented.
It was clear, during the exploring period, which often is the starting point in a consensus-based decision-making process, that there was a solid majority for full inclusion. But there were no ordinary votes on the proposals. Instead a consensus process was used to guide the conference to a broadest possible consensus on the matter. Every delegate was given orange and blue colored papers to indicate agreement or disagreement. The minority was given time to voice their concerns and the proposals were adjusted accordingly.
The people behind the different proposals were asked to work on a joint proposal, weighted by the consensus indications given. They came back with a single proposal that included:
• an agreement that the large majority wants full inclusion.
• a willingness to respect the view of the minority that wants to uphold the discipline.
• a strong determination to keep TUMC in Norway together.
• to establish a broad commission to seek a way to fully include LGBTQ+ persons and map consequences for the discipline, finances, organization and international connections.
• to deliver a report to the Annual Conference 2020 for deliberations and actions.
The church in Norway is not of one mind in this matter, but the will of the majority is clear and the majority is willing to make concessions to include as many as possible. This achieved a consensus and a broad platform for our upcoming work for the next year.
Given the situation the church finds itself in after the specially called session of the General Conference earlier this year, there was a great deal of excitement before our Annual Conference in Norway in June. It was therefore of great importance how the various cases were handled.
From the Cabinet's point of view, we decided early on that we would try to facilitate consensus-based processes. This is a process where we search for a common opinion without using formal voting and where we engage in a genuine and respectful dialogue. This is important for a church. As a church, we are called to work against all forms of divisions so that God's reconciled fellowship can become visible. We do this also in the way decisions are made.
Consensus doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone agrees. We also say that we have reached consensus when one of the following happens: Either that all those who have the right to make decisions agree on a result or most agree and that those who disagree accept that they have been heard and that they can live with the result. Thus, agreement on a result is not limited to confirming the wording of a proposal. It may also be that a consensus has been reached on another result, such as agreeing to reject a proposal, referring a case to further processing or confirming that one can take different positions in relation to the case in question.
Consensus is a willingness to explore and develop alternative ways of decision-making than what are often called "parliamentary methods." The latter aims to structure debates and proposals in such a way that they can lead to majority decisions. We know these methods very well in the church These are not methods that emphasize a goal of unity, nor are they methods that necessarily foster collaboration and broad participation and inclusion. I would say the contrary, these often promote factions with the result that one easily ends up with winners and losers in a process, which can be detrimental to internal relationships and make decisions more difficult to implement.
The goals for consensus processes are therefore: Better decisions, better implementation of decisions and better group relationships.
The following are some key principles that underpin consensus as a form of decision:
Inclusive and participatory: In a consensus process, everyone affected by a decision is included and encouraged to participate and contribute towards a final decision. Likewise, the goal is to address the needs of everyone involved in the process. Consensus is therefore a search for common opinion, understanding and will without the use of formal voting and where one strives for more voices to be heard.
Consensus seeking: Consensus is a process that seeks to reach as much consensus as possible on a decision. There is therefore a great deal of room for dialogue, consultation, exploration, questions, reflection and cooperation that increases respect and understanding.
Process-oriented: Consensus emphasizes the process towards a decision, not just the result. Therefore, all participants' views and perspectives are respected and appreciated. This means that one invests a lot also in the way a decision is made, not just in the decision itself.
Collaborative oriented: Consensus is dependent on the willingness to co-operate. All participants are encouraged to help shape matters in such a way that it can lead to a result that safeguards everyone's concerns. This is based on the belief that, by listening to everyone's perspectives, the community is better able to make decisions that most people can agree on. Consensus therefore presupposes that everyone listens with openness and humility in order to also seek the insight of others, and this implies an attitude of respectful expectation since everyone is working towards a common goal. In the concept of consensus, there is therefore an expectation of a willingness to put the interests of the whole above one’s own preferences. In locked situations, therefore, all parties must be encouraged to work together to find solutions that everyone can live with.
Relationship-building: Consensus seeks to build good group relationships through decision-making. This is intended both to create a foundation for future decisions and to improve the implementation of decisions.
At our Annual Conference, there were three proposals on the table regarding the decisions at the specially called session of the General Conference: One proposal supported the Traditional Plan. Another proposal included a statement for full inclusion. A third proposal called for more theological studies. Many voiced their opinion in the dialogue and two more proposals were presented.
It was clear, during the exploring period, which often is the starting point in a consensus-based decision-making process, that there was a solid majority for full inclusion. But there were no ordinary votes on the proposals. Instead a consensus process was used to guide the conference to a broadest possible consensus on the matter. Every delegate was given orange and blue colored papers to indicate agreement or disagreement. The minority was given time to voice their concerns and the proposals were adjusted accordingly.
The people behind the different proposals were asked to work on a joint proposal, weighted by the consensus indications given. They came back with a single proposal that included:
• an agreement that the large majority wants full inclusion.
• a willingness to respect the view of the minority that wants to uphold the discipline.
• a strong determination to keep TUMC in Norway together.
• to establish a broad commission to seek a way to fully include LGBTQ+ persons and map consequences for the discipline, finances, organization and international connections.
• to deliver a report to the Annual Conference 2020 for deliberations and actions.
The church in Norway is not of one mind in this matter, but the will of the majority is clear and the majority is willing to make concessions to include as many as possible. This achieved a consensus and a broad platform for our upcoming work for the next year.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Recommended Reading/Listening: Renee Bach and the White Savior Complex
Recently, NPR ran a thorough story about Renee Bach, an American woman who ran a critical care center in Uganda for undernourished children. Bach ran her care center as a Christian mission endeavor, directly motivated by her faith and relying on US church support.
Despite lacking any medical training, education beyond a high school diploma, or appropriate licensure, Bach was involved in providing medical care for severely undernourishing children, over a hundred of whom died in her care. She is now being sued in Ugandan civil court on behalf of the mothers of two of the children that died.
As a missiologist, Bach's story struck me as an extreme and horrific example of some of the negative aspects of American mission abroad, in particular the "White Savior Complex" - the notion that middle-class or well-to-do white Americans working in impoverished contexts can transform those contexts just becuase of the privileges associated with their background, regardless of any skills, expertise, or knowledge they may possess.
For those looking to learn more about the White Savior Complex, the Failed Missionary website ran a three-part podcast about this topic. Each podcast is about 70 minutes long and is hosted by Corey Pigg of Failed Missionary and Emily Worrall of Barbie Savior.
Despite lacking any medical training, education beyond a high school diploma, or appropriate licensure, Bach was involved in providing medical care for severely undernourishing children, over a hundred of whom died in her care. She is now being sued in Ugandan civil court on behalf of the mothers of two of the children that died.
As a missiologist, Bach's story struck me as an extreme and horrific example of some of the negative aspects of American mission abroad, in particular the "White Savior Complex" - the notion that middle-class or well-to-do white Americans working in impoverished contexts can transform those contexts just becuase of the privileges associated with their background, regardless of any skills, expertise, or knowledge they may possess.
For those looking to learn more about the White Savior Complex, the Failed Missionary website ran a three-part podcast about this topic. Each podcast is about 70 minutes long and is hosted by Corey Pigg of Failed Missionary and Emily Worrall of Barbie Savior.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Recommended Viewing: Hilde Marie Movafagh on the Divide over LGBTQ Issues in the UMC in Europe
Rev. Hilde Marie Movafagh, the rector of the United Methodist Seminary in Oslo, made a presentation at the Post-Way-Forward Gathering of UM Scholars last week in Dallas entitled, "The Iron Curtain is Back: The United Methodist Church in Europe in the aftermath of GC2019." The presentation provides an overview of the differences in thinking on the place of LGBTQ persons in the church between Western and Eastern Europe and the resultant tensions within the UMC in Europe. The 15 minute-long presentation is an excellent overview for anyone wanting to better understand how the fallout of GC2019 is affecting United Methodism in Europe.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Europeans Give More to Central Conferences Than the WCA
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.
Over the past two months, I have done a series of posts on the amount of US financial support for central conferences, central conference internal giving, and the impact of American money on the future of The United Methodist Church as a global denomination. It has been my main intention to provide facts and context for the difficult conversations that are taking place about the future of the UMC as an international body.
One area I did not explore in that series was the money that European United Methodists – primarily those from Germany, Switzerland, and Norway – give to mission and other ministries in other central conferences. Yet those figures are relatively easy to gather, so this post will do that, along with suggesting some comparisons between various funding figures and what these funding relationships mean for discussions of the future of the denomination.
First, to the amount given by Europeans. I’ll look at each of the three European mission boards, starting with Connexio, the mission board of Swiss United Methodists. Connexio has a useful annual report which details how much it spends in various geographic areas. In 2018, that amounted to 921,156 Swiss Francs in Eastern Europe and 407,756 CHF in Africa, mostly in the DRC. The total is thus 1,328,912 CHF, which converts to about $1,360,000 USD in 2018 to the central conferences. It should be noted that Connexio also gives to the UMC’s Cambodia mission and mission work in other countries not part of the UMC central conferences.
Germany’s EmK Weltmission has a project list for each of the countries in which it works, with 2019 commitments of support for each project. It is not entirely clear whether these figures represent firm commitments or fundraising goals; nevertheless, they provide an indicator of support in lieu of an easily-procured financial statement. For work in Eastern Europe, Weltmission has committed 58,000 Euros in 2019. For work in Africa, it has committed €603,900. Thus, the total to UMC central conferences is €661,900, or about $740,000 USD. As with Connexio, Weltmission supports additional mission work in countries other than the UMC central conferences.
Norway’s Misjonsselskap has work in four countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Lithuania. According to the yearly audit submitted to this year’s Annual Conference, Misjonsselskapet spent 10,852,086 Norwegian Kroner on projects in 2018, about 80% of which was underwritten by government support. That works out to about $1,220,000 USD. The report does not make clear the division between Lithuania and the three African countries, but it is clear from Misjonsskelskapet’s website that the vast majority of the support goes to Africa.
Adding the three totals together, one gets about $3,320,000 USD yearly in support for the central conferences from the three European United Methodist mission societies. As both the Germany and Norwegian mission agency sites make clear, individuals and congregations give additional funds directly to partners in the central conferences, but this $3.3 million is the total through the mission boards.
On the one hand, this $3 .3 million is less than a tenth of the approximately $40 million that flows from the US-dominated boards, agencies, and apportionment funds.
On the other hand, this $3.3 million yearly is over ten times as much as the WCA fund for “threatened global ministries” in the central conferences.
The comparison with the WCA fund is particularly informative. Certainly, the official WCA fund does not represent all giving by WCA-affiliated individuals and congregations, which is undoubtedly much larger. Neither do the European figures, as noted. Even if we attribute 5% of US direct congregational and individual giving to the central conferences to WCA-related individuals (who make up about 1-2% of membership, so this is a very generous estimate), total WCA giving (which might then be $2.3 million) would still likely be less than half of what is given by European United Methodists by mission societies, individuals, and congregations (which might be as high as $6 million, assuming individual and congregational giving equals non-government supported mission society giving, as in the US).
My point here is not that Europeans should get more influence in the denomination than the WCA because they give more to the central conferences. I think it is dangerous to directly equate money with voice in shaping the church. Such an approach privileges the rich at the expense of the poor, and thus this principle would serve African United Methodists poorly, although they certainly have voices worth listening to.
The conclusion I would like to draw instead is the difficulty in re-creating or simply patching the existing on-going financial relationships that currently exist through The United Methodist Church. The WCA’s offer to save endangered central conference ministries may sound great, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money funneled through official channels, certainly from the US, but even from Europe. Moreover, there is no indication that the WCA’s fund will include $300,000 every year. All descriptions thus far have made this fund seem like a one-time collection.
It is clear that financial relationships in The United Methodist Church will need to change both as a result of the internal tensions that will reshape the entire church and as a result of changing membership demographics. But to do so in a way that avoids harm as much as possible, we as a denomination must be willing to discuss those changes in a clear-eyed way based upon realistic assessment of the size of the financial commitments that are at risk. To do anything else would be dishonest and a disservice to the poorest and most vulnerable with whom we are in mission.
Over the past two months, I have done a series of posts on the amount of US financial support for central conferences, central conference internal giving, and the impact of American money on the future of The United Methodist Church as a global denomination. It has been my main intention to provide facts and context for the difficult conversations that are taking place about the future of the UMC as an international body.
One area I did not explore in that series was the money that European United Methodists – primarily those from Germany, Switzerland, and Norway – give to mission and other ministries in other central conferences. Yet those figures are relatively easy to gather, so this post will do that, along with suggesting some comparisons between various funding figures and what these funding relationships mean for discussions of the future of the denomination.
First, to the amount given by Europeans. I’ll look at each of the three European mission boards, starting with Connexio, the mission board of Swiss United Methodists. Connexio has a useful annual report which details how much it spends in various geographic areas. In 2018, that amounted to 921,156 Swiss Francs in Eastern Europe and 407,756 CHF in Africa, mostly in the DRC. The total is thus 1,328,912 CHF, which converts to about $1,360,000 USD in 2018 to the central conferences. It should be noted that Connexio also gives to the UMC’s Cambodia mission and mission work in other countries not part of the UMC central conferences.
Germany’s EmK Weltmission has a project list for each of the countries in which it works, with 2019 commitments of support for each project. It is not entirely clear whether these figures represent firm commitments or fundraising goals; nevertheless, they provide an indicator of support in lieu of an easily-procured financial statement. For work in Eastern Europe, Weltmission has committed 58,000 Euros in 2019. For work in Africa, it has committed €603,900. Thus, the total to UMC central conferences is €661,900, or about $740,000 USD. As with Connexio, Weltmission supports additional mission work in countries other than the UMC central conferences.
Norway’s Misjonsselskap has work in four countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Lithuania. According to the yearly audit submitted to this year’s Annual Conference, Misjonsselskapet spent 10,852,086 Norwegian Kroner on projects in 2018, about 80% of which was underwritten by government support. That works out to about $1,220,000 USD. The report does not make clear the division between Lithuania and the three African countries, but it is clear from Misjonsskelskapet’s website that the vast majority of the support goes to Africa.
Adding the three totals together, one gets about $3,320,000 USD yearly in support for the central conferences from the three European United Methodist mission societies. As both the Germany and Norwegian mission agency sites make clear, individuals and congregations give additional funds directly to partners in the central conferences, but this $3.3 million is the total through the mission boards.
On the one hand, this $3 .3 million is less than a tenth of the approximately $40 million that flows from the US-dominated boards, agencies, and apportionment funds.
On the other hand, this $3.3 million yearly is over ten times as much as the WCA fund for “threatened global ministries” in the central conferences.
The comparison with the WCA fund is particularly informative. Certainly, the official WCA fund does not represent all giving by WCA-affiliated individuals and congregations, which is undoubtedly much larger. Neither do the European figures, as noted. Even if we attribute 5% of US direct congregational and individual giving to the central conferences to WCA-related individuals (who make up about 1-2% of membership, so this is a very generous estimate), total WCA giving (which might then be $2.3 million) would still likely be less than half of what is given by European United Methodists by mission societies, individuals, and congregations (which might be as high as $6 million, assuming individual and congregational giving equals non-government supported mission society giving, as in the US).
My point here is not that Europeans should get more influence in the denomination than the WCA because they give more to the central conferences. I think it is dangerous to directly equate money with voice in shaping the church. Such an approach privileges the rich at the expense of the poor, and thus this principle would serve African United Methodists poorly, although they certainly have voices worth listening to.
The conclusion I would like to draw instead is the difficulty in re-creating or simply patching the existing on-going financial relationships that currently exist through The United Methodist Church. The WCA’s offer to save endangered central conference ministries may sound great, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money funneled through official channels, certainly from the US, but even from Europe. Moreover, there is no indication that the WCA’s fund will include $300,000 every year. All descriptions thus far have made this fund seem like a one-time collection.
It is clear that financial relationships in The United Methodist Church will need to change both as a result of the internal tensions that will reshape the entire church and as a result of changing membership demographics. But to do so in a way that avoids harm as much as possible, we as a denomination must be willing to discuss those changes in a clear-eyed way based upon realistic assessment of the size of the financial commitments that are at risk. To do anything else would be dishonest and a disservice to the poorest and most vulnerable with whom we are in mission.
Monday, August 12, 2019
Evangelism in a Flat Earth
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.
Last year, Netflix released a documentary called "Behind the Curve" about US Americans who believe that the earth is flat. The documentary generated some discussion at the time it came out, much of it about what the documentary and its subjects say about the state of science, especially in a culture where many disbelieve in human-caused climate change, despite overwhelming scientific consensus on this point.
As I watched the movie, though, I was struck not by the parallels with science, but with the parallels with religion.
This started during a section of the movie that discusses factions within the group of people who believe the earth is flat. It turns out that there are different interpretations of what is at the edge of the earth (and whether there even is an edge). However, these are not just differences of theory, but different communities that have formed around the theories and their leading proponents, who hurl anathemas at one another.
The documentary suggests that these divisions are similar to sects within a religion, and the suggestion seemed a plausible one to me, based not just on Christian comparisons, but also what I know about Islam, Buddhism, and other religions.
What really drove home for me the sense that what I was watching was more akin to a religious community than a scientific community, though, was the convention that is documented near the film's end. Participants spoke of how much they appreciated the experience of community at the convention, and how the community and the enthusiasm evident at the convention affirmed their commitment to flat earthism, not just as a belief system, but as a movement, an identity, and a way of orienting oneself to the world.
The convention wasn't about knowledge as the secular Western scientific structure would define it. It was about the relationships and emotions that support shared identity, beliefs, practices, and motivations, which is the realm of religion.
Thus, following the movie, my question was not, "How can we get people to believe in science when this is the alternative?" It was, "How can we get people to believe in Christianity when this is the alternative?"
What does evangelism look like when the alternatives to Christianity are not just other religions and secularism, but a whole host of quasi-religious interest groups that arise through and are nourished by the Internet? Flat Earthers are not the only such group. Many other interest groups have generated a set of orienting beliefs and/or mythos, a sense of distinct identity, and a sense of group belonging, in large part through the skillful use of technology. These groups might be fandoms. They might be devotees of a particular health regimen. They might be conspiracy theorists.
To be clear, I am talking about interests that go beyond mere hobbies for those deeply involved to instead provide an orienting way of being in the world. These are interests and associated communities that provide the "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men [sic] by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" that Clifford Geertz defined as religion.
One of the challenges of the pluralistic, individualistic, postmodern world of the West is not that people no longer have a yearning for the type of good news that Christianity provides. It's that there so many plausible alternatives to "fill the God-shaped hole in their hearts," and people can choose the one that most caters to their particular interests, personality, and proclivities. The West isn't irreligious. It's abounding in simulacra of religion.
It seems that two responses on the part of Christian evangelism are in order.
First, Christianity has to be willing to critique a system of individualism and consumer capitalist thinking. If one adopts a framework of the individual as the supreme arbiter of good and consumer capitalism as the paramount methodology by which to achieve that good, it is difficult to critique the notion that people should be able to choose whatever religious or quasi-religious group and devotion seem to best suit them.
Yet, instead of critiquing such an approach to religion, Western Christians, and especially white American Christians, are often captive to such thinking, as Soong-Chan Rah and others have shown. Effective evangelism needs to raise questions about such assumptions, both among others and within the church, even though doing so is counter-cultural.
Second, Christianity has to recover the way in which it is not just about individual beliefs but about communities of practice. This is one of the things that the Flat Earthers intuitively understand and one of the keys to their success. Flat Earthism thrives not because its tenets are particularly compelling. It proceeds because the Internet has allowed people to create communities that support such beliefs, turning them from mere opinions to central components of identity, which seems to be the real sell for many involved.
Certainly, belief is important for Christianity. But when Christianity focuses solely on belief, it is easy for others to simply dismiss its conclusions, as Flat Earthers dismiss the truth claims of modern astronomy. Yet when truth claims are embedded within communities of belief and practice, they take on additional plausibility, even easily-disproved truth claims about the earth being flat.
For most of Christian history, this understanding of Christian belief as embedded within Christian community and strengthened by a sense of Christian identity was a given. That changed under the effects of the Enlightenment and modernity. Christians must therefore reclaim the communal sense to our religion, and to do so, they must be willing to push back on some of the individualism that so pervades Western culture.
In the end, the question is not really, "How can Christian evangelism defeat Flat Earthers?" The question should be, "What can we learn (or re-learn) from this growing social movement?" While the beliefs behind the Flat Earth movement may seem silly, the "Behind the Curve" documentary does raise important questions about how humans fill their basic needs for belief, identity, and community.
Last year, Netflix released a documentary called "Behind the Curve" about US Americans who believe that the earth is flat. The documentary generated some discussion at the time it came out, much of it about what the documentary and its subjects say about the state of science, especially in a culture where many disbelieve in human-caused climate change, despite overwhelming scientific consensus on this point.
As I watched the movie, though, I was struck not by the parallels with science, but with the parallels with religion.
This started during a section of the movie that discusses factions within the group of people who believe the earth is flat. It turns out that there are different interpretations of what is at the edge of the earth (and whether there even is an edge). However, these are not just differences of theory, but different communities that have formed around the theories and their leading proponents, who hurl anathemas at one another.
The documentary suggests that these divisions are similar to sects within a religion, and the suggestion seemed a plausible one to me, based not just on Christian comparisons, but also what I know about Islam, Buddhism, and other religions.
What really drove home for me the sense that what I was watching was more akin to a religious community than a scientific community, though, was the convention that is documented near the film's end. Participants spoke of how much they appreciated the experience of community at the convention, and how the community and the enthusiasm evident at the convention affirmed their commitment to flat earthism, not just as a belief system, but as a movement, an identity, and a way of orienting oneself to the world.
The convention wasn't about knowledge as the secular Western scientific structure would define it. It was about the relationships and emotions that support shared identity, beliefs, practices, and motivations, which is the realm of religion.
Thus, following the movie, my question was not, "How can we get people to believe in science when this is the alternative?" It was, "How can we get people to believe in Christianity when this is the alternative?"
What does evangelism look like when the alternatives to Christianity are not just other religions and secularism, but a whole host of quasi-religious interest groups that arise through and are nourished by the Internet? Flat Earthers are not the only such group. Many other interest groups have generated a set of orienting beliefs and/or mythos, a sense of distinct identity, and a sense of group belonging, in large part through the skillful use of technology. These groups might be fandoms. They might be devotees of a particular health regimen. They might be conspiracy theorists.
To be clear, I am talking about interests that go beyond mere hobbies for those deeply involved to instead provide an orienting way of being in the world. These are interests and associated communities that provide the "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men [sic] by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" that Clifford Geertz defined as religion.
One of the challenges of the pluralistic, individualistic, postmodern world of the West is not that people no longer have a yearning for the type of good news that Christianity provides. It's that there so many plausible alternatives to "fill the God-shaped hole in their hearts," and people can choose the one that most caters to their particular interests, personality, and proclivities. The West isn't irreligious. It's abounding in simulacra of religion.
It seems that two responses on the part of Christian evangelism are in order.
First, Christianity has to be willing to critique a system of individualism and consumer capitalist thinking. If one adopts a framework of the individual as the supreme arbiter of good and consumer capitalism as the paramount methodology by which to achieve that good, it is difficult to critique the notion that people should be able to choose whatever religious or quasi-religious group and devotion seem to best suit them.
Yet, instead of critiquing such an approach to religion, Western Christians, and especially white American Christians, are often captive to such thinking, as Soong-Chan Rah and others have shown. Effective evangelism needs to raise questions about such assumptions, both among others and within the church, even though doing so is counter-cultural.
Second, Christianity has to recover the way in which it is not just about individual beliefs but about communities of practice. This is one of the things that the Flat Earthers intuitively understand and one of the keys to their success. Flat Earthism thrives not because its tenets are particularly compelling. It proceeds because the Internet has allowed people to create communities that support such beliefs, turning them from mere opinions to central components of identity, which seems to be the real sell for many involved.
Certainly, belief is important for Christianity. But when Christianity focuses solely on belief, it is easy for others to simply dismiss its conclusions, as Flat Earthers dismiss the truth claims of modern astronomy. Yet when truth claims are embedded within communities of belief and practice, they take on additional plausibility, even easily-disproved truth claims about the earth being flat.
For most of Christian history, this understanding of Christian belief as embedded within Christian community and strengthened by a sense of Christian identity was a given. That changed under the effects of the Enlightenment and modernity. Christians must therefore reclaim the communal sense to our religion, and to do so, they must be willing to push back on some of the individualism that so pervades Western culture.
In the end, the question is not really, "How can Christian evangelism defeat Flat Earthers?" The question should be, "What can we learn (or re-learn) from this growing social movement?" While the beliefs behind the Flat Earth movement may seem silly, the "Behind the Curve" documentary does raise important questions about how humans fill their basic needs for belief, identity, and community.
Friday, August 9, 2019
Recommended Viewing: Dana Robert on the Development of World Christianity
Dr. Dana L. Robert's keynote address at this year's conference of the Yale-Edinburgh Group on World Christianity and the History of Mission is available for viewing online. In her 44-minute address, Dr. Robert provides a learned and useful overview of the evolution of the discourse of "world Christianity." Dr. Robert also addresses the place of the Yale-Edinburgh Group in this discource and suggests some of the challenges for the discourse going forward. Though long, the video is well worth viewing for those interested in the churchly, academic, and institutional background to world Christianity as a contemporary field of study.
For more about the conference as a whole, read this article by Dr. Christopher Anderson.
For more about the conference as a whole, read this article by Dr. Christopher Anderson.
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
United Methodist Core Competencies for Mission Education in Theological Seminaries
These Core Competencies for Mission Education in Theological Seminaries were adopted by the United Methodist Professors of Mission in 2011.
“We are a people called by God to be a people for God in the world. Recipients of grace, we become witnesses to grace. As United Methodists, we envision lives changed by grace, a church formed by grace, and a world transformed by grace.” -- Grace Upon Grace: The Mission Statement of the United Methodist Church (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990), 4.
Missio Dei and the Biblical/Theological Basis for Mission
• The student will be able to define mission and explain how mission is biblically and theologically constitutive of the very nature of the Triune God and the church.
• The student will be able to critically evaluate the major trajectories of missiological reflection in Roman Catholic, conciliar Protestant, and evangelical traditions in light of Wesleyan theological commitments.
• The student will be able to evaluate the interrelationship of Christian mission and evangelism as indispensable to Christian witness to the Reign of God in the world.
• The student will be able to articulate an understanding of mission that is consistent with a Wesleyan connectional ecclesiology and the worldwide nature of the Christian church.
Context and Mission
• The student will be able to critically assess with the tools of anthropology the challenges of cross-cultural engagement in North American and global contexts.
• The student will be able to analyze the social context of mission, attending specifically to the religious, economic, political, and other dimensions of culture.
History and Theology of Mission
• The student will be able to evaluate the history of Christian mission as it relates to a number of historical and contemporary trends including colonialism and empire.
• The student will be able to summarize the different approaches Christians have taken in articulating a theology of religions and be able to describe his or her own position on a theology of religions.
Organizing and Spiritual Formation for Mission
• The student will be able to describe ways they might actively promote missionary vocations and integrate discipleship for mission as a constitutive aspect of their Wesleyan approach to ministry.
• The student will be able to articulate how actions to promote social justice, peace, reconciliation and the integrity of creation are key dimensions of God’s mission.
• The student needs to understand and critically assess various ways of engaging in mission through the local congregation, the Annual Conference, and other avenues and be able to promote engagement in these ways.
• The student will be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of short-term mission trips and understand how to make such trips both educationally effective and faithful to sound principles of anthropology.
• The student will be able to demonstrate how missional awareness can be integrated in services of worship in a congregation.
• The student will be able to describe the practical challenges and opportunities of partnership in mission for both local and global contexts.
“We are a people called by God to be a people for God in the world. Recipients of grace, we become witnesses to grace. As United Methodists, we envision lives changed by grace, a church formed by grace, and a world transformed by grace.” -- Grace Upon Grace: The Mission Statement of the United Methodist Church (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990), 4.
Missio Dei and the Biblical/Theological Basis for Mission
• The student will be able to define mission and explain how mission is biblically and theologically constitutive of the very nature of the Triune God and the church.
• The student will be able to critically evaluate the major trajectories of missiological reflection in Roman Catholic, conciliar Protestant, and evangelical traditions in light of Wesleyan theological commitments.
• The student will be able to evaluate the interrelationship of Christian mission and evangelism as indispensable to Christian witness to the Reign of God in the world.
• The student will be able to articulate an understanding of mission that is consistent with a Wesleyan connectional ecclesiology and the worldwide nature of the Christian church.
Context and Mission
• The student will be able to critically assess with the tools of anthropology the challenges of cross-cultural engagement in North American and global contexts.
• The student will be able to analyze the social context of mission, attending specifically to the religious, economic, political, and other dimensions of culture.
History and Theology of Mission
• The student will be able to evaluate the history of Christian mission as it relates to a number of historical and contemporary trends including colonialism and empire.
• The student will be able to summarize the different approaches Christians have taken in articulating a theology of religions and be able to describe his or her own position on a theology of religions.
Organizing and Spiritual Formation for Mission
• The student will be able to describe ways they might actively promote missionary vocations and integrate discipleship for mission as a constitutive aspect of their Wesleyan approach to ministry.
• The student will be able to articulate how actions to promote social justice, peace, reconciliation and the integrity of creation are key dimensions of God’s mission.
• The student needs to understand and critically assess various ways of engaging in mission through the local congregation, the Annual Conference, and other avenues and be able to promote engagement in these ways.
• The student will be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of short-term mission trips and understand how to make such trips both educationally effective and faithful to sound principles of anthropology.
• The student will be able to demonstrate how missional awareness can be integrated in services of worship in a congregation.
• The student will be able to describe the practical challenges and opportunities of partnership in mission for both local and global contexts.
Monday, August 5, 2019
American Money and the Future of Global United 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.
Having laid forth in my last post some (possibly) better estimates by region of the level of internal giving and the amount of US support allows for some more specific comparison of funding received by central conferences from the US vs. funding central conferences are able to generate on their own.
This comparison then gives a sense of the magnitude of possible decreases in funding that central conferences could face and the scale of the decisions that they would have to make in the face of funding cuts from the US. I will here examine two scenarios: What would happen if all US subsidies were to stop through complete separation from the current denominational system, and what would happen if US subsidies were to decline by a third within the present system?
Western Europe
In Western Europe, a complete separation would certainly be felt. It would represent a loss of several million dollars in funding. That is perhaps 20% of the amount the region is able to generate internally for connectional ministries.
Such a reduction would lead to noticeable cutbacks and would force indigenous leaders to choose which programs to continue. Nevertheless, it would not devastate ministry, nor would it prohibit the region from continuing any form of ministry, and travel expenses would be an easy cut if separated from the denominational system. A 1/3 reduction within the present system would have smaller effects, though travel expenses would need to be preserved.
The Philippines
Subsidies within the Philippines are perhaps three or four times the internal connectional giving capacity, which would lead to significant effects if completely ended. Certainly, health, education, disaster response, service, and other ministries supported by US dollars would be affected, and some ministry programs would end. Filipino bishops might also have to take a pay cut.
Yet the Philippines has several educational and health institutions that already operate extensive fee-for-service programs and thus would be able to continue, even without outside support. These ministries would not end, even without US support, though they might face challenges in launching new programs or upgrading facilities and equipment.
Because of these fee-for-service programs and internal giving capacity, a 1/3 reduction within the current system would result in substantial cutbacks and some lower-priority programs being closed, but it would allow for high-priority work to continue.
Africa
The subsidies Africa receives are perhaps 8 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving, though out of all the regions, I am least certain what Africa’s internal capacity actually is. Thus, complete separation would be devastating and would effectively end or impact many forms of ministry beyond local churches. Bishops would need to survive on substantially reduced salaries, though given the high level of episcopal salaries relative to average salaries in their countries, there is room to cut.
Most evangelism in Africa happens through indigenous resources, except for Global Ministries support of mission initiatives in some newly-entered countries Thus, church growth and evangelism, at least within countries of existing United Methodist presence, would like be little affected by the end of outside support, except perhaps in the mission initiatives. Moreover, Africans have shown a capacity for charitable giving by local congregations, especially for ad-hoc needs and programs with low capital and administrative costs. These forms of ministry would likely continue, even with the end of outside support.
African schools and hospitals do generate some money through fees for service, but it is not clear if all of them could survive on these alone. Quite likely, a complete cessation in US support would end large-scale health and service ministries in Africa, especially those that rely upon substantial capital in the form of buildings and equipment. Colleges and universities with popular secular programs tend to be money-makers for the church (in Africa and elsewhere) and could continue. Primary and secondary schools are much less lucrative and therefore more likely to be impacted.
A 1/3 reduction in support would also significantly impact these large, institutional ministries and significantly reduce the number and/or scope of them. Many such ministries could probably continue under such a scenario, though to do so, African United Methodists would likely turn to more government support (at the expense of some United Methodist control) and fee-for-service arrangements.
Eastern Europe
For Eastern Europe, the amount of subsidies is perhaps 10 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving. Even more so than Africa, complete separation would be catastrophic and would effectively end most forms of ministry beyond local churches. Churches in Eastern Europe would even be challenged to continue to support bishops and district superintendents without outside help.
A 1/3 reduction within the current system would mostly affect educational, service, justice, and evangelism ministries. Indigenous leaders would need to choose among these competing priorities, with some types of ministry being halved (or worse) to preserve others.
Conclusion
Since health ministries directly save lives and poverty-reduction, sustainable development, and educational ministries have an indirect but significant effect on the length and quality of life, decisions about the future of US support for central conference ministries are ethical decisions. They directly impact the lives of tens of thousands of people throughout the world.
The decisions that US United Methodists, from traditionalist to centrist to progressive, will make about the funding arrangements they establish with the central conferences in whatever the next iteration of Methodism is will thus have real consequences, and dramatic cuts will cost lives among the poorest and most marginalized globally.
Of course, there are also strategic and ethical questions about continuing to foster a system of dependency rather than empowerment. Yet a unilateral and sudden end to US subsidies of the central conferences is not the appropriate way to end dependency.
Admittedly, in any scenario for the future of United Methodism, the amount of money from the US for connectional ministries will be less than it is now. Some reduction in US subsidies for ministry in the central conferences will be an economic necessity, given membership trends in the US.
Nevertheless, having created the current system of dependency, US United Methodists have a moral obligation to fellow United Methodists in the central conference to work with them to decide together how to plan for a sustainable economic future for those ministries most important to people in the central conferences. To do anything less would be for US United Methodists to show disregard for the lives and the humanity of those who are different from them.
Having laid forth in my last post some (possibly) better estimates by region of the level of internal giving and the amount of US support allows for some more specific comparison of funding received by central conferences from the US vs. funding central conferences are able to generate on their own.
This comparison then gives a sense of the magnitude of possible decreases in funding that central conferences could face and the scale of the decisions that they would have to make in the face of funding cuts from the US. I will here examine two scenarios: What would happen if all US subsidies were to stop through complete separation from the current denominational system, and what would happen if US subsidies were to decline by a third within the present system?
Western Europe
In Western Europe, a complete separation would certainly be felt. It would represent a loss of several million dollars in funding. That is perhaps 20% of the amount the region is able to generate internally for connectional ministries.
Such a reduction would lead to noticeable cutbacks and would force indigenous leaders to choose which programs to continue. Nevertheless, it would not devastate ministry, nor would it prohibit the region from continuing any form of ministry, and travel expenses would be an easy cut if separated from the denominational system. A 1/3 reduction within the present system would have smaller effects, though travel expenses would need to be preserved.
The Philippines
Subsidies within the Philippines are perhaps three or four times the internal connectional giving capacity, which would lead to significant effects if completely ended. Certainly, health, education, disaster response, service, and other ministries supported by US dollars would be affected, and some ministry programs would end. Filipino bishops might also have to take a pay cut.
Yet the Philippines has several educational and health institutions that already operate extensive fee-for-service programs and thus would be able to continue, even without outside support. These ministries would not end, even without US support, though they might face challenges in launching new programs or upgrading facilities and equipment.
Because of these fee-for-service programs and internal giving capacity, a 1/3 reduction within the current system would result in substantial cutbacks and some lower-priority programs being closed, but it would allow for high-priority work to continue.
Africa
The subsidies Africa receives are perhaps 8 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving, though out of all the regions, I am least certain what Africa’s internal capacity actually is. Thus, complete separation would be devastating and would effectively end or impact many forms of ministry beyond local churches. Bishops would need to survive on substantially reduced salaries, though given the high level of episcopal salaries relative to average salaries in their countries, there is room to cut.
Most evangelism in Africa happens through indigenous resources, except for Global Ministries support of mission initiatives in some newly-entered countries Thus, church growth and evangelism, at least within countries of existing United Methodist presence, would like be little affected by the end of outside support, except perhaps in the mission initiatives. Moreover, Africans have shown a capacity for charitable giving by local congregations, especially for ad-hoc needs and programs with low capital and administrative costs. These forms of ministry would likely continue, even with the end of outside support.
African schools and hospitals do generate some money through fees for service, but it is not clear if all of them could survive on these alone. Quite likely, a complete cessation in US support would end large-scale health and service ministries in Africa, especially those that rely upon substantial capital in the form of buildings and equipment. Colleges and universities with popular secular programs tend to be money-makers for the church (in Africa and elsewhere) and could continue. Primary and secondary schools are much less lucrative and therefore more likely to be impacted.
A 1/3 reduction in support would also significantly impact these large, institutional ministries and significantly reduce the number and/or scope of them. Many such ministries could probably continue under such a scenario, though to do so, African United Methodists would likely turn to more government support (at the expense of some United Methodist control) and fee-for-service arrangements.
Eastern Europe
For Eastern Europe, the amount of subsidies is perhaps 10 times as much as their internal capacity for connectional giving. Even more so than Africa, complete separation would be catastrophic and would effectively end most forms of ministry beyond local churches. Churches in Eastern Europe would even be challenged to continue to support bishops and district superintendents without outside help.
A 1/3 reduction within the current system would mostly affect educational, service, justice, and evangelism ministries. Indigenous leaders would need to choose among these competing priorities, with some types of ministry being halved (or worse) to preserve others.
Conclusion
Since health ministries directly save lives and poverty-reduction, sustainable development, and educational ministries have an indirect but significant effect on the length and quality of life, decisions about the future of US support for central conference ministries are ethical decisions. They directly impact the lives of tens of thousands of people throughout the world.
The decisions that US United Methodists, from traditionalist to centrist to progressive, will make about the funding arrangements they establish with the central conferences in whatever the next iteration of Methodism is will thus have real consequences, and dramatic cuts will cost lives among the poorest and most marginalized globally.
Of course, there are also strategic and ethical questions about continuing to foster a system of dependency rather than empowerment. Yet a unilateral and sudden end to US subsidies of the central conferences is not the appropriate way to end dependency.
Admittedly, in any scenario for the future of United Methodism, the amount of money from the US for connectional ministries will be less than it is now. Some reduction in US subsidies for ministry in the central conferences will be an economic necessity, given membership trends in the US.
Nevertheless, having created the current system of dependency, US United Methodists have a moral obligation to fellow United Methodists in the central conference to work with them to decide together how to plan for a sustainable economic future for those ministries most important to people in the central conferences. To do anything less would be for US United Methodists to show disregard for the lives and the humanity of those who are different from them.
Friday, August 2, 2019
Central Conference Finances, Take Two
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.
Over the past several weeks, I have published a series of posts about finances in the global United Methodist Church, including central conference church giving, US support for central conference ministries, central conference bishops’ salaries, and African clergy salaries. Having worked through that variety of material, I’ve gained new insight relative to some of the earlier posts in the series. This post will contain some additional reflections on how much money the central conferences collect and how that compares to the amount of US financial support for central conference ministry. A subsequent update post will re-examine what would likely be cut if US support declined or ended.
How Much Money Do Central Conferences Collect?
In trying to get some hard data for African pastoral salaries, I did a quick calculation. I took the amount of money I estimated that central conferences might collect based on total membership, average annual income for that country, and the assumption that 1% of that income might go to churches and 70% of what is given to churches might go to pastoral salaries, then divided it by the number of pastors to get an estimate of clergy salaries.
When that calculation is run for the United States, it produces a number in the range of what an average clergy salary might be. But the model breaks down significantly outside the United States.
In most places in Europe, it gives a number that is about a third the average annual income for that country. In the Philippines, it gives a number that is half the average annual income. While pastors are not paid terribly well, it is unlikely that European and Filipino pastors earn so little. What is instead likely is that both European and United Methodists give more than 1% of their income to the church, perhaps 3-5% in Europe and 2-3% in the Philippines.
In Africa, on the other hand, the calculation fails for the opposite reason – in most countries, it gives a number much larger than what a pastor’s salary might actually be. While there may be some errors in the data for number of clergy in an individual country, the overall trend suggests that in most African countries, United Methodists give much less than 1% of the average annual income for their country. As Robert Harmon has pointed out in a comment on a previous post, average income figures for many African countries can be skewed by urban high earners, whereas many, especially in rural areas, do not participate significantly in the cash economy, instead exchanging goods and services in kind. Those who have no cash can give no cash to the church.
While much uncertainty remains, what these numbers allow us to do is revise estimates for how much central conferences might collect in local church donations. Revising in a way that would produce more accurate estimates of pastoral salaries suggests that the Philippines might collect $25 million at the local church level, Europe as much as $180 million at the local church level, and Africa as little as $11 million.
Altogether, that still adds up to more than $200 million, meaning the total estimate for connectional giving from the central conferences is still in the neighborhood of $20 million (based on an estimate of 10% of total giving going for connectional ministries), as I suggested earlier. Yet it dramatically shifts where than $20 million is coming from – much less from Africa, much more from Europe, and somewhat more from the Philippines.
How Much Are Central Conference Ministries Subsidized by the US?
In an earlier post, I suggested that US United Methodists subsidize ministries in the central conferences to the extent of about $100 million per year - $40 through apportionments and general agencies, and $60 through direct partnerships with annual conference and local congregations. Having gotten a better sense of what giving patterns in the central conferences look like, is it possible to get a better sense of what US support looks like?
First, it’s worth noting that in terms of subsidies, one can talk about four different areas with different economic realities: Western Europe (the Germany Central Conference, parts of the Southern and Central Europe Central Conference, and most of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area), Eastern Europe (parts of the Southern and Central Europe Central Conference, the Eurasia Episcopal Area, and the Baltic part of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area), the Philippines, and Africa. Each area receives some subsidies, but of varying types and extents.
Western Europe receives subsidies in meetings expenses. It also receives missionaries from Global Ministries, and the benefit of some other general agency programs that serve the whole church, though it’s hard to say exactly how much. Western Europe does not receive much direct programmatic funding from the general church and is instead a source of programmatic funding for partners in Africa through various European United Methodist agencies. Western Europe pays above its assigned apportionments to cover the cost of its episcopal leadership, but it may not pay for the entire amount of its episcopal travel. Altogether, Western Europe probably receives $2-5 million from the global church and pays about $300,000 in apportionments.
Eastern Europe (because of membership numbers and economic realities) pays less in episcopal support than Western Europe, and it is more likely to receive programmatic support for things like poverty relief, evangelism, education, and sustainable development. Eastern Europe might receive as much as $12 million from the global church, while paying a few tens of thousands in apportionments.
The Philippines also receives subsidies for travel and episcopal expenses. They receive some agency money and direct giving, though based on the number of Advance specials in the Philippines relative to elsewhere, perhaps not as much as one might think. It is possible that the Philippines actually receives less in subsidies than Eastern Europe, perhaps in the neighborhood of $9 million, while paying $40-50,000 in apportionments.
Africa receives significant subsidies for all forms of ministry – travel, episcopal expenses, and programmatic ministries. Perhaps three quarters of all subsidies sent from the US to the global church go to Africa, which also receives support from European United Methodists not included in my calculations. All told, the amount of support might be somewhere around $75 million, compared to around $200,000 in apportionments paid.
Hence, all areas of the central conferences receive subsidies from US United Methodists, even relatively well-off Western Europeans. But the extent of subsidies and the ratios between subsidies on the one hand and apportionments or internal giving on the other vary significantly among the regions.
Over the past several weeks, I have published a series of posts about finances in the global United Methodist Church, including central conference church giving, US support for central conference ministries, central conference bishops’ salaries, and African clergy salaries. Having worked through that variety of material, I’ve gained new insight relative to some of the earlier posts in the series. This post will contain some additional reflections on how much money the central conferences collect and how that compares to the amount of US financial support for central conference ministry. A subsequent update post will re-examine what would likely be cut if US support declined or ended.
How Much Money Do Central Conferences Collect?
In trying to get some hard data for African pastoral salaries, I did a quick calculation. I took the amount of money I estimated that central conferences might collect based on total membership, average annual income for that country, and the assumption that 1% of that income might go to churches and 70% of what is given to churches might go to pastoral salaries, then divided it by the number of pastors to get an estimate of clergy salaries.
When that calculation is run for the United States, it produces a number in the range of what an average clergy salary might be. But the model breaks down significantly outside the United States.
In most places in Europe, it gives a number that is about a third the average annual income for that country. In the Philippines, it gives a number that is half the average annual income. While pastors are not paid terribly well, it is unlikely that European and Filipino pastors earn so little. What is instead likely is that both European and United Methodists give more than 1% of their income to the church, perhaps 3-5% in Europe and 2-3% in the Philippines.
In Africa, on the other hand, the calculation fails for the opposite reason – in most countries, it gives a number much larger than what a pastor’s salary might actually be. While there may be some errors in the data for number of clergy in an individual country, the overall trend suggests that in most African countries, United Methodists give much less than 1% of the average annual income for their country. As Robert Harmon has pointed out in a comment on a previous post, average income figures for many African countries can be skewed by urban high earners, whereas many, especially in rural areas, do not participate significantly in the cash economy, instead exchanging goods and services in kind. Those who have no cash can give no cash to the church.
While much uncertainty remains, what these numbers allow us to do is revise estimates for how much central conferences might collect in local church donations. Revising in a way that would produce more accurate estimates of pastoral salaries suggests that the Philippines might collect $25 million at the local church level, Europe as much as $180 million at the local church level, and Africa as little as $11 million.
Altogether, that still adds up to more than $200 million, meaning the total estimate for connectional giving from the central conferences is still in the neighborhood of $20 million (based on an estimate of 10% of total giving going for connectional ministries), as I suggested earlier. Yet it dramatically shifts where than $20 million is coming from – much less from Africa, much more from Europe, and somewhat more from the Philippines.
How Much Are Central Conference Ministries Subsidized by the US?
In an earlier post, I suggested that US United Methodists subsidize ministries in the central conferences to the extent of about $100 million per year - $40 through apportionments and general agencies, and $60 through direct partnerships with annual conference and local congregations. Having gotten a better sense of what giving patterns in the central conferences look like, is it possible to get a better sense of what US support looks like?
First, it’s worth noting that in terms of subsidies, one can talk about four different areas with different economic realities: Western Europe (the Germany Central Conference, parts of the Southern and Central Europe Central Conference, and most of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area), Eastern Europe (parts of the Southern and Central Europe Central Conference, the Eurasia Episcopal Area, and the Baltic part of the Nordic and Baltic Episcopal Area), the Philippines, and Africa. Each area receives some subsidies, but of varying types and extents.
Western Europe receives subsidies in meetings expenses. It also receives missionaries from Global Ministries, and the benefit of some other general agency programs that serve the whole church, though it’s hard to say exactly how much. Western Europe does not receive much direct programmatic funding from the general church and is instead a source of programmatic funding for partners in Africa through various European United Methodist agencies. Western Europe pays above its assigned apportionments to cover the cost of its episcopal leadership, but it may not pay for the entire amount of its episcopal travel. Altogether, Western Europe probably receives $2-5 million from the global church and pays about $300,000 in apportionments.
Eastern Europe (because of membership numbers and economic realities) pays less in episcopal support than Western Europe, and it is more likely to receive programmatic support for things like poverty relief, evangelism, education, and sustainable development. Eastern Europe might receive as much as $12 million from the global church, while paying a few tens of thousands in apportionments.
The Philippines also receives subsidies for travel and episcopal expenses. They receive some agency money and direct giving, though based on the number of Advance specials in the Philippines relative to elsewhere, perhaps not as much as one might think. It is possible that the Philippines actually receives less in subsidies than Eastern Europe, perhaps in the neighborhood of $9 million, while paying $40-50,000 in apportionments.
Africa receives significant subsidies for all forms of ministry – travel, episcopal expenses, and programmatic ministries. Perhaps three quarters of all subsidies sent from the US to the global church go to Africa, which also receives support from European United Methodists not included in my calculations. All told, the amount of support might be somewhere around $75 million, compared to around $200,000 in apportionments paid.
Hence, all areas of the central conferences receive subsidies from US United Methodists, even relatively well-off Western Europeans. But the extent of subsidies and the ratios between subsidies on the one hand and apportionments or internal giving on the other vary significantly among the regions.