Recommended Reading: Filipino Bishops' Statements on Separatist Groups

In the last month, Filipino United Methodist bishops have issued two statements related to a new, breakaway group called the Filipino Evangelical Methodist Church. The new Filipino Evangelical Methodist Church is separate from the Global Methodist Church, which has also organized in the Philippines. The Filipino Evangelical Methodist Church does include GEMS (Grace Evangelical Methodist Sanctuary), a group led by former United Methodist bishop Pete Torio.

In a statement on August 4, active and retired United Methodist bishops in the Philippines called for "love," "peace," and "mutual respect" in the face of this new division. At the same time, they preached against "harmful actions or language," "speaking ill of one another, spreading misinformation, or undermining individuals or groups with different convictions," and "using social media to ... deepen the divisions among us." The bishops indicated respect for those who "follow their conscience in matters of faith and practice" but pledged to uphold the unity of the church.

In a second statement on August 23, the three active bishops noted that despite the new group, it is the continuing members of The United Methodist Church who are responsible for "the unity and integrity" of the UMC. They noted that only "bona fide members" of the UMC should serve in its leadership positions and participate in discussions of its future. This bishops closed with an affirmation of the future of the UMC in the Philippines and its mission and ministry.

Robert J. Harman: Evangelical Church Disciplines

Today's post is by Rev. Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries and was ordained in the Evangelical United Brethren Church.

David Scott’s postings on the subject of the UMC Book of Disciple stirred me to do a little historical research into the origins of the book in the history of the Evangelical Association, a forerunner of the Evangelical Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which is my denominational heritage. My source is Raymond Albright’s A History of the Evangelical Church (1942).

The concept of a published Discipline occurred to founder Jacob Albright thanks to his personal association with the Methodist beginnings in his eastern Pennsylvania home. Unsatisfied with the outreach among his German heritage population by the English-bred circuit riders of Methodism, he began recruiting his own German speaking preachers into his Evangelical Association, which was dedicated to mission on that cultural frontier.

The first Discipline of the Evangelical Association had a single purpose. Albright knew that the success of the church’s mission would depend solely upon the quality of its circuit riding preachers. They were recruited from among the house churches and camp meeting revivals he was conducting. They included those who responded to the spirit filled messages they heard in their native tongue but had no formal training in biblical studies or church history.

So, included in the first published Discipline in 1809, along with a general introduction to the Christian church and organizational rules for conducting General Conferences, was a key ingredient. The first order of business of each General Conference would be a required examination of the moral standard of every preacher newly recruited and already active in the connection. 

When English speaking evangelists began appearing in the ranks of preachers, the examination process was heightened. Soon sessions of the General Conference had to decide when and how much of the German speaking texts needed translation. The audience for such was the growing segment of second-generation families among German settlers as well as confronting the more rapidly growing English-speaking populations addressed by the evangelistic outreach of the circuit riders’ movement westward and into urban centers.

The bilingual project was slowed down by controversy in those General Conference sessions over who among the leaders of the Evangelical Association was qualified to make accurate translations. By 1830, the text of the Discipline appeared in both German and English.

Over time, the contents of the Disciplines expanded to include revised articles of faith and the naming of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. The doctrinal standards emerged largely by borrowing from the Methodist Discipline, often adopting language on controversial themes such as Christian perfection. That was followed by new commentary on matters of Christian behavior. Details for electing bishops and appointing pastors (by presiding elders, no longer by Albright or successor bishops) were spelled out. Paragraphs on local church matters included election of class leaders, organization of Sunday Schools, and support for disabled pastors.

Statements on public issues were preceded by an overview of Christian social responsibility in the 1825 edition: To be “One in accord with Christian regulations to labor together with upright Christians for the building of His glorious kingdom on earth.” That was followed by personal guidance on temperance, tobacco, Sabbath, and dress in the text of the 1830 publication. And a profoundly prophetic statement addressed the impending leanings toward a civil war, stating: “We believe that war and the shedding of blood are incompatible with the Gospel and Spirit of Christ.” The Evangelical Church never sanctioned slavery.

In the growing reality of a developing bilingual or cross-cultural ministry, the priority of a publishing house emerged to corner official treatment of controversial subjects and offer uniform lessons for catechism and adult education. For the circuit riders on the frontiers, there was only room in their saddle bags for a Bible, a hymnal and a Discipline. Thus, those texts were their sole library, forging the foundation of faith presented to the adherents of a growing denomination.

The quest for finding the “relationship between discipline and discipleship,” as David Scott wrote in his essay, had early beginnings in this Evangelical tradition of our denominational heritage. As for success in applying “rules vs. norms and boundaries vs. ideals as ways of influencing behavior,” that effort awaits further inquiry.

Jefferson Knight: The Threat of the Global Methodist Church in Africa: A Call for Unity and Resistance

Today's post is by Jefferson B. Knight. Knight is the Director, Human Rights Monitor, LAC/UMC and Vice President, Men's Organization, Kakata-Farmington River District/UMC.

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged within the religious landscape of Africa. The Global Methodist Church (GMC), a denomination that recently splintered from the United Methodist Church (UMC) in the United States, is aggressively campaigning across the African continent with a singular goal: to destabilize and dismantle the UMC. With millions of dollars at their disposal, the GMC’s actions raise significant concerns about their intentions and their impact on African communities.

The GMC has successfully recruited several key leaders from the UMC in Africa to assist in their mission, a move that threatens not only the unity of the church but also the very fabric of community life across the continent. Notably, Bishop John Wesley Yohanna, the former Bishop of the Nigeria Episcopal Area, has joined their ranks, lending credibility to an organization whose agenda is increasingly perceived as divisive and destructive.

At the heart of the GMC's campaign is a controversial issue: same-sex marriage. By framing their opposition to the UMC around this topic, the GMC seeks to exploit cultural sensitivities prevalent in African societies. However, it is imperative to understand that homosexuality is not an African issue—it is predominantly an American concern. Many of the challenges and debates surrounding this topic are rooted in Western contexts, and it is disheartening to witness the GMC impose its beliefs on African nations, where traditional values and norms differ significantly.

Since the conclusion of the General Conference and the subsequent endorsement of regionalization plan, the GMC has intensified its attacks on the UMC throughout Africa, targeting countries such as Liberia, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Their campaign has not been without consequences. In Nigeria, recent events revealed a coordinated effort to incite chaos and violence against UMC congregations. Similarly, Bishop Samuel Quire of the Liberia Episcopal Area was attacked by GMC sympathizers during one of his visits to the Gompa District UMC.

These acts of violence reflect a deeper, disturbing reality: the GMC is willing to resort to intimidation and aggression to achieve its goals. Such actions are unequivocally un-Christian and contradict the very teachings of love, compassion, and unity that lie at the heart of Christianity.

Furthermore, the GMC has attempted to delegitimize the UMC by making unfounded accusations, branding it as an “unbiblical” church that endorses immoral practices such as fathers marrying their daughters and mothers marrying their sons. These statements are baseless and serve only to sow seeds of discord among congregants. The GMC's tactics echo those of other organizations that seek to manipulate religion for their own power and control—a strategy all too familiar in the history of colonialism in Africa.

As Africans, we must stand firm against the encroachment of the Global Methodist Church and its divisive agenda. It is essential that we foster unity within the UMC and resist attempts to fracture our community. We must openly condemn the violence perpetrated by GMC supporters and reaffirm our commitment to the principles of peace, dialogue, and understanding.

The United Methodist Church shall stand firm in Africa, fortified by the promise of Scripture. As declared in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We stand resolutely in faith, believing that no scheme or evil plan aimed at undermining the UMC will succeed. Just as Christ proclaimed, our foundation is built upon His truth and love, and the forces that seek to destabilize us will be met with unwavering resistance through prayer, unity, and steadfast commitment to our mission. The authority bestowed upon us enables us to confront challenges with courage, knowing that we are supported by divine power. Together, we will uphold the teachings of Christ, ensuring that our church remains a beacon of hope, love, and resilience across the continent. The United Methodist Church is here to stay, and with God’s grace.

In conclusion, the Global Methodist Church poses a significant threat to the UMC and the broader African Christian community. Their tactics amount to a form of neo-colonialism that seeks to undermine local agency and exploit cultural differences for their gain. We must reject their agenda and work together to preserve the integrity and unity of our churches, ensuring that Africa's religious future remains firmly in the hands of its people. Let us embody the true spirit of Christianity—one of love, acceptance, and solidarity—and rise against this insidious threat.

Recommended Event: World Methodist Conference

The World Methodist Conference starts today, August 14. The conference is generally held every 5 years, but because of COVID delays, the World Methodist Conference has not met since 2016. The World Methodist Conference is a project of the World Methodist Council, the ecumenical body bringing together churches in the Methodist-Wesleyan tradition. The Conference then has thousands of participants coming from dozens of Methodist bodies all around the world.

The website for the World Methodist Conference has more information about the theme of the conference, "On the Move." This includes sub-themes of Migration, Pilgrimage, and Guiding Lights. You can also read more about the conference's schedule, including presentations around the theme. Look, too, for coverage of the conference on various church-related (social) media accounts.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Possibilities and Anomalies

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Inspired by upcoming work on the General Book of Discipline during this quadrennium of the UMC, I have been examining over the past couple of weeks how United Methodists understand the concept of discipline and what it means to have a Book of Discipline. Thus far, I have looked at the relationship between discipline and discipleship and examined rules vs. norms and boundaries vs. ideals as ways of influencing behavior.

I’d like to conclude this series (for now, at least) but looking at one more pair of concepts, related this time to when rule making is necessary: possibilities and anomalies.

Much rule making occurs in response to a specific situation. Something happens, and then rules are put into place to make sure there’s consistency if a situation happens again or to avoid a bad situation happening again. Certainly, rules can arise in response to theoretical issues or for other reasons, but this approach to rule making is a common one. Something happens, someone says, “That might happen again, so there ought to be a policy about that,” and a policy is created.

This is not a bad approach. It is good to have consistency and to avoid bad situations if we can. Many would argue that we have a moral imperative to do so. Yet behind this approach to rule making are some assumptions about risk or recurrence that are worth delving into.

One of the assumptions behind this “there should be a policy” approach to discipline is the judgement that the possibility of a situation recurring is realistic and significant – that it is common enough and important enough that it justifies the effort of making and carrying out a policy.

Thus, for instance, the Book of Discipline states in ¶256.1, “Local churches or charges are strongly encouraged to develop policies and procedures to provide for the safety of the infants, children, youth, and vulnerable adults entrusted to their care.” The consequences of abuse or harm to children and youth are so severe and, unfortunately, such an occurrence is frequent enough around the world that it is important for the Book of Discipline to set this policy. Sadly, child abuse is a realistic risk, and it would be irresponsible of the church not to try to prevent it.

On the other hand, General Conference hasn’t recommended a policy about what to do if a plane crashes at your church before worship, though this is something that happened to a Baptist church in North Carolina last year. https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptists/plane-crashes-near-nc-church-before-sunday-services/ That possibility is seen as too remote to be worth worrying about, even though we could imagine the situation having an impact on worship and pastoral care. And in the North Carolina incident, thankfully, the pilot was okay and church services continued, so the situation had few major consequences. Planes crashing into churches are not seen as a realistic, significant possibility. Instead, the incident can be chalked up as an anomaly.

An anomaly is something abnormal, peculiar, and unexpected. It is unlikely, and it may even be a singular occurrence – something that has only happened once. There is generally no need to make policies to avoid anomalies because they are seen as rare (and therefore not worth worrying about) and unpredictable (and therefore unable to be controlled).

So, when United Methodists are considering when to embed policies into the Book of Discipline in response to something that has happened, the question is, “Could this situation likely happen again? Or was the situation an anomaly?”

The challenge is that determining whether something is a realistic and significant possibility or an anomaly is a judgment call, and different people’s judgments will be influenced by a whole host of issues, including personal experience and relevant information they possess. Critically, that judgment can also be influenced by cultural context.

Cultures involve assumptions about what phenomena are salient and significant in the human world. Set aside for a moment that the statistical likelihood of a plane crashing into a church varies from one context to another based on the prevalence of planes, churches, and aerial safety measures. If planes were to crash into two different churches in two different cultural contexts, the members of those churches would make sense of those crashes in two different ways. They would derive different theological and social meanings from the events.

And, crucially, they might have a different sense of whether another plane crash was a realistic risk and/or how significant an event it was for a plane to crash into a church. Thus, they would have a different sense of whether something was a possibility or an anomaly.

To bring this discussion back to the Book of Discipline, there are, for instance, several paragraphs in the current Book of Discipline on Ecumenical Shared Ministries, ¶207-211. In the United States, the possibility of an ecumenical congregation formed by combining United Methodists and Christians from another denomination is both realistic and significant. There are many such congregations, meaning that this is more than just a singular occurrence. And given the challenges in integrating differing denominational governing structures, the UMC sees these instances as significant enough for there to be rules surrounding them.

But this might not be the case in all other contexts. In other contexts, such ecumenical congregations may be unheard of or even unthinkable. Or they may exist, but they may be seen as mere anomalies – unusual circumstances, but not significant enough to make general rules around such occurrences.

Thus, part of the work that will need to be done around the General Book of Discipline is not just cross-cultural discussion of theological, educational, and legal systems. It will also involve cross-cultural discussion of risks, possibilities, and anomalies – deep level investigations into how different cultures understand the patterns and significance of occurrences within the life of the church.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Boundaries vs. Ideals

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Inspired by upcoming work on the General Book of Discipline during this quadrennium of the UMC, I have been examining over the past couple of weeks how United Methodists understand the concept of discipline and what it means to have a Book of Discipline.

As part of that series, I asserted that the purpose of having a denominational Book of Discipline is to help United Methodists live productive lives of Christian discipleship, where, together with others in Christian community, they grow in holiness, i.e., the love of God and neighbor.

I also asserted that one of Methodism’s theological insights is that actions matter in the Christian life, and that discipline builds on this insight by trying to regulate Methodists’ actions, to encourage those actions which best express holiness and discourage actions which are at odds with holy living. Last week, I looked at rules and norms as two different ways to influence action.

This week, I would like to suggest another pair of approaches to influencing action: boundaries and ideals.

In brief, boundaries set the limits of acceptable actions. They determine what sorts of actions are prohibited, or “out of bounds” within a particular community, and what actions are required of a community’s members to remain in the bounds of the community. Boundaries set expectations for behavior by indicating what behaviors people should not engage in and focusing on penalties for not performing required behaviors.

Ideals, on the other hand, set standards and goals for desired and discouraged actions. They determine what sorts of actions would best reflect the beliefs, values, and identity of a community and what actions would be inconsistent with those beliefs, values, and identity. Thus, they set aspirations for behavior by indicating what behaviors people would exhibit in the best of situations, even if there is recognition that in practice, individuals will not exhibit all of these behaviors or will not exhibit them perfectly.

An easy test of whether a rule sets a boundary or an ideal is whether questions about if it has been followed must be answered with “yes/no,” in which case it sets a boundary, or whether such questions can be answered on a spectrum, in which case it sets an ideal.

The UMC Book of Discipline contains both boundaries and ideals.

As an example of a statement of ideals, look at the membership vows in ¶217. When members affirm that they will “accept the freedom and power God gives them to resist evil, injustice, and oppression,” they are not agreeing that they will never commit any more wrongs at the risk of losing their church membership. They are affirming an ideal of Christian discipleship. For various reasons, members may by commission or omission still participate in oppression, but they recognize that such behavior does not conform with the highest ideals of Christian discipleship.

Just a few paragraphs later comes an example of a statement of boundaries. ¶221 on “Accountability” sets a boundary for membership. It explains the actions required by congregants and pastors in a situation in which a congregant is accused of not living up to their baptismal vows. It details the steps of intervention, mediation, and ultimately church trial.

Other portions of the Book of Discipline are less clear whether they constitute boundaries or ideals. When ¶216 says, “Baptized infants and children are to be instructed and nurtured in the meaning of the faith, the rights and responsibilities of their baptism, and spiritual and moral formation using materials approved by The United Methodist Church,” it is clearly attempting to set some boundaries on what the confirmation process should look like in UMC churches. Yet, most United Methodists would recognize that actual confirmation practices in UMC churches vary, with little consequence, so this passage may function more as an ideal than a boundary.

To the extent that the Book of Discipline is influenced by U.S. secular law (and that’s a significant extent), it has tended to proliferate boundary statements. U.S. secular law is geared toward determination of mutuality exclusive states (guilty/innocent, owning/not owning, liable/not liable, etc.) and toward outlining proper procedures. Determining which of two (or more) mutually exclusive states a case falls into is an exercise of boundary setting. The concept of “proper” procedures implies that if certain actions are not performed rightly, if they fall outside the boundary, then the procedures will be improper and invalid.

Large portions of the Book of Discipline, especially in Part VI: Organization and Administration, reflect boundary-setting material – rules for determining who counts as being in which categories of ministry, rules for who should be on what committee or board, rules about actions that must be followed or avoided lest they lead to improper organization and administration of the church. Certainly, some of this material is necessary, especially for the church in the United States to function within the context of secular law.

Yet, we should remember that the point of discipline is discipleship. Discipleship involves being conformed to the image of God through the on-going process of sanctification. And that process of being conformed to the image of God is less about behaviors that absolutely must or must not happen. It’s about better and better reflecting the characteristics and heart of God. It’s about approaching an ideal.

So, since discipline is ultimately about discipleship, ideals are often more useful than boundaries in clarifying the end toward which our church behaviors are oriented. Boundary setting may play an important part in helping us walk the path toward the goal of discipleship by preventing us from falling into ditches to the side of the path, but articulating our ideals of Christian discipleship must remain the primary focus of our disciplines.

To get some idea of what this could look like, I recommend reading through the section on ordination in the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s Book of Discipline. So much of the UMC’s section on ordination is focused on boundary setting – required mentoring, required education, required papers, required committee and board meetings, etc. The AME Book of Discipline has some of that, to be sure. But that AME Book of Discipline also has beautiful passages describing the qualities that a Christian minister should embody. It describes what sort of person ministers should be, or at least should aspire to be. It lays out the ideal.

I don’t know if AME ministers are better disciples than UMC ministers because of this setting of ideals, nor do I know how such a statement could even be assessed. But I do know that the AME Book of Discipline is more discipleship focused on this point, and that’s an example that United Methodists can aspire to follow as we continue to refine and perfect our Book of Discipline.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Rules and Norms

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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 week, I argued that the purpose of having a denominational Book of Discipline is to help United Methodists live productive lives of Christian discipleship, where, together with others in Christian community, they grow in holiness, i.e., the love of God and neighbor. The process of developing a General Book of Discipline that determines adaptable and non-adaptable portions of the present Book of Discipline is thus an opportunity to think theologically about the role of discipline in the life of discipleship.

One of Methodism’s theological insights is that actions matter in the Christian life. Christianity is not just about believing the right things; it is about putting one’s faith into action and thereby living out holy love. Discipline builds on this insight by trying to regulate Methodists’ actions, to encourage those actions which best express holiness and discourage actions which are at odds with holy living.

Yet there are two different ways to influence people’s actions: rules and norms.

Rules are formal statements of required or prohibited actions. They usually are tied to a set of stated consequences that apply if the rules are broken or at least an authority that has the power to enforce the rules and apply penalties if they are not followed. The primary feature of rules is that they are explicit. They state clearly, in ways that are accessible to all members of a community, how those community members are to behave.

Norms, on the other hand, are implicit. They are internalized and usually unspoken guidelines about how community members are to behave. There may be consequences to breaking norms, but these are social consequences, and those consequences are not necessarily predetermined nor does their application depend upon a particular authority. Norms operate through a process of socialization into the group that produces a common understanding of how to act.

Both formal rules and internalized norms can significantly shape people’s actions, but they do so in different ways, with each working best in specific settings.

Rules are especially useful in situations where there might be uncertainty or disagreement about how to behave. When there is uncertainty or disagreement about behavior, rules define expected behavior clearly in a way that everyone can access.

There are probably rules posted in your church kitchen. Not everyone who enters a church kitchen does so with the same idea about what to do with a dirty coffee cup or where to store leftover food, so posted rules encourage people to behave in the same way in that kitchen, regardless of what their initial inclinations would be.

Rules are also especially useful in situations where the consequences of behavior are significant. There’s no rule about not making change from the offering plate because, while that might be seen as a social faux pas, there’s little impact on others of that behavior. However, there are probably rules posted around your church about the heating or air conditioning systems because if one person acted inappropriately, that has the potential to discomfort everyone else in the church.

Norms have the advantage of being more comprehensive and more efficient than rules. Because they are based on observations of the behaviors of others, a lot more can be communicated in this way, and it can be done much more quickly than if everything were written down.

Imagine all of the behavioral choices that go into the average church potluck – what type of food to bring, how much to bring, what form to bring it in, how much food to take, etc. Some of these choices might be decided through formal rules (e.g., “Last names A-G bring a salad.”), but most of these choices are made based on observations of previous potlucks. You get a sense of how people act at a potluck, then you behave similarly. There might be some confusion for first-time participants, but by your second or third potluck, you get the hang of it, all without having to read a 32-page manual of rules on how to behave at potlucks. This is the power of norms. Even if there were a 32-page manual of potluck rules, it still probably won’t be as effective at getting people to behave the same way as social imitation is.

The disadvantage of norms is that they require a community of practice to operate. Potluck norms work when there’s a church community that regularly has potlucks. That setting of the same group of people engaging in the same set of actions is what allows people to socially learn from one another. If a church were to have a potluck for the first time ever, there would likely be a lot more variation in people’s behavior at the potluck. Or, if you had been to many potlucks before but then went to one in a new setting, it might be more difficult to anticipate in advance how people would behave because you would be outside the community where you learned potluck norms.

One of Wesley’s key insights, though, was that the practice of Christianity best happened in community. Classes, bands, and select societies were predicated on Christian community. These groups formed settings in which collective Christian norms could encourage all members of the community to behave in a more holy way. The Bible may function as a shared text, but most Christian small groups don’t have an extensive list of rules to govern their behavior or that of their members. Instead, they depend upon frequent interactions among members around shared areas of concern that build up commonly held norms in those areas. This has historically been an incredibly effective way to discipline Christians in their practice of discipleship.

Yet, the entire membership of The United Methodist Church functions much different than a small group. Most members of the church do not know each other, indeed have never met each other. So, there is no opportunity for people to directly learn social norms from one another. To the extent that individuals are part of multiple smaller groups within the denomination, they may help transfer norms from one area to another.

Nevertheless, for there to be shared understandings of expected behavior across the whole denomination, there need to be explicit rules, since the scope of the denomination is too large for implicit norms to function well. That is why we have a Book of Discipline.

Yet, even though rules are necessary in a large, multi-national, multicultural, multilinguistic denomination, it is important to remember that discipleship best happens in community and discipline exists to support discipleship. Thus, making formal rules is not an end in itself. The best and most effective way to discipline members into living lives of Christian discipleship is for them to be part of communities that can create shared norms of discipleship.

Rules support this process of community norming by ensuring that these communities incorporate key behaviors when the potential risk of not doing so would be disastrous to communities and by clarifying expectations of how the communities will relate to one another in mutual support of their process of forming Christian disciples.

Rules are not the only thing that can be included in a written Book of Discipline. In my next post, I’ll look at the distinction between boundaries and ideals.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Discipline and Discipleship

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Among the many actions of the recently concluded General Conference was to approve continued work on the General Book of Discipline. The creation of a General Book of Discipline is an idea that’s been around The United Methodist Church for some time and is laid out in ¶101 of the Book of Discipline.

In short, work on the General Book of Discipline involves designating certain portions of the Book of Discipline as adaptable and certain portions of it as non-adaptable. Adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline could be changed by central conferences (and regional conferences, should Worldwide Regionalization be ratified). Non-adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline are binding on all branches of the church.

Clearly in the non-adaptable portion of the Book of Discipline is the Constitution, the Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, the Ministry of All Christians, and the Social Principles. Work on the General Book of Discipline is thus focused on the largest portion of the Discipline, Part VI: Organization and Administration. The instructions in ¶101 call for Part VI to be split into adaptable and non-adaptable parts.

This work is primarily assigned to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters (SCCCM) and the Committee on Faith and Order (CFO), with some additional groups consulted on portions of the work. A movement at General Conference to give the SCCCM and CFO the power to reword portions of the Discipline rather than merely categorize them as adaptable or non-adaptable ran out of time to revise the authorizing legislation.

Worldwide Regionalization was one of the major foci for General Conference, and the work on the General Book of Discipline intersects in important ways with the push for regionalization. The regionalization legislation (which still requires ratification by annual conferences to go into effect) would clarify and strengthen the power of what would become regional conferences to adapt portions of the Book of Discipline. A General Book of Discipline would clarify where that power to adapt should be focused.

For some portions of the Book of Discipline, the decision about whether to categorize them as adaptable or non-adaptable is fairly straightforward. Portions of the Discipline dealing with US clergy pension programs, for instance, are clearly relevant only to one part of the church, and other parts of the church should be able to remove them or replace them with their own clergy retirement provisions.

Other portions of the Book of Discipline are less clear. Should the order of deacons be an adaptable part of the Discipline, since some places in Africa still practice the transitional diaconate, or should that become a standard practice everywhere? Should the agencies be seen as part of the global infrastructure of the church, or are they primarily vehicles for the US church to do its work? Should the process of organizing a new congregation be the same in all places?

Such questions push the church to think carefully about theological issues around contextualization, subsidiarity, unity, and mission. They impinge upon relational issues such as trust, differentiation, control, and reciprocity. These are all good and important issues to think through.

Yet if we go one level further up, work on the General Book of Discipline raises a further question: Why do we have a Book of Discipline? What is its role in the United Methodist understanding of the Christian life? How does the concept of discipline and the existence of a Book of Discipline shape The United Methodist Church as a Christian community?

Discipline is a central concept in Methodism, dating back to the days of John Wesley. In secular meanings, discipline has connotations of instruction, knowledge, training, and adherence to rules. All of these fit with Methodism’s understanding of discipline.

But the best linguistic connection through which to understand Methodist discipline is the connection between discipline and discipleship. Discipline is, in essence, a reflection of the Methodist understanding of how discipleship should work. For Methodists, a life of discipleship is a disciplined life.

John Wesley believed, and subsequent generations of Methodists have maintained, that a life of Christian discipleship should be focused on growing in holiness through sanctifying grace. That process of growth involves spiritual and moral training, which is best carried out in Christian community through a set of regularized practices that structure the Christian life.

In Wesley’s revival, such lives of Christian discipline were initially structured through small groups – the classes and bands. Eventually, as Wesley and the preachers associated with him began to meet in yearly conferences, the minutes of those conferences wrote down “what to teach, how to teach, and how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice.” These written minutes were the beginning of the evolution of the present UMC Book of Discipline.

Yet it should not be lost that the point of these formalized minutes was to assist the individual Christians who were part of Wesley’s revival in living out disciplined lives of Christian holiness. The point of disciplines (and a written Discipline) was ultimately spiritual, not administrative, legislative, or legal. Disciplines existed to standardize best practices from the revival so that people could incorporate these practices into their Christian discipleship and thereby grow in holiness.

Thus, as United Methodists think about work on the General Book of Discipline, it is critical to keep in mind the spiritual intent of having a Book of Discipline. The question is not merely, “What rules can we afford to allow variation in around the world?” Ultimately, the question must be, “How do we craft a General Book of Discipline that helps United Methodists around the world be successful disciples of Jesus Christ?”

With this lens of discipleship in mind, I will suggest a few additional concepts over the next several posts to help United Methodists think through how disciplines and a Discipline can contribute to living out lives of holiness in Christian community.

Recommended Viewing: American Society of Missiology 2024 Conference Plenary Videos

The American Society of Missiology, the premier ecumenical professional organization dedicated to mission studies in North America, held its annual meeting a couple weeks ago. This year's theme was “Mission with Children, Youth, and Young Adults.” The theme was chosen by 2023-2024 President (and Association of Methodist Professors of Mission member) Rev. Dr. Benjamin L. Hartley.

The conference included a schedule of plenary presentations and paper presentations, all focused on the yearly theme. The plenary presentations were videotaped and have been posted on the society's YouTube channel. They are well worth viewing, especially Hartley's fine presidential address.

Benjamin Hartley: John R. Mott amidst the Students

Dwight Radcliff, Jr.: Remixing the Center

Andrea Toledo Baker: Sacred Spaces

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Was John Wesley a Missionary to Georgia?

Today's piece is by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary and author of the forthcoming book, John Wesley and the Origins of Methodist Missions.

It is widely assumed that John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, was a missionary to Georgia. I have seen this matter-of-fact statement multiple times in biographies about John Wesley’s life and ministry. If, indeed, Wesley was a missionary, was he commissioned? What entity or missionary agent sent him? This blog will reflect on this assumption and raise some questions about its veracity.

Background

Wesley graduated from Christ Church, University of Oxford, in 1724 and was ordained a deacon in the Church of England in 1725. After assisting his father in parish ministry in Epworth and Wroot, he was ordained an elder in 1728. When Wesley’s father, Samuel Wesley, became ill in 1734 he unsuccessfully attempted to convince his son to succeed him as rector in Epworth. As John wrestled with whether or not to go to Epworth he wrote his father on November 15, 1734 with his decision: “The question is not whether I could do more good to others there or here, but whether I could do more good to myself; seeing wherever I can be most holy myself, there, I am assured, I can most promote holiness in others. But I am equally assured there is no place under heaven so fit for my improvement as Oxford.”

Epworth, Georgia or remain in Oxford?

Another of Samuel Wesley’s connections, John Burton, was a trustee of the Colony of Georgia and entered into correspondence with Wesley about America. The trustees were unhappy with the ministry of missionary Quincy Adams and wished to replace him.

Meanwhile, John Wesley had returned to Oxford where he was leading a group of students, including his younger brother Charles, on their spiritual quest for holy living. The group, known as the Holy Club—and later Methodists—sought to renew themselves and the church in the spirit of Primitive Christianity. The spiritual quest of the Oxford Methodists, including the Wesley brothers, could be described as mysticism. Wesley’s goal was to work out his salvation by faith and trembling (Phil. 2: 12-13). He also felt a sense of persecution and the desire to suffer on his faith journey.[1] When John Burton proposed mission work in Georgia, Wesley saw this as an opportunity to suffer and work out his salvation.

So, Wesley turned down his father’s invitation to succeed him at Epworth because he felt that Oxford was the best place to pursue his spiritual growth. Burton’s invitation, on the other hand, captured Wesley’s imagination. When General Oglethorpe, the de facto governor of Georgia, brought the Yamacraw chief, Tomochichi, to England to meet with King George, Wesley became even more fascinated with the idea of evangelizing Native Americans. This opportunity aligned with his vision of self-sacrifice and recovering the spirituality of early church in Jerusalem, who shared all things in common. While Europeans had been corrupted, Wesley held the belief that Native Americans were pure and closer to Primitive Christianity, embodying a communitarian lifestyle.

Motivation to go to Georgia

After his father’s passing on April 25, 1735, Wesley consulted his mother, Susanna, about going to Georgia as a missionary, to which she responded, “Had I twenty sons, I should rejoice they were all so well employed, though I should never see them more.”[2] With his mother’s approval, he recruited his younger brother Charles and Oxford Methodists Charles Delamotte and Benjamin Ingham, and they embarked for Savannah on December 10, 1735. On board the ship, Wesley wrote John Burton about his motivation for going to America:

“My chief motive, to which all the rest are subordinate, is the hope of saving my own soul. I hope to learn the true sense of the gospel of Christ by preaching it to the heathens…But you will perhaps ask, Can’t you save your own soul in England as well as in Georgia? I answer, No, neither can I hope to attain the same degree of holiness here which I may there, neither, if I stay here knowing this, can I reasonably hope to attain any degree of holiness at all.”

In other words, Wesley’s motivation for going to preach to Native Americans was intimately tied to his own spiritual journey toward holiness. Of this momentous vocational decision, Kenneth Collins writes in his biography, John Wesley: A Theological Journey: “upon further reflection and prayer, Wesley finally decided to accept the invitation to become a missionary…” (p. 55).

Was John Wesley a missionary?

John Wesley volunteered to go to Georgia to evangelize Native Americans without any conversation of official missionary status. At the time, there were many volunteer societies functioning in England, but two primarily had to do with overseas missions: The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Both of these societies were formed by Thomas Bray, in 1698 and 1701, respectively. The former provided Christian literature for priests and the later focused on supporting priests to minister among the colonists. Bray was an Anglican priest who traveled to Maryland and saw the need for spiritual care among the colonists, as well as the enslaved Africans and Native Americans in the British colonies.

While Wesley knew of these societies, he did not go to Georgia under their auspices. Rather, his invitation came from the Georgia Trustees via John Burton and General Oglethorpe. During his voyage and unbeknownst to him, however, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts held its annual meeting on January 16, 1736, and approved John Wesley, retroactively, as a missionary in Georgia. The SPG recorded in its journal: “…he had nearly arrived in Georgia by the time he was approved without consultation as a SPG missionary.”[3] The SPG re-assigned Adam’s £50 missionary salary to Wesley, but he did not accept these terms and saw himself as a volunteer missionary. His vision was to evangelize the Native Americans, and he did not consider himself an SPG missionary. After Quincy Adams was dismissed from his post, General Oglethorpe asked Wesley to not leave Savannah “destitute of a minister.” Meanwhile, Charles became an assistant of Oglethorpe and Secretary of Indian Affairs for the colony and did not seek a missionary designation either.

Conclusion

The SPG Journal for the following year, 1737, lists John Wesley as an SPG missionary, but with no salary. The 1738 SPG journal states that “Wesley thought of himself as an independent volunteer missionary.”[4] Wesley also did not fulfill all the requirements of SPG missionaries, for example, sending regular reports and updates to the society. He did, however, receive funding and books from the SPCK, which he utilized, and he gave an account with receipts. Although John Wesley did not receive a salary as a missionary, the SPG continued to include his name in their journals. So, was Wesley a missionary to Georgia? In spite of multiple unqualified accounts, this assumption joins the list of Wesleyan hagiography. While the SPG would like to claim him, Wesley saw himself as a volunteer missionary and not an official missionary of the SPG.

[1] Geordan Hammond, “John Wesley’s Mindset at the Commencement of His Georgia Sojourn: Suffering and the Introduction of Primitive Christianity to the Indians,” Church History, October 2008, vol.47, No. 1, pp18-25.

[2] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. I, p.234.

[3] SPG Journal, 16, January, 1736, vol.6, fo.305, SPG Archives, Rhodes House Library, Oxford, p.146.

[4] SPG Journal, 21 July 1738, vol.7, fos.26:1-2. Also see Wesley letter to the SPG, July 6, 1737, Works of John Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, 25:516.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: The Mission of the Church in the World

Today's piece is by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary. This piece was originally published on United Methodist Insight and is republished here with the permission of the publisher.

Every other year I have the privilege of teaching a course for aspiring United Methodist elders and deacons entitled “Mission of the Church in the World.” Along with Evangelism, Old and New Testament, Church History, Theology, United Methodist History, Doctrine and Polity, this is one of nine courses that is required for ordination in our church.

I love the title of the class—in fact I love everything about the class. I have taught this course in various settings, modalities, and institutions over the last two decades. Before Covid-19 this course was taught face-to-face both in semester-long and intensive formats. Since the pandemic, I have taught it online and hybrid (some in-person and some online). One of my favorite ways to teach the class is experiential. I have taught the class at Brooks Howell Home in Asheville, North Carolina, and students interviewed retired United Methodist missionaries and deaconesses, as part of the course requirements.

We have combined reading and writing assignments with experiential learning and field trips to ministries that prioritize those who are overlooked by society. We have invited guest speakers participating in God’s mission around the world, and used tools like “Mission Insite” to understand mission opportunities in one’s local community. During these days of reorganizing and refocusing the mission of the church considering our colonial history, it is helpful to reflect on the mission of the church in the world.

The title of the course reflects a change in the way that mission has traditionally been understood. Historically mission has been a one-way street from the center to the periphery. The western Church inherited the traditional mission model from Christendom when the Church and the State were fused together in Western Europe. Following Christopher Columbus’s voyage to the West Indies and the subsequent “Doctrine of Discovery,” the missionaries accompanied colonial expansion to newly settled territories to teach native peoples western civilization. Mission became centered within Christendom and went out to the margins. Mission was an overseas task from “us to them.” Mission started in the Church and went out to the unchurched. This was still the missiological view at the 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland with the goal to spread Christianity from Christendom to non-Christian lands.

This traditional understanding of mission started to change midway through the 20th century following World War II. Following Edinburgh a continuation committee formed and the international missionary community gathered every ten years or so to reflect on the mission of the church. There was an inherent imbalance of power between mission-sending and mission-receiving churches that gradually began to change. The self-determination movement and independence movement of formally colonized nations awakened a new understanding of mission.

Six years prior to the 1938 Tambaram (India) Conference, Karl Barth read a paper at the Brandenburgh Missionary Conference where he described missions as an activity of God. A couple years later Karl Hartenstein articulated a similar understanding and coined the term “Missio Dei” to emphasize that it is God’s mission and not the mission of the church (“missio ecclesiae”).[1] The Church also shifted its understanding of mission to be God’s mission. Karl Barth was one of the first theologians to state that mission was God’s activity.[2] About the same time frame Emil Brunner wrote: “The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission there is no Church; and where there is neither Church nor mission, there is no faith.”[3]

The next meeting of the International Missionary Council in 1952 was held in Willingen, Germany in the aftermath of World War II. The conference built on the concept prevalent at Tambaram that mission is derived from the very heart of God, especially within the Trinity. The conference findings viewed God as the source of missions. Hartenstein’s concept of the “Missio Dei” or a missionary God influenced the conversations. David Bosch summarized the image of mission developed at Willingen as “…participating in the sending of God.”[4] In other words, God is the source of mission, not the church. This theme continued the movement away from an ecclesio-centric understanding of mission to a mission-centered church.[5] Instead of the church being the one who sends, the church itself is sent.[6]

One of the unexpected twists of missions in the 20th century was that the so-called “younger” or “receiving” churches grew stronger meanwhile secularism weakened the “sending” churches in the West. After the Great Depression, two world wars, and colonial wars, the West was not in an economic or moral position to claim that they had the exclusive right to do mission. In 1961 the International Missionary Committee was dissolved, and the World Council of Churches formed with younger and established churches having equal representation. A Scottish theologian and missionary, Leslie Newbigin, was the General Secretary of the International Missionary Committee and stewarded the transition into the World Council of Churches, where he became Associate General Secretary. He returned to his home country of Scotland in 1974, after serving as a missionary in India for more than three decades and was astounded the decline of Christianity and the secularization in the United Kingdom. He had left Scotland during an era of Christendom, but upon his return found a society that was post-Christian or even anti-Christian.[7] He realized that the West is a mission field. This broke down the traditional paradigm of mission “from the West to the rest.”

In 1983 Newbigin published "The Other Side of 1984: Questions for the Churches" in which he built upon the theological consensus of the “missio Dei.” Newbigin’s work that emerged in the late 20th century with a focus on moving beyond Christendom, seeing the West as a mission field, and the Missio Dei. This is the historical background of the shift to seeing the Church as an instrument of God’s mission in the world.

As we reflect on the mission of The United Methodist Church in the aftermath of schism and division, it is important to go back to our mission “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” I treasure the opportunity to reflect with aspiring United Methodist clergy about the mission of the church in the world.

^[1] Hartenstein, Karl (1934). "Wozu nötigt die Finanzlage der Mission". Evangelisches Missions-Magazin. 79: 217–229.

^[2] David Bosch, Transforming Mission, Orbis Press, 1991, 389.

^[3] Emil Brunner, The Word and the World, 1931.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Bosch, 370.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Darrell Guder, ed., Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, 3.

Darryl W. Stephens: United Methodists in the Ivory Coast: One Vote, One Million Departures, Many Questions

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Rev. Dr. Stephens is Director of United Methodist Studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and is author of many books, articles, and chapters on Methodism, including Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness(2016) and Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church (2024).

The United Methodist Church (UMC) potentially lost one million members on May 28, 2024, complicating its ambition to become a “worldwide” denomination. In a special session held in Abidjan, the annual conference of the United Methodist Church of Ivory Coast (EMUCI, Eglise Méthodiste Unie Côte d’Ivoire) voted “For reasons of conscience before God and His word, the supreme authority in matters of faith and life . . . to leave the United Methodist Church denomination.” (Reported by La Croix International. See also UM News.) The departure is not yet finalized.

The vote followed an eventful General Conference in Charlotte, NC, in which the denomination’s longstanding prohibitions against LGBTQ clergy and same-sex marriage were lifted. The UMC Discipline (book of law and doctrine) now takes a permissive stance, allowing discernment on these issues at the local and regional levels of the UMC, which has conferences in Africa, Europe, North America, and the Philippines.

Contextually flexible ministry to and with LGBTQ persons precipitated the vote by United Methodists in Côte d’Ivoire to leave the UMC. The EMUCI president, Bishop Benjamin Boni, explained: “the United Methodist Church now rests on socio-cultural values that have consumed its doctrinal and disciplinary integrity” (La Croix International). Did the Ivorians join the UMC under the false assumption that its policies on homosexuality would never change?

None of the denomination’s prior prohibitions against same-sex marriage or ordination of a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” were matters of doctrine. Like long-standing prohibitions against alcohol, tobacco, and divorce in generations past, these policies on sexual morality rested on social statements (for discussion, see Methodist Morals, pp. 31–41). Unlike the UMC’s “standards of doctrine” (Book of Discipline 2016, ¶ 17), the Social Principles—and any policies built on them—can be changed with a simple majority vote at General Conference.

Although their “marriage” was never very intimate, the failing merger of the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire raises significant questions regarding the “worldwide nature” of the UMC and its global ambitions.

A Surprise Wedding

The Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire and the UMC initiated their merger in 2004. Was this joining of denominational bodies a merger, a partnership, a marriage, or something else? The initial commitment to unite the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire came as a surprise to all parties—the ecclesial equivalent to an elopement.

The Ivorians had operated as an independent ecclesial body for less than twenty years. Established as a church in 1924, Methodists in Côte d’Ivoire became autonomous from the British Methodist Church in 1985 (for a history, see https://www.umnews.org/en/news/a-brief-history-of-methodism-in-cote-divoire). This church subsequently requested mission status from the UMC’s General Board of Global Ministries circa 2001 in anticipation of joining the UMC in 2008.

Through a petition to the General Conference of 2004, the Commission on Central Conference Affairs recommended referring the matter to its executive committee for further study. However, during the General Conference plenary, a delegate made a substitute motion to add Côte d’Ivoire without delay. It passed. The United Methodist News Service reported a one-million-member increase for the UMC, documenting surprise and delight among the respective leaders involved.

After the initial euphoria and a more precise census, the Judicial Council ruled that the appropriate Disciplinary procedures had not been followed, delaying a merger of the two churches until 2008. Lack of sufficient premarital counseling and a hurried wedding did not bode well for a successful marriage between the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire. Many issues of how to be church together remained unaddressed.

An Unconsummated Marriage

At the time of merger, Côte d’Ivoire became the UMC’s largest annual conference, and it was clear who held the power and controlled the finances. I do not know what motivated the Ivorian leaders to seek to become part of the UMC. However, the results included consecration of a bishop, access to US-funded agencies, and other denominational resources. Despite the perception of mutual benefits, the 2008 merger maintained the inequalities and disparities of the central conference structure in the UMC. The institutional integration of the two churches was never fully consummated.

From the outset, the former Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire showed ambivalence about participating in the business of the UMC. Côte d’Ivoire was the only annual conference not in crisis to fail to submit vote totals on the five constitutional amendments approved by General Conference 2016. It was also the only annual conference to fail to revise its membership numbers for the 2020 General Conference delegation calculation. The annual conference has not submitted a journal to the General Council of Finance and Administration since 2016.

The UMC, for its part, did not prioritize this new international partnership. While various shared ministry partnerships arose, the efforts did not endeavor to address fundamental issues. Differences in language, culture, geography, institutional history, and socio-political context on a denominational level were not addressed. Despite a merger of institutions on a similar scale to the 1968 merger that created the UMC, little attention was given to the details of being church together (for discussion, see Reckoning Methodism, pp. 38–44)

Twelve years after the initial vote to acquire the Côte d’Ivoire church, significant aspects of the work of denominational union remained unresolved. General Conference 2016 postponed and referred eight major pieces of legislation to various agencies and commissions, including a Global Book of Discipline, revised Social Principles, and an ongoing study of the “worldwide nature” of the UMC. Meanwhile, United Methodists in the United States perceived few changes, and most were unaware that a merger had occurred.

A Failing Merger and Global Ambitions

Many aspects of this failing merger were specific to the way the UMC and United Methodists in Côte d’Ivoire related to each other. Both sides neglected the relationships and structural changes necessary to forge a shared life together. This union was treated as an acquisition, and these institutions did not view each other as equals. When General Conference finally approved two major pieces of global polity—the Revised Social Principles and a regionalization plan—Boni and other leaders in Côte d’Ivoire decided that the changes were not compatible with their understanding of Methodism. Their planned exit from the UMC could be accomplished as quickly as their entry since there are no strong structural ties. Could an equally swift exit vote happen among United Methodist annual conferences elsewhere in Africa?

It is possible that conferences in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Congo, and others could also vote to depart the UMC—though this is unlikely. The Africa Forum supported the recent regionalization legislation, and connectional relationships appear much stronger beyond the denominational newcomers in Côte d’Ivoire. Whether the UMC mirrors the cross-cultural antagonism found within other church bodies, such as the Anglican Communion, or finds a different path for international cooperation remains to be seen.

The failing merger of the UMC and the Methodist Protestant Church of Côte d’Ivoire exposes the difficulties of realizing United Methodism’s global ambitions. The ambition for global expansion appears to be motivated by a US, imperialistic mindset. The project of building a “worldwide” church is funded through US apportionments and is emblematic of cultural power and prestige. In a winner-obsessed culture, nothing is more indicative of success than increasing numbers, whether through baptisms or acquisition. Despite a century of perpetual studies of “Methodism overseas” and the “worldwide nature” of this denomination, the UMC has yet to adequately address its replication of the structures of empire.

For the project of a “worldwide” church to be shared among United Methodists outside of the United States, international partnerships must be mutually transforming. For a lasting marriage, US United Methodists will have to do church differently—or suffer yet another departure from the US “mother church.”

Further Reading

Maia, Filipe, and David W. Scott, eds. Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 2023.

Scott, David W. “Is Being a World-Wide Denomination an American Aspiration?” UM & Global, June 14, 2019. http://www.umglobal.org/2019/06/is-being-world-wide-denomination.html.

Stephens, Darryl W. Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2016.

———. Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024.

Recommended Reading: Bishop Nhiwatiwa's Autobiography

Bishop Eben K. Nhiwatiwa, the soon-to-retire bishop of Zimbabwe, has recently published an autobiography with Abingdon: By the Grace of God: My Life as an African Bishop. The book is well worth a read, especially for US United Methodists. Here are six reasons why:

1. Bishop Nhiwatiwa's loyalty to The United Methodist Church and his leadership in the African Colleges of Bishops were an important factor in preparing African delegates to General Conference to support regionalization. You get a sense of this in his sermon at General Conference. His autobiography explains how he grew up in The United Methodist Church and where his loyalty to that church comes from. His story is an important window for US United Methodists into understanding similar African perspectives as we work together for the ratification of regionalization.

2. As African United Methodists come to compose more of the denomination's members and much of its areas of growth, it's important for United Methodists in the US to understand the variety of perspectives and experiences among African United Methodists so that together we can work for the good of the denomination and the kin(g)dom of God. Bishop Nhiwatiwa's autobiography represents a significant opportunity to do that in English in a format that's readily available in the US.

3. In his autobiography, Bishop Nhiwatiwa is reflective on how cultural practices in Zimbabwe shaped his life and his faith. Thus, his autobiography is an opportunity to learn not just generally about African perspectives but also more specifically about the relationship between culture and faith in Zimbabwe and in a broader sense, Africa generally.

4. Bishop Nhiwatiwa studied in the United States in college. Thus, the book also contains his reflections on his experiences in the US and on US culture. This opportunity to learn how some of our fellow denominational members see us is an important opportunity for US United Methodists to better understand ourselves and how we come off to those with whom we are in partnership.

5. In his work as bishop, Bishop Nhiwatiwa is famous for promoting the concept of "chabadza" mission partnerships. This is a significant contribution to mission thinking by a practical United Methodist mission leader. Bishop Nhiwatiwa's concept of chabadza partnership deserves more attention and study, especially as the church ponders what a decolonial mission future looks like.

6. Bishop Nhiwatiwa is also a student of leadership, and he reflects throughout the book on his understanding of leadership. Leadership is both a universal human experience and a culturally-conditioned practice. For both of those reasons, Bishop Nhiwatiwa's insights into leadership are worth exploring.

UM & Global Resources on Regionalization

One of the significant decisions taken by the recent General Conference was the passage of the Worldwide Regionalization legislation. The legislation, some of which still needs to be ratified by annual conferences over the next year, would restructure the church to convert existing central conferences into regional conferences, create a regional conference for the United States, and give regional conferences greater local control in adapting structures, ministries, and policies for maximal missional effectiveness in their contexts.

Since regionalization will now go to the annual conferences for ratification, and since, if ratified, the church will need to go through a process of living into regionalization, there is more discussion of regionalization that needs to happen, even with General Conference approval. Therefore, UM & Global offers the following resources to assist in conversations about regionalization and what it means to strive to be a church that structures itself in internationally equitable ways:

A brief description of David Scott & Filipe Maia's recent book, Methodism and American Empire

All UM & Global articles tagged with the term "regionalization"

A collection of UM & Global articles on "The UMC as a Global Church," with study questions

A collection of UM & Global articles on "Culture, Context, and the Global Church," with study questions

A collection of UM & Global articles on "The Global UMC in Ecumenical Perspective," with study questions. Some of these articles served as early drafts for David Scott's chapter in Methodism and American Empire.

A collection of UM & Global articles on "Church Autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS)," with study questions. These articles provide additional background information on the COSMOS process described by Joon-Sik Park and Phil Wingeier-Rayo in their chapters of Methodism and American Empire.

It Was a Good General Conference for Europeans

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

The recently concluded General Conference was an historic one, marking a dramatic shift in tone from previous General Conferences and a clear (if not universal) consensus on the direction for the church in the future. Among the General Conference's many accomplishments were passage of the "3 R's": regionalization, revised Social Principles, and removal of the restrictive language on ministry with and by LGBTQ+ persons in the denomination.

As the wide vote margins on most issues showed, this work of turning from conflict toward a renewed focus on future ministry was carried forward by delegates from all over the world.

In particular, the Africa Forum showed its significance as an organizing body. Heading into the conference, many observers in the United States were uncertain how African delegates would vote on key issues. But the hard work by leaders in the Africa Forum was key in African support for regionalization and the revised Social Principles. Also key was the Africa Forum's grace-filled decision to allow US United Methodists to embrace inclusive ministry in the US context while maintaining a traditional religious and cultural understanding of marriage in the African context.

Regionalization also owes so much to Filipina/o leaders in the denomination. Many of the early leaders of the Christmas Covenant were Filipinos and Filipinas, and it was an annual conference from the Philippines that sent the Christmas Covenant legislation to General Conference, legislation which became the basis for the Worldwide Regionalization proposal that was passed. Drawing on a history of thinking deeply about autonomy and connectionalism, Filipina/o writers have also had some of the most eloquent reflections on and arguments for regionalization.

But I found myself thinking at General Conference how European United Methodists have had a special role in much of what happened at this General Conference. European United Methodists also contributed to the Christmas Covenant and advocating for regionalization. We saw Bishop Rückert's leadership repeatedly in making presentations to General Conference on regionalization and other topics, and Bishop Streiff and others were leading that work before him.

The revised Social Principles arose because of a request from European delegates to a previous General Conference for more globally-relevant statements of the denomination's social teachings.

Removing the restrictive language both is an important step for Western Europeans and validates the general European approach of seeking local control over marriage and ministry, with the understanding that Eastern and Western Europeans will have different approaches.

Even the departure of the Eurasia Episcopal Area, bittersweet though it may have been, was a validation of local decision making about future connectional arrangements by European leaders.

I say this not to lionize European United Methodists or to suggest that they deserve more credit than others. Certainly, there is credit enough to go around for all that was accomplished in Charlotte.

But I think the contributions that European United Methodists made to this General Conference show something important, as do Filipino contributions to the Christmas Covenant. European United Methodists are a very small group spread out over many countries in languages. In many ways, they are functionally marginal to a denomination that is overwhelmingly African and North American.

Yet, it is often from the margins that the most important ideas and innovations come. Without the contributions of European United Methodists to a vision of global equity and a structure that works for all around the world, and without Filipino/a leadership in advancing the project of regionalization, we would not have the church we are now celebrating. Good ideas and insights come from the margins.

The bulk of United Methodists live in the United States and in various African countries, especially the DRC. The relationship between United Methodists in the US and those in Africa will continue to be a critical focus for the denomination, especially as the drive for ratification and implementation of regionalization proceeds.

But as Africa and the United States rightfully receive a lot of attention going forward, the contributions of European and Filipina/o United Methodists remind us that we depend as a connection on the generous offering of gifts, ideas, and insights from our entire connection. Who knows where the next big ideas that will shape the future of the denomination will come from? If the past is any guide, we should continue to look to the wisdom and insight of small groups with unique perspectives.

Filipe Maia: Decolonizing Wesleyan Theology: Theological Engagements from the Underside of Methodism

The following is a preview excerpt from the Introduction to the recently published Decolonizing Wesleyan Theology: Theological Engagements from the Underside of Methodism, edited by Filipe Maia: https://wipfandstock.com/9781666793482/decolonizing-wesleyan-theology/. This excerpt is used by permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers, www.wipfandstock.com.

In August 2018, a group of scholars, pastors, and ecclesial leaders met at Wesley House in Cambridge, UK, to imagine and plot the decolonization of Methodist and Wesleyan traditions. Standing on British territory and under the shadow of the prestigious Cambridge University, the gathering embodied the ambivalent legacy of the Wesleyan tradition, birthed in the midst of British imperialism while cherished by Methodist communities in the postcolonial world. We were Methodist scholars and leaders from the Global South, immigrants in the diasporas of the Global North, all coming to Wesleyan theology via the complex entanglement between missionary movements and western colonialism.

While steeped in Wesleyan traditions, the group gathered in Cambridge embodied a Methodism that could not have been envisioned by John Wesley nor the missionaries who set out to spread “scriptural holiness” to all corners of the planet. In those corners of the world, Methodism gained new edges. Those of us meeting in British territory had returned to the birthplace of our theological and spiritual tradition with a difference. We noticed that claiming our Methodist roots demanded a reinterpretation of the tradition. The gathering showed that the Wesleyan theological tradition has been pluralized in the context of colonial and neocolonial expansion.

One of the ideas suggested by the group in Cambridge was the organization of an edited volume under the working title, Decolonizing Wesleyan Theology. This was more than a title: it was a task.

This volume is one response to that task. It gives testimony to the Methodist roots that grow in territories and bodies that uproot longstanding colonial forces. It has been envisioned, nurtured, and curated as a work of decolonial love. Authors in this volume write from multiple locations in the Global South where our Wesleyan heritage is giving new contours to the tradition.

Readers will most likely notice that the language of decline, so common in Methodist circles in North America, is rarely, if ever, mentioned. This is no indication that Methodism flourishes without difficulties in the Global South, but rather a statement about how contributors are less interested in thinking about the numerical decline of Christendom and more committed to a renewed Wesleyan theology that meets the harsh realities of a world still embedded in the structures of colonialism.

The decolonial approaches to Wesleyan theology offered in this volume give witness to a tradition that gains strength and vitality in decolonial struggles and in the engagement with traditions and ways of knowing that have been suppressed by western modernity.

The essays in this volume offer perspectives into a Methodism that lives and flourishes on the underside of colonial powers. From all corners of the planet, communities of faith in the Wesleyan tradition experiment with theological imaginaries and ecclesial practices that are transforming the face of global Methodism. Decolonizing Wesleyan Theology gives voice to these experiments while seeking to deepen the reflection in decolonial theologies and spiritualities.

As authors revisit the history of the Methodist movement, they witness to the different shapes Methodism gained in the colonies—old and new. As they revisit Wesley’s own writings and other important themes in Wesleyan theology and practice, they inhabit the cracks of our founder’s theology and turn it in unforeseeable directions.

It is worth mentioning that the volume that you are now engaging is but one element of the ongoing task of decolonizing Wesleyan theology and traditions. In fact, it is appropriate to approach this volume as a snapshot of an ongoing conversation. This book is the fruit of a larger project that involves monthly conversations among a global network of Methodist theologians and leaders.

The “World Parish Webinar” has been a platform where we have been shaping conversations in the direction of a decolonial Methodism. Since January 2020, we have been gathering monthly and our group has grown into a global parish, a “people on the move,” to borrow the expression from J. C. Park, developed in his essay later in this volume. This group has been called out as an assembly—an ekklesia—to retrain our theological ways of knowing and to conjure up a decolonial Wesleyan theology.

We have been put on the move through these webinars: we have become a migrant church, pilgriming through many locations as we pursue the task of decolonizing the Wesleyan tradition. The World Parish Webinar became a Pentecost of sorts, a place where we share good news with the accents of a multitude of locations, where we do not pursuit the homogeneity of Empire, but relish on the difference that resists the colonial dream of sameness, of a single voice, of one Wesley, of one homogenous church body. The webinar is ongoing and is convened through Wesley House in Cambridge. If you would like to join the conversation you are welcome to do so. Information can be found at Wesley House’s website.

Decolonizing Wesleyan theology entails the appreciation of difference and alternative forms of knowledge production, different modes of theological imagination, the recognition and negotiation of alternative inheritances. The essays included in the volume embody these principles as they construct a decolonial Wesleyan theology. Combining Wesleyan theology and decolonial theories, this volume offers a unique contribution to Methodist studies, global Methodism, and decolonial theologies.

Decolonizing Wesleyan Theology presents eight reflections that lead readers into deeper engagements with Methodism. They are as follows:

Filipe Maia: "The Wesleyan Quartet: Wesleyan Theology in the Decolonial Turn"

Pablo Guillermo Oviedo: "Grace that Liberates and Unites in the Mission of God: Liberation Theology and Wesleyan Theology in Latin America"

Pablo Manuel Ferrer: "A Decolonial Physic: Medical Science, Healing, and the Ecology of Knowledge in Methodism"

Elvira Moisés Cazombo: "Wesleyan Methodism and the Interruption of Ancestral Bodies in Angolan Liturgical Practices"

Virgínia Inácio dos Santos: "Ministering While Single: An Angolan Perspective on Methodism and Marriage"

Lilian Cheelo Siwila: "Trapped between the Pew and the Altar: Wesleyan Traditions and Decoloniality; An African Feminist Perspective"

J. C. Park: "Decolonizing the Church of Empire: The Church on the Move for Justice, Peace, and Life"

Amelia Koh-Butler: "Water and Sand: Illuminating Native Theologies with a Wesleyan Lens of Spiritual Experience"

Jefferson Knight: Embracing a New Future for the UMC through Regionalization

Today's post is by Jefferson Knight. Knight is Program Director of the United Methodist Human Rights Monitor in Liberia and a delegate of the Liberia Annual Conference to the 2020 General Conference in 2024 of the United Methodist Church.

The passage of the regionalization petition signals a shift towards a more inclusive and diverse church that recognizes and values the unique needs and contexts of different regions around the world.

This decision allows for greater regional autonomy, enabling churches to address specific challenges and opportunities based on their local context. It promotes a more equitable distribution of power and resources within the church, ensuring that all regions have a voice and influence in decision-making processes.

Furthermore, the passage of the petition aligns with the principles of justice and love that the UMC holds dear. It acknowledges that different regions have different social, cultural, and theological perspectives, and allows for a more inclusive dialogue that respects and values these differences.

I believe that this decision will foster greater unity and collaboration within the UMC, as it encourages a more participatory and globally minded approach to church governance. It is an important step towards creating a church that truly reflects the diversity and richness of its membership, and I applaud us delegates for this overwhelming support of the regionalization petition.

For too long, the UMC has been US-centric, with dominance by the churches in the USA at General Conference. Regionalization will usher in equality everywhere and provide the opportunity to serve God in diverse contexts based on unique theological understandings. This move ensures that churches in different regions can practice their faith authentically without imposing their beliefs on others.

The future of the UMC shines brightly with this decision, signaling a new chapter in our journey. It is time to embrace change, move forward, and rebrand our church for the proclamation of the gospel in a more inclusive and globally conscious manner.

An Intercultural Prayer for General Conference

The following prayer was written by Dr. David W. Scott, blogmaster for UM & Global, on the opening of The United Methodist Church's General Conference in 2024.

Triune God, united yet diverse, we thank you for the gift of varied human cultures. We know that you created cultural diversity (Genesis 11), you included it in the very beginning of your church (Acts 2), and it is part of your eschatological vision for your heavenly, redeemed people (Revelation 7). We thank you for the ways in which the multiplicity of human cultures and perspectives help us to understand the multiplicity of ways in which you shower your love and your grace upon the world. We praise you for your creative spirit at work in the human desire to express truth and beauty regardless of background.

Yet we know that cultural diversity is not always an easy gift for us to accept. Give us then the other gifts that will help us better receive your blessing of cultural diversity and will keep us going in the direction of one another, even when we encounter difficulties and conflicts. Give us the gifts of listening, of understanding, of patience, of perseverance, of wisdom, of discretion. Give us most of all the gift of on-going sanctification so that we may be drawn ever closer to one another in holy love. We know that you through your sanctifying grace desire us to come to understand you better and to understand one another better so that we might better understand you.

May these gifts abound especially during this time of General Conference. We know that it can be difficult to discuss, debate, disagree, and discern even with those who look and think as we do. It requires that much more of us to engage in your work of holy conferencing across cultural differences. But we know that when we engage in such work interculturally, it holds out the potential for special blessings from you - special outpourings of your grace, special insight into how you work in the world, and a special opportunity to witness to the wideness of your redeeming grace. We pray that you may help us to run with perseverance this race so that we might win the prize.

And when this General Conference is over, we ask one more boon of you - that you may give us the space to tend to the work of building your intercultural church outside the pressure cooker of General Conference. Give us the opportunity to eat with one another around the boodle fight and the potluck table, to discuss under the palaver tree and in the seminar classroom, to worship together with the sounds of spirituals and organ music, to travel together by train and tuktuk, and through it all to learn from one another, to laugh with one another, and to love one another more.

Incarnate God, we thank you that you meet us where we are and walk with us on our journeys. May we feel your presence in all of us, now and always. Amen.