Recommended Reading: Tembe Nkomozepi on Earth Day and the Prodigal Son

Temba Nkomozepi, a Global Ministries missionary from Zimbabwe serving at Mujila Falls in Zambia, recently wrote a reflection on Earth Day for the Michigan Annual Conference. The reflection, titled "Leave it for our offspring," shares some of Nkomozepi's family associations with Earth Day. It also includes an environmental interpretation of the parable of the "Prodigal Son." Nkomozepi opens up the parable in new and insightful ways, and his reflection is well worth reading.

Recommended Viewing: Manuel Kalimbue Testimony

The Florida Annual Conference, which has a partnership with the East Angola Annual Conference, recently posted a video interview with Rev. Manuel Kalimbue. Rev. Kalimbue is the pastor of Central Malange UMC in Angola and dean of the Quessua School of Theology. In the video, which is just under 20 minutes long, Rev. Kalimbue recounts (in Portuguese with English subtitles) his early life story and eventual call to ministry.

As a child, Rev. Kalimbue was displaced by the civil war in Angola, lived in an international refugee camp, was separated from his family while escaping the camp and was enslaved, escaped enslavement and reunited with his family, and lived through the death of his mother and the rejection of him and his siblings by his father. It is a dramatic life story, and it is well worth listening for its human interest.

It is also worth listening for the questions it raises about intercultural theology. Again, Rev. Kalimbue is dean of the Quessua School of Theology. Certainly his teaching about theology is shaped by his life experiences and the similar life experiences of others in his context, as it should be. Yet those life experiences are very different than the life experiences of most US United Methodists.

How do such different life experiences impact the way in which United Methodists do theology and then communicate about that theology with one another? To give just one instance, trauma-informed theological education is a hot topic in North American theological education. What are the connections between trauma-informed theological education in the US and theological education among Angolans who have been shaped by the traumas of war, displacement, and slavery? There are potentially rich conversations to be had there and mutual learning to occur.

The future of United Methodist theology depends upon mutual recognition of the unique contexts that shape specific instances of United Methodist theology, and it also depends upon our ability to communicate about our theology across those contexts.

David W. Scott: Regionalization as a Kairos Moment

Today’s post is by Dr. David W. Scott. Dr. Scott is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This is the first in a three-part series based on a presentation given to the Connectional Table on a theology of regionalization.

As I have been describing for the past two weeks, while we have some problems in the church, including the problem of US centrism, God provides us solutions to our problems, and regionalization is one important such solution to the problem of US centrism.

There’s more good news, though. I believe we are currently in a period in which God has opened up the possibility of change in our church. We are in a Kairos moment.

Kairos is God’s appointed time. It is a time when the possibility for successful collective action exists. To borrow language from the political science term of policy window, it is when a problem, a solution, and the will to implement that solution line up. We have a problem – US centrism. We have a solution – regionalization. And I believe that we have the will to implement that solution in this moment.

Our current Kairos time is the latest in a long line of Kairos moments throughout UMC history, as the church has repeatedly encountered God’s invitation to live into new and more equitable ways of being the connectional church together across geographic borders:

• From the 1790s through the 1810s, the system of a General Conference and regional annual conferences evolved. The first General Conference was held in 1792, and in 1812, the Methodist Episcopal Church began the present system of electing delegates from annual conferences to the General Conference.
• In the 1830s & 1840s, the first American Methodist international missions offered the first chance to develop equitable relationships and structures across international boundaries. The church decided that annual conferences would be established everywhere Methodist mission went, not just in the United States.
• In the 1870s, the first central conferences were created in India and elsewhere in Asia to allow for more coordination among annual conferences outside the United States. Eventually, central conferences led to leadership selection adaptation of church practices on a regional level outside the United States.
• In the 1920s, there was discussion of how the church in the United States should relate to the church in Korea, Mexico, and Brazil, where the church was pursuing autonomy. In this period, central conferences were also extended around the world, almost but not quite, including to the United States.
• The 1960s and 1970s brought COSMOS – the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas – and a wave of churches in Latin America and Asia becoming autonomous.

I want to talk a little more about the COSMOS process as an example of how the church approached a Kairos moment in the past. COSMOS was designed to address issues of the relationship between the Methodist Church in the United States and the Methodist Church in other countries. In doing so, it was intended to balance the principles of freedom and fellowship.

COSMOS focused on 5 Core Principles that should determine the relationship between the church in different contexts:

• Developing responsible, indigenous churches of integrity
• Being shaped by the centrality of mission
• Fostering interdependence in mission and fellowship
• Being considered provisional and thus flexible
• Providing for equality of relationship

Based on those principles, COSMOS developed four options for the structure of the church:

1. Continuing the present structure, including central conferences
2. Granting autonomy for churches outside the United States
3. Creating an international church with regional conferences
4. Creating a World Methodist Conference of Churches

So, COSMOS considered a variety of solutions to the perceived problems of its day. In the end, the UMC went with a combination of the first and second options. Some churches became fully autonomous. Others stayed in in the present central conference structure. We can perhaps see COSMOS as a missed opportunity to be more creative in finding ways to develop equitable connectional relationships across international differences, but it was a time when the church dedicated significant focus to such questions, and it was still a step forward in that direction.

Experimentation has continued since the time of COSMOS.

• In the 2000s, the Worldwide Nature of the UMC saw regionalization legislation passed in 2008 but not ratified.
• That brings us to our current moment of regionalization, where legislation has passed and is now in the ratification process.

So, regionalization has lots of historical precedence. Every few decades throughout the life of The United Methodist Church and its predecessors, there have been Kairos moments when the church has sought anew to develop equitable relationships of Christian fellowship across countries. With the current regionalization legislation, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to live into what God has been calling us to as a church for a long time.

I hope this series of posts leaves you with three things:

First, I hope you are assured of the strong theological basis behind the Worldwide Regionalization legislation.

Second, I hope you are grateful for the gift God has given the church in the form of this Kairos moment.

Third, I hope you are determined not just to support the Worldwide Regionalization legislation but to figure out how we can in all our ways as a denomination live into the type of connectionalism to which God is calling us. So may it be. Amen.

David W. Scott: Regionalization as Solution to US Centrism

Today’s post is by Dr. David W. Scott. Dr. Scott is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This is the second in a three-part series based on a presentation given to the Connectional Table on a theology of regionalization.

As discussed last week, US centrism is a problem in The United Methodist Church, and God is calling us to a better connectionalism.

The way we get from one to the other is the solutions God offers us as a church. One very important such solution right now is regionalization. Regionalization is one way, but an important way, to move away from US centrism and toward the type of connectional values that God is calling us to practice.

It is important to make a distinction between regionalization as a theological concept and the Worldwide Regionalization legislation. I will talk about both.

As a theological concept, regionalization affirms that the primary venue for making collective decisions for the church should be a regional level rather than a global or local level. Regionalization is a value that affirms that all parts of the church should have equal authority and equal ability to make decisions.

Regionalization is related to other theological concepts such as contextualization. Contextualization asserts that the practices of the church should be determined within a shared context so as to best fit that context.

For both regionalization and contextualization, there are differing levels of local and regional contexts. We could talk, for instance, about the local context of Basel and the regional contexts of Switzerland, central Europe, and Europe as a whole.

What decisions are made on what level is a question of polity.

There already is one form of regionalization in United Methodist polity. The Book of Discipline refers to annual conferences as “the fundamental bodies of the Church.” Annual conferences are a form of regionalization in the church. They bring together churches from across a region for collective decision making in a way that goes beyond the local but does not include everyone from the global. The issue in our current US centrism is that this is not a sufficient form of regionalization.

As a package of legislation, Worldwide Regionalization seeks to implement the concept of regionalization in one way within The United Methodist Church. The Worldwide Regionalization legislation proposes to change the names of the existing central conferences into regional conferences. It would also create a new U.S. regional conference enabling The UMC in the U.S. to decide on specific U.S. matters.

Central conferences are already existing forms of regionalization. The Worldwide Regionalization legislation would standardize this form of regionalization to include the US, which currently does not have an equivalent form of regionalization to the central conferences. This is one of the major drivers of the problem of US centrism. 

Once created, each regional conference will have the authority to maximize the effectiveness of mission and ministry in its context by adapting portions of The Book of Discipline.

All regional conferences will share the common portions of the Book of Discipline, including the Constitution, Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, The Ministry of All Christians, and Social Principles enacted by General Conference. These are not adaptable by regional conferences. The Council of Bishops, Judicial Council, General Agencies and General Conference are fully maintained.

The important thing to affirm is that the Worldwide Regionalization legislation is based on regionalization as a theological concept. In addition to discussing the merits of that legislation, it’s also important to better understand the theological concept of regionalization, which is where this presentation comes in.

I want to offer four affirmations about regionalization as a theological principle: that regionalization has a biblical foundation; that regionalization is missional; that regionalization is equitable; and that regionalization is connectional. Together, these four affirmations aim to give a better sense of what the theological concept of regionalization is and why it matters.

Let’s first look briefly at the affirmation that regionalization has a biblical foundation. Throughout the Bible, God has recognized the diversity of cultures and nations, included that diversity in God’s redemptive plans for humanity, and allowed for decision-making structures that take such diversity into account. In this way, the theme of regionalization runs through the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, we see in the Psalms and Prophets that God intends for all nations to one day know and worship God. This will not happen because cultural or political differences among nations are erased. Rather, each nation, with its unique heritage, will worship God through its own culture or cultures and under its own leadership. So, there is international connectionalism and regionalization of worship and leadership in that theological vision.

We also see in the history of the 12 tribes of Israel intertribal connectionalism, united around a shared faith and history. This was paired with regional decision-making by elders within each tribe.

Turning to the New Testament, we see repeatedly in such verses as Matthew 28:18–20, Acts 2, Acts 10–11, and Revelation 7:9–10 that, just like in the Hebrew Bible, God includes all nations in God’s salvific vision and intends for them to keep their own unique culture or cultures as part of that vision.

Moreover, in the early church, there was a spiritual and relational unity among the churches along with local and regional decision making by leaders of churches and groups of churches throughout Greco-Roman, Persian, and African lands.

Next, let’s explore how regionalization is missional. As I said earlier, regionalization is tied to contextualization, which is one of the major insights from the past half century in the theology of mission. Mission theology has shifted away from an understanding of mission that equates Christianity with Western culture and toward an understanding of mission that recognizes that all cultures are equally valid homes for the gospel. This insight extends across mainline Protestant, evangelical, and Catholic theologians.

The emphasis on contextualization in mission theology recognizes that no culture can claim superiority over other cultures in the Christian faith, just as no region can claim superiority over others. It is an obstacle to the gospel to insist that all Christians follow the practices of one culture or one region.

Instead, when Christianity adapts to the culture of various nations and lands, then it flourishes. By giving decision-making authority to those most familiar with their cultural context, regional governance allows the church in every context to better engage with the culture around it in appropriate ways.

Shared beliefs and practices continue to unite Christians across cultural differences, even when those beliefs and practices are expressed using terms, symbols, and concepts indigenous to each culture.

Again, regionalization is equitable. It moves away from a center/periphery understanding of the church. The United States is no longer treated as the center and template for others.

Instead, regionalization recognizes that the church in each country, including the United States, is an adaptation of United Methodism to the particular context of that country. Each adaptation of United Methodism must reflect on its own context as together they dialogue about what it means to be United Methodist across contexts.

Under regionalization, each region governs itself, and each region contributes equally to the governance of the whole. And all regions build relationships of mutuality with each other grounded in equity, reciprocity, and trust.

Regionalization emphasizes the adaptation of the church to the various contexts in which it operates, but regionalization is not separation. It is simply a way for The United Methodist Church to live into its connectional identity.

As history shows, and I’ll say more about this in next week’s post, the quest to balance regionalization, connectionalism, and autonomy is long-standing. These theological concepts are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they reinforce one another.

Together, United Methodists across nations and cultures can discern how to support one another in carrying out, in our own contexts, our shared mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

David W. Scott: US-Centrism vs. A Better Connectionalism

Today’s post is by Dr. David W. Scott. Dr. Scott is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This is the first in a three-part series based on a presentation given to the Connectional Table on a theology of regionalization.

To frame this theological discussion of regionalization, I want to talk about moving from where we are now as The United Methodist Church to where God is calling us to go before next week looking at how we will get from where we are now to where God is calling us to go.

Where we are now as a church is US centric in many ways. That is, as a denominational whole, the church tends to focus on those members and those parts of the church in the United States. You can see some facts associated with US centrism on this slide:

• In terms of attitudes, US United Methodists often fail to see or treat their fellow United Methodists from elsewhere as equals. If we need proof of this, we can listen to some of the stories that our central conference sisters and brothers can tell us about their experiences in denomination-wide settings.
• The agendas of denomination-wide bodies often reflect primarily US concerns. Just look at the percentage of General Conference petitions that come from the United States vs. from elsewhere.
• For focus, many of the structures of the denomination focus primarily on the church in the United States, even when they are ostensibly denomination-wide and do work internationally. As an example, we could look at the percentage of cases the Judicial Council hears that come from the United States vs. from elsewhere.
• 99% of denominational finances come from the United States, and not all areas of the world contribute to apportionments at the same rates or to the same funds. Granted, there are significant economic differences between regions of the church, and we need to be cognizant of these, but that does not fully explain away this disparity.
• The denomination operates according to rules developed in the United States that reflect American cultural values. Roberts Rules of Order are the most obvious example.
• And United Methodists from the United States are often proportionately overrepresented on denomination-wide bodies. With less than half the global membership, they tend to have much more than half the members of most denomination-wide groups.

There is a long history behind this US centrism. In some ways, it is rooted in the success of the evangelistic mission of American Methodists who shared their faith in countries around the world. In some ways, it stems from the theological and cultural prejudices of previous generations of Methodists. In some ways, it reflects the significant secular economic and political power that the United States has as a country.

The important thing to emphasize is that there are differences in how the UMC’s current structures and practices treat United Methodists in the United States vs. United Methodists from other countries.

I would suggest that these facts about our US centric nature as a denomination point to underlying problems with US-centrism.

• One problem with the difference between the United States and the rest of the church is that by treating different areas of the church differently, we privilege the United States by giving it more power and control of resources. Therefore, US centrism is not fair or equitable.
• Those inequalities are also a problem for Christian fellowship. We believe that all Christians are equal before God. How can United Methodists from different contexts join in true Christian fellowship when they are not treated as equals?
• There are also practical problems. Under the current setup, the United States serves as the template for the rest of the church, but what works in the United States won’t necessarily work elsewhere, since laws, access to resources, and cultural norms are different around the world. As Jose Miguez Bonino, the Argentinian Methodist theologian, said, rules and structures designed for a church of 10 million won’t work for a church of 10,000.
• These differences are also a potential problem for the church’s evangelistic witness. When the church is not adequately able to adapt to its context, it will not be able to address important issues related to the witness of the church in that context.

But there is hope! If US centrism is a problem in the church, then God will provide solutions. In fact, God may offer the church multiple different ways to move forward, and the church may use multiple different ways to move toward a better expression of church.

As we consider possible solutions to these problems, our goals should include preserving our connection to one another. For United Methodists, connectionalism is the term we use to talk about what it means to be the church together. When we’re talking about where God is calling The United Methodist Church to go, we are asking: How is God calling us to better live out our connectionalism?

Some people and some groups have already left the UMC or are in the process of doing so. The work of shaping the future of the UMC belongs to those of us who have decided to remain and #BeUMC and to our ecumenical Methodist partners with whom we have official, recognized, and in most cases, long-standing relationships. The work ahead of us is work for those who are committed to being connected to one another.

As we think about what sort of connectionalism God is calling The United Methodist Church to embody, we need to be aware of the different senses in which the term can be understood. This includes a structural meaning of connectionalism, where we talk about the formal polity of the denomination: conferences, episcopal leadership, itineration, the agencies, and so on. While this form of connectionalism is what people often think of first, it is not the only meaning of connectionalism.

Connectionalism is also a set of relationships between people who know one another and have eaten, prayed, worked, talked, and traveled with one another. But there’s even more: As Christians, we believe that we are sisters and brothers in Christ, whether or not we have ever met. This is a spiritual sense of connectionalism. Finally, connectionalism has an ecclesiological sense. There is something important about the nature of the church that only exists in the connections between local congregations. Congregations need one another to fully be the body of Christ.

With these four senses of connectionalism in mind, I would like to suggest that God is calling us as a denomination to live into a connectionalism that embodies the following qualities:

• First, it is missional: Connectionalism exists to serve mission, and mission cannot exist without connectionalism.
• Second, it is mutual: Mutual connectional relationships depend upon investment from all parties, give and take by each party, and benefit for all parties.
• Third, it is decolonial: It must actively address historic injustices related to empire, nation, race, gender, class, ability, and other forms of privilege.
• Fourth, it is contextual: Understandings and practices of connectionalism vary across contexts, and this is a normal and healthy reality that supports missional effectiveness.
• Fifth, it is intercultural: Connectionalism must put us in dialogue with each other across difference for the sake of mutual learning and collective discernment.
• Sixth and finally, it is open: As United Methodists we may expect, even demand, that the church continue to change and grow for the sake of better loving God and neighbor.

This is a theological vision of what God is calling us to be as a church, how God is calling us to live into our connectionalism. We are called to step away from our US centric past and present and toward these better practices of connectionalism in the future.

Plan Now: Worldwide Regionalization and Ratification Webinar

UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott will present on “Theology of Regionalization” as part of an upcoming “Worldwide Regionalization & Ratification Webinar.”

The webinar will be on February 20 at 8am PST/9am MST/10 am CST/11am ET. The webinar is expected to last about 3 hours long. Dr. Scott will be second on the agenda.

The webinar is organized by the denomination’s Regionalization Task Force and presented by United Methodist Communications. It represents a collaboration among UMCOM, the Connectional Table, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, members of the Christmas Covenant writing team and The Council of Bishops

According to the event description, “This session will examine the significance of worldwide regionalization in The United Methodist Church, its implications for the U.S. church and the consequences of inaction. Attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the ratification process, engage with key leaders, and explore how regionalization fosters adaptability, equity and mission effectiveness.” The webinar will conclude with a live Q&A.

Interested readers can register here.

Recommended Reading: Jean Claude Maleka on mission theology

United Methodist New Service published an article by Rev. Dr. Jean Claude Masuka Maleka last week entitled "Mission can revitalize United Methodism." While revitalization is part of Rev. Dr. Maleka's concern, the article extends beyond its headline's focus to present a Methodist/Wesleyan theology of mission. Rev. Dr. Maleka draws connections between mission and such important Methodist/Wesleyan theological concepts as sanctification, social justice and social service, the importance of the laity, spirituality, and the worldwide nature of the church. The article is an excellent brief discussion of mission theology from a United Methodist perspective. Rev. Dr. Maleka has made an important conversation to denominational conversations around mission theology, and it is encouraging to see UMNews publishing a variety of pieces on mission theology.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo Interview of Ruth Duck on Mission

Well-known hymnwriter Rev. Dr. Ruth Duck passed away on Dec. 26, 2024. Among other hymns, Duck was known for her missiological hymn, “As Fire Is Meant for Burning.” Below is an interview of Duck by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo about that hymn. The interview is from 2008. It has been edited for clarity and length.

PWR: What inspired you to write the hymn, “As Fire Is Meant for Burning”? What are the origins of this hymn?

RD: The Lutheran Church of America sponsored a hymn competition, and I think I entered it because I was on the UCC mission Board of Directors. It was the only time I ever entered a hymn competition in my life. It didn’t win the competition, by the way.

I was on the Middle East committee of the Board, and so I went to Turkey. They were trying to transition the mission to local control. The UCC had social works across the country. They had schools and hospitals in Istanbul, Izmir and Cappadocia. This hymn was really written about how I saw them in mission.

PWR: How much did you read of Emil Brunner of Niles?

RD: Not much at all.

PWR: What connection did you have when you were writing this hymn between early Christian missionaries and apologetics and modern missionaries?

RD: [The UCC missions in Turkey] were trying to make a connection with people. The interesting thing is that this is the first or second most popular hymn of mine. And I received some letters from Catholics who complain that I am against creeds. It’s not that I am necessarily against creeds.

I like much more the idea of witnessing in an interfaith situation where people have different faiths. It’s okay to witness to your faith and to share your faith. Ideally, in a dialogue both might be changed, at least to break down the prejudices that they have against each other.

PWR: Turkey is 99% Muslim. As you reflect on the plight of Christians there, to what degree should missionaries witness and seek converts?

RD: I’m ambivalent about that because I know there are people in the world who would be glad that Christians came to them. I think that I feel much more comfortable having people in the country themselves carrying out the mission. So, it’s not that I’m against evangelism, but my way of evangelism would never be coercive or judgmental. It doesn’t have to come in and harm culture and alienate people from their family. Well, you’re asking the question, so I guess this is what you are looking for.

PWR: I ask the question because I know that this question will be asked. If you’re going to have a Christian mission and a Christian presence in a country that is 99% Muslim, should the mission be on outreach and church growth and not just be satisfied with 1% of the population?

RD: Well, that’s somebody else’s decision, not mine. I grew up knowing people who started a fundamentalist student movement. The daughter of this evangelist who was a leader of the movement was a friend of mine, and she went to Turkey. I got these letters from her, and she was risking her life almost to try to convert people. That’s her interpretation of the Gospel.

I know I sound wishy-washy. I think that whatever is done should be done with respect. I suppose that we should believe enough in our faith that we would want to share it. It might be a little like in Timothy that we should be ready to give an answer when asked. We see something in your life—What makes you tick? What is the hope? What are you looking for?

Everybody should go to Turkey because it would disarm all their prejudices against Muslims. We probably have a lot more to learn. Or we have to learn as well as teach. “We are pilgrims on the way.” This is a UCC reference because they were pilgrims. We seek, and we give.

PWR: Another way to interpret pilgrims, at least how I read the hymn, is that we are on a pilgrimage, and there is not a set destination. We are companions together on a journey as teachers and learners. We are going to learn from you, and you’re going to learn from us.

RD: I’m trying to remember exactly what I meant. We can come into [mission] feeling like God has the answers and we want to live up to the best of each of our faiths. But hopefully we are trying to go together to a world of better understanding.

So, if you think of yourself as a pilgrim on the way, you definitely don’t have all the answers. You don’t know what’s going to happen to you on the way. You don’t know who you’re going to meet. You don’t know what ends are going to be closed. You don’t know if your means of transportation are going to break down or somebody will steal your horse or deflates your tires. The pilgrim is also a medieval definition of pilgrim as spiritual meaning of pilgrim and not a sightseer.

“By our gentle, loving actions, we would show that Christ is light. In a humble, list’ning spirit, we would live to God’s delight.” Because they [Christians in Turkey] couldn’t say it in words, they needed to show it with their actions. And it seemed to me that they were. It is dedicated to them.

One of my favorite passages is II Corinthians 4:7: “that it is not ourselves who we preach but Christ.” We become like Christ. Chapter 3 talks about the reflective glory of Christ. We reflect the glory of Christ. So, we are not preaching ourselves.

PWR: Is this passage your main scriptural reference as far as inspiring this stanza? Or was it for the whole hymn?

RD: Yes. I think that this is the theology of preaching and missions. Paul says, “Be what we preach.” That would seem to be contradicted here. The point here is not the preaching, it is preaching Christ, but even more in this preaching context you’re showing Christ, not preaching him. You’re not preaching yourself; you’re preaching Christ. I don’t know if Mother Teresa converted many people. But she showed Christ to many, many people. And they were Christ to her.

The other passage that is important is Mathew 4:14-16: that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

PWR: Yes, like adding flavor to the dish, not by taking over, but by adding flavor to the whole plate. Is this what you meant by the salt of the earth?

RD: In that period of my life, I don’t know if I would call it dating, but I was in an interesting, complicated relationship with a man who was Bahai, and he was really pressing me on my faith, so I was having to answer these questions.

Even at the age of 37, I was a little idealistic. I know that at that stage a person may see part of the truth that they didn’t see before. And you don’t see all the things, as when you know better. But there is a spirit that I really like.

This is the hope of what mission could do—signs of oneness. This is what people can see: we are signs.

PWR: Meaning unity?

RD: And we might want to express it differently. Here it is in the next line: “‘mid earth’s peoples, many hued.”

PWR: What does hued mean?

RD: I was thinking of a rainbow. You know it rhymes. I have always been interested in racial reconciliation. “As a rainbow lights the heavens when a storm is past and gone, may our lives reflect the radiance of God’s new and glorious dawn.”

This also answers the question of where we are going as pilgrims. In the Hebrew Bible, God wanted everyone to get along. So that’s also probably behind there, you know—Noah, the rainbow, and the storm is over. It’s a sense of a new beginning. A new way of being.

PWR: Do you have any sense of how this hymn might affect the way that the singers and hearers of this hymn carry out and see their mission work?

RD: Again, I might be a little naïve, but I would expect that most people involved in mission work would look at it at lot this way. Some of them might be offended like a few Catholics are offended, but I hope that this is what a lot of them would aspire to. Don’t you think? I do, but there is also a lot of variety.

This hymn was written in the context of Turkey where open proselytism by Christians is not legal, though it doesn’t mean that some people can’t do it. I know that won’t be where everyone is, perhaps, but I also hope that you are going with the idea of respecting and listening to the people that you are working with. I believe that whatever your theology of mission, you have to do a lot of listening and a lot respecting, and at that point you are going to be more able to have people hear your message.

I hope also that the hymn would remind you of the side of missions that is more than speaking and doing but also being. Because I think that we do more to draw people to Christ by who we are sometimes than by what we say or what we do.

It is really a tribute to those missionaries who I saw those two weeks in Turkey. I saw this in them, and I’m sure that you want to exemplify that. I’m not opposed to preaching, but we should preach Christ and not ourselves.

PWR: I was just playing the devil’s advocate about church growth, and not seeking converts, but do you think there is a connection between mission and evangelism?

RD: I think there really is. Life in Christ is not easy, of course, but it is a great thing, and I think that we should want to share it. I don’t think people learn very much by coercion anyhow.

PWR: Thank you for reflecting on the context and the meaning of your hymn “For Fire is Meant for Burning.” I learned so much that I would not have known by simply reading or singing the hymn.

RD: Thank you for asking. I hope the hymn inspires people to reflect on how they understand mission.

Darryl W. Stephens: Facing the Empire Within

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, among others,Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church (2024). This post is taken with permission from Rev. Dr. Stephens' blog, Ethics Considered.

On Monday, the United States of America inaugurated the reign of a president who said he would not rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. Such international aggression would be a blatant attempt to expand the not-so-hidden empire of the USA. To my fellow United Methodists in the USA: Do not retreat in resignation! We must face the empire within.

Empire assumes many guises. The 2024 Social Principles of the UMC defines Donald Trump’s threat as colonialism: “the practice of establishing full or partial control of other countries, tribes, and peoples through conquest and exploitation.” Empire can also be conducted through neocolonialism, exercised through economic, political, and social control of other peoples. More expansively, empire refers to any coercive power that controls people’s lives—often without their realizing it.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) and its predecessor institutions have a long history of supporting and building empire. The UMC was born of a state church, the head of which controlled the largest world empire at the time. When the US colonies won political independence from the British crown, Methodism in the US also became independent of John Wesley and the Church of England. US Methodism, however, retained the structures and attitudes of empire.

White US Methodists, in particular, have a lot to reckon with. We exercised empire through chattel slavery, forced relocation of indigenous peoples, and missionary expansion. Methodists defended these practices with biblical proof-texts and theological arguments, claiming their actions to be God’s will. Indigenous boarding schools, for example, were cast as education and Christianization. Jim Crow laws were depicted as maintaining public order. Methodists justified their participation in projects of empire through powerful rhetoric and jurisprudence, such as Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Discovery.

Trump’s territorial aspirations mirror in some ways the UMC’s decades-long agenda to become a “global church.” Both efforts involve structures of empire, with control residing in the United States. The UMC’s central conferences, for example, are directly modeled after the Church of England’s structure from 1867—during the height of Western colonialism. Regarding Anglican churches overseas, the Church of England sought “the binding of the Churches of our colonial empire and the missionary Churches beyond them in the closest union with the Mother-Church.” The US-based UMC has been slow to dismantle this inherited form of empire, making its largest overseas acquisition in 2008 (a relationship that unraveled in 2024).

Facing “the empire within” requires a long process of repentance. For example, the UMC began facing up to its past mistreatment of Native Americans in 1988. General Conference confessed the church’s sin and offered a formal apology in 1992, supported restitution to some tribes in 1996, offered an act or repentance in 2012, and published an in-depth report of Methodist involvement in the Sand Creek massacre in 2016. The work of repentance continues. In 2000, General Conference adopted an Act of Repentance for Racism—and the work is not done. Repentance involves confessing sin, ceasing wrongdoing, turning from old patterns of behavior, and intending to do better. Repentance also requires restitution and active resistance to further harm.

If only we could face down empire with a quick apology and a simple vote! Neither is sufficient, and yet both are important steps. In 2025, annual conferences in the UMC have the opportunity to vote on several constitutional amendments that address the harms of empire.

• Proposed is adding the words “gender” and “ability” as protected categories to Paragraph 4, Article 4, which proclaims the “inclusiveness of the church.” Behind this proposal is the awareness that Methodism has a long history of discrimination against persons because of gender and physical and mental (dis)abilities.

• Proposed is a revision of Article V, “Racial Justice.” Through this amendment, United Methodists must decide if “The United Methodist Church commits to confronting and eliminating all forms of racism, racial inequity, colonialism, white privilege and white supremacy, in every facet of its life and in society at large.” An affirmative vote would be a significant step toward dismantling these forms of empire.

• The most complex package of constitutional amendments addresses the most complex form of empire with the UMC: the role and power of the United States. The “regionalization legislation” proposes decentering US conferences by putting them on equal legislative footing with conferences around the world. No longer would the denomination’s General Conference be dominated by legislation pertaining only to the United States.

While I am in favor of the above constitutional amendments, I know that they will not solve the problem of empire. To face the empire within, we must reckon with our past, repair relationships, and create more just structures for all. The project of decolonizing church and society requires collaboration in material projects of shared concern through which we can craft new narratives of solidarity and belonging. We cannot achieve this goal by serving “the needy” from our position of perceived privilege. Rather, we must roll up our sleeves and get to work alongside each other as equals in the kin-dom of God.

If you, your reading group, or congregation is invested in facing the empire within, consider reading together the following books:

Stephens, Darryl W. Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church. Cascade, 2024.

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

2024 Publications on Methodist Mission and Evangelism

As the year winds down, we are taking a moment to review scholarship on Methodist mission and evangelism from 2024. The following is a list of books and articles published since the beginning of the year by scholars in the Association of Methodist Professors of Mission, friends of the blog, and other scholars about topics related to Methodist mission and evangelism. Readers are encouraged to consult these sources for the latest in scholarship about Methodist mission and evangelism.

Peter J. Bellini, “John Wesley, the Almost Charismatic,” in Heirs of Pietism in World Christianity: The 19th to the 21st Centuries, edited by Wendy J. Deichmann & Scott T. Kisker (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press, 2024).

Brian J. Chalmers, Methodist Revivalism and Social Reform in the Paradise of Dissent 1838-1939 (North Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2024).

Paul W. Chilcote, “Charles Wesley and the “Peaceable Reign” of Christ,” Holiness 9 (2024).

Paul W. Chilcote, Cultivating Christlikeness: Loving as Jesus Loved (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

Paul W. Chilcote, The Fullest Possible Love: Living in Harmony with God and Neighbor (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

Paul W. Chilcote, The Quest for Love Divine: Select Essays in Wesleyan Thought and Practice (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2024).

Paul W. Chilcote, “Songs of renewal: The language of renewal in the hymns of Charles Wesley,” The Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture 10:2 (2024).

Sara Ashencaen Crabtree, An Historiography of Twentieth-century Women's Missionary Nursing through the Lives of Two Sisters: Doing the Lord's Work in Kenya and South India (New York: Routledge, 2024).

Taylor Denyer, “Ecclesiastic Empires: American Conflict and the UMC in Africa,” in Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church, ed. by David W. Scott and Filipe Maia (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

Norma Dollaga, “The Diaconal Spirituality of Activism in the Philippines,” in Diaconal Studies: Lived Theology for the Church in North America, edited by Craig L. Nessan and Darryl W. Stephens (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2024).

David N. Field, “Engagements with Non-British Cultures,” in The Routledge Companion to John Wesley, ed. by Clive Murray Norris and Joseph W. Cunningham (London: Routledge, 2024).

Benjamin L. Hartley, “John R. Mott amidst the students: Historical and missiological gleanings for today,” Missiology: An International Review (2024).

Benjamin L. Hartley, “The Problem and Promise of the Diaconate,” in Diaconal Studies: Lived Theology for the Church in North America, edited by Craig L. Nessan and Darryl W. Stephens (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2024).

Arun W. Jones, “From courtesan to King: The conversion of Farzana,” Nidān: International Journal for Indian Studies 9:1 (2024).

Filipe Maia, Decolonizing Wesleyan Theology: Theological Engagements from the Underside of Methodism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024).

David L. McKenna, Seeing All Things Whole My Calling to Fulfill (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024).

Martin Mujinga and Onias Chagudhuma, “Meaning beyond symbols!: A theological interpretation of the Methodist Church in Zimbabwe’s logo,” Pharos Journal of Theology 105 (2024).

Eben Kanukayi Nhiwatiwa, By the Grace of God: My Life as an African Bishop (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

Joon-Sik Park, “The Worldwide Nature of The United Methodist Church: A Historical and Missiological Reflection,” in Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church, ed. by David W. Scott and Filipe Maia (Nashville, Abingdon, 2024).

Angel D. Santiago-Vendrell, “Popular Catholicism Puerto Rican Style: The Virgin of Rincón, Human Agency, and Miracles,” Religions 15 (2024).

David W. Scott, “American Power in the Global Church in Ecumenical Methodist Perspective,” in Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church, ed. by David W. Scott and Filipe Maia (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

David W. Scott and Filipe Maia, eds., Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

David W. Scott, “Review of Dana L. Robert, Allison Kach-Yawnghwe, and Morgan Crago, Creative Collaborations: Case Studies of North American Missional Practices,” Missiology, 52:1 (2024), 118-119.

Howard A. Snyder, Consider the Lilies: How Jesus Saves People and the Land: The Theology and Ecology of Salvation (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits, 2024).

Darryl W. Stephens, “Developing a Trauma-Informed Diaconal Praxis,” in Diaconal Studies: Lived Theology for the Church in North America, edited by Craig L. Nessan and Darryl W. Stephens (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2024).

Darryl W. Stephens and Craig L. Nessan, eds., Diaconal Studies: Lived Theology for the Church in North America (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2024).

Darryl W. Stephens, “A Global Ethic for a Divided Church,” in Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church, ed. by David W. Scott and Filipe Maia (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

Darryl W. Stephens, Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024).

Darrell L. Whiteman, Crossing Cultures with the Gospel: Anthropological Wisdom for Effective Christian Witness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2024).

Darrell L. Whiteman, Forward to Jerusalem Burning: The Terror and Promise of the "Wrath of Love," by Robert L. Canfield (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024).

Philip Wingeier-Rayo, “The Autonomous Process of Latin American Methodism: A Critical Review,” in Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church, ed. by David W. Scott and Filipe Maia (Nashville: Abingdon, 2024).

Philip Wingeier-Rayo, “Latin America and the Caribbean,” in The Routledge Companion to John Wesley, ed. by Clive Murray Norris and Joseph W. Cunningham (London: Routledge, 2024).

Philip Wingeier-Rayo, “Review of In the Hands of God: How Evangelical Belonging Transforms Migrant Experiences in the U.S. by Johanna Bard Richlin,” Politics, Religion & Ideology 25 (2024).

Recommended Reading: Katelin Hansen on the ongoing ministry of deaconesses

Deaconess Dr. Katelin Hansen published an article on UMNews this week entitled "Deaconesses are still here - let's invest in them too!" In it, Dr. Hansen explains the ongoing mission and ministry that deaconesses and home missioners offer to the world through their service as an order of The United Methodist Church. She connects the historical roots of this mission and ministry with its present shape.

As part of that effort, Dr. Hansen offers a corrective to how some of that history was presented in Rev. Dr. Javier Viera's recent article on the mission and ministry of deacons, including its treatment of the Chicago Training School for City, Home, and Foreign Missions, one of the predecessor institutions to Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. Several UM & Global readers, including Dr. Hansen, raised similar points in comments (public or private) on a previous UM & Global Recommended Reading piece calling attention to Rev. Dr. Viera's article.

Dr. Hansen's article is thus well worth reading both for its own highlighting of deaconesses and home missioners and as part of a larger conversation with Rev. Dr. Viera.

Recommended Reading: Javier Viera on Deacons

Rev. Dr. Javier A. Viera, President of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, published a recent commentary on UMNews entitled "To revitalize the church, we must invest in deacons." The piece is worth a read, as it intersects with themes from this blog in at least four ways:

1. Viera roots his reflections in the historical example of the deaconess movement and the Chicago Training School for City, Home, and Foreign Missions.

2. Viera is concerned with the missional nature of clergy, especially deacons, a topic that Ben Hartley has written about on this blog.

3. Viera is concerned with changing trends in the composition and supply of clergy. I have written several pieces in recent years on clergy supply.

4. Viera is concerned with the changing nature of theological education, which multiple authors have addressed on this site.

While many are likely to read Viera's piece in light of recent General Conference decisions on sacramental rights for deacons, as the above list makes clear, Viera's reflection on deacons connects to many and wide ranging issues in the church.

Philip A. Wingeier-Rayo: Puerto Rico and Cuba: Diverging Religious and Cultural Histories

A Cuba

Cuba y Puerto Rico son
de un pájaro las dos alas,
reciben flores o balas
sobre el mismo corazón

Cuba and Puerto Rico are
As two wings of the same bird,
They receive flowers and bullets
Into the same heart ...

Excerpt of a poem entitled “A Cuba” by Puerto Rican journalist and poet Lola Rodriguez de Tío

Recently, I had the opportunity to travel to Puerto Rico to visit historical Protestant churches. After serving as a missionary in Cuba in the 1990s, I was struck by both the uncanny similarities and stark differences between the two Caribbean islands. Obviously, the inhabitants of both islands speak Spanish, have similar food and music that are a mix of Spanish and African influences, and both cultures have a joyous warm enthusiastic Latin flair. 

Both islands were inhabited by the Taino tribe, a subgroup of the Arawak people of South America, before being colonized by Spain for nearly 400 years. Africans were brought as slaves to work on Spanish haciendas, or plantations, that produced sugar, rum, and tobacco that were exported back to Europe. 

The Roman Catholic Church was dominant on both islands until Protestant missionaries arrived following the Spanish-American War of 1898. Protestantism spread on both islands and built churches, schools, and hospitals that shared an expression of American Christianity. Both islands have vestiges of the Spanish American War with U.S. military bases: Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba and Buchanan in Puerto Rico.

Cuba fought for its independence from Spain with several insurrections and slave rebellions during the nineteenth century, beginning with the “Ten Year War” from 1868-1878. The final push was led by José Martí, known as “The Apostle,” who founded the Cuban Revolutionary Party in 1892 to fight for independence. 

During their independence war, the U.S. feared regional instability and dispatched the USS Maine. It mysteriously exploded while anchored in the Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898, killing 267 sailors aboard and giving the U.S. a motive to intervene. The U.S. troops, known as the “Rough-riders” and led by Teddy Roosevelt, came to the aid of the Cuban insurgents and sieged a Spanish fort in Santiago on July 1, 1898 – known as the Battle of San Juan Hill. On July 25^th of the same year, the U.S. invaded Puerto Rico. The last Spanish troops retreated on October 18^th. 

Collectively known in U.S. history books as “the Spanish-American War,” the conflict ended with Spain relinquishing the rights to Cuba, and ceding the islands of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the U.S. in exchange for $20,000.

The U.S. President during the Spanish-American was William McKinley, a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC). At first, he didn’t know what to do with these new territories. McKinley shared his plans for the Philippines with the General Missionary Committee of the MEC:

“When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them…and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way—I don’t know how it was, but it came (1) That we could not give them back to Spain—that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany—our commercial rivals in the Orient—that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government—and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.”[1]

A similar logic was applied to Cuba and Puerto Rico.

In coordination with President McKinley and the American military presence, Protestant mission boards signed comity agreements to coordinate their outreach in these new U.S. colonial possessions. Missionaries from the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Disciples of Christ, among other denominations, such as the Lutherans, established churches, schools, and hospitals on the islands. The United Brethren Church of Christ articulated the task in Puerto Rico:

“To inaugurate a work that assures the Americanization of the island, similar to the work of welcoming individuals into the joys and privileges of being a Christian disciple… we should inaugurate schools that will reach hundreds of children who can be formed through these institutions in the responsibilities of being an American citizen.”[2]

Methodist missionary Sterling Augustus Neblett arrived in Cuba in 1902 and compared the U.S. military occupation of Cuba to Protestant missions: “The entrance of God’s messengers, who were few in number and who came to bring peace and safety to the Cuban people, was militant but not military.”[3] He also referred to the expansion of Methodism following the Spanish-American war as “occupation.”[4]

The mission work in Cuba was well organized and resourced. By the end of the first decade of Methodist missions, there were 33 preachers, 15 of them Cuban, serving in 32 churches with a total membership of 3,000 people.[5] The mission work in Puerto Rico enjoyed similar success.

In the early 20^th century, the history, culture, and religious contexts of both islands were amazingly similar. However, fast forward 100 years to the 21^st century, and the realities of both islands are night and day. Today, the religious and political contexts are very different. Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens, tend to be politically progressive and vote Democrat, while Cubans, despite the Socialist government, tend to be more conservative—especially those who immigrated to the U.S. They tend to vote more Republican. Puerto Ricans tend to be more open-minded on social issues such as LGBTQ inclusion, while Cubans are more conservative. Ironically, Cubans tend to be pro-American, while Puerto Ricans are suspicious of the United States’ colonial past.

Even though both islands have very similar political and religious histories--both being colonized by the Spanish and the United States, the Puerto Ricans and Cubans today live in completely different social, political and religious realities. One would never guess that the islands are only 750 miles apart. Much of these differences stem from the islands’ different histories since the Spanish-American War.

Cuba was granted its independence through the Platt Amendment, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1903, which included the right for the U.S. to interfere in Cuban affairs. Today, Cuba is an independent nation, but it has been ruled by the Communist Party for the last 65 years following the 1959 Socialist Revolution led by Fidel Castro. Puerto Rico, on the other hand, is still a U.S. territory.

An example of the fate of two mission initiatives describes the differences between the two trajectories. MEC Bishop Warren Candler traveled to Cuba in 1898 to plan mission efforts. The following year, a Methodist school was established in Havana, which would eventually expand to a university known as Candler College. Similarly, Presbyterian missionaries John and Eunice Harris sailed to Puerto Rico in 1906 and established a polytechnical school. That school expanded to become InterAmerican University, which today has eight extension sites, in addition to the main campus in San German, and a total enrollment of 5,000 students. By contrast, Candler College was intervened by the Cuban government and is used as a public school today.

Religiously and culturally, both islands were heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, and many people remain nominally Catholic today. There is also an underlying influence of African religions, such as Spiritism and Santería. This has been attacked by Catholics and Protestants alike as being demonic, but it has experienced a surge in recent years. 

The Protestant churches are strong in both islands, but there are stark differences. The churches in Puerto Rico do a lot of social outreach to the marginalized, while the Cuban churches tend to focus more on evangelization. This is due, in part, to the government restrictions on social services. The Cuban Socialist Revolution, allied to Soviet Russian, implemented an atheist constitution, which repressed religion in Cuba and created a decline in religious affiliation from the 1960s through the 1980s. Religious schools and hospitals were nationalized and are run by the state. 

In 1991, Cuba amended its constitution from an official atheist state to a secular state, and restrictions against church participation were eased. After the fall of the Soviet bloc, a religious revival began in Cuba, and a generation of young people, curious and spiritually hungry, converted to Christianity.

Recent comments about Puerto Rico in the news are a reminder that Americans in general and United Methodists in particular have a responsibility to understand the role of the U.S. and U.S. denominations such as Methodism in shaping the histories of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and other lands.

---

[1] This quote specifically referred to Philippines, but could be applied to Cuba and Puerto Rica, as well. General James Rusling, “Interview with President William McKinley,” The Christian Advocate 22 January 1903, 17. Reprinted in Charles Sumner Olcott, The Life of William McKinley, Volume 2 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 109-111.

[2] Samuel Cruz, Masked Africanisms: Puerto Rican Pentecostalism (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 2005), 23

[3] Sterling Augustus Neblett, Methodism’s First Fifty Years in Cuba, Wilmore, KY: Asbury Press, 1976, 6.

[4] Sterling Augustus Neblett, Methodism’s First Fifty Years in Cuba, 6.

[5] La Disciplina de la Iglesia Metodista en Cuba, Havana, Cuba, v.

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.