Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Daniel Shin. Dr. Shin is the E. Stanley Jones Chair in Evangelism and Associate Professor of Theology and World Christianity at Drew Theological School. This post is part of a series on the UMC's new ecclesiology document, Sent in Love: A United Methodist Understanding of the Church, which will be presented to General Conference 2020 for review and adoption.
In 2008 the General Conference of the UMC established the Committee on Faith and Order in order to assist the church’s theological reflection. Toward that goal, the Committee submitted an initial document on ecclesiology in 2016 titled Wonder, Love and Praise (WLP), and the present statement Sent in Love (SIL) is a revision of the former, providing the church a statement that is theologically rich, global in perspective, and catalytic toward mission in the world.
One of the salient features of WLP is its deep appreciation of ecumenical convergences, and they are carried over into SIL to foreground its Wesleyan ecclesial vision and are interwoven throughout in both organization and content. In fact, there has emerged even a tighter connection between the two, as seen in how its earlier formulations of God’s saving love that invites all people, transforms, and creates community are enfolded into and articulated through the classic marks of the church as catholic, holy, and one, respectively. This retrieval of the classic marks makes the statement easily recognizable ecumenically and globally.
In terms of organization, the statement is structured thoughtfully, situating the UMC in the context of the global church while underscoring its own tradition, grounding its apostolic mission and self-understanding in light of the triune God who is “the missionary God” (20), elaborating its mission in light of the ancient marks of the church aforementioned, and concluding with exhortations. SIL is quite a remarkable statement about the UMC as a global movement incorporating biblical, historical, theological, and contextual perspectives, which will serve the church very well for many years.
Beyond these observations accompanied by deep gratitude, I would like to discuss the statement as a theological resource for a worldwide denomination, especially for churches in regions where encounters with non-Christian neighbors are an inescapable reality. The church’s mission emerges as central in SIL, especially given that the activity of the triune God is understood decisively as a missional work in which the church participates. This vision colors its articulation of the classic marks of the church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in a backward move prioritizing its missional imperative in the global context. Though somewhat of an unorthodox ordering, it reflects the organization in WLP, and more importantly the very missional thrust of the Methodist movement from its inception to now.
Reimagining the church’s missional identity in such a way is bold, innovative, and faithful to its tradition, but there is a caveat concerning its linkage to catholicity. The church’s missional imperative expressed through the apostolic tradition has been taken to be universal in scope and has resulted in the “catholic” church. As the statement points out, the missional community has transgressed lines of convention, geography, race, class, gender, language, and so forth, all because God’s saving love is meant for all people (53). And there certainly is no doubt as to the benevolent intentions of opening the church’s door to non-Christians in order to seek global transformation through reconciliation in Jesus Christ (27).
However, the statement can be misunderstood as exclusivistic in its understanding of salvation when it says that “All humanity is invited into communion with the Triune God…baptized into Jesus Christ…into his death…Jesus is more direct…The Risen Lord calls each person by name to take up the cross and follow him…The call of God in its universality leaves no room of human existence untouched” (36). There is far too much going on in this compressed paragraph that addresses all at once the offer of invitation, a demand for discipleship and death in Jesus, and an enclosure of the whole world within the confines of “saving grace,” however salvific and gracious that offer may be.
The church’s apostolic tradition coupled with its universal missional thrust has come under heavy criticism due to unfortunate and destructive legacies of religious colonization, and when collapsed with the church’s catholicity in some parts of the statement, unwanted confusion results. There needs to be sufficient stretches of time and space between each movement in the paragraph and explicit specification of the intended audience of each. It is one thing to affirm that God’s love is universal, but quite another to say “The church is catholic because God intends it for all people, the whole world” (51).
What may be contributing to the difficulty is the confusion between the God’s universal love and the catholicity of the church; the latter has traditionally been referred to ecclesial beliefs, practices, and traditions commonly accepted by the whole church around the world. Catholicity is intra-ecclesial in reference, having to do with unity of the church’s myriad expressions, rather than induction of all people into the church by confessing the Triune God.
Behind the claim that God intends the church for all people lies “the conviction that God’s grace goes before and empowers every human response of love, good will, and saving faith in Christ” (69). Such a conviction points to the wideness of God’s grace that is mysteriously at work “beyond the bounds of visible Christian community….” (70). The statement goes on to assert that “God’s grace is available to all, and that in equal measure” (75). In fact, there is no time and place, no culture or society that is “utterly bereft of the presence of God’s life-giving grace” and, therefore, we need to be open to the presence of God in our neighbors (81-82).
While such open-minded affirmations are appreciated, they still betray Rahner’s anonymous Christianity, which SIL claims to reject. When it says that non-Christians who are recipients of God’s grace respond to that that grace “in a greater or lesser degree,” the outcome is the same—they don’t know, but we know, that God’s “incognito grace” is at work (82). Non-Christian neighbors may have other ways of understanding the world and themselves. Moreover, without further discussion about God’s grace already given to non-Christians, one cannot but wonder about its efficacy, why it is already there but not quite salvific, especially if it is understood as given in equal measure.
In addition to the confusion addressed above, the statement’s treatment of qahal as “an army ready for battle” (42), Wesley as a homo unius libri (46), and the church as militant and triumphant (48) without adequate explanation can send mixed signals about the church as being prone to violence, exclusivistic, and triumphalistic.
But, of course, nothing can be further from the truth, and the statement is not without appeals to humility (71). It calls for a recognition of God’s grace that comes to each one within “their peculiar historical, cultural, social and even ecclesial circumstances,” the church’s past as “the instrument of an ideology of national, racial, ethnic, or gender superiority,” God’s saving love encountered in “other forms and other places,” the “dangers of self-deception,” and the need for repentance and renewal, and openness “to the love of God that may come to us through them” (81).
If this is the case, just as it has taken into serious consideration ecumenical convergences, then what may further enhance the statement is an account of inter-religious realities that allows both convergences and divergences to radically inform its self-understanding and mission in the world.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label Daniel Shin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Shin. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Daniel Shin: Thoughts on “Wonder, Love and Praise,” Part III
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of a three-part response to the document written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center.
In this series of blog posts on “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church,” I will seek to offer a comprehensive reading of the document. Nonetheless, in this post, I will mostly focus on the church’s ministry and the issue of legitimate diversity. I also follow the Statement’s structure of affirmations that God’s love is for all people, it is transformative, and creates loving communities.
The third section “Faith, Hope, and Love” addresses the conviction “The saving love of God is transformative” (WLP, p. 32ff). It claims that the triadic character of the life in community through faith, hope, and love is Trinitarian and, therefore, there is a Trinitarian character to the way the church expresses God’s love in the world. As stated earlier, there may be a Trinitarian dimension to the triadic manifestation in the community, but it needs to describe how this is so and, more importantly, what is at stake in the claim.
Its assertion about the Trinitarian nature of the church seems to taper off gradually, but continues the theme of triadic structure of the life and mission of the church in its discussion of the doctrine of the threefold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. The importance of the Committee’s appeal to the threefold office of Christ cannot be stressed enough in understanding the conviction that God’s love is transformative. This section is indeed of great value in warding off temptations to a reductionist, one-office accounts of salvation.
Then what is somewhat disconcerting is its attempt to apply the notion of the threefold office of Christ narrowly on ordained ministry, especially the Order of the Elders, instead of helping the General Church to grapple with munus triplex (WLP, p. 36ff). After its recognition of the work of the whole church, it rushes immediately to theological reflection and ordained ministry. While this section certainly offers a helpful historical and theological account of the ordained ministry, its silence on the mission of the whole church needs to be filled with a clarion call to witness the threefold office of Christ in all spheres of life and ministry. This is especially pertinent given the Statement’s own recognition of lacunae on the subject of ministry in the General Church (WLP, p. 16). Furthermore, a distinction between the Order of Elders and Deacons is well laid out, but this needs to be supplemented by how the ministry of Word, Service, Justice, and Compassion by the Order of Deacons may just as well be informed by Christ’s prophetic proclamations and teachings, priestly sacrifice of love, and reign of basin and towel.
In the section titled “United Methodism and the Church Universal,” the Committee deliberates on the markers of the United Methodist identity we profess and aspire to: the universal scope of transformative grace; connectionalism the aim of which is mutual support and accountability; and commitment to theological reflection (WLP, p. 41ff). It would be advantageous for the church to heed the Committee’s reminder about these markers.
As promised earlier, the Statement does return to the issue of legitimate diversity and underscores some important matters under the heading “Diversity and Conflict” (WLP, p. 47ff). It recognizes that conflicts are real and they arise from complex factors. In a radical affirmation of differences in the church, it goes on to recognize the different human uses of the church and says that we are in communion not because we share the same views and practices, but in fact due to the true gift of koinonia in the Spirit. The Statement also affirms diversity for practical reasons. Diversity in the church need not be seen as a liability in the church’s mission but instead a strength as it faces an increasingly diverse world, which an earlier study by two political scientists have demonstrated. On a more sober note, it recognizes that at times the conflict may be irreparable and beyond our capability through discussion and negotiation. It is a real possibility that the church may not yet be in a position to offer a responsible judgment. But the Committee advises that if we happen to find ourselves at an impasse, we are to deal with conflicts in a redemptive manner through prayer and action with the goal of communion with God and others in mind.
A few observations are in order here. First of all, it assumes a working knowledge of what it means by legitimate or illegitimate diversity, and it does not make explicit the current issue(s) it seeks to address. Unless the reader had a previous knowledge of the document “The Church,” he or she would have a difficult time following the discussion. Indeed, ecumenical conversations are absolutely essential to the church universal but one wonders if it is appropriate to transplant an expression that immediately triggers the notion of “illegitimate diversity,” an expression it actually employs. Though the word diversity suggests openness, the volatile words “legitimate” and “illegitimate” immediately summon a whole host of feelings and reactions. They are charged with binary oppositional logic and add fuel to the fire. We should not sidestep the significance of the issue, but words do matter as they can heal or hurt, so we need the genius and sensibility of all in the church, not only those with juridical minds who write policies and legislate what counts as legitimate versus illegitimate, but scientists, artists, mediators, theologians, pastors, and others who can deepen our understanding. And lastly, I will not psychologize to determine whether the ambiguity on the issue of legitimate diversity was intentional or not, but what still awaits us is the criteria for legitimate diversity that the Committee had promised. At the least, having something in place like George Lindbeck’s taxonomy of doctrines would be of help in moving forward.
In closing, the Faith and Order Committee has done a superb job in helping the church think through some of bewildering realities the church faces. It has pointed to invaluable resources in thinking about the church’s identity and its mission in the world drawing from the historic Christian faith, ecumenical heritage, and distinctive Wesleyan heritage. If there is one remaining task, it is showing the relevance of the title “Wonder, Love and Praise” for its Statement. It is apropos that the Statement ends with Apostle Paul’s words about the treasure in earthen vessels, and the church would do well to not lose its sense of wonder and praise while proving faithful in its quotidian responsibility of love in the world in communion with God and neighbors.
In this series of blog posts on “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church,” I will seek to offer a comprehensive reading of the document. Nonetheless, in this post, I will mostly focus on the church’s ministry and the issue of legitimate diversity. I also follow the Statement’s structure of affirmations that God’s love is for all people, it is transformative, and creates loving communities.
The third section “Faith, Hope, and Love” addresses the conviction “The saving love of God is transformative” (WLP, p. 32ff). It claims that the triadic character of the life in community through faith, hope, and love is Trinitarian and, therefore, there is a Trinitarian character to the way the church expresses God’s love in the world. As stated earlier, there may be a Trinitarian dimension to the triadic manifestation in the community, but it needs to describe how this is so and, more importantly, what is at stake in the claim.
Its assertion about the Trinitarian nature of the church seems to taper off gradually, but continues the theme of triadic structure of the life and mission of the church in its discussion of the doctrine of the threefold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. The importance of the Committee’s appeal to the threefold office of Christ cannot be stressed enough in understanding the conviction that God’s love is transformative. This section is indeed of great value in warding off temptations to a reductionist, one-office accounts of salvation.
Then what is somewhat disconcerting is its attempt to apply the notion of the threefold office of Christ narrowly on ordained ministry, especially the Order of the Elders, instead of helping the General Church to grapple with munus triplex (WLP, p. 36ff). After its recognition of the work of the whole church, it rushes immediately to theological reflection and ordained ministry. While this section certainly offers a helpful historical and theological account of the ordained ministry, its silence on the mission of the whole church needs to be filled with a clarion call to witness the threefold office of Christ in all spheres of life and ministry. This is especially pertinent given the Statement’s own recognition of lacunae on the subject of ministry in the General Church (WLP, p. 16). Furthermore, a distinction between the Order of Elders and Deacons is well laid out, but this needs to be supplemented by how the ministry of Word, Service, Justice, and Compassion by the Order of Deacons may just as well be informed by Christ’s prophetic proclamations and teachings, priestly sacrifice of love, and reign of basin and towel.
In the section titled “United Methodism and the Church Universal,” the Committee deliberates on the markers of the United Methodist identity we profess and aspire to: the universal scope of transformative grace; connectionalism the aim of which is mutual support and accountability; and commitment to theological reflection (WLP, p. 41ff). It would be advantageous for the church to heed the Committee’s reminder about these markers.
As promised earlier, the Statement does return to the issue of legitimate diversity and underscores some important matters under the heading “Diversity and Conflict” (WLP, p. 47ff). It recognizes that conflicts are real and they arise from complex factors. In a radical affirmation of differences in the church, it goes on to recognize the different human uses of the church and says that we are in communion not because we share the same views and practices, but in fact due to the true gift of koinonia in the Spirit. The Statement also affirms diversity for practical reasons. Diversity in the church need not be seen as a liability in the church’s mission but instead a strength as it faces an increasingly diverse world, which an earlier study by two political scientists have demonstrated. On a more sober note, it recognizes that at times the conflict may be irreparable and beyond our capability through discussion and negotiation. It is a real possibility that the church may not yet be in a position to offer a responsible judgment. But the Committee advises that if we happen to find ourselves at an impasse, we are to deal with conflicts in a redemptive manner through prayer and action with the goal of communion with God and others in mind.
A few observations are in order here. First of all, it assumes a working knowledge of what it means by legitimate or illegitimate diversity, and it does not make explicit the current issue(s) it seeks to address. Unless the reader had a previous knowledge of the document “The Church,” he or she would have a difficult time following the discussion. Indeed, ecumenical conversations are absolutely essential to the church universal but one wonders if it is appropriate to transplant an expression that immediately triggers the notion of “illegitimate diversity,” an expression it actually employs. Though the word diversity suggests openness, the volatile words “legitimate” and “illegitimate” immediately summon a whole host of feelings and reactions. They are charged with binary oppositional logic and add fuel to the fire. We should not sidestep the significance of the issue, but words do matter as they can heal or hurt, so we need the genius and sensibility of all in the church, not only those with juridical minds who write policies and legislate what counts as legitimate versus illegitimate, but scientists, artists, mediators, theologians, pastors, and others who can deepen our understanding. And lastly, I will not psychologize to determine whether the ambiguity on the issue of legitimate diversity was intentional or not, but what still awaits us is the criteria for legitimate diversity that the Committee had promised. At the least, having something in place like George Lindbeck’s taxonomy of doctrines would be of help in moving forward.
In closing, the Faith and Order Committee has done a superb job in helping the church think through some of bewildering realities the church faces. It has pointed to invaluable resources in thinking about the church’s identity and its mission in the world drawing from the historic Christian faith, ecumenical heritage, and distinctive Wesleyan heritage. If there is one remaining task, it is showing the relevance of the title “Wonder, Love and Praise” for its Statement. It is apropos that the Statement ends with Apostle Paul’s words about the treasure in earthen vessels, and the church would do well to not lose its sense of wonder and praise while proving faithful in its quotidian responsibility of love in the world in communion with God and neighbors.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Daniel Shin: Thoughts on “Wonder, Love and Praise,” Part II
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of a three-part response to the document written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center.
In this series of blog posts on “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church,” I will seek to offer a comprehensive reading of the document. Nonetheless, in this post, I will mostly focus on the invisible church and the question of people of other faiths and the issue of legitimate diversity. I also follow the Statement’s structure of affirmations that God’s love is for all people, it is transformative, and creates loving communities.
The second conviction “The saving love of God is meant for all people” is addressed under the title “Community of Salvation and Community as Sign” (WLP, pp. 22ff). The Committee notes that while there are no normative models for understanding the church, the notion of ekklesia may hold promise in maintaining a wide range of meanings of the church. Ekklesia is a Greek word commonly used to mean an assembly or gathering, and Christians in the past have used it to refer to a particular community of Christians, the sum of such local communities, or the whole people of God in all times and places. Beyond etymological considerations, the Committee makes a theological judgment that ekklesia in all its connotation is a fitting expression of the church because communion is embodied in the form of community. The Statement goes on to add that ekklesia is not the only mark of the church as there are additional marks of the church, namely, the pure Word of God preached and the Sacraments duly administered, displaying faithfulness in worship, edification and redemption of the world (WLP, p. 25ff).
The Committee then makes a strategic move using the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church as a segue into a discussion about the larger communion (WLP, p. 26ff). Traditionally the notion of the invisible church has recognized the possibility that there are persons who are saved or on their way to salvation though they may not be part of the visible church. The Committee agrees and says that persons who are not explicit members of the visible church may be participants in the one ekklesia of God and share in the communion. It clarifies that this position does not impose the category Christian and affirms the possibility that God’s koinonia may occur in different forms and places. In an attempt to expand the notion of the church, it asserts that the church understood as God’s one ekklesia, the community of salvation, is not coextensive with the churches we are familiar with.
Church’s discussion about the visible and invisible churches is a good reminder that the church has long been cognizant of at least two things: one, not all who are part of the visible church belong to Christ; and two, the possibility of God’s relations with people outside the visible church. The language of the visible and the invisible church can be helpful and sufficiently complicates one’s ecclesiology. Its built in eschatological reserve points us to the need for humility and openness, ongoing repentance and growth, and God’s love for all people. One might add here not only to be mindful of the traditional notion of “the invisible church” but also those who are visible but invisible in our midst, those who are seen but unseen.
While the language of the visible and the invisible church is generative, it immediately brings to mind the move Karl Rahner made in coining the concept of “anonymous Christian,” in this case the invisible church. Rahner’s intention was well-taken as he sought to expand the scope of “Christian” to include those who are outside the realm of explicit Christian faith and practice through no fault of their own but live in the grace of God and somehow attain salvation. However, this was taken as another way of extending Christian imperialism upon other religions and cultures.
Similarly, whereas the language of the invisible church may be well intentioned, it again seeks to assimilate others as a double of itself. Notwithstanding the Statement’s qualifications, there is a striking similarity between anonymous Christian and invisible church. While for Christians the notion of koinonia, ekklesia, or community of salvation may accurately and inclusively describe our relationship with God and others, it may not be so for people of other faiths and cultures. No matter how altruistic one’s intention may be in adopting a larger expansive concept “the one ekklesia of God,” one cannot overlook that the church has a history of effects and can be another unfortunate attempt to colonize the other and the different.
If the church must choose the expression “one ekkelsia of God” to refer to God’s relation with others in the world, then it must be mindful that it may be only one analogue to understand another analogue in its evolving intramural conversation, privileging one tradition over the other. Perhaps the first movement toward interreligious dialogue is not a handshake or a hug that enfolds the other in our straightjacket of the invisible church, but a nod of profound respect and acknowledgment that can hopefully lead to better understanding through their self-description. In doing so, the church may come to a place where its previous understanding of communion may have to be modified, stretched to its limits, discarded, or transformed into a new creation.
Moving on to the role of the visible churches, the Statement suggests that they participate in the larger ekklesia and are to be the explicit sign and servant of God’s self-giving to the world (WLP, p. 30ff). In a rather realistic and humble assessment, the Statement reveals that the church fulfills its tasks “more or less well.” The church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic not on account of its performance that falls short, but because of God. This is an important insight and a beautiful promise to maintain in thinking about the visible church, especially on the issue of legitimate diversity. However, as alluded to earlier, it is not clear how our fallibility and God’s work are coordinated so that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the difference that makes to the kind of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity the church manifests. Maybe the church’s identity is not so much a possession but an ongoing process of coordinating our prayerful labor with the work of the Holy Spirit.
Then, what appears to be a commentary on “The Church,” the Statement raises the issue about “legitimate diversity” in the church (WLP, p. 31ff). It first acknowledges that because the Triune God is the very source of communion, the unity in the church is dynamic and relational, not monolithic uniformity. The gifts of the Spirit differ and human beings and cultures differ. Thus, it radically affirms the importance of diversity; however, it emphasizes that diversity must be legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate diversity. It rightly points out that this process of discernment is lacking common criteria of discernment and mutually recognized structures. The section ends with promise to return to this topic at a later point.
In this series of blog posts on “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church,” I will seek to offer a comprehensive reading of the document. Nonetheless, in this post, I will mostly focus on the invisible church and the question of people of other faiths and the issue of legitimate diversity. I also follow the Statement’s structure of affirmations that God’s love is for all people, it is transformative, and creates loving communities.
The second conviction “The saving love of God is meant for all people” is addressed under the title “Community of Salvation and Community as Sign” (WLP, pp. 22ff). The Committee notes that while there are no normative models for understanding the church, the notion of ekklesia may hold promise in maintaining a wide range of meanings of the church. Ekklesia is a Greek word commonly used to mean an assembly or gathering, and Christians in the past have used it to refer to a particular community of Christians, the sum of such local communities, or the whole people of God in all times and places. Beyond etymological considerations, the Committee makes a theological judgment that ekklesia in all its connotation is a fitting expression of the church because communion is embodied in the form of community. The Statement goes on to add that ekklesia is not the only mark of the church as there are additional marks of the church, namely, the pure Word of God preached and the Sacraments duly administered, displaying faithfulness in worship, edification and redemption of the world (WLP, p. 25ff).
The Committee then makes a strategic move using the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church as a segue into a discussion about the larger communion (WLP, p. 26ff). Traditionally the notion of the invisible church has recognized the possibility that there are persons who are saved or on their way to salvation though they may not be part of the visible church. The Committee agrees and says that persons who are not explicit members of the visible church may be participants in the one ekklesia of God and share in the communion. It clarifies that this position does not impose the category Christian and affirms the possibility that God’s koinonia may occur in different forms and places. In an attempt to expand the notion of the church, it asserts that the church understood as God’s one ekklesia, the community of salvation, is not coextensive with the churches we are familiar with.
Church’s discussion about the visible and invisible churches is a good reminder that the church has long been cognizant of at least two things: one, not all who are part of the visible church belong to Christ; and two, the possibility of God’s relations with people outside the visible church. The language of the visible and the invisible church can be helpful and sufficiently complicates one’s ecclesiology. Its built in eschatological reserve points us to the need for humility and openness, ongoing repentance and growth, and God’s love for all people. One might add here not only to be mindful of the traditional notion of “the invisible church” but also those who are visible but invisible in our midst, those who are seen but unseen.
While the language of the visible and the invisible church is generative, it immediately brings to mind the move Karl Rahner made in coining the concept of “anonymous Christian,” in this case the invisible church. Rahner’s intention was well-taken as he sought to expand the scope of “Christian” to include those who are outside the realm of explicit Christian faith and practice through no fault of their own but live in the grace of God and somehow attain salvation. However, this was taken as another way of extending Christian imperialism upon other religions and cultures.
Similarly, whereas the language of the invisible church may be well intentioned, it again seeks to assimilate others as a double of itself. Notwithstanding the Statement’s qualifications, there is a striking similarity between anonymous Christian and invisible church. While for Christians the notion of koinonia, ekklesia, or community of salvation may accurately and inclusively describe our relationship with God and others, it may not be so for people of other faiths and cultures. No matter how altruistic one’s intention may be in adopting a larger expansive concept “the one ekklesia of God,” one cannot overlook that the church has a history of effects and can be another unfortunate attempt to colonize the other and the different.
If the church must choose the expression “one ekkelsia of God” to refer to God’s relation with others in the world, then it must be mindful that it may be only one analogue to understand another analogue in its evolving intramural conversation, privileging one tradition over the other. Perhaps the first movement toward interreligious dialogue is not a handshake or a hug that enfolds the other in our straightjacket of the invisible church, but a nod of profound respect and acknowledgment that can hopefully lead to better understanding through their self-description. In doing so, the church may come to a place where its previous understanding of communion may have to be modified, stretched to its limits, discarded, or transformed into a new creation.
Moving on to the role of the visible churches, the Statement suggests that they participate in the larger ekklesia and are to be the explicit sign and servant of God’s self-giving to the world (WLP, p. 30ff). In a rather realistic and humble assessment, the Statement reveals that the church fulfills its tasks “more or less well.” The church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic not on account of its performance that falls short, but because of God. This is an important insight and a beautiful promise to maintain in thinking about the visible church, especially on the issue of legitimate diversity. However, as alluded to earlier, it is not clear how our fallibility and God’s work are coordinated so that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the difference that makes to the kind of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity the church manifests. Maybe the church’s identity is not so much a possession but an ongoing process of coordinating our prayerful labor with the work of the Holy Spirit.
Then, what appears to be a commentary on “The Church,” the Statement raises the issue about “legitimate diversity” in the church (WLP, p. 31ff). It first acknowledges that because the Triune God is the very source of communion, the unity in the church is dynamic and relational, not monolithic uniformity. The gifts of the Spirit differ and human beings and cultures differ. Thus, it radically affirms the importance of diversity; however, it emphasizes that diversity must be legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate diversity. It rightly points out that this process of discernment is lacking common criteria of discernment and mutually recognized structures. The section ends with promise to return to this topic at a later point.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Daniel Shin: Thoughts on “Wonder, Love and Praise,” Part I
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of a three-part response to the document written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center.
Upon establishment of the United Methodist Committee on Faith and Order in 2008, the much-anticipated document “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church” has emerged from its proceedings at the behest of the General Conference, Council of Bishops, and Connectional Table. The Statement is a theologically rich, ecumenically informed, and deeply Wesleyan articulation on the church. The Committee truly has done a remarkable service and its Statement deserves a close hearing to enhance both the church’s self-understanding and its mission. In this series of blog posts, I will seek to offer a comprehensive reading of the document but mostly focus on the following: the church as both divine and human realities, the invisible church and the question of people of other faiths, the church’s ministry, and the issue of legitimate diversity.
The Faith and Order Committee seeks to articulate a theological reflection on the church that is in continuity with the historic Christian faith, our common Christian heritage grounded in the apostolic witness, and our distinctive Wesleyan heritage (WLP, p. 1). It is a document on ecclesiology that aims to offer a comprehensive understanding in light of current realities of the church and to situate the mission of the United Methodist Church in that vision. As it is still a work in progress, the Committee expresses openness to conversation and suggests interpreting its formulation in conversation with other ecclesial documents, especially “By Water and the Spirit” and “This Holy Mystery,” documents on baptism and holy communion, respectively (WLP, p. 2).
Having stated its goal, the Committee begins by identifying the current realities of the church, such as migration, globalization, plural religious realities, church and state relations in certain regions of the world, dramatic demographic changes in membership, and the issue of “legitimate diversity” (WLP, p. 2ff). This inventory is of significant value in situating the church in the current milieu. However, it is rather unfortunate that all these pressing issues are not given sufficient attention, though plural religious realities and legitimate diversity do receive significant coverage. As far as I can tell, the Statement does not explain why it has chosen to address some but not others and makes one wonder whether it is truly comprehensive or ecumenical as it claims to be, or more reflective of a particular geopolitical context of the church, perhaps North America (WPL, p. 1). Without doubt the two current issues mentioned do deserve reflection, but other issues, such as migration and church and state relations involving civil rights of justice and equity, or even struggles for basic human rights of freedom and survival, are just as pressing as any other in some parts of the world. It would be helpful to hear the rationales for the choices it has made or how other issues will also be addressed.
The Statement then proceeds to make explicit its approach to ecclesiology in the section “Our Approach to an Understanding of the Church” by pointing out the distinctive convictions that brought about the merger of the General Church in 1968 (WLP, p. 10ff). Among many of its convictions, the General Church affirmed that God’s love is for all people, it is transformative, and creates loving communities. Next, it discusses the historical origins of the United Methodist Church in the coming together of the Methodist revival movement led by John Wesley and the Pietist movement from continental Europe, and the history of slavery and the ongoing problem of racism.
In section two “A New Vision for the United Methodist Church,” the Statement proceeds to elaborate on the aforementioned convictions (WLP, p. 17ff). The first conviction “the saving love of god creates community” is addressed under the heading “The Church as a Gift of the Triune God,” which makes it very clear that the church is a gift of the Triune God. The church is a communion “whose source is the very life of the Holy Trinity,” a gift to receive and a gift to share with the world. It is then a divine reality fashioned after the very life of the triune God.
At the same time, the Committee thoughtfully recognizes, here and elsewhere, the stark reality that the church is a very human community that serves a variety of human needs, such as order, companionship, and ethical guidance (WLP, p. 21, p. 30, p. 56). More pointedly, it recognizes that at times the church can be utilized for particular political and economic ends infused with human values and ambitions, sometimes leading to ideological uses of the church for imperialistic, national, racial, ethnic, or gendered interests and dominations.
Two questions arise here. One, concerning its claim that the church is a gift of the Triune God who is the very source of its life, it merely asserts the communal nature of the church without explanation of what that consists of or how it participates in the very community of the Triune God, however feeble that human effort may be. This is a pivotal issue because it claims that the church is a communion the nature of which is derived from God who is understood as the Holy Trinity (WLP, p. 20). A full-blown treatise on Trinitarian ecclesiology is not necessary here, but a brief treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity would bring greater clarity to its claim that the church is communal. This amplification cannot be bypassed because it is foundational to the discussion on the one larger communion; if the One who creates community is the Triune God, then the Statement would need to specify further about the nature of the one larger communion in God. Furthermore, the significance of the church as a Trinitarian community ought to bear on the question of “legitimate diversity.”
Two, throughout the document the Committee has made a concerted effort to maintain that the church is both a divine gift and a human response. This is an important insight and needs to be highly commended. However, it is not clear how it is both a divine and a human reality, and how that relation is to be conceived. If granted that it is a divine creation, then how is that reality related to the polymorphic ways of human beings ordering their lives together? Or, if it is a human reality used for a variety of human ends, then how does it intersect with God’s mission in the world? In other words, how can they be coordinated in such a way that they are sufficiently aligned with one another? This alignment is a critical dimension of our communion with God and others and has deep implications for the two issues it addresses, namely, the larger communion of God and legitimate diversity.
Upon establishment of the United Methodist Committee on Faith and Order in 2008, the much-anticipated document “Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church” has emerged from its proceedings at the behest of the General Conference, Council of Bishops, and Connectional Table. The Statement is a theologically rich, ecumenically informed, and deeply Wesleyan articulation on the church. The Committee truly has done a remarkable service and its Statement deserves a close hearing to enhance both the church’s self-understanding and its mission. In this series of blog posts, I will seek to offer a comprehensive reading of the document but mostly focus on the following: the church as both divine and human realities, the invisible church and the question of people of other faiths, the church’s ministry, and the issue of legitimate diversity.
The Faith and Order Committee seeks to articulate a theological reflection on the church that is in continuity with the historic Christian faith, our common Christian heritage grounded in the apostolic witness, and our distinctive Wesleyan heritage (WLP, p. 1). It is a document on ecclesiology that aims to offer a comprehensive understanding in light of current realities of the church and to situate the mission of the United Methodist Church in that vision. As it is still a work in progress, the Committee expresses openness to conversation and suggests interpreting its formulation in conversation with other ecclesial documents, especially “By Water and the Spirit” and “This Holy Mystery,” documents on baptism and holy communion, respectively (WLP, p. 2).
Having stated its goal, the Committee begins by identifying the current realities of the church, such as migration, globalization, plural religious realities, church and state relations in certain regions of the world, dramatic demographic changes in membership, and the issue of “legitimate diversity” (WLP, p. 2ff). This inventory is of significant value in situating the church in the current milieu. However, it is rather unfortunate that all these pressing issues are not given sufficient attention, though plural religious realities and legitimate diversity do receive significant coverage. As far as I can tell, the Statement does not explain why it has chosen to address some but not others and makes one wonder whether it is truly comprehensive or ecumenical as it claims to be, or more reflective of a particular geopolitical context of the church, perhaps North America (WPL, p. 1). Without doubt the two current issues mentioned do deserve reflection, but other issues, such as migration and church and state relations involving civil rights of justice and equity, or even struggles for basic human rights of freedom and survival, are just as pressing as any other in some parts of the world. It would be helpful to hear the rationales for the choices it has made or how other issues will also be addressed.
The Statement then proceeds to make explicit its approach to ecclesiology in the section “Our Approach to an Understanding of the Church” by pointing out the distinctive convictions that brought about the merger of the General Church in 1968 (WLP, p. 10ff). Among many of its convictions, the General Church affirmed that God’s love is for all people, it is transformative, and creates loving communities. Next, it discusses the historical origins of the United Methodist Church in the coming together of the Methodist revival movement led by John Wesley and the Pietist movement from continental Europe, and the history of slavery and the ongoing problem of racism.
In section two “A New Vision for the United Methodist Church,” the Statement proceeds to elaborate on the aforementioned convictions (WLP, p. 17ff). The first conviction “the saving love of god creates community” is addressed under the heading “The Church as a Gift of the Triune God,” which makes it very clear that the church is a gift of the Triune God. The church is a communion “whose source is the very life of the Holy Trinity,” a gift to receive and a gift to share with the world. It is then a divine reality fashioned after the very life of the triune God.
At the same time, the Committee thoughtfully recognizes, here and elsewhere, the stark reality that the church is a very human community that serves a variety of human needs, such as order, companionship, and ethical guidance (WLP, p. 21, p. 30, p. 56). More pointedly, it recognizes that at times the church can be utilized for particular political and economic ends infused with human values and ambitions, sometimes leading to ideological uses of the church for imperialistic, national, racial, ethnic, or gendered interests and dominations.
Two questions arise here. One, concerning its claim that the church is a gift of the Triune God who is the very source of its life, it merely asserts the communal nature of the church without explanation of what that consists of or how it participates in the very community of the Triune God, however feeble that human effort may be. This is a pivotal issue because it claims that the church is a communion the nature of which is derived from God who is understood as the Holy Trinity (WLP, p. 20). A full-blown treatise on Trinitarian ecclesiology is not necessary here, but a brief treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity would bring greater clarity to its claim that the church is communal. This amplification cannot be bypassed because it is foundational to the discussion on the one larger communion; if the One who creates community is the Triune God, then the Statement would need to specify further about the nature of the one larger communion in God. Furthermore, the significance of the church as a Trinitarian community ought to bear on the question of “legitimate diversity.”
Two, throughout the document the Committee has made a concerted effort to maintain that the church is both a divine gift and a human response. This is an important insight and needs to be highly commended. However, it is not clear how it is both a divine and a human reality, and how that relation is to be conceived. If granted that it is a divine creation, then how is that reality related to the polymorphic ways of human beings ordering their lives together? Or, if it is a human reality used for a variety of human ends, then how does it intersect with God’s mission in the world? In other words, how can they be coordinated in such a way that they are sufficiently aligned with one another? This alignment is a critical dimension of our communion with God and others and has deep implications for the two issues it addresses, namely, the larger communion of God and legitimate diversity.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Daniel Shin: Evangelism after Charleston
Today's post is written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center.
The recent tragic massacre at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, SC, in which Dylann Roof brutally gunned down nine innocent African-Americans attending a prayer meeting and the subsequent controversies surrounding the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina state house grounds painfully remind us of the racial fault lines that still divide our nation. These incidents arrive on the heels of heartrending deaths of unarmed blacks, such as Trayvon Martin (FL), Eric Garner (NY), Michael Brown (MO), Ezell Ford (CA), Tamir Rice (OH), and Freddie Gray (MD). The geographical locations of these incidents and their frequency suggest that these tremors are not isolated, episodic occurrences, but indicate forces that run deep and wide, like the movement of tectonic plates colliding against one another and shaking the foundations violently. Indeed, although what happened in Charleston and the deaths of unarmed blacks are two separate issues that should not be collapsed, our responses to them may reveal our fundamental values about race, which is the issue at hand.
It is in this racially supercharged context of public life in the U.S. and other global locales where the intersections of race, religion, culture, class, and gender are ripe with tension and potentially violent clashes, that we pause to think about the very nature of Christianity and more specifically the meaning of evangelism. What does Christianity have to do with Charleston? What is the witness of Christian faith in experiences of void and abyss that refuse any easy, readymade defenses of theodicy? How do we move forward with the dangerous memories of the past and yet with hopeful imaginations about the future of common flourishing?
Notwithstanding the enormously difficult, if not impossible, questions about race relations, we cannot remain silent but must speak lest we be liable to the charge of appalling silence which Martin Luther King, Jr. issued against moderate Christians. However, having to speak so that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the appalling silence of the good people entails coming to terms with the fact that there is no panacea that will remedy the human condition in an instant. Only God’s grace can move us toward healing through the long and rigorous therapy of transvaluation of values that are inveterate but not incorrigible.
H. Richard Niebuhr did not remain silent but spoke with eloquence and insight about revelation in terms of transvaluation of values in The Meaning of Revelation. He bemoaned the fact that the gospel ideals of Christ, i.e., unity, brotherhood/sisterhood, and the reign of God, have not been realized as the American society capitulated to national, ethnic, and class divisions in his own lifetime. Noticing widening disparity between gospel and culture, Niebuhr attributed its cause to people centering their lives on misplaced objects of devotion, such as power, self-fulfillment, family, race, or nation, rather than God. He also pointed out that when this happens, all too often, one’s faith, church, and religion become captive to such centers of value and pressed into service of anthropocentric piety in which God becomes an instrumental means to distorted, or even demonic, ends.
Niebuhr clearly saw the grave danger of accommodation and sought to disentangle the church from unholy cultural alliances through devotion to God who has revealed Godself to us. God’s revelation is not about impersonal facts or creeds, such as inerrancy or the virgin birth, but has to do with personal knowledge of God and ourselves in an I-and-Thou relation. This relation involves reciprocal valuation in which God values us and we value God in return. More specifically, to know God means to be known of God through seeing ourselves reflected in the eyes of God as created, finite, and sinful but also loved, judged, and redeemed as God’s children with infinite worth. We encounter a God who radically reorients our subjectivity and enables us to reflexively value God in the deepest sense possible and regard ourselves appropriately. In short, revelation has to do with transvaluation of values that turns us from anthropocentric piety to theocentric piety, to borrow the words of James Gustafson.
The personal nature of revelation is not without a rational dimension as it is central to it. Transvaluation of values radically alters our previous conceptions about the past, present, and future of our personal lives and the history of the world, allowing us to discern order, unity, and meaning in a single cosmic epic of creation, redemption and consummation. There is no part of our history that is destroyed, forgotten, or blinded by the light of divine revelation but brought into a sharp and clear focus. This means we have to face all of the resurrected buried past, even the crimes, absurdities, and denials of humanity, such as slavery, and see them in light of God’s judgment and redemption. Clearly, transvaluation is no easy undertaking but requires conversion of memory and hope that leads to the common good of all.
If revelation is about transvaluation of values, then evangelism understood as Christian witness to God’s self-revelation is by definition implicated in a profoundly meaningful and hopeful endeavor of reconstituting individual selves and communities in theocentric piety. On a realistic note, evangelism is a highly costly undertaking that demands a revolutionary transformation of our habits, dispositions, affections, and worldviews, ushering us into a strange world in which God’s power is manifest in self-emptying sacrifice and existence for the other. Highlighting such upheavals of thought and life, Niebuhr said, “the self we loved is not the self God loves, the neighbors we did not prize are his treasures, the truth we ignored is the truth he maintains, the justice which we sought because it was our own is not the justice that his love desires.” Seeing ourselves, neighbors, truth, and justice as reflected in God’s gaze is without question a daunting task, but certainly worth the risk because black lives matter and all are invited to the beloved community.
The recent tragic massacre at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, SC, in which Dylann Roof brutally gunned down nine innocent African-Americans attending a prayer meeting and the subsequent controversies surrounding the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina state house grounds painfully remind us of the racial fault lines that still divide our nation. These incidents arrive on the heels of heartrending deaths of unarmed blacks, such as Trayvon Martin (FL), Eric Garner (NY), Michael Brown (MO), Ezell Ford (CA), Tamir Rice (OH), and Freddie Gray (MD). The geographical locations of these incidents and their frequency suggest that these tremors are not isolated, episodic occurrences, but indicate forces that run deep and wide, like the movement of tectonic plates colliding against one another and shaking the foundations violently. Indeed, although what happened in Charleston and the deaths of unarmed blacks are two separate issues that should not be collapsed, our responses to them may reveal our fundamental values about race, which is the issue at hand.
It is in this racially supercharged context of public life in the U.S. and other global locales where the intersections of race, religion, culture, class, and gender are ripe with tension and potentially violent clashes, that we pause to think about the very nature of Christianity and more specifically the meaning of evangelism. What does Christianity have to do with Charleston? What is the witness of Christian faith in experiences of void and abyss that refuse any easy, readymade defenses of theodicy? How do we move forward with the dangerous memories of the past and yet with hopeful imaginations about the future of common flourishing?
Notwithstanding the enormously difficult, if not impossible, questions about race relations, we cannot remain silent but must speak lest we be liable to the charge of appalling silence which Martin Luther King, Jr. issued against moderate Christians. However, having to speak so that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the appalling silence of the good people entails coming to terms with the fact that there is no panacea that will remedy the human condition in an instant. Only God’s grace can move us toward healing through the long and rigorous therapy of transvaluation of values that are inveterate but not incorrigible.
H. Richard Niebuhr did not remain silent but spoke with eloquence and insight about revelation in terms of transvaluation of values in The Meaning of Revelation. He bemoaned the fact that the gospel ideals of Christ, i.e., unity, brotherhood/sisterhood, and the reign of God, have not been realized as the American society capitulated to national, ethnic, and class divisions in his own lifetime. Noticing widening disparity between gospel and culture, Niebuhr attributed its cause to people centering their lives on misplaced objects of devotion, such as power, self-fulfillment, family, race, or nation, rather than God. He also pointed out that when this happens, all too often, one’s faith, church, and religion become captive to such centers of value and pressed into service of anthropocentric piety in which God becomes an instrumental means to distorted, or even demonic, ends.
Niebuhr clearly saw the grave danger of accommodation and sought to disentangle the church from unholy cultural alliances through devotion to God who has revealed Godself to us. God’s revelation is not about impersonal facts or creeds, such as inerrancy or the virgin birth, but has to do with personal knowledge of God and ourselves in an I-and-Thou relation. This relation involves reciprocal valuation in which God values us and we value God in return. More specifically, to know God means to be known of God through seeing ourselves reflected in the eyes of God as created, finite, and sinful but also loved, judged, and redeemed as God’s children with infinite worth. We encounter a God who radically reorients our subjectivity and enables us to reflexively value God in the deepest sense possible and regard ourselves appropriately. In short, revelation has to do with transvaluation of values that turns us from anthropocentric piety to theocentric piety, to borrow the words of James Gustafson.
The personal nature of revelation is not without a rational dimension as it is central to it. Transvaluation of values radically alters our previous conceptions about the past, present, and future of our personal lives and the history of the world, allowing us to discern order, unity, and meaning in a single cosmic epic of creation, redemption and consummation. There is no part of our history that is destroyed, forgotten, or blinded by the light of divine revelation but brought into a sharp and clear focus. This means we have to face all of the resurrected buried past, even the crimes, absurdities, and denials of humanity, such as slavery, and see them in light of God’s judgment and redemption. Clearly, transvaluation is no easy undertaking but requires conversion of memory and hope that leads to the common good of all.
If revelation is about transvaluation of values, then evangelism understood as Christian witness to God’s self-revelation is by definition implicated in a profoundly meaningful and hopeful endeavor of reconstituting individual selves and communities in theocentric piety. On a realistic note, evangelism is a highly costly undertaking that demands a revolutionary transformation of our habits, dispositions, affections, and worldviews, ushering us into a strange world in which God’s power is manifest in self-emptying sacrifice and existence for the other. Highlighting such upheavals of thought and life, Niebuhr said, “the self we loved is not the self God loves, the neighbors we did not prize are his treasures, the truth we ignored is the truth he maintains, the justice which we sought because it was our own is not the justice that his love desires.” Seeing ourselves, neighbors, truth, and justice as reflected in God’s gaze is without question a daunting task, but certainly worth the risk because black lives matter and all are invited to the beloved community.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Daniel Shin on Why History Matters: The Methodist Heritage in the History of Christian Mission (Part III)
Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center. This post is the second of a three-part response by Dr. Shin to Robert Hunt's comments on the seventh section of the document, "United Methodism in Mission Today." The first post can be found here, and the second post here. Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
In my first two posts, I responded to and expanded upon Hunt’s observation that there is in the Mission Statement of The United Methodist Church: Grace Upon Grace a problematic jump from Jesus to Wesley and the distinctive heritage of Methodism without due attention to the history of mission in the intervening years. Having addressed this concern, I will conclude with some of my own thoughts on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today.”
Clearly Hunt is on to something important and I find his suggestion to observe and listen also to bear enormous potential in reconceiving the mission of our church. Simple but profound practices of observing and listening can be enlightening and liberating. I think when he alerts us to the questionable leap from Jesus to the rise of Methodism he is in fact inviting us to observe and listen. It is by observing and listening, we assist the invisible and hidden persons to become visible (Paragraph 35). I would add one more, the need for repentance, which I define as rightly understanding ourselves before God and other.[1] When repentance is understood as related to our self-understanding, we can return to Hunt’s emphasis on self-understanding with a greater sense of what that means for today’s mission.
Speaking of repentance, the Statement recognizes the church’s past temptation to intermix “mission activities with national ambition, economic gains, and cultural values” (Paragraph 26) and racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression (Paragraphs 16 and 55). It continues, “When we yield to temptations, repentance is in order. The church prays for forgiving grace, for renewing grace, and for empowering grace” (Paragraph 55). This is good but is this enough? Before we become advocates of the hidden, invisible, and forgotten among us (Paragraph 35), perhaps the first order of business is to observe, listen, and rightly understand ourselves in light of the realities we cannot ignore: our sin of extermination of the Native Americans (Paragraph 24), dehumanizing African-Americans through chattel slavery (Paragraph 18 and 19), and other acts of violence around the world. It is in this context we must return to the gospel “to recognize the world for what it is; powers organized in opposition to God. Ours is a world filled with unbelief, a world whose social systems often express structured evil, and a world populated with people who need God. To recognize that this world is subject to principalities and powers (Romans 8:38, Colossians 1:16) is a work of grace. Grace enlightens and grace enlivens. By grace, hiddenness brought to sight allows sight to envision mission” (Paragraph 40). If I am not mistaken, Hunt expresses deep reservations about this passage in light of the church’s imperialistic practices of mission in non-Christian contexts perpetuating false binary oppositions, such as saved vs. lost, hammer vs. nail, and enlightened vs. ignorant. If so, I agree with his reservations and also suggest that we interpret Paragraph 40 to be about standing within the prophetic tradition of our mission (Paragraph 38) that reminds us of the importance of the doctrine of sin in dealing with the human condition at both individual and macro levels, especially when it comes to the liberation of the oppressed.
And, if it is true that “Christianity is always emerging out of the engagement of the gospel narrative with widely varying human self-understanding,” as Hunt suggests, then the practices of observation, listening, and repentance holds enormous potentials for mission not only among the non-Christians and “non-persons” but also for emerging Christianity at home as we grapple with who we are before God and others. But to dwell there would be an inordinate absorption in self-analysis that smacks of omphaloskepsis. Given how human self-understanding is not confined to a self-enclosed vacuum of inward consciousness but deeply shaped by its relations to the public world, and given the section under discussion “United Methodism in Mission Today,”[2] I think it is appropriate to reflect on W. E. B. Dubois’ call to action in the world: “Now is the accepted time, not tomorrow, not some more convenient season. It is today that our best work can be done and not some future day or future year. It is today that we fit ourselves for the greater usefulness of tomorrow. Today is the seed time, now are the hours of work, and tomorrow comes the harvest and the playtime.”
In my first two posts, I responded to and expanded upon Hunt’s observation that there is in the Mission Statement of The United Methodist Church: Grace Upon Grace a problematic jump from Jesus to Wesley and the distinctive heritage of Methodism without due attention to the history of mission in the intervening years. Having addressed this concern, I will conclude with some of my own thoughts on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today.”
Clearly Hunt is on to something important and I find his suggestion to observe and listen also to bear enormous potential in reconceiving the mission of our church. Simple but profound practices of observing and listening can be enlightening and liberating. I think when he alerts us to the questionable leap from Jesus to the rise of Methodism he is in fact inviting us to observe and listen. It is by observing and listening, we assist the invisible and hidden persons to become visible (Paragraph 35). I would add one more, the need for repentance, which I define as rightly understanding ourselves before God and other.[1] When repentance is understood as related to our self-understanding, we can return to Hunt’s emphasis on self-understanding with a greater sense of what that means for today’s mission.
Speaking of repentance, the Statement recognizes the church’s past temptation to intermix “mission activities with national ambition, economic gains, and cultural values” (Paragraph 26) and racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression (Paragraphs 16 and 55). It continues, “When we yield to temptations, repentance is in order. The church prays for forgiving grace, for renewing grace, and for empowering grace” (Paragraph 55). This is good but is this enough? Before we become advocates of the hidden, invisible, and forgotten among us (Paragraph 35), perhaps the first order of business is to observe, listen, and rightly understand ourselves in light of the realities we cannot ignore: our sin of extermination of the Native Americans (Paragraph 24), dehumanizing African-Americans through chattel slavery (Paragraph 18 and 19), and other acts of violence around the world. It is in this context we must return to the gospel “to recognize the world for what it is; powers organized in opposition to God. Ours is a world filled with unbelief, a world whose social systems often express structured evil, and a world populated with people who need God. To recognize that this world is subject to principalities and powers (Romans 8:38, Colossians 1:16) is a work of grace. Grace enlightens and grace enlivens. By grace, hiddenness brought to sight allows sight to envision mission” (Paragraph 40). If I am not mistaken, Hunt expresses deep reservations about this passage in light of the church’s imperialistic practices of mission in non-Christian contexts perpetuating false binary oppositions, such as saved vs. lost, hammer vs. nail, and enlightened vs. ignorant. If so, I agree with his reservations and also suggest that we interpret Paragraph 40 to be about standing within the prophetic tradition of our mission (Paragraph 38) that reminds us of the importance of the doctrine of sin in dealing with the human condition at both individual and macro levels, especially when it comes to the liberation of the oppressed.
And, if it is true that “Christianity is always emerging out of the engagement of the gospel narrative with widely varying human self-understanding,” as Hunt suggests, then the practices of observation, listening, and repentance holds enormous potentials for mission not only among the non-Christians and “non-persons” but also for emerging Christianity at home as we grapple with who we are before God and others. But to dwell there would be an inordinate absorption in self-analysis that smacks of omphaloskepsis. Given how human self-understanding is not confined to a self-enclosed vacuum of inward consciousness but deeply shaped by its relations to the public world, and given the section under discussion “United Methodism in Mission Today,”[2] I think it is appropriate to reflect on W. E. B. Dubois’ call to action in the world: “Now is the accepted time, not tomorrow, not some more convenient season. It is today that our best work can be done and not some future day or future year. It is today that we fit ourselves for the greater usefulness of tomorrow. Today is the seed time, now are the hours of work, and tomorrow comes the harvest and the playtime.”
[1] I am following here Wesley’s understanding of repentance, which includes the following: self-knowledge as a sinner, remorse for sin, and a desire to turn to God. See John Wesley’s sermons, “The Way to the Kingdom,” “On working out our own salvation,” and “The Repentance of Believers.”
[2] The Statement speaks of our mission as that of an “ism” which suggests a system of thought, principle, practice, or ideology, rather than a social and religious entity in movement and action. There is indeed a dimension of the United Methodist movement that is theoretical and rational in character but it would be appropriate to highlight the social and ecclesial aspect of the movement in mission, that is, The United Methodist Church.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Daniel Shin on Why History Matters: The Methodist Heritage in the History of Christian Mission (Part II)
Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center. This post is the second of a three-part response by Dr. Shin to Robert Hunt's comments on the seventh section of the document, "United Methodism in Mission Today." The first post can be found here. Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
Dr. Robert Hunt's comments on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today” (paragraphs 40 and 41) of the Mission Statement of the United Church: Grace Upon Grace are deeply beneficial in understanding the mission of the United Methodist Church. In particular, Hunt’s observation that there is a problematic jump from Jesus to Wesley and the distinctive heritage of Methodism without due attention to the history of mission in the intervening years calls us to further reflection. Having addressed the dangers of jumping over the rest of the New Testament after Jesus in my last post, I turn now to the dangers of jumping over the rest of Christian history before Wesley.
What difference does it make to pay attention to the intervening years between the early church after the New Testament and the rise of the Methodist movement? Stated differently, how is our understanding of mission either impoverished when we bypass this wide expanse of time and missional activity, or enriched when we critically as well as constructively evaluate it? What it means to have to come to terms with this stretch of time in the first section “Our Missional Heritage” (paragraphs 10-17), where it logically belongs, is to peer into a vast expanse of space populated by people of different cultures and societies. Surely, the long and winding roads of Christian journeys spanning over two millennium in all seven continents, including every major metropolitan centers and remote rural towns and hamlets, have something to teach us about mission. Christianity went global before the recent flowering of the field “World Christianity.” The academy has some catching up to do with the church. A cartography of the contours of the past and current missional expeditions can inform the present and future mission of the United Methodist Church.
Historians of Christianity of different persuasions have surveyed the history of Christian mission and retrieved for us invaluable insights.[1] The church has a rich and long legacy of ministry among the poor, orphans, and widows, advancement of learning and education through monasteries and educational institutions, development of hospitals and the care of the sick, promotion of art, music, literature, and the vast array of human expressions in cultures and civilizations. To say that there is much to reclaim in the history of Christian mission is a gross understatement (See Paragraph 23 on human care and social responsibility). We celebrate them and pursue them further to promote justice and peace in the world. However, notwithstsanding our achievements, the good old days of mission are interlaced with our shortcomings, sins of complicity in and even active promotion of imperialism, which we are liable to pass from generation to generation the sins our ancestors unless we remain vigilant. We cannot sweep under the rug our dirty laundry of belligerent attempts to force conversions, inquisitions, religious wars, crusades, colonization, and fraudulent TV preachers. As Santanyana reminds us, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This is what is at stake—learning from our past successes and failures—in not jumping from Jesus to the rise of the Methodist movement, but patiently and thoughtfully following the biblical, historical and theological detour necessary to understand the mission of the United Methodist Church. I am not sure what exactly Hunt has in mind in his criticism of the jump from Jesus to the rise of the Methodist movement, because he does not explain it, but given his criticism of unidirectional and imperialistic practices of mission, I take it that this approximates what he has in mind. To be fair, the general tenor of the Statement is reflective of the biblical, historical, and theological perspectives that signal to us both the positive and problematic practices of mission, so if it were to be revised later it would be important to make explicit those perspectives by engaging the history of mission.
Dr. Robert Hunt's comments on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today” (paragraphs 40 and 41) of the Mission Statement of the United Church: Grace Upon Grace are deeply beneficial in understanding the mission of the United Methodist Church. In particular, Hunt’s observation that there is a problematic jump from Jesus to Wesley and the distinctive heritage of Methodism without due attention to the history of mission in the intervening years calls us to further reflection. Having addressed the dangers of jumping over the rest of the New Testament after Jesus in my last post, I turn now to the dangers of jumping over the rest of Christian history before Wesley.
What difference does it make to pay attention to the intervening years between the early church after the New Testament and the rise of the Methodist movement? Stated differently, how is our understanding of mission either impoverished when we bypass this wide expanse of time and missional activity, or enriched when we critically as well as constructively evaluate it? What it means to have to come to terms with this stretch of time in the first section “Our Missional Heritage” (paragraphs 10-17), where it logically belongs, is to peer into a vast expanse of space populated by people of different cultures and societies. Surely, the long and winding roads of Christian journeys spanning over two millennium in all seven continents, including every major metropolitan centers and remote rural towns and hamlets, have something to teach us about mission. Christianity went global before the recent flowering of the field “World Christianity.” The academy has some catching up to do with the church. A cartography of the contours of the past and current missional expeditions can inform the present and future mission of the United Methodist Church.
Historians of Christianity of different persuasions have surveyed the history of Christian mission and retrieved for us invaluable insights.[1] The church has a rich and long legacy of ministry among the poor, orphans, and widows, advancement of learning and education through monasteries and educational institutions, development of hospitals and the care of the sick, promotion of art, music, literature, and the vast array of human expressions in cultures and civilizations. To say that there is much to reclaim in the history of Christian mission is a gross understatement (See Paragraph 23 on human care and social responsibility). We celebrate them and pursue them further to promote justice and peace in the world. However, notwithstsanding our achievements, the good old days of mission are interlaced with our shortcomings, sins of complicity in and even active promotion of imperialism, which we are liable to pass from generation to generation the sins our ancestors unless we remain vigilant. We cannot sweep under the rug our dirty laundry of belligerent attempts to force conversions, inquisitions, religious wars, crusades, colonization, and fraudulent TV preachers. As Santanyana reminds us, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This is what is at stake—learning from our past successes and failures—in not jumping from Jesus to the rise of the Methodist movement, but patiently and thoughtfully following the biblical, historical and theological detour necessary to understand the mission of the United Methodist Church. I am not sure what exactly Hunt has in mind in his criticism of the jump from Jesus to the rise of the Methodist movement, because he does not explain it, but given his criticism of unidirectional and imperialistic practices of mission, I take it that this approximates what he has in mind. To be fair, the general tenor of the Statement is reflective of the biblical, historical, and theological perspectives that signal to us both the positive and problematic practices of mission, so if it were to be revised later it would be important to make explicit those perspectives by engaging the history of mission.
[1] Again, there is no need to start from scratch here as there is a profusion of resources that inform us about the history of Christian mission leading up to and beyond the rise of the Methodist movement. See Bosch, Transforming Mission.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Daniel Shin on Why History Matters: The Methodist Heritage in the History of Christian Mission
Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius and Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism and Assistant Professor of Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center. This post is the first of a three-part response by Dr. Shin to Robert Hunt's comments on the seventh section of the document, "United Methodism in Mission Today." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
I would like to thank Dr. Robert Hunt for his perceptive and constructive comments on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today” (paragraphs 40 and 41) of the Mission Statement of the United Church: Grace Upon Grace. His response is deeply beneficial in understanding the mission of the United Methodist Church. I will primarily respond to Hunt’s observation that there is a problematic jump from Jesus to Wesley and the distinctive heritage of Methodism without due attention to the history of mission in the intervening years. Upon addressing this concern, I will conclude with some of my own thoughts on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today.”
Hunt points out that there is a rather peculiar leap in the Statement from Jesus to Wesley and the Methodist missional heritage which sidelines the two-thirds of the New Testament related to the mission of the apostles and sixteen hundred years of Christian missionary history. With regards to the former, I presume here he specifically has in mind the section “Our Unifying Vision” (paragraphs 1-9) where it would make most sense to include it. This is a keen and astute observation worth exploring. To better appreciate his observation here, it is necessary to return to the previous parts of the Statement and see the progression of thought in the document. The first section “Introduction” is followed by the paragraph “Our Unifying Vision,” which offers an overarching picture of the UMC’s mission informed by scriptural and theological reflections, in particular its Christological commitments. Then the Statement moves from the section “Our Unifying Vision” to the section “Our Missional Heritage” (paragraphs 10-17). This next section begins by stating “We, as United Methodists, were born in mission,” and then goes on to recount the foundational work of John and Charles Wesley during the revival movements in eighteenth-century England and the subsequent evangelical work of Barbara Heck, William Otterbein, Francis Asbury, Martin Boehm, Harry Hosier, and Jacob Albright in North America. As such, on Hunt’s account, the Statement leaves out two-thirds of the New Testament following the gospels.
He regards them important because in order to fully come to terms with the person and mission of Jesus and what that means for our mission today, we need to take the necessary detour through the mission of the apostles as recorded in the scripture through which we come to appreciate the work of Jesus Christ. In other words, Hunt is suggesting, in agreement with modern biblical scholarship, that since the New Testament writings are as much about the person and work of Jesus as the embodiment or interpretation of his mission in the early churches, we need to wrestle with it in its entirety. Since it is the case that “Jesus sets the ground for and the course of mission” (See paragraphs 6 and 7), and it is the case that Scripture is authoritative for us, then it is by examining all of the New Testament writings we gain important clues about how Jesus did so for the early church. For instance, through Paul’s writings to the church at Corinth or Galatia, we see something about their personal and collective lives informed by Jesus’ teachings and this would make a difference in our understanding and practice of mission today.
Hence, Hunt’s criticism that the move from Jesus to the era of the rise and development of the Methodist movement is problematic needs to be taken seriously and followed up with fully adequate explorations of what it might mean for the mission of the United Methodist Church attend to the intervening years. To be sure, the Statement does in fact mention the mission of the New Testament churches in paragraph 4. It states, “The New Testament churches are communities in mission. The book of Acts describes the work of the Holy Spirit extending the movement. Paul becomes an apostle to the Gentiles. Other Christians travel to spread the good news.” Is that enough? Some might argue that the Statement as a mission statement adopted by the 1988 General Conference, rather than an academic treatise, and, as such, it may be enough. But given the Statement’s Christological commitments, which is given in no uncertain terms, such as “To this end we look nowhere else but to Christ…” (Introduction), it would be worthwhile to explore the early church’s embodiment of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ and what it means for us today.
Pursing further Hunt’s observation towards a constructive end, we raise the question “what difference does it make to attend to the two-thirds of the New Testament or even the New Testament period?”[1] When we attend to them we will not only hear their words and envision their practices, but more importantly the depth grammar of their linguistic world or the norms and patterns that governed their life together as missional communities. Here I have in mind the rule of faith that guided the early Christians to engage in practices of radical inclusion of love so that the hazardous and risky border crossings involving race, class, gender, and so forth were undertaken with theological conviction and commitment. This may speak to our own border crossings today in a global world where, as Donald Davidson suggests, charity is forced upon us.
I would like to thank Dr. Robert Hunt for his perceptive and constructive comments on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today” (paragraphs 40 and 41) of the Mission Statement of the United Church: Grace Upon Grace. His response is deeply beneficial in understanding the mission of the United Methodist Church. I will primarily respond to Hunt’s observation that there is a problematic jump from Jesus to Wesley and the distinctive heritage of Methodism without due attention to the history of mission in the intervening years. Upon addressing this concern, I will conclude with some of my own thoughts on the section “United Methodism in Mission Today.”
Hunt points out that there is a rather peculiar leap in the Statement from Jesus to Wesley and the Methodist missional heritage which sidelines the two-thirds of the New Testament related to the mission of the apostles and sixteen hundred years of Christian missionary history. With regards to the former, I presume here he specifically has in mind the section “Our Unifying Vision” (paragraphs 1-9) where it would make most sense to include it. This is a keen and astute observation worth exploring. To better appreciate his observation here, it is necessary to return to the previous parts of the Statement and see the progression of thought in the document. The first section “Introduction” is followed by the paragraph “Our Unifying Vision,” which offers an overarching picture of the UMC’s mission informed by scriptural and theological reflections, in particular its Christological commitments. Then the Statement moves from the section “Our Unifying Vision” to the section “Our Missional Heritage” (paragraphs 10-17). This next section begins by stating “We, as United Methodists, were born in mission,” and then goes on to recount the foundational work of John and Charles Wesley during the revival movements in eighteenth-century England and the subsequent evangelical work of Barbara Heck, William Otterbein, Francis Asbury, Martin Boehm, Harry Hosier, and Jacob Albright in North America. As such, on Hunt’s account, the Statement leaves out two-thirds of the New Testament following the gospels.
He regards them important because in order to fully come to terms with the person and mission of Jesus and what that means for our mission today, we need to take the necessary detour through the mission of the apostles as recorded in the scripture through which we come to appreciate the work of Jesus Christ. In other words, Hunt is suggesting, in agreement with modern biblical scholarship, that since the New Testament writings are as much about the person and work of Jesus as the embodiment or interpretation of his mission in the early churches, we need to wrestle with it in its entirety. Since it is the case that “Jesus sets the ground for and the course of mission” (See paragraphs 6 and 7), and it is the case that Scripture is authoritative for us, then it is by examining all of the New Testament writings we gain important clues about how Jesus did so for the early church. For instance, through Paul’s writings to the church at Corinth or Galatia, we see something about their personal and collective lives informed by Jesus’ teachings and this would make a difference in our understanding and practice of mission today.
Hence, Hunt’s criticism that the move from Jesus to the era of the rise and development of the Methodist movement is problematic needs to be taken seriously and followed up with fully adequate explorations of what it might mean for the mission of the United Methodist Church attend to the intervening years. To be sure, the Statement does in fact mention the mission of the New Testament churches in paragraph 4. It states, “The New Testament churches are communities in mission. The book of Acts describes the work of the Holy Spirit extending the movement. Paul becomes an apostle to the Gentiles. Other Christians travel to spread the good news.” Is that enough? Some might argue that the Statement as a mission statement adopted by the 1988 General Conference, rather than an academic treatise, and, as such, it may be enough. But given the Statement’s Christological commitments, which is given in no uncertain terms, such as “To this end we look nowhere else but to Christ…” (Introduction), it would be worthwhile to explore the early church’s embodiment of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ and what it means for us today.
Pursing further Hunt’s observation towards a constructive end, we raise the question “what difference does it make to attend to the two-thirds of the New Testament or even the New Testament period?”[1] When we attend to them we will not only hear their words and envision their practices, but more importantly the depth grammar of their linguistic world or the norms and patterns that governed their life together as missional communities. Here I have in mind the rule of faith that guided the early Christians to engage in practices of radical inclusion of love so that the hazardous and risky border crossings involving race, class, gender, and so forth were undertaken with theological conviction and commitment. This may speak to our own border crossings today in a global world where, as Donald Davidson suggests, charity is forced upon us.
[1] The difference can be made explicit by those with expertise in biblical studies, especially social scientific approaches to excavate the missional significance of the New Testament communities and their writings. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here because of the plethora of research already available on the New Testament and its churches as they relate to mission. They are helpful as guides in understanding the early church’s embodiment of the Spirit of Christ in their Christian beliefs and practices in the world. For introductory texts on this topic, see David Bosch, Transforming
Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2011); Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983).
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Elizabeth Tapia on Grace Upon Grace: Our Unifying Vision
Today's post is the fourth in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace
(Nashville: Graded Press, 1990) Various United Methodist professors of
mission will contribute to a re-examination of this theological
statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United
Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Elizabeth Tapia,
Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. Dr. Tapia is responding to a previous piece by Daniel Shin on the second section of the document, "Our Unifying Vision." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
I am pondering this Advent season the meaning of God’s grace. Grace is grace, the unconditional love of God gracefully revealed in humble, tender, immigrant Jesus. By the power of the Holy Spirit, a simple Palestinian woman named Mary received the grace-filled word that she would become the mother of the holy child to be named Jesus, the Son of God. Out of God’s abundant love for human kind and creation, God reveals, God graces, God loves. Like Mary, our souls magnify and rejoice in God our Savior. Like Joseph, we stand in awe and ready to savor God’s grace in the midst of uncertainty and fear.
Upon reading the section on “Our Unifying Vision” in the 1988 UMC mission statement, I pondered on what it means to be grasped by God’s abundant grace, what it means to be embraced by God’s self-giving, what it means for the church to be “transformed by grace”, and what this “unifying vision” implies. Who constitutes the “Our” in this phrase? How will a single vision unify a multi-diverse group of people called the United Methodists? How does this unifying vision find multiple dimensions in the global nature of the church? I have no ready answers.
The statement emphasizes the biblical rootedness that our unifying vision of mission is proclaiming and witnessing to the God of Grace in Christ, and that to “be in covenant with God is to be called in mission.”
“We need a dual vision that focuses on Christ and our specific context,” writes Daniel Shin. I agree with his thought. I like his emphasis on the universal scope of God’s mission and the varied manifestations of God’s mission depending on one’s specific and historical contexts.
What I take away from this “Our Unifying Vision” section of a twenty-five year old mission document are the following:
1) “The New Testament churches are communities in mission”. (Grace upon Grace, Para. 4)
2) “The people of God are wholly dependent upon the grace of God.” (Grace upon Grace, Para. 3)
3) “Jesus Christ defines grace: Immanuel, God with us as a person…grace is God’s way of being in the world, the expression of God’s own self.” (Grace upon Grace, Para. 5).
Daniel Shin’s comment on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, ongoing slavery and “global colonization that adversely affect[s] women, children and the nonpersons of the world” is a strong call for reexamination of the motive, message, manner and process of churches’ participation in God’s mission. How are our present day church communities in mission? Are our churches like “field hospitals for broken souls,” to use the phrase of Pope Francis? Are all Spirit-led, singing and worshipping together in multiple languages, preaching the gospel in word and deed? Are all included, are all genuinely welcomed, with resources shared and no one in want?
And if we are God’s people wholly dependent upon the grace of God, why do we worry too much about who gets the credit, where the resources will come, what petitions will be calendared, whether one breaks or follow the Book of the Discipline in its entirety? We follow Jesus, and the Jesus Vision is tied in with the Kindom Vision.
Our typhoon-devastated sisters and brothers in the Philippines, my homeland, lost everything. Those who survived this tragic disaster are spiritually, literally and wholly dependent on the grace of God. Many of them had not read this document, but I believe that through the praying-loving-sharing-giving acts of kindness of people around the world, including the United Methodist world-wide connection, they are embraced by God’s grace. Emmanuel, God-with-us, is not a noun, it is a verb.
Part of the message of the 10th Assembly of the World Council of Churches that met recently in Busan Korea reads, “God our Creator is the source of all life. In the love of Jesus Christ and by the mercy of the Holy Spirit we, as a communion of the children of God, move together towards the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Seeking grace from God we are called, in our diversity, to be just stewards of God’s creation. This is the vision of the New Heaven and Earth, where Christ will ‘fill all in all’ (Eph 1:23)”. From my Filipina Christian perspective, such an ecumenical and ecological move can unify believers in envisioning, by God’s grace, a world filled with justice and peace.
I am pondering this Advent season the meaning of God’s grace. Grace is grace, the unconditional love of God gracefully revealed in humble, tender, immigrant Jesus. By the power of the Holy Spirit, a simple Palestinian woman named Mary received the grace-filled word that she would become the mother of the holy child to be named Jesus, the Son of God. Out of God’s abundant love for human kind and creation, God reveals, God graces, God loves. Like Mary, our souls magnify and rejoice in God our Savior. Like Joseph, we stand in awe and ready to savor God’s grace in the midst of uncertainty and fear.
Upon reading the section on “Our Unifying Vision” in the 1988 UMC mission statement, I pondered on what it means to be grasped by God’s abundant grace, what it means to be embraced by God’s self-giving, what it means for the church to be “transformed by grace”, and what this “unifying vision” implies. Who constitutes the “Our” in this phrase? How will a single vision unify a multi-diverse group of people called the United Methodists? How does this unifying vision find multiple dimensions in the global nature of the church? I have no ready answers.
The statement emphasizes the biblical rootedness that our unifying vision of mission is proclaiming and witnessing to the God of Grace in Christ, and that to “be in covenant with God is to be called in mission.”
“We need a dual vision that focuses on Christ and our specific context,” writes Daniel Shin. I agree with his thought. I like his emphasis on the universal scope of God’s mission and the varied manifestations of God’s mission depending on one’s specific and historical contexts.
What I take away from this “Our Unifying Vision” section of a twenty-five year old mission document are the following:
1) “The New Testament churches are communities in mission”. (Grace upon Grace, Para. 4)
2) “The people of God are wholly dependent upon the grace of God.” (Grace upon Grace, Para. 3)
3) “Jesus Christ defines grace: Immanuel, God with us as a person…grace is God’s way of being in the world, the expression of God’s own self.” (Grace upon Grace, Para. 5).
Daniel Shin’s comment on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, ongoing slavery and “global colonization that adversely affect[s] women, children and the nonpersons of the world” is a strong call for reexamination of the motive, message, manner and process of churches’ participation in God’s mission. How are our present day church communities in mission? Are our churches like “field hospitals for broken souls,” to use the phrase of Pope Francis? Are all Spirit-led, singing and worshipping together in multiple languages, preaching the gospel in word and deed? Are all included, are all genuinely welcomed, with resources shared and no one in want?
And if we are God’s people wholly dependent upon the grace of God, why do we worry too much about who gets the credit, where the resources will come, what petitions will be calendared, whether one breaks or follow the Book of the Discipline in its entirety? We follow Jesus, and the Jesus Vision is tied in with the Kindom Vision.
Our typhoon-devastated sisters and brothers in the Philippines, my homeland, lost everything. Those who survived this tragic disaster are spiritually, literally and wholly dependent on the grace of God. Many of them had not read this document, but I believe that through the praying-loving-sharing-giving acts of kindness of people around the world, including the United Methodist world-wide connection, they are embraced by God’s grace. Emmanuel, God-with-us, is not a noun, it is a verb.
Part of the message of the 10th Assembly of the World Council of Churches that met recently in Busan Korea reads, “God our Creator is the source of all life. In the love of Jesus Christ and by the mercy of the Holy Spirit we, as a communion of the children of God, move together towards the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Seeking grace from God we are called, in our diversity, to be just stewards of God’s creation. This is the vision of the New Heaven and Earth, where Christ will ‘fill all in all’ (Eph 1:23)”. From my Filipina Christian perspective, such an ecumenical and ecological move can unify believers in envisioning, by God’s grace, a world filled with justice and peace.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
"Our Unifying Vision" - Daniel Shin on Grace Upon Grace: Our Unifying Vision
Today's post is the third in a series of weekly posts that will re-examine the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990) Various United Methodist professors of mission will contribute to a re-examination of this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Daniel Shin, Bishop Cornelius & Dorothye Henderson/E. Stanley Jones Chair in Evangelism at the Interdenominational Theological Center. Dr. Shin is commenting on the second section of the document. Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
The section “Our Unifying Vision” immediately follows the “Introduction” in Grace Upon Grace, the theological statement of the mission of The United Methodist Church. It is appropriate that the statement begins with theological reflections on our church’s unifying vision as we are one in Christ, but also different in many ways. What is of interest concerning unity-in-diversity in the title “Our Unifying Vision” is it can be interpreted at least in two different ways: one, it suggests a collectively defined and accepted vision that is at work and exerting influence to move the church toward a common goal; two, it intimates a vision still in the process of coming together toward a common horizon. Whereas the former suggests a united vision already out there waiting to be implemented, the latter implies a vision becoming unified right before our eyes—perhaps, a fusion of horizons—far more attentive to the church as a hermeneutical community in conversation, debate, and mutual enrichment. Which interpretation best reflects the spirit in which the document was written?
It seems the authors of Grace Upon Grace had in mind the former. Consider Paragraph 3 which begins with the following words: “Scripture provides our decisive vision of mission.” In Paragraph 9, it also says, “We, as United Methodists, pursue a unifying vision by ‘looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.’ This is our vision, a vision which sets our vocation.”[1] Our vision already has been provided to us, rather than standing in need of being articulated and adopted. Moving beyond the surface reading of the document to its depth, we cannot help but notice the implied sensitivity and alertness to diverse theologies and practices of mission present in the United Methodist Church. After all, we are the heirs of a rich heritage of different traditions such as Anglican (Wesley), Reformed (Otterbein), evangelical, and pietist churches.[2] Moreover, it is only proper and necessary we recognize diverse missional responsibilities in the church if we understand our distinct missions to be participation in the missio Dei in contexts other than our own. The scope of God’s mission is indeed universal, and different missions around the globe are the many and varied manifestations of the mission Dei. Others are also summoned and faithful in God’s mission just as we, too, seek God’s reign of justice and peace. Hence, affirmation of the polyphonic character of missions is the result of coming to terms with the missio Dei. It is a deep recognition of the complexity of human conditions we encounter in the world as well as the universal character of God’s offer of grace in all facets of human experiences.
However, we do not remain in isolated enclosures of our own choosing where we dwell on our differences, because we have a uniting vision of grace that is bringing us together as one in the triune God. Mission is first and foremost the action of God who creates out of love, redeems in Christ, and empowers the church in mission through the power of the Holy Spirit.[3] The church has a common missional vision of God’s grace which it does not create as it is given by God’s saving activity in and on behalf of the world.[4] It is a vision of God’s continuous self-giving that comes again and again like the waves of the sea. This image of God’s grace is particularly fitting for the United Methodists as Wesley understood God as “the great ocean of love” which is inexhaustible.[5]
We, as recipients of God’s superabundant love, are invited to participate in God’s mission guided by the following reasons, means, and ends: one, God’s continual self-giving evokes our way of being; two, we are to give our lives in sacrificial love by offering our lives in service of others; three, both the Old and New Testaments definitively provide our vision of mission, and most decisively in Jesus Christ who as both Lord and Servant embodies the generosity of God’s self-emptying love; four, grace is not merely a gift but essentially the giver, and this being the case we need to give our very selves; five, Jesus’ ministry sets the ground for us; six, the church is to be a sign of the kingdom of God and to embody God’s grace in mission in specific human form and in specific historical contexts; and lastly, “we envision lives changed by grace, a church formed by grace, and a world transformed by grace.”[6]
As is generally true of ecclesial statements of faith, the section “Our Unifying Vision” is compact and full of theological and ethical significance, and needs to be unpacked. While its emphasis lies on a unifying vision toward the common end of participating in God’s mission in the world, there is sufficient attention to the diverse human conditions and contexts of missions. More specifically, in paragraph 8, it refers to “specific human form” and “specific historical context” where we are to be “a sign” of God’s reign and “embody God’s grace.”The statement is mindful of the condition of human finitude and the impingements specific historical contexts make on different Christian missions. In other words, the question “What would Jesus do?”, or commonly known as WWJD, is an important one, but equally important is the question “What shall I do as a follower of Christ given my human finitude and specific historical context?” We need a dual vision that focuses on Christ and our specific context. This is why the document from the outset recognizes the need for a vision “to discern both the graceful actions of God and the everchanging conditions of the world.”[7] The issue of human form and specific historical context is of particular importance given the increasingly widening gap between the rich and the poor, the unfortunate history and effects of chattel slavery in the Americas, and the ongoing practices of global colonization that adversely affect women, children, and the non-persons of the world. Invitation to follow God’s way of being as continually giving by offering not merely our gift, but our very own lives in sacrificial love in service to others need to be revisited in order that it does not inadvertently commit the mistake of pushing the marginalized further in their downward spiral.
Then, how shall we proceed? It makes a great deal of difference to remind ourselves that the church is called upon to follow Christ, but not to preempt the role of the Christ as the savior of the world. The church is situated in its own historical contexts different from the web of human relations and historical realities in which Jesus Christ was situated. Hence, the church cannot repeat or preempt what Christ already has achieved, but only refract in part—not from too close but only at a distance—in the figure of a disciple than in the cosmic, miraculous and unsubstitutable destiny of Jesus Christ.[8] We follow Christ with a recognition that there is a limit set due to the impassable difference between Jesus and his followers. It may very well be that God’s providential ordering of the world in Jesus transcends the intramural activities of the church. Yet we continue to hammer out a common life patterned after Jesus Christ in order be a sign of God’s reign in the world and, shall we even dare to say, embody God’s grace and be the people of God for the world in hopes that by God’s grace all events will find their place in the eschatological summation of history.[9]
Until then, as a pledge and token of that eschatological hope, we proclaim God’s grace in word and life following Christ as the common horizon.[10] Focusing on Christ does not make the church myopic in its horizon and succumb to the temptation of sectarian withdrawal from the world because, as Paragraph 6 nicely suggests, in following Christ we engage the world, especially the poor, weak, and marginalized. God in Christ was incognito among the downtrodden of our world and, therefore, we must remain vigilant and alert to discern God’s hidden-revealed presence and activity in the world. Until we see face to face, we see dimly, so with the center of theological gravity secure in Christ, the church must practice synoptics, the art of seeing together, involving ecumenical conversations, interfaith dialogues, and forging ad hoc correlations with our public interlocutors. In a post 9/11 world in which different religious constellations collide with one another, our future may depend on seeing rightly, using central vision as well as peripheral vision.
The section “Our Unifying Vision” immediately follows the “Introduction” in Grace Upon Grace, the theological statement of the mission of The United Methodist Church. It is appropriate that the statement begins with theological reflections on our church’s unifying vision as we are one in Christ, but also different in many ways. What is of interest concerning unity-in-diversity in the title “Our Unifying Vision” is it can be interpreted at least in two different ways: one, it suggests a collectively defined and accepted vision that is at work and exerting influence to move the church toward a common goal; two, it intimates a vision still in the process of coming together toward a common horizon. Whereas the former suggests a united vision already out there waiting to be implemented, the latter implies a vision becoming unified right before our eyes—perhaps, a fusion of horizons—far more attentive to the church as a hermeneutical community in conversation, debate, and mutual enrichment. Which interpretation best reflects the spirit in which the document was written?
It seems the authors of Grace Upon Grace had in mind the former. Consider Paragraph 3 which begins with the following words: “Scripture provides our decisive vision of mission.” In Paragraph 9, it also says, “We, as United Methodists, pursue a unifying vision by ‘looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.’ This is our vision, a vision which sets our vocation.”[1] Our vision already has been provided to us, rather than standing in need of being articulated and adopted. Moving beyond the surface reading of the document to its depth, we cannot help but notice the implied sensitivity and alertness to diverse theologies and practices of mission present in the United Methodist Church. After all, we are the heirs of a rich heritage of different traditions such as Anglican (Wesley), Reformed (Otterbein), evangelical, and pietist churches.[2] Moreover, it is only proper and necessary we recognize diverse missional responsibilities in the church if we understand our distinct missions to be participation in the missio Dei in contexts other than our own. The scope of God’s mission is indeed universal, and different missions around the globe are the many and varied manifestations of the mission Dei. Others are also summoned and faithful in God’s mission just as we, too, seek God’s reign of justice and peace. Hence, affirmation of the polyphonic character of missions is the result of coming to terms with the missio Dei. It is a deep recognition of the complexity of human conditions we encounter in the world as well as the universal character of God’s offer of grace in all facets of human experiences.
However, we do not remain in isolated enclosures of our own choosing where we dwell on our differences, because we have a uniting vision of grace that is bringing us together as one in the triune God. Mission is first and foremost the action of God who creates out of love, redeems in Christ, and empowers the church in mission through the power of the Holy Spirit.[3] The church has a common missional vision of God’s grace which it does not create as it is given by God’s saving activity in and on behalf of the world.[4] It is a vision of God’s continuous self-giving that comes again and again like the waves of the sea. This image of God’s grace is particularly fitting for the United Methodists as Wesley understood God as “the great ocean of love” which is inexhaustible.[5]
We, as recipients of God’s superabundant love, are invited to participate in God’s mission guided by the following reasons, means, and ends: one, God’s continual self-giving evokes our way of being; two, we are to give our lives in sacrificial love by offering our lives in service of others; three, both the Old and New Testaments definitively provide our vision of mission, and most decisively in Jesus Christ who as both Lord and Servant embodies the generosity of God’s self-emptying love; four, grace is not merely a gift but essentially the giver, and this being the case we need to give our very selves; five, Jesus’ ministry sets the ground for us; six, the church is to be a sign of the kingdom of God and to embody God’s grace in mission in specific human form and in specific historical contexts; and lastly, “we envision lives changed by grace, a church formed by grace, and a world transformed by grace.”[6]
As is generally true of ecclesial statements of faith, the section “Our Unifying Vision” is compact and full of theological and ethical significance, and needs to be unpacked. While its emphasis lies on a unifying vision toward the common end of participating in God’s mission in the world, there is sufficient attention to the diverse human conditions and contexts of missions. More specifically, in paragraph 8, it refers to “specific human form” and “specific historical context” where we are to be “a sign” of God’s reign and “embody God’s grace.”The statement is mindful of the condition of human finitude and the impingements specific historical contexts make on different Christian missions. In other words, the question “What would Jesus do?”, or commonly known as WWJD, is an important one, but equally important is the question “What shall I do as a follower of Christ given my human finitude and specific historical context?” We need a dual vision that focuses on Christ and our specific context. This is why the document from the outset recognizes the need for a vision “to discern both the graceful actions of God and the everchanging conditions of the world.”[7] The issue of human form and specific historical context is of particular importance given the increasingly widening gap between the rich and the poor, the unfortunate history and effects of chattel slavery in the Americas, and the ongoing practices of global colonization that adversely affect women, children, and the non-persons of the world. Invitation to follow God’s way of being as continually giving by offering not merely our gift, but our very own lives in sacrificial love in service to others need to be revisited in order that it does not inadvertently commit the mistake of pushing the marginalized further in their downward spiral.
Then, how shall we proceed? It makes a great deal of difference to remind ourselves that the church is called upon to follow Christ, but not to preempt the role of the Christ as the savior of the world. The church is situated in its own historical contexts different from the web of human relations and historical realities in which Jesus Christ was situated. Hence, the church cannot repeat or preempt what Christ already has achieved, but only refract in part—not from too close but only at a distance—in the figure of a disciple than in the cosmic, miraculous and unsubstitutable destiny of Jesus Christ.[8] We follow Christ with a recognition that there is a limit set due to the impassable difference between Jesus and his followers. It may very well be that God’s providential ordering of the world in Jesus transcends the intramural activities of the church. Yet we continue to hammer out a common life patterned after Jesus Christ in order be a sign of God’s reign in the world and, shall we even dare to say, embody God’s grace and be the people of God for the world in hopes that by God’s grace all events will find their place in the eschatological summation of history.[9]
Until then, as a pledge and token of that eschatological hope, we proclaim God’s grace in word and life following Christ as the common horizon.[10] Focusing on Christ does not make the church myopic in its horizon and succumb to the temptation of sectarian withdrawal from the world because, as Paragraph 6 nicely suggests, in following Christ we engage the world, especially the poor, weak, and marginalized. God in Christ was incognito among the downtrodden of our world and, therefore, we must remain vigilant and alert to discern God’s hidden-revealed presence and activity in the world. Until we see face to face, we see dimly, so with the center of theological gravity secure in Christ, the church must practice synoptics, the art of seeing together, involving ecumenical conversations, interfaith dialogues, and forging ad hoc correlations with our public interlocutors. In a post 9/11 world in which different religious constellations collide with one another, our future may depend on seeing rightly, using central vision as well as peripheral vision.
[1]
Grace Upon Grace, Paragraph 9.
[2]
Grace Upon Grace, Introduction.
[3]
Grace Upon Grace, Introduction.
[4]
Grace Upon Grace, Introduction.
[5] John Wesley, “The Law Established Through Faith: Discourse II,” in John Wesley’s Sermons, eds. Albert Outler and Richard Heitzenrater (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991), 282. John Calvin also describes the inexhaustible grace of God that keeps on giving using the image of the fountain of goodness, the fons benorum. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition (ed. and trans. F. L. Battles; London: Collins, 1986), 57.
[6]
Grace Upon Grace, Paragraph 9.
[7]
Grace Upon Grace, Introduction.
[8]
Hans Frei, “Theological Reflections on the Accounts of Jesus’ Death and
Resurrection,” in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, eds. George
Hunsinger and William Placher (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 56. See also Hans W. Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1997).
[9]
Grace Upon Grace, Paragraph 8.
[10]
Grace Upon Grace, Paragraph 8-9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)