Today's post is part of a series that features United Methodist scholars and leaders from around the world reflecting on their hope for the future of The United Methodist Church as a global movement within the larger context of worldwide Methodism as a whole. Today's post is written by Dr. Elaine Robinson, Professor of Methodist Studies and Christian Theology at Saint Paul School of Theology.
United Methodism is at a crossroads. After fifty years as a denomination, we now face the possibility of schism. By the time the 2020 General Conference convenes, the church may be in the process of reforming along lines drawn in the sand over human sexuality.
While I am among those who hope for a solution that might retain our unity, history reminds us that our predecessor denominations experienced schism over a host of issues: slavery and racism; women’s ordination; the authority of bishops; the rights of laity. While the “Trust Clause” in the Book of Discipline complicates separation in ways not present to earlier generations, the reality of human beings holding different opinions on the polity of the institutional church differs little from the nineteenth century. We seek unity, but misinterpret it as sameness.
Moreover, the global nature of United Methodism adds to the complexity of maintaining unity in the midst of diversity. It is this dimension which I intend to emphasize here. Maturing in the capacity to engage in cultural difference with respect and acceptance appears as one of the significant challenges for today’s United Methodists. We want to be a global denomination, but we do not know how to live well in the midst of cultural differences. We do not know how to live well in the midst of differing opinions (especially when scripture is used to justify each position). My hope for United Methodism is that we might grow in our intercultural capacity and compassion, as unanimity of thought and expression cannot be realized this side of the new creation.
Theologically, we must grant the assumption that “now we see in a mirror, dimly” (1 Cor 13:12). Our human reasoning and understanding is subject to our fallen nature, what we sometimes call, “corrupt reason.” Assuming that we know absolutely the will of God always risks the hubris of the human nature asserting itself over the humble way of Christ.
In the nineteenth century, there were those who absolutely knew that God authorized slavery; they even found it inscribed in the scriptures. Whether some of these early Methodists knew they were using biblical passages as self-justification, we can only wonder. Nevertheless, the certainty of their position led to the separation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South from the Methodist Episcopal Church, mirroring divisions existing in the society. In retrospect, the church understands the complicity of its corruption in upholding slavery and, later, racist structures such as the Central Jurisdiction. If we fail to recognize that our human nature does, can, and will err in its institutional expressions, our hubris can lead us to place human justifications above the way of Christ.
Here we find our first complexity in being a global denomination: the uncertainty of human reason and discernment. As Christians, taking on the “mind of Christ,” learning to discern the depths of the gospel is a lifelong process. We Methodists know this process as sanctification or growing in love of God and neighbor.
When we add cultural diversity to the caution exercised with human reasoning, our ability to find unity is further complicated. The vast majority of United Methodists would claim to “love everyone” and posit our sameness before God. Such understandings are important to our faith development, but insufficient to engage the irreducible diversity created and sustained by God. “Open hearts, open minds, open doors” too often serves as a veneer of cultural domination, in which churches claim to be open, but only to those who will assimilate into the existing cultural norms, rather than recognizing the mutual transformation that inevitably occurs when we open ourselves to those who are not culturally similar to us.
Within the context of the United States, diversification of our congregations is both problematic and increasingly necessary, as the reign of God is not segregated. When we add the global complexity, the United Methodist Church struggles to live together in a way that reflects both unity and diversity. Indeed, unity without the capacity to accept diverse cultural expressions must inevitably fail, as one culture will become normative or considered the “right” way to live. Cultural difference becomes a tool for upholding our way of life, rather than a means of living more deeply into the Gospel.
Perhaps a couple examples can illuminate this point. Predominantly white congregations in the United States often claim that all are welcome. Yet, when pressed to allow for diverse leadership or worship styles, they often refuse to adapt as if Jesus himself ordained the pipe organ and sitting quietly in the pews. Conservatives in the UMC appeal to African delegates to uphold the church’s norm around homosexuality, but turn a blind eye to ongoing practices of polygamy among church members in Africa. Progressives promote liberal understandings of inclusion, but reject African cultural norms as less developed. Most significantly, proposals to restructure the global denomination would appear to have less to do with allowing indigenous development of the church’s mission and more to do with the United States losing majority power (and financial as well as cultural control of the denomination). Caution must be exercised, of course, as not all motivations are self-interested. However, the Gospel provides cautionary warnings into the ways human beings often justify cultural and even religious norms in the name of God.
In response to this dilemma there are few easy answers, given that human beings will always fall short of the fullness of God’s grace and glory. Nonetheless, the more we, as a denomination, develop intercultural capacities, the better equipped we will be to live together and to discern the humble way of Christ.
Human beings are always a “work in progress,” not only spiritually, but intellectually, emotionally, and physically. Intercultural competence is never achieved by declaring that “we love everyone in the name of Christ.” Instead, growing in intercultural capacity is a developmental process like any other. We move along a spectrum from insisting on our own cultural norms to embodying the capacity to accept and adapt to cultural differences in healthy and respectful ways.
The United Methodist Church needs to take seriously the question of how we develop such intercultural understanding and compassion in clergy and laity across the global denomination. Human beings can and do live in various cultures, even multiple cultures simultaneously. Jesus Christ modeled healthy cross-cultural engagement, and called his disciples to grow in this capacity for the sake of God’s mission in the world. In a world so deeply divided by self-interest and narrow cultural perspectives, a UMC capable of deep, cross-cultural listening and understanding could provide an opening for the power of Gospel to weave us together as a denomination. Transforming the world begins with our own transformation into an interculturally capable denomination.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label Elaine Robinson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elaine Robinson. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2018
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Grounding ourselves in God (Part 2) - Peter Bellini on Grace Upon Grace: A Church Formed By Grace
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 Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor in the Practice of Global Christianity and Intercultural Studies in the Vera Blinn Chair at United Theological Seminary. This piece is the second part of Dr. Bellini's response to Dr. Elaine Robinson's comments on the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." The first part of Dr. Bellini's response is here. Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
The comments below continue my response to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). Again, it is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
In pars 50-54, GUG speaks to a vast “list of structural and relational commitments” that have been discussed at other points in this series, and so Robinson limits her analysis to the discussion of “connectionalism” and “inclusiveness.” Her basic critique of the statement on connectionalism is that although the document claims connectionalism as “the primary and distinct vehicle for the United Methodist Church’s “missional life”, it reads more like the typical need to justify the top heavy machinery (my image) required to keep the church connected. The result is an apologia for connectionalism rather than for the missional life of the church.
My read is similar to Dean Robinson’s, and in the end the connection becomes a mission and end in itself. Robinson states that “No mention is made of the scale at which mission can unfold in a connectional system nor of the work of grace in creating the bond that enables the connection to “discover and support” mission” (Robinson par.7). We have an infrastructure and possibly the vehicle for mission in connectionalism, but we lack or are unaware of the true tie that creates the connection and the fuel that drives the mission, and this is Spirit of God at work in the global and local church. Simply put, connectionalism needs to be identified and built around the unity of the Spirit found on the local and global levels of the church rather than in the denominational machinery, which ultimately is a connectionalism that becomes an end in itself.
Finally in par. 51, GUG makes a clarion call for inclusiveness to be “characteristic of the missional church.” Robinson notes that the document’s call to inclusivity is an embrace of the variety of difference in the church, i.e. “race, ethnic, class, age and gender differences.” She recognizes that behind this call to inclusivity however is a tacit claim of the normativity of whiteness in the church (Robinson par. 8). “Whiteness” becomes the de facto norm and default for race and ethnicity. In fact, we often refer to non-whites as “racial and ethnic people,” as if “white” were the norm and not also another racial and ethnic social category. Even the Book of Discipline par. 162 A refers to the “Rights of Racial and Ethnic Persons.” The very notion and development of Whiteness Studies was to recognize that such language, ideas and categorizes have come to construct a world where white is the norm and default and other groups are construed as “other.”
In this way the hegemony of whiteness remains ubiquitous and yet invisible and unquestioned, as opposed to being another socially constructed category and power play. Thus like Robinson, I believe a hermeneutic of suspicion is called for here to discern what we mean by “norm” and “difference,” especially since, as Robinson has indicated that the racial makeup of the United Methodist Church in the United States does not resemble the demographics of this nation (Robinson par. 8). She rightfully calls for a “mutuality of mission” in which the church is open to be transformed by the so-called other, “a relational commitment to mutuality.”
One other point that was not mentioned by GUG or Dean Robinson that I might briefly add in terms of diversity and global awareness, (pars. 53-54), there needs to be some statement that begins to address global faith in terms of theologies of religions and comparative theology, either in the way of awareness, frameworks, or guidelines.
The comments below continue my response to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). Again, it is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
In pars 50-54, GUG speaks to a vast “list of structural and relational commitments” that have been discussed at other points in this series, and so Robinson limits her analysis to the discussion of “connectionalism” and “inclusiveness.” Her basic critique of the statement on connectionalism is that although the document claims connectionalism as “the primary and distinct vehicle for the United Methodist Church’s “missional life”, it reads more like the typical need to justify the top heavy machinery (my image) required to keep the church connected. The result is an apologia for connectionalism rather than for the missional life of the church.
My read is similar to Dean Robinson’s, and in the end the connection becomes a mission and end in itself. Robinson states that “No mention is made of the scale at which mission can unfold in a connectional system nor of the work of grace in creating the bond that enables the connection to “discover and support” mission” (Robinson par.7). We have an infrastructure and possibly the vehicle for mission in connectionalism, but we lack or are unaware of the true tie that creates the connection and the fuel that drives the mission, and this is Spirit of God at work in the global and local church. Simply put, connectionalism needs to be identified and built around the unity of the Spirit found on the local and global levels of the church rather than in the denominational machinery, which ultimately is a connectionalism that becomes an end in itself.
Finally in par. 51, GUG makes a clarion call for inclusiveness to be “characteristic of the missional church.” Robinson notes that the document’s call to inclusivity is an embrace of the variety of difference in the church, i.e. “race, ethnic, class, age and gender differences.” She recognizes that behind this call to inclusivity however is a tacit claim of the normativity of whiteness in the church (Robinson par. 8). “Whiteness” becomes the de facto norm and default for race and ethnicity. In fact, we often refer to non-whites as “racial and ethnic people,” as if “white” were the norm and not also another racial and ethnic social category. Even the Book of Discipline par. 162 A refers to the “Rights of Racial and Ethnic Persons.” The very notion and development of Whiteness Studies was to recognize that such language, ideas and categorizes have come to construct a world where white is the norm and default and other groups are construed as “other.”
In this way the hegemony of whiteness remains ubiquitous and yet invisible and unquestioned, as opposed to being another socially constructed category and power play. Thus like Robinson, I believe a hermeneutic of suspicion is called for here to discern what we mean by “norm” and “difference,” especially since, as Robinson has indicated that the racial makeup of the United Methodist Church in the United States does not resemble the demographics of this nation (Robinson par. 8). She rightfully calls for a “mutuality of mission” in which the church is open to be transformed by the so-called other, “a relational commitment to mutuality.”
One other point that was not mentioned by GUG or Dean Robinson that I might briefly add in terms of diversity and global awareness, (pars. 53-54), there needs to be some statement that begins to address global faith in terms of theologies of religions and comparative theology, either in the way of awareness, frameworks, or guidelines.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Grounding ourselves in God - Peter Bellini on Grace Upon Grace: A Church Formed By Grace
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 Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor in the Practice of Global Christianity and Intercultural Studies in the Vera Blinn Chair at United Theological Seminary. Dr. Bellini is responding to Dr. Elaine Robinson's comments on the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
I have been asked to respond to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). First, I would like to thank Dean Robinson for her evident love of the church and mission and her prophetic insights and responses to the document. It is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
Historically a movement whose soteriology has defined its ecclesiology, Methodism has often lacked a robust ontology of the church. Robinson notes that “ecclesiology has never been a strong suit of Methodists” and has lacked “practical,” “experiential,” and I might add theoretical, reflection on the subject as well (Robinson par. 1).
Often considered more a soteriological movement, at least in its early years, Methodism at times has had a tendency to emphasize human response over against the sovereign acts of God, or at best a synergy of divine-human action. Robinson points out that GUG’s discussion on ecclesiology “conceives of the church in terms of the actions of human beings, rather than focusing on the formative and prior dimension of God’s grace” (Robinson par.3). I concur with Dr. Robinson and prefer her move to GUG’s that is to locate our starting point with the Missio Dei and thus our participation in the ”formative and prior dimensions of God’s grace.” The body of Christ finds its origin and purpose in God’s grace in Christ Jesus.
I would also extend the Missio Dei further even to a Missio Trinitatis and the internal processions of the divine persons, which ground the missio in the very ontological nature of God. Such a move could function as a corrective for an ecclesial body that tends to stress human and soteriological dimensions over against the eternal ontological dynamics of the divine. While pars. 47-55 are silent in regards to the Trinity, Robinson does make a brief mention of the Trinity and its mission to offer wholeness to the world. I think these are all forward moves, as we seek to discern and participate in the mission, as it originates and flows from the Triune God.
Like Robinson, I get the sense that GUG at times understands the formation of the church as more our “self-giving” rather than God’s grace-giving, or in my words more of our liturgy rather than God’s doxology. “A Church Formed by Grace,” pars. 47-54, does not begin ecclesiologically with God but with the church and its “worship and service” (par. 47). Instead of grounding our worship and service as the body of Christ in identification and participation with (the risen) Christ, GUG seems to root our ecclesial being in our “offering” and self-giving,” rather than on Christ’s offering and self-giving, which again goes back to Robinson’s original contention that ecclesiology has never been the strong suit of Methodists.” Thus United Methodist ecclesiology takes on a more functional rather than relational shape.
Robinson offers a corrective through a “more grace-centered theological statement” in which God “ingathers the church as the body of Christ where God is worshiped and the sacraments administered, in order that the people of God might be sent into the world to discover and participate in the Missio Dei” (Robinson par.3). Here ecclesial initiation is rooted in God’s acts, and mission flows from our sacramental union with Christ.
In spite of GUG’s emphasis on human agency, there is a place where GUG defines the shape of the church within our sacramental covenant with God, specifically the baptismal covenant (Par. 48). Although GUG spells out the implications of our baptismal covenant in terms of conversion and discipleship, it fails to discern the missional implications of our baptismal covenant, which is a call to ministry as well as a call to discipleship. The administration of the sacrament of baptism is a call into ministry through participation in the death, burial, resurrection, life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
In par 49, GUG defines and makes clear the imperative for mission; “it is impossible to be a true church without being a missionary church” (Par. 49). Robinson seeks to strengthen GUG’s call to mission by connecting it to our Wesleyan via salutis. Mission is the natural fruit of growing in grace, from justification to sanctification. Dean Robinson also rightfully connects mission to the work of God’s prevenient grace (Par.49). God goes into the world before us and calls us to share in God’s mission and be stewards of this gift. Robinson, however, wants to stress that the “impetus and reason for mission” is “grace upon grace” more so than the duty and vocation of the church, as GUG seems to suggest (Robinson par. 5).
Throughout the document and Robinson’s response I picked up on the tension of synergy, and the need to identify the primary movement of God, especially in the missional life of the church. As the document seeks to define the church and mission, it does so through a theological lens that seems to reflect the missiology of a century ago, which was more invested in the human agency of the missional enterprise. Such a missiology is shaped and driven by our “vocation” and “service” to the world “in and for God’s kingdom”, rather than shaped and driven by God as the primary agent of mission in which the church is called to participate in the missional life of God (Par. 49).
I have been asked to respond to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). First, I would like to thank Dean Robinson for her evident love of the church and mission and her prophetic insights and responses to the document. It is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
Historically a movement whose soteriology has defined its ecclesiology, Methodism has often lacked a robust ontology of the church. Robinson notes that “ecclesiology has never been a strong suit of Methodists” and has lacked “practical,” “experiential,” and I might add theoretical, reflection on the subject as well (Robinson par. 1).
Often considered more a soteriological movement, at least in its early years, Methodism at times has had a tendency to emphasize human response over against the sovereign acts of God, or at best a synergy of divine-human action. Robinson points out that GUG’s discussion on ecclesiology “conceives of the church in terms of the actions of human beings, rather than focusing on the formative and prior dimension of God’s grace” (Robinson par.3). I concur with Dr. Robinson and prefer her move to GUG’s that is to locate our starting point with the Missio Dei and thus our participation in the ”formative and prior dimensions of God’s grace.” The body of Christ finds its origin and purpose in God’s grace in Christ Jesus.
I would also extend the Missio Dei further even to a Missio Trinitatis and the internal processions of the divine persons, which ground the missio in the very ontological nature of God. Such a move could function as a corrective for an ecclesial body that tends to stress human and soteriological dimensions over against the eternal ontological dynamics of the divine. While pars. 47-55 are silent in regards to the Trinity, Robinson does make a brief mention of the Trinity and its mission to offer wholeness to the world. I think these are all forward moves, as we seek to discern and participate in the mission, as it originates and flows from the Triune God.
Like Robinson, I get the sense that GUG at times understands the formation of the church as more our “self-giving” rather than God’s grace-giving, or in my words more of our liturgy rather than God’s doxology. “A Church Formed by Grace,” pars. 47-54, does not begin ecclesiologically with God but with the church and its “worship and service” (par. 47). Instead of grounding our worship and service as the body of Christ in identification and participation with (the risen) Christ, GUG seems to root our ecclesial being in our “offering” and self-giving,” rather than on Christ’s offering and self-giving, which again goes back to Robinson’s original contention that ecclesiology has never been the strong suit of Methodists.” Thus United Methodist ecclesiology takes on a more functional rather than relational shape.
Robinson offers a corrective through a “more grace-centered theological statement” in which God “ingathers the church as the body of Christ where God is worshiped and the sacraments administered, in order that the people of God might be sent into the world to discover and participate in the Missio Dei” (Robinson par.3). Here ecclesial initiation is rooted in God’s acts, and mission flows from our sacramental union with Christ.
In spite of GUG’s emphasis on human agency, there is a place where GUG defines the shape of the church within our sacramental covenant with God, specifically the baptismal covenant (Par. 48). Although GUG spells out the implications of our baptismal covenant in terms of conversion and discipleship, it fails to discern the missional implications of our baptismal covenant, which is a call to ministry as well as a call to discipleship. The administration of the sacrament of baptism is a call into ministry through participation in the death, burial, resurrection, life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
In par 49, GUG defines and makes clear the imperative for mission; “it is impossible to be a true church without being a missionary church” (Par. 49). Robinson seeks to strengthen GUG’s call to mission by connecting it to our Wesleyan via salutis. Mission is the natural fruit of growing in grace, from justification to sanctification. Dean Robinson also rightfully connects mission to the work of God’s prevenient grace (Par.49). God goes into the world before us and calls us to share in God’s mission and be stewards of this gift. Robinson, however, wants to stress that the “impetus and reason for mission” is “grace upon grace” more so than the duty and vocation of the church, as GUG seems to suggest (Robinson par. 5).
Throughout the document and Robinson’s response I picked up on the tension of synergy, and the need to identify the primary movement of God, especially in the missional life of the church. As the document seeks to define the church and mission, it does so through a theological lens that seems to reflect the missiology of a century ago, which was more invested in the human agency of the missional enterprise. Such a missiology is shaped and driven by our “vocation” and “service” to the world “in and for God’s kingdom”, rather than shaped and driven by God as the primary agent of mission in which the church is called to participate in the missional life of God (Par. 49).
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Understanding the church in the light of grace - Elaine Robinson on Grace Upon Grace: A Church Formed By Grace
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. Elaine Robinson, Academic Dean and Professor of Methodist Studies and Christian Theology at St. Paul School of Theology, Oklahoma City University. Dr. Robinson is commenting on the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
I pen these words during Holy Week,* the height of the church year, when we shift our focus from the brokenness of the human condition to the healing, life-giving power of Christ to restore and reconcile us to God, others, ourselves, and the whole of creation. It is a powerful reminder that God’s grace is the one thing that can pierce the brokenness of human existence and rise to render new and abundant life. The church can be a conduit for this grace or it can be a perpetuator of the world’s brokenness.
Ecclesiology has never been the strong suit of Methodists. Practical and experiential, reflecting on the nature of the church has seldom been a priority among the Methodist faithful. It comes as no surprise, then, that this section on “A Church Formed by Grace” is suggestive, but misses the mark from both an ecclesiological standpoint and a missional one.
Para. 47 serves as the overarching statement on the church. Claiming that, “to be shaped by God’s grace is to live in covenant as a community of worship and grace,” Christians are to be “self-giving” to God in worship and to others in service. This opening volley conceives of the church in terms of the actions of human beings, rather than focusing on the formative and prior dimension of God’s grace. A more grace-centered theological statement would begin with the suggestion that, by grace, God “ingathers” the church as the body of Christ where God is worshiped and the sacraments administered, in order that the people of God might be sent into the world to discover and participate in the Missio Dei. The church, by nature, is both a sociological or human reality and, potentially, a grace-filled representation of the new creation as a rightly related covenant community reaching out to the world with the healing and wholeness offered by the Triune God.
This understanding of community as self-giving leads into para. 48 on the means of grace; in Wesleyan terms, “the ordinary channels whereby [God] might convey to [us] preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.”[1] As Luther Oconor highlighted in a previous post, here the dimension of synergism, the response of the human community to the offer of grace is a needed emphasis. This synergism of the human and the divine is simply too important in the life of the church to pass without notice or clarification. We, the church, can resist God’s grace and exist merely, or largely, as a sociological organization. The means of grace are thus a lifeline, the light shining from a lighthouse across a dark and tumultuous sea, without which we are left to our own devices.
In para. 49, the turn to mission is a significant and noteworthy claim, which could be strengthened in at least two ways. First, for Wesleyans, the love of God poured into our hearts always and necessarily overflows into the world. If we are growing in sanctifying grace, social holiness will necessarily follow (and, in turn, deepen our personal holiness). Second is the ongoing work of prevenient grace, always and already going out into the world before us, inviting the church to respond and share in God’s mission, to be “stewards of a gift” as Hendrik Pieterse aptly suggested in the first post. While paragraph 49 rightly claims that mission “is the vocation of every [church],” it seems clear that sharpening the focus on “grace upon grace” as the impetus and reason for mission would strengthen this claim.
Paragraphs 50-54 might best be seen as a list of structural and relational commitments that are characteristically Methodist, though conditioned by a modernist perspective (as others have noted), which beg a more careful consideration and expression in the twenty-first century: Connectionalism (para. 50), Inclusiveness (para. 51), Ecumenical Affirmation (para. 52), Global Awareness (para. 53), and Diversity (para. 54). Others writers in this series have pointed to the importance of ecumenicity and global considerations, as well as the shortcomings of their interpretation when this document was created. Hence, I will limit my analysis to the structural commitment to “connectionalism” and the relational commitment to “inclusiveness.”
Connectionalism is appropriately included as a primary and distinctive vehicle for the United Methodist Church’s “missional life.” Yet, the description reads more as an apologia for connectionalism and, perhaps, the church’s general agencies, than as a rationale for the life of mission. No mention is made of the scale at which mission can unfold in a connectional system nor of the work of grace in creating the bond that enables the connection to “discover and support” mission. More importantly, in today’s United Methodist Church, there is a clarion call for the general church to support the local church as the most significant arena for disciple making and mission. This tension, which arises out of our connectional system, warrants consideration and ties directly to concerns for the global nature of the church.
As for the relational commitment to “inclusiveness,” paragraph 51 defines it as “characteristic of the missional church [which] embraces those whose appearance, behavior, mental or physical conditions mark them as different.” This concept of inclusiveness calls for a hermeneutic of suspicion to reveal the U.S.-centric nature of this claim and the normativity of “whiteness” in the church in the United States. To speak of “inclusion” is to suggest inclusion of others into a normative – and often unexamined – center of power from which mission, money, and ministry flow. Until the United Methodist Church in the United States not only recognizes that our church membership (which is 90% white) does not resemble the demographics of this nation (which is 64% white), but is also willing and able to allow that the “transformation of the world” includes the transformation of the church, itself, by virtue of the mutuality of mission, we shall not be the church as the Body of Christ. A commitment to inclusion must be reframed as a relational commitment to mutuality.
No doubt paragraph 55 does allow for just such a self-critical reexamination and transformation. This transformation of the world and, simultaneously, the church itself requires, of course, the work and leading of grace. Indeed, this is the hope and possibility placed before us by the empty tomb and the resurrected Christ.
* Editor's note: Posts in the Grace Upon Grace series are not published immediately after they are written.
Dr. Elaine Robinson, Academic Dean and Professor of Methodist Studies and Christian Theology at St. Paul School of Theology, Oklahoma City University. Dr. Robinson is commenting on the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
I pen these words during Holy Week,* the height of the church year, when we shift our focus from the brokenness of the human condition to the healing, life-giving power of Christ to restore and reconcile us to God, others, ourselves, and the whole of creation. It is a powerful reminder that God’s grace is the one thing that can pierce the brokenness of human existence and rise to render new and abundant life. The church can be a conduit for this grace or it can be a perpetuator of the world’s brokenness.
Ecclesiology has never been the strong suit of Methodists. Practical and experiential, reflecting on the nature of the church has seldom been a priority among the Methodist faithful. It comes as no surprise, then, that this section on “A Church Formed by Grace” is suggestive, but misses the mark from both an ecclesiological standpoint and a missional one.
Para. 47 serves as the overarching statement on the church. Claiming that, “to be shaped by God’s grace is to live in covenant as a community of worship and grace,” Christians are to be “self-giving” to God in worship and to others in service. This opening volley conceives of the church in terms of the actions of human beings, rather than focusing on the formative and prior dimension of God’s grace. A more grace-centered theological statement would begin with the suggestion that, by grace, God “ingathers” the church as the body of Christ where God is worshiped and the sacraments administered, in order that the people of God might be sent into the world to discover and participate in the Missio Dei. The church, by nature, is both a sociological or human reality and, potentially, a grace-filled representation of the new creation as a rightly related covenant community reaching out to the world with the healing and wholeness offered by the Triune God.
This understanding of community as self-giving leads into para. 48 on the means of grace; in Wesleyan terms, “the ordinary channels whereby [God] might convey to [us] preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.”[1] As Luther Oconor highlighted in a previous post, here the dimension of synergism, the response of the human community to the offer of grace is a needed emphasis. This synergism of the human and the divine is simply too important in the life of the church to pass without notice or clarification. We, the church, can resist God’s grace and exist merely, or largely, as a sociological organization. The means of grace are thus a lifeline, the light shining from a lighthouse across a dark and tumultuous sea, without which we are left to our own devices.
In para. 49, the turn to mission is a significant and noteworthy claim, which could be strengthened in at least two ways. First, for Wesleyans, the love of God poured into our hearts always and necessarily overflows into the world. If we are growing in sanctifying grace, social holiness will necessarily follow (and, in turn, deepen our personal holiness). Second is the ongoing work of prevenient grace, always and already going out into the world before us, inviting the church to respond and share in God’s mission, to be “stewards of a gift” as Hendrik Pieterse aptly suggested in the first post. While paragraph 49 rightly claims that mission “is the vocation of every [church],” it seems clear that sharpening the focus on “grace upon grace” as the impetus and reason for mission would strengthen this claim.
Paragraphs 50-54 might best be seen as a list of structural and relational commitments that are characteristically Methodist, though conditioned by a modernist perspective (as others have noted), which beg a more careful consideration and expression in the twenty-first century: Connectionalism (para. 50), Inclusiveness (para. 51), Ecumenical Affirmation (para. 52), Global Awareness (para. 53), and Diversity (para. 54). Others writers in this series have pointed to the importance of ecumenicity and global considerations, as well as the shortcomings of their interpretation when this document was created. Hence, I will limit my analysis to the structural commitment to “connectionalism” and the relational commitment to “inclusiveness.”
Connectionalism is appropriately included as a primary and distinctive vehicle for the United Methodist Church’s “missional life.” Yet, the description reads more as an apologia for connectionalism and, perhaps, the church’s general agencies, than as a rationale for the life of mission. No mention is made of the scale at which mission can unfold in a connectional system nor of the work of grace in creating the bond that enables the connection to “discover and support” mission. More importantly, in today’s United Methodist Church, there is a clarion call for the general church to support the local church as the most significant arena for disciple making and mission. This tension, which arises out of our connectional system, warrants consideration and ties directly to concerns for the global nature of the church.
As for the relational commitment to “inclusiveness,” paragraph 51 defines it as “characteristic of the missional church [which] embraces those whose appearance, behavior, mental or physical conditions mark them as different.” This concept of inclusiveness calls for a hermeneutic of suspicion to reveal the U.S.-centric nature of this claim and the normativity of “whiteness” in the church in the United States. To speak of “inclusion” is to suggest inclusion of others into a normative – and often unexamined – center of power from which mission, money, and ministry flow. Until the United Methodist Church in the United States not only recognizes that our church membership (which is 90% white) does not resemble the demographics of this nation (which is 64% white), but is also willing and able to allow that the “transformation of the world” includes the transformation of the church, itself, by virtue of the mutuality of mission, we shall not be the church as the Body of Christ. A commitment to inclusion must be reframed as a relational commitment to mutuality.
No doubt paragraph 55 does allow for just such a self-critical reexamination and transformation. This transformation of the world and, simultaneously, the church itself requires, of course, the work and leading of grace. Indeed, this is the hope and possibility placed before us by the empty tomb and the resurrected Christ.
* Editor's note: Posts in the Grace Upon Grace series are not published immediately after they are written.
[1] John Wesley, “The Means of Grace,” in John Wesley’s Sermons, edited by Albert C. Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), p. 160.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)