Jacob Dharmaraj: Mutuality to Mutual Aid in Mission: The Return of A Deep-Rooted Model, Part 2

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj. Rev. Dharmaraj is President of the Retired Clergy and Spouse Association of the New York Annual Conference. It is the first of a two-part series. For part one, click here.

Part II: The Church’s Required Response: Mutuality to Mutual Aid
Amidst the current crises of COVID-19, the church today is called to respond in at least two ways: by offering Trauma Informed Care (TIC) and by moving from mutuality in mission to mutual aid in mission. In both these ways, the church can walk alongside the traumatized, as they journey through loss, grief, and change, by offering not pieties but grace, reassurance, and compassion, not mere instruction and charity.

One thing COVID-19 has taught those of us who serve the church is that loss endures, even as grief departs. Our recoveries are always partial. Grief is a long-term project.  Grief is circular, until suddenly it abates. Those who have been abused by the system during times of crisis will remember for a lifetime.

Researchers and psychologists have found, in past crises, the deepest traumas surfaced only after they had ended. The trauma is well contained whilst people are actively engaged in fighting and protecting, but the problems transpire only afterward. The scars of this crisis will linger for generations.

Therefore, the current context calls for spiritual leaders to retool themselves and their churches to offer what other organizations cannot offer.

TIC creates a culture that empowers and enables the vulnerable and victimized. TIC offers frameworks, structures, rituals, and prayers. TIC is not an intervention. It does not follow prescribed methods or actions. It is rooted in empathy. It creates a more helpful and therapeutic environment through compassion and solidarity that would promote safety, inclusion, dignity, values, and respect.

More important are monitoring and managing how to move past biases and bring about holistic healing. During stressful times, when resources are in short supply and needed equipment becomes scarce, many professionals make ethical decisions on an hourly basis. Some of them are sincere and straightforward. Other times certain extraneous factors such as age, gender, race, and class come into play. Who will be the guardian here and who has the ultimate power to make the split-second decision? It is impossible to monitor or remediate every situation. Knowing what is just and ethical to do in a given context and being able to apply them to crucial situations are two different things.

TIC advances a culture of safety, empowerment, and curative. Recognizing power differentials, acknowledging that flashbacks of past abusive episodes can affect the victims, and understanding the reason why some avoid therapeutic care is the first step. Too often trauma survivors who seek out support find themselves re-traumatized by the very systems designed to help them.

In the midst of this practice of TIC, one fundamental change that will happen in the area of mission theology is a shift from a theology of mutuality, which many, including me, advocated for the last quarter of a century, to a theology of mutual aid.

Mutual aid is defined primarily as a concept of providing each other support, either through resources or services, for the sake of mutual benefit.  The hallmark of mutual aid is that support flows between peers, neighbors, colleagues, community members, horizontally rather than from the top-down, as it would hierarchically from a government agency or a mission institution to those in need.

Charity funds or bureaucratic allocation of resources have no room in mutual aid, as they are deeply entrenched in processes and frameworks that often mean handouts or strings attached with inflexibility: for example, donated funds or resources to be used only for elderly, children, mothers, etc.

Mutual aid is neither hierarchical nor charity based. It is horizontal, mostly volunteer-run. It is driven by the emerging or immediate needs expressed by the members of the community. Bureaucratic and middle agents are eliminated as survival needs and shared understanding take priority over all others. People in the community, not the elected or appointed leaders of an organization, take responsibility for caring for one another. 

Mutual aid is deeply rooted in counter-cultural theory, invariably so during times of major crisis. Since TIC is as much about social justice as it is about spiritual, emotional, and physical healing, it enables mutual aid as an effective tool to do the right thing in the right place in short order.

When structural or siloed institutions are absent or fail, human altruism and community selflessness come as the vanguard. During crisis time, already vulnerable communities experience what is known as intersectional vulnerabilities. COVID-19 has again proven that some people and communities are more vulnerable. They need greater support from members of their own communities and those community organizations that work with them with sharpened advocacy skills and agility of movement.

It will take a long time before we will call ‘business as usual.’ Until then, the members of the faith community have a vital role to play, despite their own vulnerability. What we need today is the learning, training, and practice of trauma-informed care with a willingness to migrate from mutuality in mission to mutual aid in mission.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Mutuality to Mutual Aid in Mission: The Return of A Deep-Rooted Model, Part 1

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj. Rev. Dharmaraj is President of the Retired Clergy and Spouse Association of the New York Annual Conference. It is the first of a two-part series.

Part 1: The Impact of COVID-19 Upon Churches
The shopping malls are shuttered, church services suspended, places of recreation closed. COVID-19 has upended the laissez-faire in unprecedented ways. It has robbed many families of their dear ones and upended everyday life with death, fear, and anxiety.

Millions have lost their jobs, some permanently. Stock and commodity markets around the world gyrate unpredictably. Governments worldwide have reduced their benchmark interest rate which have resulted in lower fixed income for seniors who often rely on safe-haven income.

After re-evaluating the economic activities and health concerns of their citizens, leaders of many nations are in the thrall of unabashedly nationalist principles curbing multinational trade, international travel, and global migration. The doors may not open fully, even after an antibody vaccine is discovered.

The current pandemic environment is an unpleasant, alarming, and displeasing place where we do not want to be, but it is neither dystopian nor apocalyptic. COVID-19 is nonetheless a game-changer. It has already sown the seed for the evolution of new forms of worship gathering, church ministry, and mission outreach. It has spawned a three-axis disrupter to the church: its worship-style, its real estate, and its worldwide participation or partnership in mission.

The scars of this crisis will linger for years, if not decades, which will color views on using public places and congregating in large numbers. Seniors make up a significant percentage of our Sunday worship attendance. It will take a long time before they return with their generous giving.

Many parishioners may demand “virtual” services and ecclesial programs on-line, in addition to on-site services. A small group composing a dynamic worship team can garner a larger group of worshipers online than an on-site church gathering. Conversely, cross-cultural and cross-racial ministers will face an uphill battle. Several congregations, including small-town churches and service agencies, will be on a survival mode.

Since many established and start-up churches will offer worship services in cyberspace, there will be intense competition for membership, and there will be less demand for the church’s physical gathering space. Some will easily migrate from one worship setting to another.

The current crisis will reset our view of real estate, and our expectations from it.  Will a massive church building be good stewardship of dwindling resources? Churches have already experienced a precipitous decline in demand for services held at their buildings, such as funerals and weddings, as more and more of them are being held in one-stop settings such as funeral homes or hotels or open-air settings.

COVID-19 is also impacting the funding of our mission partnerships. Social distancing has already disrupted fundraising efforts of churches, VIM, and mission events that are normally scheduled during spring and summer. Revenue generating programs such as daycare, summer camps, and various group activities will be adversely affected. Mega-donors and corporations may step in to fill the gap – but only to help multi-religious or Inter-faith organizations. They will promote their own agenda. 

As a result, churches will have less cash revenue along with a reduction in the number of volunteers to run thrift shops, soup kitchens and engage in mid-week activities, which will weaken services to their local communities. Mission agencies and boards will have tough times keeping their doors open and programs afloat. With the cash flow much reduced, ecumenical and outreach programs will wane as well, while virtual connections remain.

Organizations that provide essential support services to groups on the front lines of issues such as human rights, social justice, poverty, environment, etc., will be heavily hit since they often run on a shoestring budget with no buffer, no cushion, and no room for error.  Even if they have a sizeable endowment, they will be hit hard as their cash flow would be sub-par as the major stock index has lost a sizeable value and cut short the revenue stream. Even if the economy recovers, as recent history has proved, the recovery will only be partial for all industries.

COVID-19 will also remake academic institutions, especially seminaries and bible colleges that have already been adversely affected by dwindling resources and student enrollment. MacMurray College, a 174-year-old United Methodist-affiliated school near Springfield, Ill., announced last month that it will close in May 2020. The Chair of the board of trustees says that although the pandemic “complicated MacMurray’s financial condition,” it wasn’t the main reason for the closure.

The value of stock portfolios that several academic and church-related institutions hold has been seriously hurt. Loss of dividend income and the persistently low income from fixed securities will further crimp students’ scholarship, endowed chairs, and new faculty hiring. Fewer international students and racial-ethnic minorities would be able to attend theological schools full time as a good number of them are sponsored by church and mission agencies. Habitation rate of campus dormitories, usage of dining halls, and occupation of the classrooms will contract. 

The church hierarchy’s hiring requirements will shift along with its current established boundaries: those ministerial candidates who know how to manage technology, with pleasant personalities and excellent communication skills, will succeed. More and more Schools for License for Local Pastors and Course of Study programs will be demanded by cabinets. Since those programs are totally geared towards practical aspects of church ministry, many pastoral candidates will seek that route. Resource-rich church and non-denominational groups will offer Bible Study and training programs online. Study materials will be digitized and translated into multiple languages.

Thus, the impact of the present crisis on the church will be pervasive, affecting all parts of the church and its ministry.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy vs. Charity, Part III

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It is the third of a three-part series.

Our perplexities with advocacy arise primarily because we are offered either charity or advocacy as a missional choice. These two are perceived as mutually exclusive. Since many of our United Methodist constituents are preoccupied with this duality, dichotomy, and double with their favored mission principles and practices, it is imperative to scrap this unfair duality between advocacy and charity, and replace it with missional reality, scriptural faithfulness, and life-enhancing practicality. It can be achieved by creating and practicing a theology of advocacy.

Practicing advocacy takes into consideration the agency of the victims of injustices themselves as they engage in resisting and addressing the barriers and systems that deny abundant life to them.

Charity engages participants in a ministry of care and it facilitates space and means for providing their needs.  Advocacy, on the other hand, addresses the root causes of the problem of victimization, and stands in solidarity with the victims in their resistance and struggle towards wholeness.

Charity and advocacy may complement each other in their common goal and caring engagement of the weak and voiceless, but one should keep in mind that charity serves as anodyne alleviating the pain. Advocacy’s goal is to eradicate the root causes that continue to create the pain.

Advocacy is far reaching and all encompassing. It gives hope to the victims for a long haul. It is time consuming and a slow process, but it will not cease until the cause of its engagement is fully addressed.

We live in a world that is all too familiar with the template for the treatment of "the other." It is a grievous offence to refuse to comply with or show any form resistance in the face of oppressive and capricious institutions and decrees. All too often, it is a capital offence in some parts of the world. Charity plays a maimed role in such a context. Ministering with those victims and taking measures to address the root causes of the problems alone would give victims hope, as such an endeavor that would lead to transformation to recreate their future.

Hope is a thing with feathers
Emily Dickinson defines hope in concise dexterity: “Hope is the thing with feathers.” Many well-meaning Christians don’t hesitate to identify with victims of abuse by journeying with them and sharing meals and means. Yet the root causes of the problems go unaddressed. Survivors of oppression get stuck in a limbo due to the lack of a sponsor to advocate for them. To be honest, in so many cases victims don’t need our tears but outrage and response against injustice, loss of dignity, and oppressive human or institutional cruelty.

It is simple and plain that when people are homeless or hungry or forcefully displaced, they lack more than shelter from the elements. Being a migrant is not a metaphor, or not always. What they are lacking is a stable life, a secure place, and a recognizable identity among others which charity cannot provide.

Public witness to the Gospel through advocacy work and active partnership with allies who share our values would be the way to effectively engage in mission today. Vatican II, a historic Roman Catholic mission conference, urged Christians everywhere to collaborate with secular partners in ways to improve the lot of humanity by building bridges even with those who question our beliefs. It said, "The church sincerely professes that all people, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live."

The United Methodist Church, through its mission boards and agencies is undoubtedly involved in such a ministry. But many of our constituents are bowling alone. They belong to fewer community-oriented organizations and are increasingly atomized, anomic, and apathetic subjects of the community rather than active participants within it. Our voice in public leverage and how to shape humans into transformative agents should never be limited or accrued to just a few tiers of our denomination. It should be picked up from annual conference to local church level.

In the final analysis, advocacy is not only our ecclesial modus operandi, but a timeless missional practice as well.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy vs. Charity, Part II

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It is the second of a three-part series.

Physicist Richard Feynman once asked, “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?” He answered it himself saying, “I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.”

If a similar question can be asked about Christian mission today, “What single sentence or statement that would encapsulate Christian mission engagement in 21st century?” my response would be: Mission-Advocacy.

Unlike charity, which has been widely practiced and decorously promoted, advocacy does not get much fanfare or accolade today. It is not often preached about from the pulpits. Not much has been written about theology of advocacy. Confusion between the missional function of charity and missional task of advocacy abound. Hence, I would like to outline the importance of the creation of a theology of advocacy and the preclusion of charity and advocacy as binary division.

When I say theology of advocacy, I mean a theology of engagement, a communal activity, and a mobilized movement; a theology that would define advocacy from a biblical and theological perspective by seeking its place in the world which is a God’s intended entity not yet consummated; a theology that would help us faithfully engage in the public square, just like Moses, Joseph, Esther, and others did during Old Testament time; a theology that would help us actively witness to the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world, just like Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, and others did during the New Testament time.

Advocacy theology versus theology of advocacy
Theology of advocacy is different from advocacy theology, which is highly accommodationist. Its terms of agenda are often set by those outside of the faith community and from there it works its way back into the church community.

Theology of advocacy, on the other hand, is deeply embedded in the very fabric of our biblical heritage. It is not just a bit of software in its operational function but a vital part of our ecclesial habitus and an integral component of our church’s mission. It cannot be easily uprooted or exchanged for a hydroponic version.

Christian advocacy, as mission principle, is habitually misunderstood primarily because of the absence of a theological rationale or biblical underpinning. The failure to articulate advocacy’s foundational characteristic that is rooted in the Bible and its lack of cohesive theological articulation is the root cause of its current predicament.

Proponents of advocacy work must make sure that charitable acts could never  be set against the vital role of advocacy work. The focus of charitable activities is to address the immediate needs, which is undeniably important in all crises situations. But relief work should not be used as a substitute from remedying long term suffering often caused by unfair structural policies and practices. Finding and working toward a permanent solution to end needless human pain, exploitation and travail should be the aim and goal of mission, not just a band-aid ministry.

Advocacy is not anti-Charity. Much like the poor, the rich and powerful have always been with us. Violence, injustice, all forms of oppression should make everyone at least a teensy bit nervous just as poverty and homelessness does. Both the victim and perpetrator should be given an opportunity to respond to the Gospel.

Advocacy is not antigovernment. Rather, it invites and revives major structures of power, including governments, as dynamic agents of change. It may move with glacial pace, but it is deep, effective and long-lasting.

Many in our time are ready and willing to donate a large amount of money, time and resources to alleviate hunger and eradicate killer diseases. They are doing this at a much younger age and take a much more hands-on approach. They want to save the world right now. But they are more into charity than change, more alleviation than transformation; more lineal and amalgamation than vertical and assimilation.

Our core mission, therefore, ought to be to sound the alarm about how even the best intentioned among us are engaged in only band-aid ministry, and fail to address the root causes of unnecessary human desolation.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy vs. Charity, Part I

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It is the first of a three-part series.

As we rumble along the potholed 21st century mission road, and when we look at the expansive landscape of God’s worldwide community and smell and inhale the overwhelming love of Jesus Christ for the whole of God’s creation, one resounding message the hurting world expects to hear from the church is this: “We see you; we truly care about you. We will not normalize destitution; we will not substitute Christian charity as a response to violence, oppression, inequality, and injustice.”

The overwhelming need of the hour is not being more religious but being more humane to listen to the cry of the victims of abuse and exploitation both in our own backyard and beyond; not to be more dogmatic in our belief but to demonstrate our commitment to Jesus Christ through active intervention for the weak and standing in solidarity with the exploited in hours of their greatest susceptibility. By doing so, we indeed join the throngs of biblical advocates like Joseph, Moses, Nathan, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, Paul, Apollos, and numerous others for humane and compassionate treatment of the strangers and neo-neighbors among us.

Why Advocacy?
Accordingly, as a denomination we work for the healing of the nations, raise awareness, initiate changes, and organize group actions to alleviate human suffering for a long haul starting from the local church. Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscape, a WCC document, affirms, “Advocacy for justice is no longer the sole prerogative of national assemblies and central offices but a form of witness which calls for the engagement of local churches…churches must help in identifying the everyday choices that can abuse and promote human rights, gender justice, climate justice, unity and peace. Local churches’ grounding in everyday life gives them both legitimacy and motivation in the struggle for justice and peace.”

This process would carry Christians from being mere gratified charitable relief workers to ardent agents of advocacy mission to cause societal changes and assist all those who are negatively affected by oppressive institutional systems or exploitative political structures.

Such an advocacy work will not limit us in running a food pantry or providing an after-school program. It will take us to a place where we will be active and engaged and enable us to influence laws, public policy, and resource allocation within political, economic, and social systems and institutions—more importantly, structures that directly and powerfully affect the lives of the people. This advocacy mission process will move the church from “what is” as a community to coming one closer to “what ought to be,” residents of the kingdom of God.

Normalizing charity or advocacy?
There is a fundamental difference between charity and advocacy. The former is the translator of the gospel; the latter is the interpreter of the Gospel. In Sweet Charity, Janet Poppendieck writes that charity acts as “a sort of a ‘moral safety valve.’” It reduces the discomfort evoked by visible destitution in our midst by creating the illusion of effective action and offering us myriad ways of participating in it.  It creates a culture of charity that normalizes destitution and legitimates personal generosity as a response to [inequity and injustice].” Essentially, charity robs one’s identity and fosters a dependent, paternalistic, donor-donee paradigm.

Charity injures human dignity as it fosters and perpetuates inequality. Most importantly, charity does little to change the unjust social and political systems that breed and foster injustice. Unlike advocacy that stands for justice, charity offends no one, including the perpetrator. William Coffin, former pastor of Riverside Church in NY City, had aptly said, "Charity must not be allowed to go bail for justice.” Vatican II fittingly depicted, “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.”

Advocacy has been a key ingredient in migrant mission concerns both yesterday and today. It is never more important than in today’s worldwide diasporic context where the victims are impelled by forces within themselves, their families and their communities that feel so furtive, even unspeakable.

An eye on the forest and another on the tree
The ministry of advocacy is less direct. One may not find immediate emotional, spiritual or missional gratification. It is a slow process and laborious mission. It takes time to get results. At times, it may not even lead the workers to have contact with people or communities in need to see the transformative change or end result first hand. Yet it addresses the root causes of the problem and generates a lasting result which embraces all involved.

Advocacy is goal-oriented and calls for a plan and preparation to correct an unfair or harmful situation that negatively affect individuals or a community. Acts of advocacy usually challenge large institutions or unfair power structure or legislation to correct their unfair or harmful behavior. Hence advocacy employs persuasion through political or legal action which some deem and detest as un-Christian or deeply political. The truth is that this is a truly biblical act just as the prophets of old such as Elijah, Samuel, and Nathan have done.

The outcome of advocacy ministry is totally unpredictable and is riddled with trials and challenges. Unlike charity work, advocacy mission is not for novices and the ill-prepared. Not everyone can thrive in this mission and ministry. It needs specialized skills and deep commitment to remain steadfast until after everyone else leaves. Novices need not apply.

Advocacy keeps an eye on the forest while working on the trees one at a time. Hence, one needs to develop a detailed blue-print based on the knowledge of who the opponents and who the alliances are.

Charity mission work can be carried out with a smaller budget, fewer volunteers and limited donation or resources. Over the long run, charity cloys. Advocacy needs multiple partners and warrants specialized skills. The challengers of advocacy mission are well-prepared waiting in the tall grass; there is a great deal of risk involved. Many persist in advocacy work because they believe they can make a difference and together they can bring transformation.

Whether it’s ending homelessness or working to protect global-level human rights, each of us is driven by our commitment to mission and call to take a take a stand. Advocacy, I submit, affirms there is another way as it enables us to stand for what we know to be true and just.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Response to 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 second of two written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.

Christianity and other living faiths
Some physicists say that the universe is simultaneously expanding and contracting, and the same can be said of The United Methodist Church today. In less than half a century, Christians from other parts of the world will replace the departing Christians in the global north. While we rejoice over the exponential church growth in the global south, those of us in the leadership of the church in global north need to take measures to stop the membership hemorrhaging. No matter how large the sum of money and innovative programs we infuse into the structure of the denomination, unless workable solutions are put in place to end the bleeding, the church will continue to lose ground. The purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ is not to survive, any more than the purpose of our own lives is to survive. Survival is a necessity, not a purpose. Prudent precautions and sensible preparations will be for naught unless the United Methodist constituents understand the core conviction of Christian faith and their missional responsibilities.

A clear and concise mission theology motivates and assists the Christian community in reconciling all forms of alienation, while being faithful to its apostolic traditions. The denomination’s mission mandate calls for its constituents to “make disciples for the transformation of the world.” What is unclear to those of us coming from the global south is that the proposed document on ecclesiology (the nature of the church) appears to conflate grace and redemption, and offers a single blurry lens rather than sharpened distinct views. There seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that ALL religions are salvific.

The role of laity and their everyday encounter with the members of the broader society is visibly absent in the document. During that process, the vital aspect of mission and ministry with the adherents of other living faiths has been completely left out. As we are well aware, the church intersects with the beliefs and practices of the adherents of other living faiths, and works for peace, justice, reconciliation, and the integrity of God’s creation.

In addition, massive defections of our baptized and confirmed prevent us from being too sanguine about how many of our children will identify as Christians in coming years. Already hundreds and thousands of our children have left the church in the global north. In such a context, how do we define the nature and role of the church and its mission? How can we keep the light on for them? That light cannot be left on, unless the uniqueness and universality of Jesus is clearly defined in the context of our pluralized, post-Christian, post-modern context.

Regrettably, there is no reference in the document as to how to witness to Christ in our multi-faith world. If the church proclaims Jesus Christ as the Lord to the world around us, it should include both those within and without the fold.

Our denomination wants to gain one million more people in this quadrennium. If so, which pond should the church fish from? And, how? We need to think about where the disciples come from, especially from outside the fold, not how sheep are stolen from inside the fold. If the church has to actively get involved in outreach mission, as the document affirms, the church’s missional mandate needs to be spelled out in a coherent way in the current changed landscape.

Missional shifts
Major shifts have taken place in the church’s mission from the past to the present including shifts
- from ecclesiocentric to theocentric,
- from theocentric to Non-Governmental Organizations-centric,
- from NGO-centric to anthropocentric,
- from anthropocentric to geocentric mission.

Today, mission has migrated from denominational mission to community-oriented, and individual-initiated mission. Making a difference is the goal. Hence the definition of the church’s mission among our constituents has become broader, larger, and comprehensive. We need to make an intentional shift in our understanding of church and mission from Wesley’s time, which was primarily mono-chromatic and mono-cultural, to the worldwide, polyphonic, pluralistic present context, in which Christianity has hybridized and is well-situated as a non-Western religious community.

A definition of the church which we call ecclesiology is not a mere doctrinaire tract or a propaganda effort or a broadside. It is a spiritual stroll through “sinners’” mazy minds about faith, tradition, and reason, with an invitation to follow Jesus. Hence, sin has to be defined both in individual and structural contexts. For the wages of sin include the loss of community, trust, equality, and social justice.

A giant reset is looming for the church’s mission during our time because we live in a space between the way things were and the way things might be. Solutions are fleeting as new challenges keep popping up. We don’t want to get locked into just a single mode of operation. We need to clarify why the church exists and does what it does worldwide, which missional values are fundamental, what specific message it conveys in today’s pluralistic world, and how its message and ministries of mercy differ from other humanitarian and social agencies.

What is urgently needed today, I submit, is a hybrid ecclesiology; a distinct United Methodist voice; a voice that emerges from informed theological intelligence and historic connectional commitment; a theology that distinguishes the church from the larger world and other faiths and all that denies the values of Christ. To construct a truly worldwide ecclesiology, the current reality of Western Christianity sitting at the table with non-Western Christianity has to be seriously taken into account. We must accept the responsibility of planting seeds of diversity and equity; of empathy and unity, while we share our fragility, as this work is an attempt to understand a behemoth theological and missiological concept by describing it from multiple angles. With our ever-enlarging global access to the visions and voices and influences of others, let us untangle the knot of what makes up the church and whom we serve and witness to as disciples and as fellow human beings.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Response to 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 two written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.

Half a century ago Flannery O’Connor outlined the struggle to “make belief believable” as a struggle for the attention of the indifferent reader. Hence, she insisted that the religious aspect in her work of fiction is “a dimension added,” not one taken away. Then she went on to explain how she did it: “To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.”

In an almost similar vein, The United Methodist Church is updating its worn out doctrinal cursives and outmoded linguistic scripts to compile a new and relevant theological understanding of the church and its missional imperatives. The recently proposed document, Wonder, Love and Praise: Sharing a Vision of the Church, is to serve as a theological mirror as well as a window that swings open to the worldwide body of Christ in our time. More importantly, it is intended to enable the United Methodist constituents to see outside themselves and know what it is to be a worldwide connectional church. After conferring with several Asian-American United Methodist laity and clergy, I submit the following comments for further consideration and action.

Settled church versus a pilgrim church
The well-researched and elegantly written current document, unfortunately, is heavily dependent upon WCC documents with an over emphasis on Eucharist, grace, and community, with only ancillary references to baptism, evangelism, mission and the role of the laity. The “paschal mystery” behind the Eucharist (crucifixion, death and resurrection, and Parousia), mission and ministry with people of other faiths, and Christianity on the move through global diaspora has no room in the document, although they are a vital part of Church’s belief and corner stone for Christian mission.

While the document meanders through pages of past Euro-centric Methodist history, it falls short on the interpretation of that history for our changed landscape. If we derive our church and mission theology based on our missional history from just one part of the world, we will be standing on a shaky ground. Contemporary ecclesiology is fiercely divided over how to address the world’s challenges and what those challenges really are in the larger historic context.

Many today are thinking post-religion. Through the pull of cultural and religious pluralism and the allure of openly secular and liberal values, traditional modes of Christian witness and mission engagements have nose-dived in recent decades. Many have left the church in disillusionment. The church needs to offer a new map for them to return. Christian history has repeatedly proven that they will come roaring back, if and when the church’s signs, symbols and message become meaningful to them.

The proposed document is deeply based on the theological understanding of church, mission and ministry of “settled Christianity” of the Christendom era of the global north. It does not have a broader understanding of the church in the global south, including its diasporic and pilgrim nature. A known method can only achieve known results. The method being adopted here is purely “Western.” We need to apply new hermeneutics. New categories. Not just refining but re-defining our ecclesiology, theology and missiology in the worldwide context. A theology-free approach will not transform. Theology moves the church to engage in mission, and mission rightly engaged enables the church to develop theology.

The worldwide church is a church on the move due to its minority status, extreme poverty, and intense persecution. Persecution is a real threat, and not a mere slogan. The church in the global south witnesses, grows, and multiplies in countless methods and among numerous groups, even in the midst of limited material resources. This proposed document elevates the diversity of spiritual gifts, which Apostle Paul talks about in I Corinthians 12, but has failed to comprehend the diversity within the Body of Christ which the Book of Revelation, Chapter 7:9-10, beautifully portrays as the ultimate triumph of the Church: “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

Church in the world
We certainly wish that this document, which emphasizes proclamation as the responsibility of the community, had explained more about the content of the proclamation and its targeted recipients. Sometimes, the readers find it hard to distinguish between the references made to the community which makes up the church, the Body of Christ, and the larger community that makes up the society. Community is defined in this document in broad neutral terms as the grace of God enveloping all. Yet, no distinction has been made between the Body of Christ and the larger Kingdom of God, in which the Body of Christ is firmly situated. A biblical and theological definition of the role of the Body of Christ in the larger society would certainly enrich the document. In addition, many theological words that are employed in the document have multiple layers of meanings and vary in context. Consequently, the role of the church in the larger society is simply assumed and buried under presumed vocabulary, as the document appears to have in mind only the United Methodist constituents in the global north.

Lastly, this proposed document talks a lot about the First and Third Person of the Trinity but seldom about the Second Person, on whose paschal mystery Christianity hinges, and how it differs from other living faiths. The importance of the Eucharist is preeminent throughout the document, but an equal emphasis of the doctrine of baptism, even as a requirement for the United Methodist church’s membership, would have been extremely helpful. A mere reference to both of them as “Sacraments” would throw many of our constituents off balance during this post-denomination era.

Jacob Dharmaraj: An Office of Christian Unity & Interreligious Relationships or a Research Institute?

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.

It is encouraging to know that the Council of Bishops (COB) is in the process of moving the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships (OCUIR) to Washington D.C., and hiring six new staff. COB’s tacit acknowledgment that the old model was procrustean and needed restructuring is indeed admirable. Unquestionably, our denomination needs clarity in our understanding of Christology, missiology, and ecclesiology in the context of interfaith or multi-faith relations, which COB strives to address. Just like great apps such as “WhatsApp” or “Yelp” and others enhance our daily social interactions with our peers, a great missional and theological app can enhance, inspire, and illuminate our ministry of witness.

Since the emerging new world is remarkably similar to the Greco-Roman pluralistic domain, it offers new challenges every day in our collective struggle to witness our faith in Jesus Christ. With the ostensible questioning of traditional religions by modern scientific, philological, and archaeological discoveries, and by application of various theoretical apparatuses such as deconstructionism, phenomenalism, etc., the foundational beliefs of Christianity have been challenged to the core. Christianity’s relationship with people of other faiths and the Body of Christ has to be clearly defined in today’s context. We sincerely hope the creation of this office will lead us to the next higher level.

Nonetheless, I had a question while I was reading on-line the purpose of the office and the responsibilities of the staff. The program responsibility of this office in Washington D.C., at least theoretically, comes close to the very purpose of the mission board. Let me clarify.

Anyone who is committed to Christian mission will undeniably agree that mission and evangelism are two sides of the same coin. Mission lays out the road map and evangelism connects all of us with the Author and Creator of all. I believe that the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) has got the expertise, experience, and potential resources in working with ecumenical groups and interfaith communities. By theoretical definition of mission, the functional role and responsibilities of this office come close to the mandate of Global Ministries. If we house the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns under Global Ministries, our denomination will reduce the replication of our missional tasks.

Mission Conferences Speak
Let me submit one historic reference. The global ecumenical mission conference held in Jerusalem 1928 was dominated by the debate between Hendrick Kraemer and William Hocking about ministry with people of other living faiths. This debate spilled over to the ecumenical Conference held in Tambaram, India in 1938 in which Karl Barth, E. Stanley Jones, and others continued the conversation. These and all the subsequent ecumenical mission conferences held in the 20th century discussed and deliberated the church’s interaction with people of other faiths under the umbrella of mission and evangelism, but never as an isolated task.  This office in Washington D.C., can be justified to function apart from Global Ministries only, I submit, only if it were to be established to function as a Think Tank.

Research Institute Model
As a Think Tank and under the governance of the bishops, this office would be able to produce quality resources which will equip our constituents to know what they believe and why they believe. It will help us overcome the sophomoric spasm of multiculturalism and ecumenism, and nurture an informed religious community that is equipped to rethink in knowledgeable ways. Most importantly, this office would help all of us focus on the challenges we face as a denomination rather than the progress we have made; it will take us from the present-day corrosive culture of consultancy to the primary goal of finding answers. Lastly, it will be multi-disciplinary, and where appropriate, it will be multi-theological.

On the other hand, if it were to function as a program office, it will look for answers outside the problem and will continue to impose externally formulated ripostes. The Think Tank model will also help us come to grip with the problems we face, identify the questions and assumptions we have, and most importantly enrich us to articulate theology from the core of our Christian convictions.

If we want people to join the United Methodist movement in the transformation of the world, we need to be intentional about developing intellectual leadership and put together a team that would better communicate what we are and who we are. It is not just enough to minister with the poor and marginalized. We must develop and cultivate scholars and intellectuals who can minister to the movers and shakers of our society which include the intellectuals and affluent from all religious backgrounds.

As COB strives to re-ignite the engine of the denomination’s mission with people of other living faiths and create a public theology, and as it is committed to move past education for maintenance to education for mission, we request the leadership not overlook the rich resources readily available within the diasporic community among us. They will be an asset and strength in our missional engagement, as they know many languages, several cultures, and various sacred scriptures of major world religions. Our sacred history itself corroborates the necessity of engaging the diasporic faith community as our society becomes multi-contextual and pluralistic. For example, the Septuagint, commonly known as LXX or the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was translated from Hebrew to Greek for the scattered Hellenistic Jews. They recruited and engaged seventy scholars from the diasporic community. Can our beloved United Methodist Church and COB have such a grand vision for our larger society and tap the untapped rich resources that are readily available among us?

In the final analysis, the unanswered question is this: Is the Office of the Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships envisioned as a programmatic office or a research institute? The answer determines where it should be housed: GBGM or the COB.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Thinking Beyond the “Issue-Boxes”: A Reflection on General Conference 2016

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.

I love General Conference! It is indeed a joyous place to be. One can witness firsthand the worldwide United Methodist Church doing business.

General Conference is the United Methodist’s quadrennial kumbaya. It is the denomination’s legislative amphitheater, its missional market place, its doctrinal battleground, its connectional system’s fiscal auditorium, and its fisted hand budgetary arena.

General Conference is the public dome where the miraculous and the monstrous are equally part of daily deliberations. It is a place where the boundaries between reality and dreams are blurred; lofty vision and imagined future are carved out through the prism of memory, nostalgia, and high ambition for the denomination’s worldwide church.

I enjoy being at the margin and sidelines of the General Conference from where one could see the fringe events that take place which are equally important for the life of the denomination. After all, what is visible and broadcast are important for the record but what is ignored and marginalized are more important for the conscience of the church. The periphery of the General Conference has a status of its own that often draws a rally, a drama, a scene of media sensation, punctuated more by the reportorial, “The-Whole-World-Is-Watching-Us,” than the revelatory.

There is also an aura that surrounds  the General Conference, viewed as a latter day United Methodist Byzantium where a galaxy of sensitive, sophisticated human beings from all across United Methodism altruistically join forces to achieve spiritually elevating, ecclesially nourishing, missionally wholesome, and globally transformative programs. Consequently, the General Conference tends to become gouty and pompous.

Now that GC2016 has poured its last cup of tea, strapped its tarp and traveling gear to the trailer, and dispatched its last emissary to form a study commission on human sexuality, I will miss the high drama, its suspense and its myrmidon for another four years (maybe two years!)

Global North meeting Global South under Robert’s Rule or the Palavar Tree?
What fascinated me more than anything else at GC2016 was the large presence and active participation of the multiethnic delegates from the worldwide church. To many Christians in the global north, Christians in the Global South belong only to the domain of missions and not in the region of partnership or mutuality. Only recently it is best understood as an independent church and not as an appendage of Western missionary expansion, and they have an identity and selfhood of their own. Yes, indeed, the age of diversity is upon us.

We, as a denomination, are increasingly a community of communities and should treat that as strength. Despite their full participation in the Conference’s deliberations, more often than not, the comments and observations of the delegates from overseas were punctuated by questions about parliamentary procedures and an unfamiliar legislative process. I wonder if there was any count on how many times the delegates had mentioned that they were confused, lost and totally out of tune with the procedure, the process and the progression of the debate and voting policy of the General Conference.

While the proponents of Rule 44 tried to pitch their tents during the storm of parliamentary procedures and when the extensive debate over the Council of Bishops recommendation to table the petitions on human sexuality for another two years was dragged on, more and more delegates expressed their confusion and dismay over the process deeply rooted and firmly grounded in Robert’s Rules of Order, a North American parliamentary process. The cavernous cultural gap and the resonant parliamentary procedure that disjointed the overseas delegates with the US delegates became more evident while hot-button issues were discussed. While the metaphor of doing business under the palaver tree, an African consensus-building process, was floated around, this remained only as a beautiful metaphor.

Tell us in plain words
While I followed the skilled leadership style of the presiders from the podium and the nuanced arguments of the delegates from the floor, for some strange reason, one sentence from a classic literature kept ringing in my ears. It was from a character in James Joyce’s Ulysses in which Molly asks Bloom about Metempsychosis, a word from a book she had been reading. The response Bloom gave Molly was, “It’s Greek: from the Greek... That means the transmigration of souls.”

“O rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.” So goes Molly’s plea to her lover to explain Metempsychosis.

In my opinion, GC2016 was a weirdly pressurized and verbally jeopardized space due to high-stake petitions that were on the table, such as, Rule 44 and human sexuality. Most importantly, they were crisscrossed with potential divisions and schisms within the denomination. Dropping one’s guard during those tense moments would find oneself holding forth like a lost and somnolent passenger in an international airport terminal in a foreign land.

The vital question that most of us ask after a major event is, “What would history say of this event?” That goes for GC2016 as well. There are narratives we tell our families, the accounts we share with our friends, and most importantly, the versions we describe to our parishioners and ourselves in order to keep on living, serving and ministering. Through the act of narration, we empower others to see what we see. Galileo became famous not just because he saw how the stars move but because he insisted fellow humans see for themselves how the biosphere works. We need to share what we see and shape our society accordingly for the best.

The narratives GC2016 presents is this: Number matters. Persuasion reigns supreme. Status quo prevails. Table difficult issues. If you can’t win, try to cover the opponent with a slow-creeping fog, and mute the voices to ashes with whatever you have in your verbal arsenal.

Rage correlation only with issue boxes
General Conference 2016, I submit, suffered from a rage deficit. It refused to take seriously the persecuted sisters and brothers in Christ in other parts of the world, including the Palestinian Christians. Not just brotherhood but siblinghood matters in mission.

It failed to unleash its righteous anger and holy discontent about the refugees and immigrant crises around the world and by relegating the immigration rally as a freak show. A collective shriek would certainly have gained the attention of those in power around the world.

GC is not all about petitions and politics, but time and memory and love that stand at the heart of GC’s work. A positive, transformative vision statement is not meant just to inspire; it should create the cognitive space for assumptions to be challenged and new ideas to surface. It would help Christ’s holy church if everyone were to get out of their “issue” boxes.

We in the church need to be aware that we are standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us, ever vigilant to examine our role and close the gap between the problems we know and the solutions we propose. So long as the siren call of denial is met with the drone of policy making and petition submitting, the worldwide body of Christ is both being misled and misread.

By the time the study committee on human sexuality prepares its final report in two years, the worldwide church will have gathered in different parts of the world to revisit the 500th anniversary of Protestant Reformation, and studied its impact on human history. The findings and recommendations of the Study Commission will certainly have an impact on our denomination. I sincerely hope and pray that it will enable our beloved denomination to continue to produce spiritual leaders of texture and thoughtful forerunners of caring quality to steer the church through stormy seas. Will our church be comprised of a people divided by our politics, our religious views, and our backgrounds, or will we be a people of diversity and common commitment, with some common boundaries? I hope and believe we can be the latter.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy as a Christian Witness in Diasporic Mission

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It extends remarks Rev. Dr. Dharmaraj made in a previous post from October.

In one of Norman Rockwell’s drawings, an overwhelmed mother holds her little boy face down in her lap. At her feet lies a hammer, along with evidence of a destructive spree: a broken mirror, a shattered vase, and an eviscerated clock under her chair. Not being sure of how to discipline her child, the mother grips a hairbrush in one hand, and a book on child psychology in the other: To spank or not to spank? She doesn’t know the answer.

Many in the church in global north are confused and lost over the missional issues of immigrant concerns and global diaspora, particularly about millions who are forced to flee from their native lands because of political instability, religious, racial, ethnic persecutions. What is our missional response to them? At times the multiplicity of responses given by experts threatens to devolve into cacophony.

Embodying the Gospel
Most of us are well aware that the church cannot carry on a monologue detached from the marginalized world with mere relief offerings but must stand in solidarity with them to address this huge human crisis. Pope John Paul aptly said, “Solidarity means taking responsibility for those in trouble.” Being in solidarity with the weak and vulnerable is more than extending compassionate and charitable services. Human charity is a hard emotion to sustain; over the long run, it cloys.

True solidarity breaks down the illusion of disconnectedness and works for kinship, which is a cherished conviction. In the final analysis, being in solidarity with the broken and bruised, and gaining their trust and confidence will offer better opportunities to share the love of Jesus Christ.

We need to be aware that there is a major difference between global diasporic mission and mission with the immigrants who have moved into our neighborhoods. Diasporic mission is primarily a global phenomenon set in motion by voluntary or involuntary conditions. Research professor Enoch Wan avows it as glo-cal in nature. It is border-less, pluralistic, transnational, multi-directional rather than homogenous. It is comprised primarily of people who were involuntarily or coerced to move.

In diasporic mission, the focus is on holistic mission and contextualization that integrate evangelism and social concern. We cannot just proclaim the Gospel among refugees without also addressing their physical needs and becoming their advocate. The workers work best when they learn the languages, understand cultural nuances and are mindful of the practices of the faiths of others who are rootless refugees, while keeping one’s core faith identity. Mere proclamation with an intention to start church during human vulnerability will spawn only “exploitative-Christians.” Mission is contextual as well as comprehensive, and should never employ humanitarian aid for religious proselytization.

Diaspora missiology does not replace “traditional missiology,” which is primarily evangelistic; rather, it supplements traditional methods with those that are geared to the new demographic realities of the 21st century. It is not a case of “either/or” in a mutually exclusive way as some tend to assume. In diasporic mission, participants are invited to stretch their imagination and look beyond the narrow perspectives of the present and to set themselves in the context of world realities on the one hand, and on the other hand, the analytics of root causes, power relations, and knowledges provided by the victims.

Mission with the “sinned-against” people
Historically, mission movements in the global north have rarely engaged questions of immigration and global diaspora as missional issues. If we hack through the opaque theological thicket and saunter through mission archives, we still find ourselves in the same old corridors of starting place. At times, we are narrowly guided by favorite scripture passages and past practices in order to discover missional comfort and seek ecclesial refuge. During the Christendom period everything seemed to be fixed and stable, but now the topography of the mission site is changed.

The demise of colonization, end of Christendom and waning of denominational ecumenism on the one hand, and the emergence of globalization and instant communication on the other have transformed missional participation from the predictable to the adaptive, from the mono-directional and anticipated to multi-directional and flexible ways of engagement.

In diasporic mission, witness to the Gospel comes mainly through advocacy work on behalf of the “sinned-against” and giving witness to the structures of power that create this sub-human condition. The agency of the diasporic communities is a key. In other words, we need to take the marginalized and repressed voices from the periphery and help amplify and facilitate these voices to be heard. This would mark a significant change in the way we do mission in a traditional sense. We cannot merely dispense throat lozenges that makes people feel better when the patients themselves know what they need is a serious medical treatment.

When I say our witness should be characterized by love and advocacy, I am not downplaying the reality of sin nor the need for transformation. However, it may be that hurting, disillusioned people need to find kindness through our caring action. During biblical times, when our Hebrew ancestors migrated from impoverished agrarian region to the advanced, urbanized Egypt, they had the invaluable advantage of having Joseph, who happened to be a blood relative, in the country’s top public office. Joseph’s advocacy and timely interference made this vulnerable diasporic community’s transition relatively easier. When problems arose for that community a few centuries later, it was Moses who stepped into the role of advocate.

Biblical history also documents people from all walks of life who witnessed against the structures of power on behalf of the poor, oppressed and voiceless. We can cite only a few towering figures such as Daniel, Nehemiah, Esther, Paul, and Apollos who did the ministry of advocacy on a larger scale and cross-cultural context. There are a number of so-called “minor” role players. Suffice it to say that a vital key to the health and viability of diasporic communities lay in the availability and the power of advocacy to represent their needs.

What is clear is that advocacy is a key ingredient in diaspora issues both past and present, and is increasingly being recognized in governmental structures as an important dynamic in the process of diaspora engagement. Wherever diasporas have appeared, their ability to cope and thrive has been in large part due to the willingness of those who carry influence and inspiration to serve as advocates and campaigners for vulnerable and scattered peoples. Wangari Muta Maathai, a Nobel Laureate, aptly said, “Until you dig a hole, you plant a tree, you water it and make it survive, you haven’t  done a thing. You are just talking.”

William Payne: Response to Jacob Dharmaraj

Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

I read Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj’s recent blog on diaspora missiology with great interest. His careful prodding is timely and much needed. Great population shifts are taking place as vast numbers of vulnerable people relocate for a variety of reasons. War, genocide, sexual abuse, economic disaster, religious persecution, destruction of social systems, and disease continue to foment dislocation. The exodus from northern Africa and the Middle East is staggering.

Matthew reminds us that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape the wrath of an evil king. God provided a sanctuary for the holy family in a foreign land. Certainly, God wants the church to provide sanctuary to the modern immigrants.

Still, I struggle with Dr. Dharmaraj’s one dimensional approach to the diaspora mission because it pulls apart what God holds together. In light of the current global situation, he advocates putting physical needs ahead of spiritual needs, and advocacy ahead of evangelism. He also argues that the world wants the church to move beyond mission as usual. He says that the church must partner with the ecumenical community and secular prophets (environmentalists and human rights advocates) to pursue a social justice advocacy that strikes at the root of the human disruption. I assume that “ecumenical partners” includes practitioners of non-Christian faith traditions.

In the blog, it appears that social justice advocacy is the great calling of the church in this era and that evangelistic mission is less important or unwelcomed. Frequently, such thinking influences the hierarchy of mainline denominations. Often it assumes a theocentric ideology that makes common cause with all who desire to purse a particular formulation of social justice. One denominational leader put it this way: “Since all are saved, we need to get on with social justice and the great task of loving each other.”

Instead, I believe that UM missional priorities should align with biblical priorities. A bifurcated mission that neglects evangelism is not a biblically sustainable model for engaging the world with God’s mission. When Jesus advocated for the poor or challenged unjust religious orders, he did so from the perspective of a personal relationship. For example, the Rich Young Ruler wanted to be saved. Jesus told him to divest of his riches, give to the poor, and become his disciple.
John the Baptist preached a similar message as he invited soldiers, tax collectors, religious leaders and the crowds to flee from the wrath to come by joining a just community that gave voice to the righteousness of God and pointed to the coming kingdom of God. Point being, justice is not a standalone category in the gospels. It takes on form when seen in light of the in-breaking kingdom that calls all people and institutions to align with God and God’s righteousness.

For that reason, the church should not ignore the evangelistic mandate or minimize the spiritual needs of those for whom it advocate even when engaging in crisis mission. We must remind ourselves that we share a gospel that incarnates Jesus in word and deed. Suffering people deserve to know about Jesus’ love for them. They need to know that Jesus offers them hope. They need to realize that Jesus offers real solutions to real problems. Through the church, Jesus advocates for his kingdom agenda.

Additionally, no matter how tempted the UMC is to prioritize social justice ministries, it should remind itself that social justice is not the primary mission of the church. The gospels model the kingdom of God. Jesus preached it as he brought it to bear on the suffering people he encountered. He is the gateway into God’s kingdom. He invites the rich and the dispossessed to enjoy God’s shalom by aligning with him. Those who align with Jesus become kingdom people who carry forth God’s kingdom agenda in this world. Jesus commissioned the church to give witness to this mission in the world in word and deed.

In truth, Jesus is Lord of all things. That includes the social order. Any attempt to fix the social order by by-passing Jesus and his kingdom is bound to fail. More importantly, such efforts compromise the gospel and hurt the holistic mission of the church in the world.

Additionally, in terms of our biblical faith, the term "secular prophet" is an oxymoron. Activists who minimize the name of Jesus and disavow his lordship may partner with the church in social justice witness to the extent that it aligns with God’s purposes. However, such people are not prophets. Biblical prophets give witness to the reign and righteousness of God as they invite people to align themselves with God's rule.

When the Jerusalem Church was scattered due to persecution, the members went in all directions evangelizing and church planting (Acts 8:4). To a lesser extent, the Jewish diaspora witnessed to the world when it scattered. These are biblical examples that the UMC should remember when considering diaspora mission.

Immigrants to Europe and America often see themselves as missionaries. Many have a strong desire to reach their people and the larger community for Christ. I wish that all could see how the African Diaspora in Columbus, Ohio is planting churches everywhere. They are reaching thousands of African immigrants for Christ. They are also reaching secular Americans who are drawn to their spiritual vitality and their clear witness of faith. They are partners in mission; not mere recipients of western hospitality. They have much to teach the western church about faith sharing.

When pastoring in a southern state from 1998-2001, I partnered with a Hispanic immigrant to form an outreach ministry that evangelized and discipled hundreds of Latino immigrants who did not speak English. Not only did we outgrow our facilities and plant external ministries in the surrounding urban areas and rural migrant camps, we also fed the hungry, worked with a healthcare clinic, provided transportation, and taught them English. All of it was done in partnership with the immigrants. Evangelism and advocacy do not need to be separated.

Like it or not, Christian immigrants plant churches and talk about Jesus even when the official churches are fixated on political advocacy and material needs. The UMC should remember that many immigrants were not allowed to witness openly in the places from which they have fled or immigrated. The hordes of Christians escaping from Syria and Iraq can vouch for this. A holistic mission strategy should seek to form partnerships that enable the immigrants to evangelize their people. Such a strategy would allow the immigrants to set their priorities, and would honor and utilize their gifting. In the end, it would balance word and deed mission.

Last night, my family read Acts 3 during our devotional time. In that chapter, a lame man is carried to the Temple every day to beg for alms. Pilgrim Jews to the Temple may have felt an urge to fulfill the commandments by giving to the poor. Quite possibly, the beggar received a lot of cash on a typical day. His family would have managed his alms.

One day, John and Peter went to the Temple to pray. As they approached the Temple, the beggar fixed on them. He expected to receive money. However, Peter looked past his economic need and saw the deeper need. In the end, he offered him the name of Jesus and God healed his lame legs.

Post-colonial interpretations of this passage may seek to couch the encounter in terms of unjust economic systems that dehumanize those on the margins. However, those readings are read onto the passage. They do not flow from it. In fact, at that moment, Peter knew that the man needed Jesus more than he needed social advocacy or money. The beggar’s live was forever changed by his encounter with Jesus. Shouldn’t the church in mission seek to do the same as Jesus and the apostles?

In conclusion, the biblical Jesus manifested a relational gospel that met people at the point of their needs and gave them a radically new orientation. That is why he set the captives free by healing the sick, purifying the lepers, welcoming the outcasts, casting out the demons, feeding the hungry crowds that desired to know him, raising the dead, and preaching kingdom justice. Jesus’ mission is Christocentric. It reveals God’s love as it calls people into an alignment with God and God’s work. Ultimately, the light that shines in the darkness will displace the evil when the church advocates for Christ’s lordship and for his righteousness. A mission that avoids evangelism is only half a mission.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Global Diaspora and Christian Mission Today

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.

Having a conversation about the current global diaspora in order to find a speedy solution is like trying to nail JELL-O on a tree, as everything about human diaspora is fluid and flowing. That was how I felt recently when I was in Washington D.C., for the denomination’s Immigration Task Force meeting.

There is much complexity in the cause, process, and consequence of the phenomena of global diaspora, and no single discipline can enable us to explain the cause or offer solutions.  Diaspora mission is interdisciplinary, vast and varied. It involves national geography, cultural anthropology, political demography, mass communication, globalization, urbanization, ethnic and race relations, and active participation of multi-religious groups and communal agents at all levels. Most importantly, diaspora mission is multi-directional and it demands multilevel coordination and collaboration. 

Now that the global community has come to realize that the governments around the world must act immediately to alleviate the sufferings of the immigrants, refugees and asylum speakers, The United Methodist Church, along with its ecumenical partners and connectional components, is also determined to step in and take an active role in this vital ministry.

Diaspora and Migration
Migration is a phenomenon that has accompanied humanity since the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. But the recent forced migration has been accelerated by modern day globalization, wars, natural disasters, and intense persecution of vulnerable minorities on account of their religious convictions and racial or ethnic identities. Today a little over three percent the world's population live in a country other than where they were born. That is estimated at 250 million, up from 195 million in 2005. Females account for 49 percent of the total. Six out of every ten international migrants reside today in developed countries, and the majority of those originated in developing countries. This reality has deep implications not only for interactions among peoples and their religious beliefs but on Christian mission as well.

Diasporic mission is relatively a new area of mission engagement for the church, as it defies conventional modes of mission engagement which is lineal and mono-directional; sending rather than receiving, absorption rather than incorporation, assimilation rather than amalgamation. Unlike traditional mission, diaspora mission puts human physical needs ahead of spiritual needs; advocacy ahead of evangelism, and contextualization ahead of church planting.

Diaspora mission operates from a non-spatial, transnational, global, and "de-territorialized” zone. The missional approach, therefore, is mobile and flexible. In other words, the site of mission engagement in diasporic context is without social, cultural and religious boundaries, which are normative in traditional mission activities. 

Believers Being In-Betweeners
The current cultural, social, linguistic and religious divides are a formidable and complicated ball of wax. They call for people who have both skill and will to transcend culture, language, and other barriers; those who can serve as “in-betweeners,” to build bridges of understanding, mediate relationships, and negotiate partnerships in ministry,” as Paul Hiebert, a missionary and a mission theologian says.

What our changed world expects from the church today is to focus its attention from mere relief work to justice and advocacy ministries beginning from addressing the root causes of the problem. 

The changed world demands a changed methodology. Just like the government agencies alert and prepare people and nations from around the world long before tsunami, tornado, earthquake, and all forms of natural disasters occur, or even before medical epidemic and human health crises break out, Christian mission groups can set up one or more research centers and prepare an ongoing data-base to alert the appropriate mission agencies and groups about the looming or emerging problems. It can be accomplished easily in collaboration with our ecumenical partners and secular prophets like environmentalists, human-rights activists and others. I am not saying that this is a utopian project but at least, it will help those who are interested in the future of the church.

In the final analysis, diasporic mission is not about doing the same thing in a better way. Better is a mirage. It keeps us tethered to the same way of doing like others do. Better is temporary. It is a flimsy edge that can be tumbled. Diasporic mission is all about avoiding the crises to take epic proportions. Addressing the root causes of the problem is to strive for long term solutions and avoid band-aid relief.

Struggle and Triumph of Grace: Jacob Dharmaraj on Grace Upon Grace: A World Transformed 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. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. Dr. Dharmaraj is commenting on the tenth section of the document, "A World Transformed By Grace." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.

Mapping the struggle:
Our world today is relentlessly threatened by ruthless tyranny, soulless greed, exploitative human trafficking, wide economic disparity, and environmental degradation. In the religious front, old models of ecclesial life and traditional forms of spiritual practices have been reduced to and deemed as antiquated and inadequate observances. Systemic barriers relating to race, class, gender, and other discriminations have created impoverished communities worldwide.

By 2050, global population will balloon to 9 billion. In coming decades, mass consumption, economic transition and limited natural resources will intensify competition for basic human necessities such as water, housing and food. It will create tension in multiple levels. It will also defy nature’s sustainability, accelerate global warming, and further endanger the fragile ecosystem.

The United States is rapidly changing. The nation will morph into a majority-minority country in a couple of generations. Our potential church membership base will change. Further, the traditional map of the aged church has become archaic and obsolete; the functional compass of our historic mission is warped and broken. The spiritual navigation system of our congregational gathering and worship has radically been altered. The religious topography has become pluralistic and new-fangled.

Contrary to the conventional notion that modernization and globalization would usher in the decline and demise of religious beliefs and practices, we watch and observe endemic resurgence of radical forms of religions in world affairs.

As a faith community, we have a great stake in preserving God’s creation for future generations, preventing any form of global disaster, and work for shalom.

Grace for grappling with the issues of our times:
We need to move beyond being mere wearers of faith badges. We must be ready to reach beyond denominational boundaries and religious fault-lines to connect with those around us – partners and allies -who are engaged in the transformation of the world. We need to be in “the womb of mutuality and we need to be swimming in the same water as everybody else” engaged in bringing about transformation.

Since the task before us is immense and monumental, our ecclesiology must have room to accommodate “secular prophets” such as environmentalists and human rights organizers who are already active in the kingdom of God.

Therefore, we need to work for the transformation of structures of injustices by critically analyzing social realities through lenses of race, class, gender, and ethnicity, and identifying the interconnected web of oppressive forces, and finally, honoring the agency of the marginalized, and working with the beleaguered in seeking a just solution. This progression involves building alliances and coalitions with secular and other faith-based agencies, collaborating on strategies for transformation, and walking in solidarity with those at the margins.

We also need to remind ourselves that change is inevitable and transformation is a choice. The path to transformation runs straight through action. This is the right time to put our knowledge into practice.  Action is a kind of everyday miracle.  Knowledge certainly helps, but transformation occurs only when we enact our ideas and implement our visions. We must bear in mind, If we want to save the drowners, we need to be swimmers.

Witnessing to Christ in times such as this:
The United Methodist Church has been called to witness to the Gospel and invite persons to experience the fullness of life Jesus Christ offers. As a first order of business, the church’s mission and ministry today is to be relevant and become effective.

I submit the following recommendations for consideration as we strive to be authentic witnesses to the Gospel:

While we, as a denomination, are determined to stay the course, we also need to create a meta-mission-theology which takes the mosaic landscape of changing migration patterns which impacts the global nature of the church, plurality of cultures, and resurgence of world religions into serious consideration. This theology also ought to interact between the global and local, intercultural and transcultural, monolingual and polyphonic, mission and evangelism, proclamation and social justice, and Christianity and other living faiths.

Since the connectivity and engagement of a vast majority of members of the UMC are un-tethered, we are to create a UM Christology that clearly defines and distinguishes our belief in Christ from other competing allegiances. A theology or a set of guidelines that blithely confess “all religions are the same” would undercut the very foundation of the church and the new and abundant life offered in Jesus Christ.

Creating and fostering synchronous collaboration between the diasporic community that is readily available in the pews and pulpits of our denomination and the denomination’s leadership at various levels, and crossing borders to employ these rich but much neglected U.M. diasporic communities would yield positive and lasting results. It would richly enhance our interactions with people of other religious faiths and in witnessing to the neo-immigrants who move into our neighborhoods as well.

Receiving the gifts from the margins of the growing church at the global south helps us, as we strive to “update” and “recalibrate” our missional engagements, I strongly believe that mutuality in mission as a designed mission theology will fill in the gap, serve as a catalyst, and enable us to confront the current storm; for mutuality doesn’t just react to crises, but proactively prevents them.

In the final analysis, we should never hesitate to migrate from the spirit of scarcity to the spirit of abundance, from the spirit of defeat to the spirit of opportunity, from the spirit of abandonment to the spirit of empowerment, and from the spirit of helplessness to the spirit of confidence and come up with contextual theological paradigms for mission today. I am convinced that the iterative theology of mission in the 21st century is the theology of mutuality.

We are not alone in this journey. The God of the Bible is with us. This is not the first time we have gone this way before. Just as T.S.Eliot has said in his poem, The Rock, “And the Church must be forever building, and always decaying, and always being restored.” We are reminded to break the shackles of the past and emphasize newness, openness, innovation in order to be transformed and be transforming. God’s abundant grace and assured presence is with us: “For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65: 17). In times such as this, may we unapologetically “account for the hope that is in us,” the grace we received in Christ (I Peter 3: 15).