In the discussion of the Way Forward and the current United Methodist debates over homosexuality, thinkers on many sides have parsed the words of the Bible, John Wesley, and Francis Asbury on the nature of and conditions for church unity. Here, I offer thoughts from another significant Methodist: missionary E. Stanley Jones. These thoughts are not meant to endorse any particular policy position in the UMC. Rather, some words from Jones on the connection between Christ and unity seemed timely at this moment of the life of the church, and in this Advent season.
"For at the central place of our experience of Jesus we are one. It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrines that divide. As someone has suggested, if you ask a congregation of Christians, "What do you believe?" there will be a chorus of conflicting beliefs, for no two persons believe exactly alike. But if the question is asked, "Whom do you trust?" then we are together. If the emphasis in our approach to Christianity is "What?" then it is divisive, but if the emphasis is "Whom?" then we are drawn together at the place of this Central Magnet. One has the tendency of the centrifugal and the other the tendency of the centripetal. He is the hub that holds together in himself the divided spokes."
"Christianity with a what-emphasis is bound to be divisive, but this tendency is lessened with a Whom-emphasis. Note the things that have created denominations in the West: baptism, human freedom, rites, ceremonies, church government, dress, orders--the points of division have been nearly all "whats." The church divided once over the "Whom," namely, in the Unitarian issue. Here it had a right to divide, for the question of who Jesus is is vital and decisive. Everything is bound up with that question."
"Do not misunderstand me: The whats of Christianity are important, a body of doctrine is bound to grow up around him [Christ]. We cannot do without doctrine, but I am so anxious for the purity of doctrine that I want it to be held in the white light of his Person and under the constant corrective of his living Mind. The only place where we can hold our doctrines pure is to hold them in the light of his countenance. Here their defects are at once apparent, but only here.
"But we must hold in mind that no doctrine, however true, no statement, however correct, no teaching, however pure, can save a man. "We are saved by a Person and only by a Person, and, as far as I know, by only one Person," said Bishop McDowell. Only Life can lift life. ...
"But further, we shall soon see that as we draw closer to him we shall be closer to each other in doctrine. Suppose the essence of Christianity is in utter devotion to Jesus, and truly following him is the test of discipleship, will not such doctrine as the new birth take on new meaning? If I am to follow such as he, I must be born again and born different. A new birth is a necessary beginning for this new life. And as for the doctrines of sanctification and the fullness of the Spirit, apart from him, they may become hollow cant, as they, in fact, have often become; but in the business of following Jesus they become, not maximum attainments, but minimum necessities. If I am to follow him, he will demand my all, and I shall not want to offer him less. Holiness has been preached very often until it has become a synonym for hollowness. The word has got loosed from Christ and has lost its meaning. Had it kept close to Christ, we would have preached less holiness and more of a Christ who makes men [sic] holy."
E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road (The Abingdon Press: New York and Cincinnati, 1925), excerpts from Chapter IX, "What or Whom?"
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Robert Hunt: The Connection Between Text and Context, Part I
Today's post is written by Dr. Robert Hunt, Director of Global Theological Education, Professor of Christian Mission and Interreligious Relations, and Director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of Theology. It is the first of a three-part series on contextualization.
Interpreters of contextualization as a theological concept often rely on a distinction between text and context to make sense of the term. Yet the Christian “text,” whether conceived of as the Bible or the Apostolic tradition normalized in the Creeds is inseparable from its context, because historically context always precedes the text, even if metaphysically the source of the text (God's Word) creates the context.
The first of this three-part series will show how this relationship characterizes the Bible and its early contexts. The second part will draw on Newbigin to suggest a different approach to the relationship between textual worldview and cultural context than those taken by previous theologies. The third part will present an understanding of inculturation that draws on these reflections and will explore what this new understanding means for the Church’s engagement with the Word about the world.
The challenge of separating text from context runs through our efforts to interpret the Bible. Take Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. In it we have a clear affirmation of the validity of Jewish law.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
In these few sentences Jesus’ text simply reiterates its context in Jewish thought. The righteousness he preaches is non-different from that of other Jewish leaders. Their problem, we learn as we read onward, isn’t that they have the wrong law. It is that they are hypocrites whose actions don’t match their words.
This sermon by Jesus was sufficiently clear that when Gentiles began to seek entry into the church a major dispute arose about whether or not they would be required to follow the complete Jewish law. The context of that debate, which we read about the Acts and the Epistles isn’t just the teaching of Jesus. The debate about the obligations of converts to know and follow the Mosaic law was also part of the Jewish context in the time of Jesus and his followers. As recounted in the Talmud, the rabbis argued over the extent to which Gentile converts to Judaism were required to keep the law. (Shabbat 31a and elsewhere) So the argument among the apostles is taking place not merely in the context of Jesus’ teaching or Peter’s vision or Paul’s call, but a longer internal Jewish argument about what was essential to Jewish identity and thus inclusion in God’s covenant.
Indeed, this context of rabbinic contestation over the meaning and purpose of Mosaic law is in the background of every single saying of Jesus about the law. Much of Jesus' teaching in this regard isn’t unique, and doesn’t set proto-Christian teaching apart from Jewish teaching. As E.P. Sanders showed decades ago, Jesus’ teaching often takes one side of an ongoing debate, so that at least initially Christians could easily be understood to be members of a Jewish sect.
The way in which this distinction between text and context problematizes concepts of contextualization can be found when we examine a paragraph of Bill Payne’s recent essay on contextualization in this forum:
"Furthermore, contextualization is not an excuse for heterodoxy or for affirming practices that apostolic tradition and the witness of Scripture have rejected. For example, the New Testament Church argued against the Judaizers who tried to force Gentile believers to follow certain Jewish practices. Additionally, it rejected many aspects of the receiving cultures. The New Testament vice lists point to the church’s engagement with Hellenistic culture and its rejection of cultural practices that were not compatible with the Gospel. Just because the culture affirms something does not mean that God will affirm the resulting practice or related belief. The gospel is for culture and against culture at the same time.”
Actually both opposition to the “Judaizers” on one hand and to Hellenistic cultural practices on the other were extensions of existing rabbinical teaching by Paul and the apostles into the realm of the Jewish Christian community. They are not the application of a distinct normative text that is now critiquing a cultural context. They are just a new community continuing to debate issues raised in an older context. There may not be anything distinctly “Christian” at work here.
I’ll push the question of what is distinctively “Christian” about the Bible further in the next post as I turn to questions about the biblical “worldview.”
Interpreters of contextualization as a theological concept often rely on a distinction between text and context to make sense of the term. Yet the Christian “text,” whether conceived of as the Bible or the Apostolic tradition normalized in the Creeds is inseparable from its context, because historically context always precedes the text, even if metaphysically the source of the text (God's Word) creates the context.
The first of this three-part series will show how this relationship characterizes the Bible and its early contexts. The second part will draw on Newbigin to suggest a different approach to the relationship between textual worldview and cultural context than those taken by previous theologies. The third part will present an understanding of inculturation that draws on these reflections and will explore what this new understanding means for the Church’s engagement with the Word about the world.
The challenge of separating text from context runs through our efforts to interpret the Bible. Take Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. In it we have a clear affirmation of the validity of Jewish law.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
In these few sentences Jesus’ text simply reiterates its context in Jewish thought. The righteousness he preaches is non-different from that of other Jewish leaders. Their problem, we learn as we read onward, isn’t that they have the wrong law. It is that they are hypocrites whose actions don’t match their words.
This sermon by Jesus was sufficiently clear that when Gentiles began to seek entry into the church a major dispute arose about whether or not they would be required to follow the complete Jewish law. The context of that debate, which we read about the Acts and the Epistles isn’t just the teaching of Jesus. The debate about the obligations of converts to know and follow the Mosaic law was also part of the Jewish context in the time of Jesus and his followers. As recounted in the Talmud, the rabbis argued over the extent to which Gentile converts to Judaism were required to keep the law. (Shabbat 31a and elsewhere) So the argument among the apostles is taking place not merely in the context of Jesus’ teaching or Peter’s vision or Paul’s call, but a longer internal Jewish argument about what was essential to Jewish identity and thus inclusion in God’s covenant.
Indeed, this context of rabbinic contestation over the meaning and purpose of Mosaic law is in the background of every single saying of Jesus about the law. Much of Jesus' teaching in this regard isn’t unique, and doesn’t set proto-Christian teaching apart from Jewish teaching. As E.P. Sanders showed decades ago, Jesus’ teaching often takes one side of an ongoing debate, so that at least initially Christians could easily be understood to be members of a Jewish sect.
The way in which this distinction between text and context problematizes concepts of contextualization can be found when we examine a paragraph of Bill Payne’s recent essay on contextualization in this forum:
"Furthermore, contextualization is not an excuse for heterodoxy or for affirming practices that apostolic tradition and the witness of Scripture have rejected. For example, the New Testament Church argued against the Judaizers who tried to force Gentile believers to follow certain Jewish practices. Additionally, it rejected many aspects of the receiving cultures. The New Testament vice lists point to the church’s engagement with Hellenistic culture and its rejection of cultural practices that were not compatible with the Gospel. Just because the culture affirms something does not mean that God will affirm the resulting practice or related belief. The gospel is for culture and against culture at the same time.”
Actually both opposition to the “Judaizers” on one hand and to Hellenistic cultural practices on the other were extensions of existing rabbinical teaching by Paul and the apostles into the realm of the Jewish Christian community. They are not the application of a distinct normative text that is now critiquing a cultural context. They are just a new community continuing to debate issues raised in an older context. There may not be anything distinctly “Christian” at work here.
I’ll push the question of what is distinctively “Christian” about the Bible further in the next post as I turn to questions about the biblical “worldview.”
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Darryl Stephens: #MyHope4Methodism
Today's post is the second in 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. While the posts will not avoid issues related to the UMC’s debate on sexuality, the goals of the series are 1) to broaden the conversation about the future of Methodism as a global, missional movement concerned with a wide range of issues, not just a set of church institutions concerned with this one issue, and 2) to identify the bright spots of hope in the United Methodist tradition. Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference. He is author of Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness (University of Tennessee Press). It is timed to coincide with the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
Voicing hope for Methodism is no light task. I’m tempted to dream big. I want to believe that United Methodists can overcome their divisions of theology, race, class, sexuality, and politics. I’m drawn toward the eschatological visions of peace and righteousness of Isaiah and the new creation proclaimed by Paul. With the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. echoing in my head, I want to shout, “I have a dream, that one day United Methodists will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” I want to believe that our slavery to sin and death will be no more. I want to believe that, one day, we will be free of division and strife within this denomination. I want to believe that Jesus’ prayer, “that they may all be one . . . so that the world may believe,” is a divine promise of unity. If Jesus is praying for us, who can be against us?
Yet, in Jesus’ prayer, I also see a warning: that division sows disbelief. That our refusal to be one body, in love and service to the Three-in-One God and our neighbor, displays a counter-witness to the truth we would proclaim. Our very efforts to guard the church, to be on the “right” side of history and the right hand of God, reveal our stubborn pride and misplaced trust in ourselves. Out of our fiery passion for purity popped a golden calf! Blinded with holy ambition and puffed up with dogmatic confidence, we wrest the task of unity from God, attempting to mold this church in our own image.
“You faithless generation,” I can hear Jesus saying once again, “how much longer must I put up with you?” Like the boy with the spirit in Mark 9, Methodism has, from its childhood, foamed and ground its teeth, unable to speak to unity in Christ. Methodists have spread the gospel far and wide, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and strived for perfection. Yet, we repeatedly attempt to structure our church as if it were up to us to control where the Holy Spirit leads and who is included in the body of Christ. Jacob survived his wrestling match with a limp and a new name. May The United Methodist Church be so blessed! Far better than another declaration of right belief would be an honest supplication to our sovereign God: “I believe; help my unbelief!”
I believe that the gospel is Good News. I believe Jesus when he said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Any so-called gospel message that does not serve the least of these, that does not prove abundantly life-giving to the poor, that does not scatter the proud or fill the hungry with good things is a curse against the gospel of Jesus Christ. True unity does not create scapegoats or countenance injustice for the sake of avoiding disruption. Embracing a cheap unity without justice is tantamount to saying, “‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” An abomination, says the Lord.
The unity for which I hope is not characterized by unanimity, sameness, or even shared mission. It is not the product of political compromise or doctrinal decree by a church council (no matter how “democratic” its representation). It does not replicate the tribalism, like-minded associations, and barriers to belonging that we hold so dearly in our finite hearts. It is not even the result of Christian conferencing, mutual recognition of baptism and ministry, or any other conciliatory or ecumenical effort. Unity in Methodism, and Christianity more broadly, is not something to be earned, deserved, or settled for. It is not of our own making.
I believe unity is a gift of God. The unity for which I hope is that of shared identity as disciples of Christ. It is with all of our differences that we encounter each other through Christ, answering his invitation to true communion. “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another.” Only then can we recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Only then are we truly empowered to “welcome one another . . . just as Christ has welcomed” us. Our common identity in and through Christ gives us the kind of unity that boasts “a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit.” It is by the Holy Spirit that we find ourselves “many members, yet one body,” tasked with giving “greater honor to the inferior member.”
Unity—this divine, common identity as children of God—is our witness. I believe that “God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,” also equips us for this ministry. I believe that in serving Christ, in seeking reconciliation and unity, we are empowered to fulfill his command to love one another, not simply tolerate each other. Is it too much to hope, as ambassadors for Christ, “that in him we might become the righteousness of God”? Not through our own righteousness but through the righteousness of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
My hope for Methodism is this unity. God, help our unbelief!
Voicing hope for Methodism is no light task. I’m tempted to dream big. I want to believe that United Methodists can overcome their divisions of theology, race, class, sexuality, and politics. I’m drawn toward the eschatological visions of peace and righteousness of Isaiah and the new creation proclaimed by Paul. With the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. echoing in my head, I want to shout, “I have a dream, that one day United Methodists will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” I want to believe that our slavery to sin and death will be no more. I want to believe that, one day, we will be free of division and strife within this denomination. I want to believe that Jesus’ prayer, “that they may all be one . . . so that the world may believe,” is a divine promise of unity. If Jesus is praying for us, who can be against us?
Yet, in Jesus’ prayer, I also see a warning: that division sows disbelief. That our refusal to be one body, in love and service to the Three-in-One God and our neighbor, displays a counter-witness to the truth we would proclaim. Our very efforts to guard the church, to be on the “right” side of history and the right hand of God, reveal our stubborn pride and misplaced trust in ourselves. Out of our fiery passion for purity popped a golden calf! Blinded with holy ambition and puffed up with dogmatic confidence, we wrest the task of unity from God, attempting to mold this church in our own image.
“You faithless generation,” I can hear Jesus saying once again, “how much longer must I put up with you?” Like the boy with the spirit in Mark 9, Methodism has, from its childhood, foamed and ground its teeth, unable to speak to unity in Christ. Methodists have spread the gospel far and wide, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and strived for perfection. Yet, we repeatedly attempt to structure our church as if it were up to us to control where the Holy Spirit leads and who is included in the body of Christ. Jacob survived his wrestling match with a limp and a new name. May The United Methodist Church be so blessed! Far better than another declaration of right belief would be an honest supplication to our sovereign God: “I believe; help my unbelief!”
I believe that the gospel is Good News. I believe Jesus when he said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Any so-called gospel message that does not serve the least of these, that does not prove abundantly life-giving to the poor, that does not scatter the proud or fill the hungry with good things is a curse against the gospel of Jesus Christ. True unity does not create scapegoats or countenance injustice for the sake of avoiding disruption. Embracing a cheap unity without justice is tantamount to saying, “‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” An abomination, says the Lord.
The unity for which I hope is not characterized by unanimity, sameness, or even shared mission. It is not the product of political compromise or doctrinal decree by a church council (no matter how “democratic” its representation). It does not replicate the tribalism, like-minded associations, and barriers to belonging that we hold so dearly in our finite hearts. It is not even the result of Christian conferencing, mutual recognition of baptism and ministry, or any other conciliatory or ecumenical effort. Unity in Methodism, and Christianity more broadly, is not something to be earned, deserved, or settled for. It is not of our own making.
I believe unity is a gift of God. The unity for which I hope is that of shared identity as disciples of Christ. It is with all of our differences that we encounter each other through Christ, answering his invitation to true communion. “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another.” Only then can we recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Only then are we truly empowered to “welcome one another . . . just as Christ has welcomed” us. Our common identity in and through Christ gives us the kind of unity that boasts “a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit.” It is by the Holy Spirit that we find ourselves “many members, yet one body,” tasked with giving “greater honor to the inferior member.”
Unity—this divine, common identity as children of God—is our witness. I believe that “God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,” also equips us for this ministry. I believe that in serving Christ, in seeking reconciliation and unity, we are empowered to fulfill his command to love one another, not simply tolerate each other. Is it too much to hope, as ambassadors for Christ, “that in him we might become the righteousness of God”? Not through our own righteousness but through the righteousness of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
My hope for Methodism is this unity. God, help our unbelief!
Thursday, January 18, 2018
David Scott: #MyHope4Methodism
UM & Global is beginning a new series that will feature 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. While the posts will not avoid issues related to the UMC’s debate on sexuality, the goals of the series are 1) to broaden the conversation about the future of Methodism as a global, missional movement concerned with a wide range of issues, not just a set of church institutions concerned with this one issue, and 2) to identify the bright spots of hope in the United Methodist tradition. Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster and Global Ministries Director of Mission Theology Dr. David W. Scott.
My hope for Methodism is that the best of our missional past will propel us into our future.
One project I have been working on lately has been coordinating the bicentennial celebration of the founding of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the earliest denomination-wide mission group in American Methodism. As part of that project, I am assembling a database of missionary biographies. (You can submit stories, too!) Certainly, Methodists have made many mistakes in our past mission. Yet, as I have read these stories, I have frequently been deeply inspired by the lives of faithful Methodists involved in mission. I hope that Methodists will continue to live out our faith in some of the same ways as these missionaries. In particular:
They loved Jesus. While missionaries operated with a variety of theologies, the best of them had a deep-seated spirituality fueled by their love of Jesus. In good Methodist fashion, that love motivated them to show their love through actions. Methodist missionaries worked hard, risked much, suffered and even died, opened themselves up to new places and new ways of seeing the world. All of this would not have been possible without a sustaining love of Jesus. I hope Methodists will continue to have such a sustaining, motivating love of Jesus.
They loved other people. The best Methodist missionaries were not only overflowing with love for Jesus, but love for the people with whom they worked, inside and outside the church. Whether that love was that of the privileged who came to understand, care for, and champion the causes of the oppressed with whom they worked or that of those who rose up from disadvantaged backgrounds to help their communities, no good mission was ever done without love. I hope Methodists will continue to love not just each other, but the individuals and the world outside their doors.
They broke barriers. There are so many inspiring stories of Methodist women and people of color from around the world who did things no woman or person of color had before because they were Methodist missionaries. They took authority from the Holy Spirit, did what others said they couldn't, went where others said they shouldn't, and accomplished what others said they wouldn't. In so doing, they proved that God was working through them, too. I hope that Methodist women and Methodists of color will continue to claim their equal part in the church and the world.
They tried new things. Methodist missionaries sought to be faithful to their Methodism. But they understood that doing so meant being willing to try new things - new forms of mission, new ways of organizing church, new activities in the broader society, new relationships, new ways of thinking, etc. They even tried new things, failed, and then went right on trying. They understood that faithfulness wasn't in tension with trying new things; it required it. Missionaries opened themselves up to change and were agents of change in the church and world. I hope that Methodists will continue to be open to being faithful in new ways.
They showed the breadth and strength of Methodism. Methodism is a big tradition. As a religious movement that has been around for 300 years, spans a multitude of countries and cultures, and currently includes over 80 million people, there are a lot of different ways, past and present, to be Methodist. Yet at the same time, there are also "family resemblances," if you will. Reading missionary biographies shows both the diversity and the resemblances within Methodism and the value of both. Methodist missionaries have inspired me by showing the many, many ways in which they brought God's love to the world. This dizzying, dazzling array of mission gives me not just one hope for Methodism, but a whole host of hopes, as vast as the night sky.
My hope for Methodism is that the best of our missional past will propel us into our future.
One project I have been working on lately has been coordinating the bicentennial celebration of the founding of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the earliest denomination-wide mission group in American Methodism. As part of that project, I am assembling a database of missionary biographies. (You can submit stories, too!) Certainly, Methodists have made many mistakes in our past mission. Yet, as I have read these stories, I have frequently been deeply inspired by the lives of faithful Methodists involved in mission. I hope that Methodists will continue to live out our faith in some of the same ways as these missionaries. In particular:
They loved Jesus. While missionaries operated with a variety of theologies, the best of them had a deep-seated spirituality fueled by their love of Jesus. In good Methodist fashion, that love motivated them to show their love through actions. Methodist missionaries worked hard, risked much, suffered and even died, opened themselves up to new places and new ways of seeing the world. All of this would not have been possible without a sustaining love of Jesus. I hope Methodists will continue to have such a sustaining, motivating love of Jesus.
They loved other people. The best Methodist missionaries were not only overflowing with love for Jesus, but love for the people with whom they worked, inside and outside the church. Whether that love was that of the privileged who came to understand, care for, and champion the causes of the oppressed with whom they worked or that of those who rose up from disadvantaged backgrounds to help their communities, no good mission was ever done without love. I hope Methodists will continue to love not just each other, but the individuals and the world outside their doors.
They broke barriers. There are so many inspiring stories of Methodist women and people of color from around the world who did things no woman or person of color had before because they were Methodist missionaries. They took authority from the Holy Spirit, did what others said they couldn't, went where others said they shouldn't, and accomplished what others said they wouldn't. In so doing, they proved that God was working through them, too. I hope that Methodist women and Methodists of color will continue to claim their equal part in the church and the world.
They tried new things. Methodist missionaries sought to be faithful to their Methodism. But they understood that doing so meant being willing to try new things - new forms of mission, new ways of organizing church, new activities in the broader society, new relationships, new ways of thinking, etc. They even tried new things, failed, and then went right on trying. They understood that faithfulness wasn't in tension with trying new things; it required it. Missionaries opened themselves up to change and were agents of change in the church and world. I hope that Methodists will continue to be open to being faithful in new ways.
They showed the breadth and strength of Methodism. Methodism is a big tradition. As a religious movement that has been around for 300 years, spans a multitude of countries and cultures, and currently includes over 80 million people, there are a lot of different ways, past and present, to be Methodist. Yet at the same time, there are also "family resemblances," if you will. Reading missionary biographies shows both the diversity and the resemblances within Methodism and the value of both. Methodist missionaries have inspired me by showing the many, many ways in which they brought God's love to the world. This dizzying, dazzling array of mission gives me not just one hope for Methodism, but a whole host of hopes, as vast as the night sky.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
The Middle and the Margins in Methodism
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
American United Methodists seem to have generally come to accept that the proposal of the Commission on a Way Forward will include some sort of “loosening” of the connection that involves separate structures for different groups of American United Methodists under a common umbrella. This being seen as fait accompli, the debate among American United Methodists has shifted to one between conservative incompatibilists (i.e., those opposed to gay marriage and ordination and are unwilling to live in the same structure as those in favor) and compatibilists (i.e., those of whatever opinion on homosexuality who are willing to live in the same structure with those of different opinions).
This debate has progressed along two main lines – one structural and one rhetorical.
The structural question is whether the US should be split into two or three sub-denominations. Many conservative incompatibilists would like the denomination to split into two – a “progressive” denomination for those unwilling to live with the current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to be small, and an “orthodox” denomination that continues current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to contain the majority of the current US church. Conservative compatibilists assume that they would be positioned to control this orthodox-majority church.
Many compatibilists, however, would like the US church to split into three – an “orthodox” denomination for those seeking hardline prohibitions against homosexuality, a “progressive” denomination for those seeking immediate full inclusion of gays and lesbians, and the rest of the denomination, presumed to be the majority, which would tolerate a diversity of opinions, perhaps through some sort of local option. Compatibilists assume both orthodox and progressive churches would be small and they would be positioned to control the tolerant majority church. Thus, the fight between conservative incompatibilists and moderate compatibilists is over who will have control over the majority of the US church.
Along with this basic fight for control through structural arrangements has been a rhetorical fight over which group is the “middle” in United Methodism. American moderate compatibilists claim that, by willing to engage people of all opinions, they are in the middle of American Methodist views on sexuality. American conservative incompatibilists claim that they actually are a majority of American Methodists and, if not, they are certainly in the middle of United Methodist views on homosexuality globally.
Thus, this debate is, at heart, a debate about being in the center and therefore having the power to determine the rules for those on the periphery. Moreover, it is clear that for both sides of the debate, United Methodists in the central conferences and progressive American United Methodists are not at the center and therefore should not have the power to determine the rules for the rest of the denomination or even, in some cases, themselves.* Thus, center/periphery functions as both a geographic and a theological distinction.
There are, however, two good, theological reasons to question both sides’ framing of this debate and their objectives within it.
First, one may take issue with the central objective of being at the center and wielding power. Jesus cautions, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” This is not an invitation to seek the center. Paul adds, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” because we follow “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” Seeking the center is not seeking to be like the crucified Christ.
This rush to the center and avoidance of the margins also goes against the best in contemporary theological reflection on mission. The margins are often where we best encounter God and where God does some of God’s best work. As Together Towards Life states, “We affirm that marginalized people are agents of mission and exercise a prophetic role which emphasizes that fullness of life is for all. The marginalized in society are the main partners in God’s mission.” Seeking the center can take us away from participating in God’s mission.
Second, one may take issue with how the wielding of power is conceived. In Mark 10, Jesus says, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” For Jesus, being a ruler, being great, being at the center, is not about “lording it over” those at the margins; it’s about serving them.
Cast in secular political terms, several commentators have expressed sentiments to the effect that the true moral test of a democracy is how it treats its minorities. The United Methodist Church is a democracy and moreover one that is not set up well to impose the will of the majority upon a substantial minority; hence the large amount of local disregard for General Conference directives.
This is not to say a church can’t set boundaries to its teaching or membership, but does mean that those who would see themselves at the center, whether conservative or moderate on issues of sexuality, should ask themselves what they are willing to do to support the mission, ministry, and spiritual development of those at the margins, whether that’s Filipinos, racial minorities in the US, Africans, American progressives, or Europeans. Last weekend's events in Charlottesville dramatically demonstrate how threatened those at the margins can be from systems of sin and oppression. How can those in the Methodist middle, as John Wesley would say, first do no harm to minority groups and second do good to minority groups’ ministries so that all may stay (and grow) in love with God?
Both sides in the current UMC debate accuse each other of accommodating to the world while proudly proclaiming the counter-cultural witness of their own side. More than anything, the world seeks power and privilege. True Christian witness that goes against the ways of the world seeks humility and gives power away.
*Conservative American incompatibilists say that Africans should be allowed to determine the rules on the issue of homosexuality, where they agree with conservative Americans, but by and large conservative American United Methodists do not argue that we should follow Africans’ lead in other regards, expect perhaps an emphasis on revivalism, which is already a value for conservative Americans and thus not something that they support because they were led to it by Africans. American compatibilists largely do not talk about non-American United Methodists.
American United Methodists seem to have generally come to accept that the proposal of the Commission on a Way Forward will include some sort of “loosening” of the connection that involves separate structures for different groups of American United Methodists under a common umbrella. This being seen as fait accompli, the debate among American United Methodists has shifted to one between conservative incompatibilists (i.e., those opposed to gay marriage and ordination and are unwilling to live in the same structure as those in favor) and compatibilists (i.e., those of whatever opinion on homosexuality who are willing to live in the same structure with those of different opinions).
This debate has progressed along two main lines – one structural and one rhetorical.
The structural question is whether the US should be split into two or three sub-denominations. Many conservative incompatibilists would like the denomination to split into two – a “progressive” denomination for those unwilling to live with the current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to be small, and an “orthodox” denomination that continues current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to contain the majority of the current US church. Conservative compatibilists assume that they would be positioned to control this orthodox-majority church.
Many compatibilists, however, would like the US church to split into three – an “orthodox” denomination for those seeking hardline prohibitions against homosexuality, a “progressive” denomination for those seeking immediate full inclusion of gays and lesbians, and the rest of the denomination, presumed to be the majority, which would tolerate a diversity of opinions, perhaps through some sort of local option. Compatibilists assume both orthodox and progressive churches would be small and they would be positioned to control the tolerant majority church. Thus, the fight between conservative incompatibilists and moderate compatibilists is over who will have control over the majority of the US church.
Along with this basic fight for control through structural arrangements has been a rhetorical fight over which group is the “middle” in United Methodism. American moderate compatibilists claim that, by willing to engage people of all opinions, they are in the middle of American Methodist views on sexuality. American conservative incompatibilists claim that they actually are a majority of American Methodists and, if not, they are certainly in the middle of United Methodist views on homosexuality globally.
Thus, this debate is, at heart, a debate about being in the center and therefore having the power to determine the rules for those on the periphery. Moreover, it is clear that for both sides of the debate, United Methodists in the central conferences and progressive American United Methodists are not at the center and therefore should not have the power to determine the rules for the rest of the denomination or even, in some cases, themselves.* Thus, center/periphery functions as both a geographic and a theological distinction.
There are, however, two good, theological reasons to question both sides’ framing of this debate and their objectives within it.
First, one may take issue with the central objective of being at the center and wielding power. Jesus cautions, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” This is not an invitation to seek the center. Paul adds, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” because we follow “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” Seeking the center is not seeking to be like the crucified Christ.
This rush to the center and avoidance of the margins also goes against the best in contemporary theological reflection on mission. The margins are often where we best encounter God and where God does some of God’s best work. As Together Towards Life states, “We affirm that marginalized people are agents of mission and exercise a prophetic role which emphasizes that fullness of life is for all. The marginalized in society are the main partners in God’s mission.” Seeking the center can take us away from participating in God’s mission.
Second, one may take issue with how the wielding of power is conceived. In Mark 10, Jesus says, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” For Jesus, being a ruler, being great, being at the center, is not about “lording it over” those at the margins; it’s about serving them.
Cast in secular political terms, several commentators have expressed sentiments to the effect that the true moral test of a democracy is how it treats its minorities. The United Methodist Church is a democracy and moreover one that is not set up well to impose the will of the majority upon a substantial minority; hence the large amount of local disregard for General Conference directives.
This is not to say a church can’t set boundaries to its teaching or membership, but does mean that those who would see themselves at the center, whether conservative or moderate on issues of sexuality, should ask themselves what they are willing to do to support the mission, ministry, and spiritual development of those at the margins, whether that’s Filipinos, racial minorities in the US, Africans, American progressives, or Europeans. Last weekend's events in Charlottesville dramatically demonstrate how threatened those at the margins can be from systems of sin and oppression. How can those in the Methodist middle, as John Wesley would say, first do no harm to minority groups and second do good to minority groups’ ministries so that all may stay (and grow) in love with God?
Both sides in the current UMC debate accuse each other of accommodating to the world while proudly proclaiming the counter-cultural witness of their own side. More than anything, the world seeks power and privilege. True Christian witness that goes against the ways of the world seeks humility and gives power away.
*Conservative American incompatibilists say that Africans should be allowed to determine the rules on the issue of homosexuality, where they agree with conservative Americans, but by and large conservative American United Methodists do not argue that we should follow Africans’ lead in other regards, expect perhaps an emphasis on revivalism, which is already a value for conservative Americans and thus not something that they support because they were led to it by Africans. American compatibilists largely do not talk about non-American United Methodists.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
William Payne: Jesus is every race
Today's post is by guest blogger William P. Payne, the Harlan and Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions at Ashland Theological Seminary.
In reference to the misguided “Jesus was White” comment, I affirm that God is always culture-specific when God interacts with humans. The incarnation illustrates this truth. Historically, Jesus came as a Jew, a tangible human with a real body that contained DNA. By American standards, Semites are classified as White because the term refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Granted, such categories diminish ethnic diversity and build upon a false premise. For instance, how much does a Romani (Gypsy) have in common with an Afrikaner or an Albanian with an Arab? Still, the social construction of race persists and must be acknowledge as an unfortunate fact.
Fortuitously, the church proclaims that Christ is not limited by social constraints or bound by race categories. That is why he takes on the likeness of a variety of peoples when the gospel is properly incarnated in their midst. In the same way that Paul adopted a missionary strategy to become all things to all people (I Cor 9:19-23), Jesus enters into the cultural reality of all peoples when the church adopts culture-specific methods of witnessing to him. He is not foreign to any people! Furthermore, no one should have to cross cultural boundaries to encounter him. He is Asian & African, Latino & mulatto.
Since Jesus is a personal Savior, it is OK for people to think of him in culture-specific ways as long as they do not attempt to restrict Christ to their culture or require others to convert to their enculturated Christ in order to have a relationship with him. At the same time, because the UMC attempts to make disciples of all people groups (Matt 28:19), we want people of every ethnic, national, and racial category to have an authentic, culture specific encounter with the risen Lord.
In sum, since God is culture specific in his dealings with humanity, the UMC needs to take the concept of culture seriously without falling into the sin of ethnocentrism. Regardless, UM clergy can never be satisfied with a monocultural Christ because we are in the business of giving Christ away as we actively seek to translate him into other cultural categories in word and deed.
Merry Christmas to all who wonder after the incarnation.
In reference to the misguided “Jesus was White” comment, I affirm that God is always culture-specific when God interacts with humans. The incarnation illustrates this truth. Historically, Jesus came as a Jew, a tangible human with a real body that contained DNA. By American standards, Semites are classified as White because the term refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Granted, such categories diminish ethnic diversity and build upon a false premise. For instance, how much does a Romani (Gypsy) have in common with an Afrikaner or an Albanian with an Arab? Still, the social construction of race persists and must be acknowledge as an unfortunate fact.
Fortuitously, the church proclaims that Christ is not limited by social constraints or bound by race categories. That is why he takes on the likeness of a variety of peoples when the gospel is properly incarnated in their midst. In the same way that Paul adopted a missionary strategy to become all things to all people (I Cor 9:19-23), Jesus enters into the cultural reality of all peoples when the church adopts culture-specific methods of witnessing to him. He is not foreign to any people! Furthermore, no one should have to cross cultural boundaries to encounter him. He is Asian & African, Latino & mulatto.
Since Jesus is a personal Savior, it is OK for people to think of him in culture-specific ways as long as they do not attempt to restrict Christ to their culture or require others to convert to their enculturated Christ in order to have a relationship with him. At the same time, because the UMC attempts to make disciples of all people groups (Matt 28:19), we want people of every ethnic, national, and racial category to have an authentic, culture specific encounter with the risen Lord.
In sum, since God is culture specific in his dealings with humanity, the UMC needs to take the concept of culture seriously without falling into the sin of ethnocentrism. Regardless, UM clergy can never be satisfied with a monocultural Christ because we are in the business of giving Christ away as we actively seek to translate him into other cultural categories in word and deed.
Merry Christmas to all who wonder after the incarnation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)