Kyle Tau: Mission: The Beginning and End of Ecumenism

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Kyle R. Tau. Rev. Dr. Tau is an Ecumenical Staff Officer for the United Methodist Council of Bishops.

From top to bottom, from beginning to end, ecumenism in all its forms is fundamentally about the mission and witness of the church. This is true of the historical beginnings of the Ecumenical Movement, which we will get to below, but it is also fundamentally true about the theological grounding of ecumenism itself.

The unofficial Biblical slogan of the ecumenical movement is drawn from the first half of John 17:21. One can scarcely attend an ecumenical gathering without hearing the oft repeated phrase “that they all might be one,” echoing Jesus’ prayer for unity among all those who will believe in him. This phrase is usually pulled out of the longer prayer, sometimes giving the impression that this unity is an end in itself. In one sense, this is true. Unity among Christians expresses in history what is true eternally, that we are all one in Christ. Thus, the ecumenical goal of unity is an intrinsic good because it conforms the church to a fundamental theological truth.

Yet in another sense, unity among Christians is not unity for its own sake but unity with a purpose. Bishop David Yemba, retired bishop of the Congo Central Conference, brought this point home powerfully at a meeting of the United Methodist Committee on Faith and Order during the last quadrennium. During a discussion related to the drafting of Sent in Love: A United Methodist Understanding of the Church, Bishop Yemba stressed the importance of the next sentence in Jesus’ prayer, found in the second half John 17:21: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” So that the world may believe…

The Book of Discipline recognizes the link between ecumenism and mission in the Preamble to the Constitution stating, “The church of Jesus Christ exists in and for the world, and its very dividedness is a hindrance to its mission in that world” (2016 BOD, p. 25). In commenting on this principle from the Discipline, the Committee on Faith and Order notes in Sent in Love, “At stake, then, in the search for Christian unity is the integrity of the mission of the body of Christ as a whole. At stake, by implication, is the integrity of our United Methodist mission as part of the church universal” (Sent in Love, §102).

As a matter of core theological conviction and witness, divisions in the church strike at the very credibility of Gospel truth and thus undercut the church’s mission. Having been entrusted with a ministry and indeed a mission of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19), it is not unreasonable for an unbelieving world to expect a church that proclaims reconciliation to practice what it preaches. When the church is indifferent to unity among Christians and, worse, actively fosters hatred and division in its own ranks as well as in society, it quite literally makes the Gospel unbelievable. If Christians can’t be bothered to live up to the message of reconciliation and unity in the human family, why indeed should anyone believe that the Gospel has any real power? Here then, is the question that gives the Ecumenical Movement its urgency. It is the question that inspired the beginning of the formal ecumenical movement in the 20th century.

The Ecumenical Movement was launched by a variety of impulses. Among them were two distinct movements beginning in 1910 that continue to make up significant aspects of formal ecumenism today. In this year, Protestant churches in the United States began holding discussions under the banner of “faith and order” dialogue. The first World Conference on Faith and Order was held in 1927, and when the World Council of Churches was formed in 1948, the international faith and order movement became a standing commission of the WCC. Often when we think about formal ecumenism, it is the “faith and order” aspects that come to mind first: meeting with partner denominations (and at times in our history rival denominations) to clarify through dialogue what church dividing matters of confession and ministerial practice need to be overcome so that the church can visibly express the unity to which it is called.

Another, and equally significant, movement within ecumenism also took its start in 1910 with the first meeting of the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh. While churches were launching dialogues through the faith and order movement, they were also seeking unity in mission and evangelism on a global scale. Frustrated by centuries of ecclesiastical competition in the global mission field, the World Missionary Conferences sought to foster ecumenical cooperation in mission in tangible and practical ways that would witness to the unity of the Gospel message and create more effective and efficient missionary endeavors freed from the competing interests of denominations. The first conference in 1910 established the International Missionary Council, which merged with the WCC in 1961 and became the WCC’s Commission on World Mission and Evangelism.

It would take an army of graduate students and a series of dissertations to unpack all the ways that these impulses were also allied with global colonialist impulses of European and American societies. It also remains an open question whether after more than 100 years of seeking cooperation in mission the global rivalries and competing interests of our denominations have been significantly overcome. BUT here is the point: In its historical beginnings, formal ecumenism from the very start has largely been driven by a desire for, and in fact a deep need for, unity in mission.

It has become commonplace to identify these movements as two distinct streams of ecumenism: 1) a “faith and order” stream focused on matters of theology, sacramental practice, and ministerial orders and 2) a “life and works” stream focused on matters of mission and witness. If we aren’t careful, we might be tempted to allow these distinct streams to float free of one another, or to give priority to one over the other based on desirable programmatic “deliverables” that help us justify the cost and effort of ecumenical endeavors. Yet these two streams are unified by the commission given to the church to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19). Our practical attempts at cooperation in mission are hampered by ongoing divisions in matters of theology and ministry. The end goal of church unity on matters of faith and order is to empower a faithful witness to the Gospel in the world.

Thus, from top to bottom, from beginning to end, ecumenism in all its forms is fundamentally about the mission and witness of the church. This is true both in its historical beginnings and in its theological underpinnings. Mission is the beginning and true end of ecumenism.

Renewing Our Relationships with Affiliated Methodist Churches

Today’s post is jointly written by Rev. Dr. Kyle R. Tau, Ecumenical Staff Officer for the Council of Bishops, and Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology for Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are the authors’ own and do not reflect in any way the official positions of the Council of Bishops or Global Ministries.

The United Methodist Church is one of over 70 Methodist, Wesleyan, and United denominations around the world that have their roots in the Methodist movement beginning with John and Charles Wesley. These churches include traditionally African-American churches such as the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church and the AME Zion Church, holiness denominations such as the Church of the Nazarene and Free Methodist Church, united churches including former Methodists such as the Church of South India and the Uniting Church in Australia, and independent, nationally-based Methodist churches, most of which have a historic connection to either British or American Methodist mission.

The United Methodist Church continues to have on-going ministry partnerships with many churches in these last two categories that are based on historic ties. Many united churches and independent, nationally-based Methodist churches were once part of The United Methodist Church or its Methodist Episcopal, Methodist Episcopal South, Methodist, and Evangelical United Brethren predecessors.

Starting in 1909 and most recently in 2012, annual conferences outside the United States and occasionally entire central conferences have chosen (or have been pushed) to separate from The United Methodist Church and its predecessors. This has happened for a variety of reasons, including the desire for ecumenical mergers, local political pressures, and post-colonial impulses.

The Book of Discipline includes provisions whereby an annual conference outside the US or a central conference can, with approval by the General Conference, leave the denomination and become “autonomous,” a church polity term that means self-governing. All independent denominations are autonomous, but the process in the UMC and its predecessors often spoke of “granting autonomy” to departing portions of the church.

The Book of Discipline, however, also provides a variety of possibilities for on-going relationships between The United Methodist Church and separate Methodist denominations. Part of the process for an annual or central conference to become autonomous includes establishing the terms for such an on-going relationship.  Yet there are also other relationships that can be established between the UMC and any other separate Methodist denomination.

The Council of Bishops and Global Ministries are both primary agents of The United Methodist Church in maintaining these ecumenical partnerships with our sibling denominations. These partnerships are in many cases vibrant collaborations that facilitate a great deal of joint mission and ministry. Both the Council of Bishops and Global Ministries value other Methodist denominations as essential mission partners.

The Book of Discipline uses a variety of language to describe these partner denominations, but much of that language has not been updated in decades, and in some places, it is unclear or no longer reflects the realities of 21st century global Christianity. Therefore, the Council of Bishops and Global Ministries have jointly proposed two resolutions to General Conference 2020 to update that language - Petition # 20651 (pp. 962-964 of ADCA) and Petition 20645 (pp. 991-992 of ADCA).

These two petitions work together to change the term “affiliated autonomous Methodist church” to simply “affiliated Methodist church” and to eliminate the term “autonomous Methodist church,” a term that presently does not have a clear meaning or function in the Book of Discipline. An explanation of both changes is in order.

By changing “affiliated autonomous Methodist church” to “affiliated Methodist church,” The United Methodist Church sends a signal to its partner denominations that what is important is our on-going mutual ministry, i.e., our affiliation, and not the status of those partners as previously subject to the General Conference, i.e., having been granted autonomy. We feel that to continue to emphasize the term “autonomous” in these relationships functions primarily to re-emphasize these denominations’ previous role in a system dominated by United Methodists in the United States. In this regard, the term feels outdated – a product of the de-colonization of the middle of the 20th century and not a reflection of the equality and mutuality that we hope will characterize relationships between The United Methodist Church and partner denominations in the 21st century.

The term “autonomous” is also unnecessary in the phrase “autonomous affiliated Methodist churches.” Affiliation already implies that the two parties are separate. We do not describe annual conferences, jurisdictional conferences, or central conferences as “affiliated Methodist churches.” We reserve that language only for separate denominations. Since “affiliated” already implies separate, self-governing denominations, it is not necessary to repeat that implication by including the term “autonomous.”

The term “autonomous” is unnecessary for another reason – all denominations are autonomous, so it does not add any definitional clarity to the ecumenical relationships described in the Book of Discipline. This is a reason not only to remove it from the term “autonomous affiliated Methodist church” but to do away completely with the term “autonomous Methodist church.” That term does not have a clear and consistent meaning in the Book of Discipline, and in most instances can be either simply removed or can be replaced by more explicit references to other Methodist/Wesleyan churches.

In submitting these two petitions to General Conference, the Council of Bishops and Global Ministries hopes that these changes will create greater clarity about these valuable ecumenical relationships – greater clarity in the technical language of the Book of Discipline, but more importantly, greater clarity about the spirit of humility, equality, and partnership with which the UMC should engage other Methodist/Wesleyan denominations.

Recommended Reading: Kyle Tau on Unity, Ecumenism, and Ecclesiology

Rev. Dr. Kyle Tau,  Ecumenical Staff Officer for Faith & Order and Theological Development for the Council of Bishops of The UMC, has recently published an article in Methodist Review that connects well to many of the reflections on ecclesiology and unity UM & Global has been publishing this year.

The abstract for the article reads: "This essay explores the current conditions for church unity derived from the political and organizational culture of modernity and questions whether a new definition and form of unity is needed as modernity itself undergoes a major transformation.  It asks whether the centralizing legal and bureaucratic structures that now animate conversations around church unity ought to be retought in light of postmodern trends.  It proposes a more multi-textured form of unity as koinonia or communion made up of an overlapping network of relationships characterized by the mutual recognition of members, ministries, and sacraments.  Drawing upon the metaphor of a web or ecosystem this essay affirms the ecumenical shift to pursuing bilateral full communion agreements over large multilateral attempts at merger, and proposes that intra-Methodist unity be conceptualized as a communion of distinct connectional structures."

Articles from Methodist Review are available for free, with registration required.