Today's post is by Rev. Lisa Beth White, founder of Sister of Hope Ministries, an organization that exists to equip and support short-term mission teams, churches and non-profit organizations with training, resources and evaluation tools with the aim of enabling the faithful practice of Christian mission. This piece is reposted with permission from the author's personal site.
John Wesley established three general rules for the earliest Methodist societies. The modern phrasing of his rules is: Do no harm, do all the good you can, and stay in love with God. The societies were small groups of people who sought spiritual renewal through gathering in small groups to pray, study scripture together, and to go out into their daily lives to intentionally help others. These groups were in addition to usual Sunday worship, and many United Methodists today still gather in small groups to pray, to study, and to be in mission together. But now we are told that to protect the most vulnerable among us we are to NOT meet in groups, we are not to gather together for worship, and we most certainly should not travel. We should practice social distancing. A hard thing to do for faithful people who desire to show love for God and neighbor by being present with one another. How do we do no harm and still do all the good we had planned to do?
One of the underlying assumptions about short-term mission work is that we have the freedom to travel and be with people in their time of need. This is why Early Response Teams have trailers packed with equipment and tools to go at a moment’s notice to an area affected by an earthquake or tornado. This is why teams of volunteers keep their passports up to date and stay in communication with their denominational partners in other countries. Yet in this moment in which a virus has spread across the globe, we are told that we must not travel, we must restrict our freedom so that others will be safe. We must practice social distancing to reduce the curve of infection spread so that hospitals and doctors’ offices can cope with the numbers of those who fall critically ill, and hopefully to keep those who are most at risk safe.
In the last week, there are many United Methodists who are coming to terms with the news that our next General Conference, in which we were to take up legislation that might result in our denomination splitting, is to be postponed. Many of my United Methodist friends have shared their initial reactions on social media. But there are other stories that aren’t making headlines or being shared widely on social media - particularly, conversations being held in churches about whether or how to proceed with their planned short-term mission trips. Is it safe for our team and our hosts if we go? How can we help if we don’t go? How can we show the love of God and neighbor if we don’t go?
Now is a good time for people to reflect on the deeper meaning of mission. We can still gather via phone calls or video conferencing. We can still pray together and study together. This is a good time to pause for a deep dive into scripture and mission theology, to equip ourselves for when we return to showing God’s love through our sweat and labor. This is a moment of holy opportunity.
Recently I visited Haw Creek Commons in Asheville, North Carolina. They have a small labyrinth painted on the floor of the coworking space. The nearby elementary school had just let out and a few children came into the room on their way to piano lessons, others to take a break from the playground outside. They were drawn to the labyrinth, and all of them ran around the path. Run to the center, laugh, turn around and run back out again. They were enthusiastic and joyful!
Short-term mission work can draw us in like those joyful children on the labyrinth. Our enthusiasm and joy in the work of helping our neighbors are shown in how quickly we respond to needs and how eagerly we set aside our usual routine for hammers and nails, saws and paintbrushes. Our time is used up in planning meetings, traveling, dividing up into work teams, working hard to finish tasks for our new friends, and then traveling home to wash laundry and get back to our regular routines. Like school children running the labyrinth, we rush in and out, not resting in the center.
This is a moment in which we can stop and rest in the center, to prayerfully consider how it is that Christ is calling us to be the church in mission. It can be a time to reflect together on your mission engagment - with members of your church, with your mission partners, and with outside facilitators like Sister of Hope Ministries. Be prayerful and patient, friends. God is with us, now and always, dispersed or together, and we are the sheep of God’s pasture.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label Lisa Beth White. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lisa Beth White. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Lisa Beth White: UMVIM and Theological Reflection, Part 2
Today's post is by Rev. Lisa Beth White. Rev. White is founder of Sister of Hope Ministries and a United Methodist clergyperson serving in Western North Carolina. This post is part of an on-going UM & Global series on UMVIM and short-term mission.
What is it about short-term mission trips that so many people go on them over and over again? Are they fulfilling their own individual desires for a spiritual pilgrimage, or is there more to it? Robert Haynes suggests that there has been a shift within UMVIM trips away from mission and toward pilgrimage experience, but I argue that the phenomenon of short-term mission in the UMC is a practice of the faith for lay people that reveals their theological work.
Short Term Mission as Christian Practice
By “practice of the faith” I mean what people do in living out their faith. Craig Dykstra and Dorothy Bass state that “Christian practices are things people do together over time to address fundamental human needs in response to and in light of God’s active presence for the life of the world.”[1]
Short-term mission is one way that United Methodist lay people seek to address human needs together in response to God’s presence in their own lives and in the lives of others in the world. The decision to participate in the practice of short-term mission is their way of responding to God’s gracious activity in their own lives and one way in which they can embody God’s grace and love for others. In my research with UMVIM participants, the foundation for their decision to go and serve in mission was their conviction that they needed to find a way to show God’s grace to others, whether this work was in their own community or in a community several hours away.
Four Components of Practices
Theologians Miroslav Volf and Dorothy Bass describe four key components of Christian practices that are helpful in understanding the short-term mission movement. First, practices resist the separation of thinking from acting. This component helps us to understand one reason why it is difficult for lay people to articulate their theological foundations for short-term mission. Short-term mission is often described as love in action. Unless people are asked to discuss their experience in short-term mission and allowed time to engage their own questions, they tend to not separate out the action of being in mission from their thinking about mission.
A second component of Christian practices is that they are social and belong to groups of people across generations. Short-term mission in in the UMC is a group activity. When asked how they first became involved in the practice of short-term mission, people in my research most often say that they had a conversation with a family member or friend. Several people reported that they talked with their teenaged or college student children who invited them to join the next mission trip. Others reported including their grandchildren on mission trips.
A third component of Christian practices is that they are rooted in the past but continually adapting to changing circumstances. This is particularly evident in the case of the practice of short-term mission. The rise of the practice of UMVIM coincides with the rise of increased access to affordable air travel and new ways of communication. Lay people have the ability to be in contact with Christians in other places in the world in ways that were not possible a few decades ago, and they can with ease step outside the traditional guidance of mission boards and agencies. The practice of being in mission has adapted to changed circumstances, but in the case of the UMC the means of providing mission education has not yet adapted to new realities.
A final component of Christian practices is that they “articulate wisdom that is in the keeping of practitioners who do not think of themselves as theologians.” This point became abundantly clear in my research interviews, when nearly every person interviewed dismissed the idea that they had anything to contribute to a theology of mission. The overriding view was that theology was something done at seminaries by trained professionals, and yet according to the United Methodist statement on “Our Theological Task”, the work of theological reflection “requires the participation of all who are in our Church, lay and ordained, because the mission of the Church is to be carried out by everyone who is called to discipleship.”[2]
Practice and Theological Reflection
UMVIM is an important way to discover the wisdom and mission theology of lay people in the UMC. Rather than a pilgrimage experience in which a person seeks a religious experience outside of the home, those practicing short-term mission are seeking to live out their faith and to reflect theologically on God’s work both at home and around the world. Our Theological Task states that United Methodists are to “incorporate the promises and demands of the gospel into their daily lives”, and it is through the experience of a short-term mission trip that challenges and deepens discipleship that practitioners are made more aware of the demands of the gospel in their daily lives wherever they may go.[3]
Dr. Haynes is correct when he states that “theologies shape motivations and motivations shape actions,” and this is essential to understanding short-term mission as a practice of faith and a venue for theological reflection. Theologies inform the things we do as Christians, and the things we do as we live out our faith also inform our theologies. Beliefs shape practice, and practice provides space for deeper understanding of beliefs. Beliefs about how God reaches out in mission to the world shape how and why lay people practice short-term mission, and the experience of short-term mission further shapes how people understand God at work in the world and in their hearts. This is not a one-way path but a cycle of mutual influence.
Equipping Practitioners
What has been needed for many years is a sustained focus on mission education for all age groups in the United Methodist church. Although Global Ministries and UMW have published many fine statements and texts on theology of mission, these are not reaching the majority of practitioners of short-term mission in the denomination. It is time for curriculum and teaching methods to adapt so that UMVIM practitioners can access materials and tools for reflection on their experience in mission.
Once we understand the theological foundations of lay practitioners of mission as a source of wisdom within the church, it becomes clear that their experience and theological contributions are important for the church. UMVIM practitioners are people of compassion who seek to show the love of God for a hurting world. At a time when headlines about the United Methodist Church are about deep divisions, UMVIM practitioners quietly go about the work of mission, helping their neighbors near and far.
If they were equipped to speak with confidence about their experiences and their understanding of God at work in the world, they would be a broad witness for the church. Their conversations with friends at home would inspire others to look for the needs in their communities, to find ways to bridge the gaps, and to talk about God’s grace with each other. Here are people who are already witnessing to the love and grace of Christ. Equipping and encouraging this group could provide opportunities for renewal and revitalization.
The church must be in mission. Lay people are finding ways to be in mission because of their faith. It is time to adapt and equip them to continue to be the church, participating in God’s mission in, to, and for the world.
What is it about short-term mission trips that so many people go on them over and over again? Are they fulfilling their own individual desires for a spiritual pilgrimage, or is there more to it? Robert Haynes suggests that there has been a shift within UMVIM trips away from mission and toward pilgrimage experience, but I argue that the phenomenon of short-term mission in the UMC is a practice of the faith for lay people that reveals their theological work.
Short Term Mission as Christian Practice
By “practice of the faith” I mean what people do in living out their faith. Craig Dykstra and Dorothy Bass state that “Christian practices are things people do together over time to address fundamental human needs in response to and in light of God’s active presence for the life of the world.”[1]
Short-term mission is one way that United Methodist lay people seek to address human needs together in response to God’s presence in their own lives and in the lives of others in the world. The decision to participate in the practice of short-term mission is their way of responding to God’s gracious activity in their own lives and one way in which they can embody God’s grace and love for others. In my research with UMVIM participants, the foundation for their decision to go and serve in mission was their conviction that they needed to find a way to show God’s grace to others, whether this work was in their own community or in a community several hours away.
Four Components of Practices
Theologians Miroslav Volf and Dorothy Bass describe four key components of Christian practices that are helpful in understanding the short-term mission movement. First, practices resist the separation of thinking from acting. This component helps us to understand one reason why it is difficult for lay people to articulate their theological foundations for short-term mission. Short-term mission is often described as love in action. Unless people are asked to discuss their experience in short-term mission and allowed time to engage their own questions, they tend to not separate out the action of being in mission from their thinking about mission.
A second component of Christian practices is that they are social and belong to groups of people across generations. Short-term mission in in the UMC is a group activity. When asked how they first became involved in the practice of short-term mission, people in my research most often say that they had a conversation with a family member or friend. Several people reported that they talked with their teenaged or college student children who invited them to join the next mission trip. Others reported including their grandchildren on mission trips.
A third component of Christian practices is that they are rooted in the past but continually adapting to changing circumstances. This is particularly evident in the case of the practice of short-term mission. The rise of the practice of UMVIM coincides with the rise of increased access to affordable air travel and new ways of communication. Lay people have the ability to be in contact with Christians in other places in the world in ways that were not possible a few decades ago, and they can with ease step outside the traditional guidance of mission boards and agencies. The practice of being in mission has adapted to changed circumstances, but in the case of the UMC the means of providing mission education has not yet adapted to new realities.
A final component of Christian practices is that they “articulate wisdom that is in the keeping of practitioners who do not think of themselves as theologians.” This point became abundantly clear in my research interviews, when nearly every person interviewed dismissed the idea that they had anything to contribute to a theology of mission. The overriding view was that theology was something done at seminaries by trained professionals, and yet according to the United Methodist statement on “Our Theological Task”, the work of theological reflection “requires the participation of all who are in our Church, lay and ordained, because the mission of the Church is to be carried out by everyone who is called to discipleship.”[2]
Practice and Theological Reflection
UMVIM is an important way to discover the wisdom and mission theology of lay people in the UMC. Rather than a pilgrimage experience in which a person seeks a religious experience outside of the home, those practicing short-term mission are seeking to live out their faith and to reflect theologically on God’s work both at home and around the world. Our Theological Task states that United Methodists are to “incorporate the promises and demands of the gospel into their daily lives”, and it is through the experience of a short-term mission trip that challenges and deepens discipleship that practitioners are made more aware of the demands of the gospel in their daily lives wherever they may go.[3]
Dr. Haynes is correct when he states that “theologies shape motivations and motivations shape actions,” and this is essential to understanding short-term mission as a practice of faith and a venue for theological reflection. Theologies inform the things we do as Christians, and the things we do as we live out our faith also inform our theologies. Beliefs shape practice, and practice provides space for deeper understanding of beliefs. Beliefs about how God reaches out in mission to the world shape how and why lay people practice short-term mission, and the experience of short-term mission further shapes how people understand God at work in the world and in their hearts. This is not a one-way path but a cycle of mutual influence.
Equipping Practitioners
What has been needed for many years is a sustained focus on mission education for all age groups in the United Methodist church. Although Global Ministries and UMW have published many fine statements and texts on theology of mission, these are not reaching the majority of practitioners of short-term mission in the denomination. It is time for curriculum and teaching methods to adapt so that UMVIM practitioners can access materials and tools for reflection on their experience in mission.
Once we understand the theological foundations of lay practitioners of mission as a source of wisdom within the church, it becomes clear that their experience and theological contributions are important for the church. UMVIM practitioners are people of compassion who seek to show the love of God for a hurting world. At a time when headlines about the United Methodist Church are about deep divisions, UMVIM practitioners quietly go about the work of mission, helping their neighbors near and far.
If they were equipped to speak with confidence about their experiences and their understanding of God at work in the world, they would be a broad witness for the church. Their conversations with friends at home would inspire others to look for the needs in their communities, to find ways to bridge the gaps, and to talk about God’s grace with each other. Here are people who are already witnessing to the love and grace of Christ. Equipping and encouraging this group could provide opportunities for renewal and revitalization.
The church must be in mission. Lay people are finding ways to be in mission because of their faith. It is time to adapt and equip them to continue to be the church, participating in God’s mission in, to, and for the world.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Lisa Beth White: UMVIM and Theological Reflection, Part 1
Today's post is by Rev. Lisa Beth White. Rev. White is founder of Sister of Hope Ministries and a United Methodist clergyperson serving in Western North Carolina. This post is part of an on-going UM & Global series on UMVIM and short-term mission.
The recent series on short-term mission in the United Methodist Church (UMVIM) brought to light a long-neglected educational opportunity in the denomination. Four of our jurisdictional UMVIM coordinators shared from their experiences in short-term mission, and Robert Haynes provided his critique of short-term mission, in particular, the lack of theological discourse on the practice of mission.
Tammy Kuntz wrote in the first post for this series on short-term mission in the UMC that the first organizing efforts for short-term mission began in 1972, flowing from the growing movement of lay volunteers in the Southeast Jurisdiction. That year the General Conference of the UMC adopted a new statement to be included in our Book of Discipline in the section on our doctrines.
That statement was titled Our Theological Task, and it described a connection between our Wesleyan understanding of grace and our action in the world. Our Theological Task stated that our General Rules remind us that inward assurance of God’s grace “is bound to show itself outwardly in good works. By joining heart and hand, United Methodists have stressed that personal salvation leads always to involvement in Christian mission in the world.” Most importantly for the practice of short-term mission, Our Theological Task asserted that “personal religion, evangelical witness, and Christian social action are reciprocal and mutually reinforcing.”[1]
Locating Weaknesses
United Methodist short-term mission has, from the very beginning, been a practice in which lay people have let their personal salvation lead them into involvement in Christian mission. UMVIM is one way in which United Methodists join their hearts and hands, putting their faith into action for others. There are weaknesses within the practice of short-term mission in the UMC, but these weaknesses lie in the failures of the clergy and denomination to provide resources and encouragement for the reciprocal relationship between personal religion, evangelical witness and Christian social action.
After the initial organization of volunteer mission efforts in 1972, eight years passed until General Conference affirmed “the concept of volunteers in mission as an authentic form of personal missionary involvement” and eight more years until annual conferences were encouraged to have UMVIM coordinators on staff. It took another eight years for the program to officially become part of the work of the GBGM, and yet another four years before financial support for jurisdictional staff was provided.
Is it any wonder that when we ask lay people to talk about their short-term mission experience, they struggle to put their experience into words? Is it any wonder that many United Methodist churches do not utilize denominational connections when the denomination was so slow to recognize and support their work?
The hesitation of lay volunteers in mission to cite scripture or explicitly state their theological motivations does not mean that there is no theological foundation, as Dr. Haynes suggests. United Methodists who participate in short-term mission experiences are instead, living out Our Theological Task. Their work is a practice of their Christian faith, grounded in their theological convictions. The act of being in mission and the experience of personal faith are reciprocal; they inform and reinforce each other. This mutual reinforcement is the space where the United Methodists Church can improve both its mission education efforts and the practice of short-term mission.
Needed Resources
Lay people have taken Our Theological Task seriously. Moved by the suffering of people in their neighborhoods and in other countries, they have put their faith into tangible action. Our Theological Task argues for a robust faith that is active. It is “contextual and incarnational.” Faith is meant to be lived out in the world, in our neighborhoods and with others. The experience of a short-term mission trip can help people to participate in God’s mission in, to and for the world. According to Our Theological Task, our “theological reflection is energized by our incarnational involvement in the daily life of the Church and the world, as we participate in God’s liberating and saving action.”[2]
Short-term mission is a practice of lay persons that offers an opportunity to energize their theological reflection – however, even as Volunteers in Mission seek to live out their theological task, the church has not equipped them to trust in their own ability to be theological thinkers. This is a failure of resources, not a failure of theological foundations. The United Methodist Church has the potential to build on the practice of short-term mission by acknowledging the deep faith of the practitioners and equipping them with the tools for theological reflection.
My research interviews with VIM team members revealed a reluctance to claim their knowledge of scripture, and yet interviewees often quoted three or four scriptures in a single sentence to describe why they go on mission trips. They go to love their neighbors wherever they may be found in this globalized world. They go to share the love of Christ. They go to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. They go because they see someone in need and know they cannot walk by on the other side, ignoring a person who is suffering. There was no lack of scripture informing their participation in short-term mission; there was, rather, a lack of assurance of their own ability to name those scripture references.
Further, the post written by Tom Lank reveals that lay persons who participate in VIM do reflect theologically on the practice of short-term mission in the UMC. He states that through four decades of practice “UMVIM has tried to learn from its own mistakes”, which is the work of critical theological reflection on the practice of short-term mission. The first core value he articulates indicates the theological nature of this learning: that mission belongs to God, not to the church. Team leaders are given training that emphasizes another core value, the need of practitioners to “do the hard work with [their] team before, during, and after [their] mission experience to critically examine [their] own biases, stereotypes, and prejudices”.
Both of these core values require that short-term mission practitioners develop a deep sense of humility. The practice of mission provides a space in which people can examine themselves and grow in their discipleship in a way that moves them beyond themselves.
Mission Education Opportunity
The opportunity is there for the United Methodist Church to equip UMVIM participants with curricula and tools to use as they reflect on their experience in mission. It is our own internal conflict over human sexuality that has hobbled mission education. These conflicts have contributed to the rejection of documents written by our experienced missionaries and GBGM staff persons, which has further hobbled mission education efforts.
Another complicating factor was the resistance to “amateurs” in the practice of mission, which implicitly dismissed the ability of lay people to think theologically about mission. Yet, because United Methodists still go out on short-term mission trips, the opportunity still exists for the UMC to provide needed theology of mission curriculum for lay persons.
In my next post, I will discuss why short-term mission in the UMC should be viewed as a practice of faithful lay people who are capable of critical theological reflection on mission, and why this is important for mission education and for the future of the church.
The recent series on short-term mission in the United Methodist Church (UMVIM) brought to light a long-neglected educational opportunity in the denomination. Four of our jurisdictional UMVIM coordinators shared from their experiences in short-term mission, and Robert Haynes provided his critique of short-term mission, in particular, the lack of theological discourse on the practice of mission.
Tammy Kuntz wrote in the first post for this series on short-term mission in the UMC that the first organizing efforts for short-term mission began in 1972, flowing from the growing movement of lay volunteers in the Southeast Jurisdiction. That year the General Conference of the UMC adopted a new statement to be included in our Book of Discipline in the section on our doctrines.
That statement was titled Our Theological Task, and it described a connection between our Wesleyan understanding of grace and our action in the world. Our Theological Task stated that our General Rules remind us that inward assurance of God’s grace “is bound to show itself outwardly in good works. By joining heart and hand, United Methodists have stressed that personal salvation leads always to involvement in Christian mission in the world.” Most importantly for the practice of short-term mission, Our Theological Task asserted that “personal religion, evangelical witness, and Christian social action are reciprocal and mutually reinforcing.”[1]
Locating Weaknesses
United Methodist short-term mission has, from the very beginning, been a practice in which lay people have let their personal salvation lead them into involvement in Christian mission. UMVIM is one way in which United Methodists join their hearts and hands, putting their faith into action for others. There are weaknesses within the practice of short-term mission in the UMC, but these weaknesses lie in the failures of the clergy and denomination to provide resources and encouragement for the reciprocal relationship between personal religion, evangelical witness and Christian social action.
After the initial organization of volunteer mission efforts in 1972, eight years passed until General Conference affirmed “the concept of volunteers in mission as an authentic form of personal missionary involvement” and eight more years until annual conferences were encouraged to have UMVIM coordinators on staff. It took another eight years for the program to officially become part of the work of the GBGM, and yet another four years before financial support for jurisdictional staff was provided.
Is it any wonder that when we ask lay people to talk about their short-term mission experience, they struggle to put their experience into words? Is it any wonder that many United Methodist churches do not utilize denominational connections when the denomination was so slow to recognize and support their work?
The hesitation of lay volunteers in mission to cite scripture or explicitly state their theological motivations does not mean that there is no theological foundation, as Dr. Haynes suggests. United Methodists who participate in short-term mission experiences are instead, living out Our Theological Task. Their work is a practice of their Christian faith, grounded in their theological convictions. The act of being in mission and the experience of personal faith are reciprocal; they inform and reinforce each other. This mutual reinforcement is the space where the United Methodists Church can improve both its mission education efforts and the practice of short-term mission.
Needed Resources
Lay people have taken Our Theological Task seriously. Moved by the suffering of people in their neighborhoods and in other countries, they have put their faith into tangible action. Our Theological Task argues for a robust faith that is active. It is “contextual and incarnational.” Faith is meant to be lived out in the world, in our neighborhoods and with others. The experience of a short-term mission trip can help people to participate in God’s mission in, to and for the world. According to Our Theological Task, our “theological reflection is energized by our incarnational involvement in the daily life of the Church and the world, as we participate in God’s liberating and saving action.”[2]
Short-term mission is a practice of lay persons that offers an opportunity to energize their theological reflection – however, even as Volunteers in Mission seek to live out their theological task, the church has not equipped them to trust in their own ability to be theological thinkers. This is a failure of resources, not a failure of theological foundations. The United Methodist Church has the potential to build on the practice of short-term mission by acknowledging the deep faith of the practitioners and equipping them with the tools for theological reflection.
My research interviews with VIM team members revealed a reluctance to claim their knowledge of scripture, and yet interviewees often quoted three or four scriptures in a single sentence to describe why they go on mission trips. They go to love their neighbors wherever they may be found in this globalized world. They go to share the love of Christ. They go to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. They go because they see someone in need and know they cannot walk by on the other side, ignoring a person who is suffering. There was no lack of scripture informing their participation in short-term mission; there was, rather, a lack of assurance of their own ability to name those scripture references.
Further, the post written by Tom Lank reveals that lay persons who participate in VIM do reflect theologically on the practice of short-term mission in the UMC. He states that through four decades of practice “UMVIM has tried to learn from its own mistakes”, which is the work of critical theological reflection on the practice of short-term mission. The first core value he articulates indicates the theological nature of this learning: that mission belongs to God, not to the church. Team leaders are given training that emphasizes another core value, the need of practitioners to “do the hard work with [their] team before, during, and after [their] mission experience to critically examine [their] own biases, stereotypes, and prejudices”.
Both of these core values require that short-term mission practitioners develop a deep sense of humility. The practice of mission provides a space in which people can examine themselves and grow in their discipleship in a way that moves them beyond themselves.
Mission Education Opportunity
The opportunity is there for the United Methodist Church to equip UMVIM participants with curricula and tools to use as they reflect on their experience in mission. It is our own internal conflict over human sexuality that has hobbled mission education. These conflicts have contributed to the rejection of documents written by our experienced missionaries and GBGM staff persons, which has further hobbled mission education efforts.
Another complicating factor was the resistance to “amateurs” in the practice of mission, which implicitly dismissed the ability of lay people to think theologically about mission. Yet, because United Methodists still go out on short-term mission trips, the opportunity still exists for the UMC to provide needed theology of mission curriculum for lay persons.
In my next post, I will discuss why short-term mission in the UMC should be viewed as a practice of faithful lay people who are capable of critical theological reflection on mission, and why this is important for mission education and for the future of the church.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Recommended Reading: Lisa Beth White on planning a short-term mission trip
Lisa Beth White of Sister of Hope Ministries has put together a helpful step-by-step guide for churches planning short-term mission trips. Lisa Beth's guide is essential reading for any congregation that is interested in going on such a trip while taking into consideration the best of current missiological thinking. Lisa Beth emphasizes the importance of relationship-building and faith-building as goals of the trip that need to be built into the planning.
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part One: The Destination
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part Two: The Work Project
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part Three: Do No Harm
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part Four: Putting a Team Together
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Post-Mission Trip Retreat
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part One: The Destination
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part Two: The Work Project
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part Three: Do No Harm
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Part Four: Putting a Team Together
Planning a Short-Term Mission Trip - Post-Mission Trip Retreat
Monday, October 1, 2018
Recommended Reading: Lisa Beth White on What is Mission?
In a post on her blog, Sister of Hope, contributor to UM & Global Lisa Beth White grapples with the question "What is Mission?" Speaking from her background in short-term mission work, she acknowledges that many United Methodists engaged in short-term mission work lack such a definition. Yet she argues for the importance of developing such a definition and draws on insights from other missiologists to suggest two such definitions. The post can be shared with congregants as a useful entry into this conversation.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Lisa Beth White: The Hopefulness of Mission, or Why I’m Not Worried about the Future of the UMC
Today's post is by Rev. Lisa Beth White, founder of Sister of Hope Ministries, an organization that exists to equip and support short-term mission teams, churches and non-profit organizations with training, resources and evaluation tools with the aim of enabling the faithful practice of Christian mission. This piece is reposted with permission from the author's personal site.
I am a United Methodist. My denomination recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, remembering how it was formed by a union of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968. This church has formed me as a disciple of Jesus Christ, has taught me grace, taught me how to sing grace, preach grace, and practice grace. I have given my life’s work to Christ through the United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Church’s Difficult Season
But the United Methodist Church is having a difficult season. To be honest, it’s been having a contentious season for about 40 years. If you are a United Methodist and you’re on social media, you are likely aware of our struggles. If not, let me try to summarize.
The issue is inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church. Our denomination has been in the news for holding clergy trials when pastors officiate same-gender weddings, even for their own children; for holding clergy trials and stripping clergy of their credentials when they admit their identity as an LGBTQ person; for having protests and debates at our quadrennial gatherings during which church legislation is considered. We’ve had study commissions, we’ve added language to our Book of Discipline (the text that holds our constitution, our Articles of Religion, our structure and order for ministry), we’ve argued and argued. Most recently, our last General Conference (that once every four year gathering) asked our Council of Bishops (all bishops, active and retired) to form a commission and advise the church how to move forward as a united denomination, despite our continuing and harsh disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion.
And so, the commission has held meetings, prayed and discussed our difficult season. In the end, they recommended three plans to the Council of Bishops – the Traditionalist Plan which would essentially maintain the status quo; the Connectional-Conference Plan, which would allow churches to affiliate with other churches that their perspectives align with, rather than our current geographic structure; and the One Church Plan, which allows decisions about ordaining LGBTQ persons to be made in local areas and removes all restrictive language from the Book of Discipline. The Bishops are recommending the One Church Plan to the special session of General Conference that will meet in February 2019. You can read articles here and here about this recommendation.
And So, Anxiety Reigns
Now, if you’re not United Methodist, this may all seem confusing and tedious. Methodists have a decision making process that isn’t simple. We don’t have a pope and cardinals to make decisions for us. We don’t have a simple majority rules vote. We hold our church buildings and land in trust for the church that will come after we are gone, so we understand that the brick and mortar in which we gather isn’t “ours” but God’s for the work of God’s people.
And it’s exactly at that point – God and the work of God’s people – in which I take great hope for the United Methodist Church.
In the midst of all the debates, clergy trials and commission reports, people have been getting very upset and anxious. At a recent pre-conference meeting (yes, a meeting before our annual meeting, it’s how we do things in the UMC) I heard such anxiety from the people gathered as they discussed what our future may look like. “If this happens, then…” or “if that happens, then…” The proposed resolutions we were voting on were contradictory, as people wanted to be ready for whatever comes next. If things don’t go according to their desire, they want to be able to split the denomination, to take possession of their buildings, to ensure their beliefs and not have to compromise or change.
Such anxiety. Near panic. Judgment and suspicion. The one thing we could agree on is that we disagree.
I was only able to attend the meeting because I had been visiting my parents. When I got back home, I found in my mail a letter from our Board of Pensions, which administers all clergy retirement accounts. The letter opens with “concerns” and “expressed worries…during this time of change.” The whole purpose of the letter was to reassure anxious clergy, who, as the meeting had made obvious, were still anxious.
They Will Know You Are My Disciples By Your Love
I am not anxious about the future of the church. No matter what happens in the United Methodist Church, I have faith in the work of the Holy Spirit to call people into partnership with God in mission. God is always at work in the world, reaching out in mission in, to, and for the world. The church is the Body of Christ, and God uses the church to share God’s grace and love with the world. No church split or union will change the mission of God.
In the book of Acts we read about the early church, and how the Spirit moved people to show love for their neighbors. Chapter 2:44-45 states that Christians were together, collecting funds so that if anyone had a need, it could be taken care of by the group. This care for others is reinforced in chapter 4:34-35, that there was not a single person in need among the believers because the people trusted the apostles to use their funds to care for everyone. By chapter six, the group of believers had grown so large that seven people had to be appointed to manage the funds for common care.
The disciples and the early church were not afraid to care for those who were on the margins. In Acts 8 we read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian treasury official. Despite being a eunuch and barred from entering the temple, he had traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship. In his chariot as he rode home, he was reading Isaiah and Philip helped explain how this passage revealed the good news of Jesus Christ, unbothered by the fact that he was with a person who was considered impure. Immediately after this, we read in chapter 9 that Peter healed Tabitha, who ministered to widows in Joppa. Widows led a fragile existence, often on the margins, without the legal protection of spouse or family. In chapter 10, Peter shares the good news of the gospel with Cornelius, despite the fact that it was unlawful for him to visit the house of a Gentile.
These early practices of mission – care for those on the margins in the face of difficulty and/or legal restrictions continued in the early church. Takanori Inoue argues* that during a time of plagues and rampant disease in Roman cities, “Christians ministered as a transformative movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear and brutality of life in the Roman Empire.” The basis for this ministry is love of God and love of neighbor “because it is God’s pleasure that they should share [God’s] generosity with all people.”
In Mission By Grace
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit moves us to love God more deeply and enables us to live out God’s love for and with our neighbors. This participation in God’s mission was a witness to the gospel by the early church – love made visible – and it continues in the church today. I know that people will continue to participate in mission practices – to go on short-term mission trips to offer disaster relief and recovery assistance, to make UMCOR kits to distribute around the world, to make meals to share with those who are food insecure in their communities, to volunteer in free clinics, to sit and listen with humble spirits and open hearts. I know this because people are moved by the Holy Spirit to live out the Great Commission and the Greatest Commandment with Great Compassion – and they will not stop loving their neighbors because our denomination is struggling.
We live out the call of Christ to go and make disciples, to love one another and to care for those on the margins because we have heard the call in our local communities. In our local churches we worship, pray and study together. In our local churches we learn about the needs of our neighbors near and far. In our local churches we invite each other to participate in mission practices. I choose to live in a posture of hope, knowing that ordinary United Methodists will continue to practice mission as a witness to the world of their faith in Christ. I choose to live in a posture of hope because the mission work of everyday United Methodists reveals the ongoing call of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit to live in love. I choose to live in a posture of hope because I trust in God’s unfailing grace.
* The Early Church's Approach to the Poor in Society and Its Significance to the Church's Social Engagement Today by Takanori Inoue. Quotes from pages 11-13.
I am a United Methodist. My denomination recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, remembering how it was formed by a union of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968. This church has formed me as a disciple of Jesus Christ, has taught me grace, taught me how to sing grace, preach grace, and practice grace. I have given my life’s work to Christ through the United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Church’s Difficult Season
But the United Methodist Church is having a difficult season. To be honest, it’s been having a contentious season for about 40 years. If you are a United Methodist and you’re on social media, you are likely aware of our struggles. If not, let me try to summarize.
The issue is inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church. Our denomination has been in the news for holding clergy trials when pastors officiate same-gender weddings, even for their own children; for holding clergy trials and stripping clergy of their credentials when they admit their identity as an LGBTQ person; for having protests and debates at our quadrennial gatherings during which church legislation is considered. We’ve had study commissions, we’ve added language to our Book of Discipline (the text that holds our constitution, our Articles of Religion, our structure and order for ministry), we’ve argued and argued. Most recently, our last General Conference (that once every four year gathering) asked our Council of Bishops (all bishops, active and retired) to form a commission and advise the church how to move forward as a united denomination, despite our continuing and harsh disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion.
And so, the commission has held meetings, prayed and discussed our difficult season. In the end, they recommended three plans to the Council of Bishops – the Traditionalist Plan which would essentially maintain the status quo; the Connectional-Conference Plan, which would allow churches to affiliate with other churches that their perspectives align with, rather than our current geographic structure; and the One Church Plan, which allows decisions about ordaining LGBTQ persons to be made in local areas and removes all restrictive language from the Book of Discipline. The Bishops are recommending the One Church Plan to the special session of General Conference that will meet in February 2019. You can read articles here and here about this recommendation.
And So, Anxiety Reigns
Now, if you’re not United Methodist, this may all seem confusing and tedious. Methodists have a decision making process that isn’t simple. We don’t have a pope and cardinals to make decisions for us. We don’t have a simple majority rules vote. We hold our church buildings and land in trust for the church that will come after we are gone, so we understand that the brick and mortar in which we gather isn’t “ours” but God’s for the work of God’s people.
And it’s exactly at that point – God and the work of God’s people – in which I take great hope for the United Methodist Church.
In the midst of all the debates, clergy trials and commission reports, people have been getting very upset and anxious. At a recent pre-conference meeting (yes, a meeting before our annual meeting, it’s how we do things in the UMC) I heard such anxiety from the people gathered as they discussed what our future may look like. “If this happens, then…” or “if that happens, then…” The proposed resolutions we were voting on were contradictory, as people wanted to be ready for whatever comes next. If things don’t go according to their desire, they want to be able to split the denomination, to take possession of their buildings, to ensure their beliefs and not have to compromise or change.
Such anxiety. Near panic. Judgment and suspicion. The one thing we could agree on is that we disagree.
I was only able to attend the meeting because I had been visiting my parents. When I got back home, I found in my mail a letter from our Board of Pensions, which administers all clergy retirement accounts. The letter opens with “concerns” and “expressed worries…during this time of change.” The whole purpose of the letter was to reassure anxious clergy, who, as the meeting had made obvious, were still anxious.
They Will Know You Are My Disciples By Your Love
I am not anxious about the future of the church. No matter what happens in the United Methodist Church, I have faith in the work of the Holy Spirit to call people into partnership with God in mission. God is always at work in the world, reaching out in mission in, to, and for the world. The church is the Body of Christ, and God uses the church to share God’s grace and love with the world. No church split or union will change the mission of God.
In the book of Acts we read about the early church, and how the Spirit moved people to show love for their neighbors. Chapter 2:44-45 states that Christians were together, collecting funds so that if anyone had a need, it could be taken care of by the group. This care for others is reinforced in chapter 4:34-35, that there was not a single person in need among the believers because the people trusted the apostles to use their funds to care for everyone. By chapter six, the group of believers had grown so large that seven people had to be appointed to manage the funds for common care.
The disciples and the early church were not afraid to care for those who were on the margins. In Acts 8 we read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian treasury official. Despite being a eunuch and barred from entering the temple, he had traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship. In his chariot as he rode home, he was reading Isaiah and Philip helped explain how this passage revealed the good news of Jesus Christ, unbothered by the fact that he was with a person who was considered impure. Immediately after this, we read in chapter 9 that Peter healed Tabitha, who ministered to widows in Joppa. Widows led a fragile existence, often on the margins, without the legal protection of spouse or family. In chapter 10, Peter shares the good news of the gospel with Cornelius, despite the fact that it was unlawful for him to visit the house of a Gentile.
These early practices of mission – care for those on the margins in the face of difficulty and/or legal restrictions continued in the early church. Takanori Inoue argues* that during a time of plagues and rampant disease in Roman cities, “Christians ministered as a transformative movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear and brutality of life in the Roman Empire.” The basis for this ministry is love of God and love of neighbor “because it is God’s pleasure that they should share [God’s] generosity with all people.”
In Mission By Grace
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit moves us to love God more deeply and enables us to live out God’s love for and with our neighbors. This participation in God’s mission was a witness to the gospel by the early church – love made visible – and it continues in the church today. I know that people will continue to participate in mission practices – to go on short-term mission trips to offer disaster relief and recovery assistance, to make UMCOR kits to distribute around the world, to make meals to share with those who are food insecure in their communities, to volunteer in free clinics, to sit and listen with humble spirits and open hearts. I know this because people are moved by the Holy Spirit to live out the Great Commission and the Greatest Commandment with Great Compassion – and they will not stop loving their neighbors because our denomination is struggling.
We live out the call of Christ to go and make disciples, to love one another and to care for those on the margins because we have heard the call in our local communities. In our local churches we worship, pray and study together. In our local churches we learn about the needs of our neighbors near and far. In our local churches we invite each other to participate in mission practices. I choose to live in a posture of hope, knowing that ordinary United Methodists will continue to practice mission as a witness to the world of their faith in Christ. I choose to live in a posture of hope because the mission work of everyday United Methodists reveals the ongoing call of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit to live in love. I choose to live in a posture of hope because I trust in God’s unfailing grace.
* The Early Church's Approach to the Poor in Society and Its Significance to the Church's Social Engagement Today by Takanori Inoue. Quotes from pages 11-13.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Recommended reading: Lisa Beth White on #MyHope4Methodism
United Methodist missiologist and UM & Global contributor Rev. Lisa Beth White has published a recent piece entitled "Cross-Cultural Short-Term Mission" on her blog, Sister of Hope Ministries, in which she picks up on our series on #MyHope4Methodism. In particular, Rev. White interacts with Robert Hunt's piece in that series and uses it to reflect on the role of culture in short-term mission trips. Rev. White's piece is well worth reading.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Recommended Readings on short-term mission
Two recent articles on short-term missions provide helpful conversation starters about missiological issues related to the practice of short-term missions.
United Methodist Communications published a piece by Rev. Dan Wunderlich entitled "How to do short-term missions the right way." The piece offers seven suggestions for those (Americans) planning short-term mission trips: learn the issues, check your perspective, do the research, pick the right project, consider not going, train your team, and tell a responsible story.
UM & Global contributor Rev. Lisa Beth White has written a response to Rev. Wunderlich's piece entitled "Balancing the why and the how of short-term missions." Rev. White adds another layer to Rev. Wunderlich's recommendations by raising the question of motivation in short-term missions and connecting it to The United Methodist Church's mission document, "Grace Upon Grace."
Both pieces are sure to be useful in local church settings, classrooms, and other arenas in which United Methodists are seeking to conduct mission in faithful, fair, and fruitful ways.
United Methodist Communications published a piece by Rev. Dan Wunderlich entitled "How to do short-term missions the right way." The piece offers seven suggestions for those (Americans) planning short-term mission trips: learn the issues, check your perspective, do the research, pick the right project, consider not going, train your team, and tell a responsible story.
UM & Global contributor Rev. Lisa Beth White has written a response to Rev. Wunderlich's piece entitled "Balancing the why and the how of short-term missions." Rev. White adds another layer to Rev. Wunderlich's recommendations by raising the question of motivation in short-term missions and connecting it to The United Methodist Church's mission document, "Grace Upon Grace."
Both pieces are sure to be useful in local church settings, classrooms, and other arenas in which United Methodists are seeking to conduct mission in faithful, fair, and fruitful ways.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Lisa Beth White: Reading the complexity of short term mission in Together Towards Life
Today's post is by regular contributor Rev. Lisa Beth White, doctoral student at Boston University School of Theology.
In a previous post here on UM & Global, the question was raised about U.S. Christians helping to solve problems they have helped to cause. This is a question that deserves some thought and consideration. Although the article mentions the work of UMCOR, I believe the question also points to the complexity of short term mission.
United Methodist short term mission participants are often deeply committed to living out their faith and to showing the love of neighbor in tangible ways. Revealing that the ways in which our U.S. culture and habits of consumption contribute to the very problems our short term mission work seeks to solve is difficult for short term mission participants. Volunteers who spend their vacation time and money in service have very little training in the complexities of cross-cultural encounters or in critical theological reflection. Critiques such as “solving problems you have helped to cause” can sound personal and far harsher than intended.
The critique points to structural sin, in which we as individuals benefit from economic, political or social systems in which others are trapped in cycles of poverty. The Social Creed found in the United Methodist Book of Discipline (2012) can be used as a starting point for revealing the ways in which our individual actions function in structural sin and systems of oppression, but this statement alone is nearly 40 pages long and quite complex. Short term mission team training often does not include the time needed for engaging such a lengthy document with critical theological reflection on one’s own practice of mission.
The World Council of Churches document Together Towards Life begins to articulate another complexity found in short term mission as well. In paragraph 76 it states that “increasingly popular short-term ‘mission trips’ can help to build partnerships between churches in different parts of the world but in some cases place an intolerable burden on poor local churches or disregard the existing churches altogether”. Short term mission has the potential to build relationships between Christians across borders in ways that were not possible before the availability of air travel, the internet and smart phones.
However, as indicated above, short term mission practiced without engaging structures of sin and oppression carry the potential of simply reinforcing boundaries between Christians. When short term mission is conducted in ways that diminish the agency of host churches – or at worst, disregards the local churches where short term mission teams travel – then the practice of short term mission serves to benefit those who travel rather those who receive. In this way, the purpose of short term mission is subverted, and can no longer be considered mission.
However, the short term mission participants that I have encountered in my research would be surprised and mortified to learn that their mission work contributed to a problem rather than solving it. I see in this complex problem of short term mission the possibility of living more fully into the Together Towards Life call to “live out the faith and hope of the community of God’s people” (paragraph 78). U.S. short term mission participants express their desire to be faithful to Christ in their short term mission work. Many use the terminology of being the “hands and feet of Christ” to people who need help.
Together Towards Life states that “[t]hrough service the church participates in God’s mission, following the way of its Servant Lord” (paragraph 78). The challenge is to help short term mission participants learn how to manifest “the power of service over the power of domination” through learning their own participation in those structures of domination. Short term mission trips have the potential for education and transformation of U.S. Christians, but only if time and attention are given to thoughtful and careful revelation of the ways in which we contribute to the problems we seek to solve.
International short term mission has potential for both the power of service and the power of domination. I believe that U.S. short term mission participants desire to live into the potential of building relationships and partnerships. They have the capacity to critically reflect on their participation in God’s mission.
Church leadership can walk with short term mission participants through the hard work of revealing structures and systems of oppression, reflecting theologically on their mission work, and examining whether they are truly working with host churches to build partnerships. In this way, short term mission can address the critique of “solving problems they helped to cause” and at the same time meet the challenge to “find ways of exercising spiritual gifts which build up the whole church in every part” (Together Towards Life, paragraph 76).
In a previous post here on UM & Global, the question was raised about U.S. Christians helping to solve problems they have helped to cause. This is a question that deserves some thought and consideration. Although the article mentions the work of UMCOR, I believe the question also points to the complexity of short term mission.
United Methodist short term mission participants are often deeply committed to living out their faith and to showing the love of neighbor in tangible ways. Revealing that the ways in which our U.S. culture and habits of consumption contribute to the very problems our short term mission work seeks to solve is difficult for short term mission participants. Volunteers who spend their vacation time and money in service have very little training in the complexities of cross-cultural encounters or in critical theological reflection. Critiques such as “solving problems you have helped to cause” can sound personal and far harsher than intended.
The critique points to structural sin, in which we as individuals benefit from economic, political or social systems in which others are trapped in cycles of poverty. The Social Creed found in the United Methodist Book of Discipline (2012) can be used as a starting point for revealing the ways in which our individual actions function in structural sin and systems of oppression, but this statement alone is nearly 40 pages long and quite complex. Short term mission team training often does not include the time needed for engaging such a lengthy document with critical theological reflection on one’s own practice of mission.
The World Council of Churches document Together Towards Life begins to articulate another complexity found in short term mission as well. In paragraph 76 it states that “increasingly popular short-term ‘mission trips’ can help to build partnerships between churches in different parts of the world but in some cases place an intolerable burden on poor local churches or disregard the existing churches altogether”. Short term mission has the potential to build relationships between Christians across borders in ways that were not possible before the availability of air travel, the internet and smart phones.
However, as indicated above, short term mission practiced without engaging structures of sin and oppression carry the potential of simply reinforcing boundaries between Christians. When short term mission is conducted in ways that diminish the agency of host churches – or at worst, disregards the local churches where short term mission teams travel – then the practice of short term mission serves to benefit those who travel rather those who receive. In this way, the purpose of short term mission is subverted, and can no longer be considered mission.
However, the short term mission participants that I have encountered in my research would be surprised and mortified to learn that their mission work contributed to a problem rather than solving it. I see in this complex problem of short term mission the possibility of living more fully into the Together Towards Life call to “live out the faith and hope of the community of God’s people” (paragraph 78). U.S. short term mission participants express their desire to be faithful to Christ in their short term mission work. Many use the terminology of being the “hands and feet of Christ” to people who need help.
Together Towards Life states that “[t]hrough service the church participates in God’s mission, following the way of its Servant Lord” (paragraph 78). The challenge is to help short term mission participants learn how to manifest “the power of service over the power of domination” through learning their own participation in those structures of domination. Short term mission trips have the potential for education and transformation of U.S. Christians, but only if time and attention are given to thoughtful and careful revelation of the ways in which we contribute to the problems we seek to solve.
International short term mission has potential for both the power of service and the power of domination. I believe that U.S. short term mission participants desire to live into the potential of building relationships and partnerships. They have the capacity to critically reflect on their participation in God’s mission.
Church leadership can walk with short term mission participants through the hard work of revealing structures and systems of oppression, reflecting theologically on their mission work, and examining whether they are truly working with host churches to build partnerships. In this way, short term mission can address the critique of “solving problems they helped to cause” and at the same time meet the challenge to “find ways of exercising spiritual gifts which build up the whole church in every part” (Together Towards Life, paragraph 76).
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Grace, hope and mission - Lisa Beth White 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 Lisa Beth White, doctoral student at Boston University School of Theology. Rev. White 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.
Don Messer issues a strong challenge to the United Methodist Church in his blog post on “A World Transformed by Grace”. He asks whether Grace Upon Grace is “simply a lovely treatise on theology or does United Methodism actually seek to practice what it preaches when it declares ‘inclusiveness of all people’ is to be characteristic of the missional church?’”
As this response to Dr. Messer’s post is written, headlines in the United States are full of the chaos in Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18 year old, shot several times by Darren Wilson, a white police officer. Hope of a world transformed by grace seems dim indeed in light of Michael Brown’s death and other news of international conflict and innocent lives taken because of ideological and religious differences. How are we, United Methodists, able to proclaim hope in the Gospel and live out the audacious form of mission – obeying Christ and loving our neighbors – in such chaotic times?
One way forward is found in the title of the original document – grace upon grace. Paragraph 61 states that “grace received is motive of mission”. The United Methodist Church is called by this document to participate in God’s ongoing mission in the world – God’s continual offering of grace to all persons through the mercy and love of Jesus Christ. “From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” (John 1:16, NRSV). Because we have received the grace of Jesus Christ, we are called to live as his disciples, offering grace to all. It requires both humility and confidence to participate in the mission of obeying Christ and loving our neighbors.
Grace received as our motive of mission is evidenced in the United Methodist liturgy for communion. With both humility and confidence we recognize that we are recipients of God’s grace and pray for our participation in God’s mission to the world. First we confess our sins, and we receive God’s pardon. Then we remember God’s gracious activity in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Finally, we pray that through the elements God would make us “for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.” We invoke the Holy Spirit, that as a church we would be “one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world.” This prayer makes clear our sinfulness and states our humble need for God. It is only through God’s grace that we are able to have the confidence to participate in mission. As our nation still struggles to overcome the sin of separating ourselves from those who are other – those whose skin is a different color, those whose native language is different than ours, those whose sexuality or gender are different than ours, those who vote differently than we do, those who have different access to education or economic opportunities – the sacrament of communion calls us to remember that grace transforms our divisions into unity in Christ. Although we retain our diversity, as the body of Christ our walls of division are overcome.
Our witness as a denomination is challenged by the divisions and disagreements present in our polity. Dr. Messer asserts that our current disagreement over LGBT inclusion “imperils our missional outreach to the world.” In fact, I have witnessed denominational discussions that have begun with a focus on mission – proclaimed as what the United Methodist Church does well – that quickly erode into arguments about whether and/or how the denomination should split. Our motive for mission should empower us to be able to resist principalities and powers, to love one another across limits of country, color, clan, creed, class or culture (paragraph 62). And yet we so quickly forget our motive for mission – grace received in humility that gives us the confidence of the children of God – and vie instead to be right or to retain power and privilege.
Far from being simply a lovely treatise on theology of mission, Grace Upon Grace challenges the United Methodist Church to live out its identity in Christ, being one with Christ, one with each other and one in ministry to all the world, regardless of race, nationality, language, sexual orientation, gender, creed or class. We are to be “the daughters and sons of God, holding up in prayer the well-being of all” (Paragraph 62). Through participation in the sacrament of communion, United Methodists can find renewal in the grace of Jesus Christ. Through the sacrament we can confess our pride and sinfulness, and be made whole with the church to be the body of Christ for the world.
United Methodist mission is clearly grounded in the grace of Jesus Christ and is not our own mission. Left to ourselves, we remain sinful human beings. Transformed through the grace of Christ, we are made able to participate in the ongoing mission of God to usher in a new kingdom, a world transformed by grace. The world so desperately cries out for justice and reconciliation. Our news headlines daily proclaim war, inequality, pollution, climate change, disease, and a thousand other ills. Only through the grace of Christ are we able to boldly proclaim hope in this context.
Dr. Messer concludes with a prayer that United Methodists will “continue to experience the grace of God’s inclusive love in Jesus Christ and seek in every way to witness by word and deed to that marvelous gift.” One answer to this prayer is found in the sacrament of communion. May the United Methodist Church find the humility and confidence found in the prayer of Great Thanksgiving and the courage to be made truly one in Christ and audaciously proclaim and live out God’s inclusive grace.
Don Messer issues a strong challenge to the United Methodist Church in his blog post on “A World Transformed by Grace”. He asks whether Grace Upon Grace is “simply a lovely treatise on theology or does United Methodism actually seek to practice what it preaches when it declares ‘inclusiveness of all people’ is to be characteristic of the missional church?’”
As this response to Dr. Messer’s post is written, headlines in the United States are full of the chaos in Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18 year old, shot several times by Darren Wilson, a white police officer. Hope of a world transformed by grace seems dim indeed in light of Michael Brown’s death and other news of international conflict and innocent lives taken because of ideological and religious differences. How are we, United Methodists, able to proclaim hope in the Gospel and live out the audacious form of mission – obeying Christ and loving our neighbors – in such chaotic times?
One way forward is found in the title of the original document – grace upon grace. Paragraph 61 states that “grace received is motive of mission”. The United Methodist Church is called by this document to participate in God’s ongoing mission in the world – God’s continual offering of grace to all persons through the mercy and love of Jesus Christ. “From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” (John 1:16, NRSV). Because we have received the grace of Jesus Christ, we are called to live as his disciples, offering grace to all. It requires both humility and confidence to participate in the mission of obeying Christ and loving our neighbors.
Grace received as our motive of mission is evidenced in the United Methodist liturgy for communion. With both humility and confidence we recognize that we are recipients of God’s grace and pray for our participation in God’s mission to the world. First we confess our sins, and we receive God’s pardon. Then we remember God’s gracious activity in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Finally, we pray that through the elements God would make us “for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.” We invoke the Holy Spirit, that as a church we would be “one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world.” This prayer makes clear our sinfulness and states our humble need for God. It is only through God’s grace that we are able to have the confidence to participate in mission. As our nation still struggles to overcome the sin of separating ourselves from those who are other – those whose skin is a different color, those whose native language is different than ours, those whose sexuality or gender are different than ours, those who vote differently than we do, those who have different access to education or economic opportunities – the sacrament of communion calls us to remember that grace transforms our divisions into unity in Christ. Although we retain our diversity, as the body of Christ our walls of division are overcome.
Our witness as a denomination is challenged by the divisions and disagreements present in our polity. Dr. Messer asserts that our current disagreement over LGBT inclusion “imperils our missional outreach to the world.” In fact, I have witnessed denominational discussions that have begun with a focus on mission – proclaimed as what the United Methodist Church does well – that quickly erode into arguments about whether and/or how the denomination should split. Our motive for mission should empower us to be able to resist principalities and powers, to love one another across limits of country, color, clan, creed, class or culture (paragraph 62). And yet we so quickly forget our motive for mission – grace received in humility that gives us the confidence of the children of God – and vie instead to be right or to retain power and privilege.
Far from being simply a lovely treatise on theology of mission, Grace Upon Grace challenges the United Methodist Church to live out its identity in Christ, being one with Christ, one with each other and one in ministry to all the world, regardless of race, nationality, language, sexual orientation, gender, creed or class. We are to be “the daughters and sons of God, holding up in prayer the well-being of all” (Paragraph 62). Through participation in the sacrament of communion, United Methodists can find renewal in the grace of Jesus Christ. Through the sacrament we can confess our pride and sinfulness, and be made whole with the church to be the body of Christ for the world.
United Methodist mission is clearly grounded in the grace of Jesus Christ and is not our own mission. Left to ourselves, we remain sinful human beings. Transformed through the grace of Christ, we are made able to participate in the ongoing mission of God to usher in a new kingdom, a world transformed by grace. The world so desperately cries out for justice and reconciliation. Our news headlines daily proclaim war, inequality, pollution, climate change, disease, and a thousand other ills. Only through the grace of Christ are we able to boldly proclaim hope in this context.
Dr. Messer concludes with a prayer that United Methodists will “continue to experience the grace of God’s inclusive love in Jesus Christ and seek in every way to witness by word and deed to that marvelous gift.” One answer to this prayer is found in the sacrament of communion. May the United Methodist Church find the humility and confidence found in the prayer of Great Thanksgiving and the courage to be made truly one in Christ and audaciously proclaim and live out God’s inclusive grace.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Hendrik Pieterse on UMC Conflict and Grace Upon Grace: Mission: An Expanding Agenda
Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Hendrik Pieterse, Associate Professor of Global Christianity and World Religions at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. Dr. Pieterse is commenting on the sixth section of the document, "Mission: An Expanding Agenda." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
As both Dr. Carlos-Orlandi and Rev. Lisa-Beth White point out in their reflections, the section “Mission: An Expanding Agenda” interprets grace as a form of “seeing.” And both point to the increased complexity of such “grace-ful” seeing for United Methodist mission today—a complexity, as they both note, that now challenges the adequacy of the expansiveness of that original agenda. And both, rightly, suggest important ways in which United Methodism’s missionary agenda today needs fresh interpretation, correction, and expansion.
Rev. White points to an important dynamic at the heart of Methodist mission—a kind of hermeneutical dance of vision and confession, imagination and repentance. It is just the interplay of these two modalities that enables us to see the world rightly—the world as grace sees it (para. 37)—and precisely so to experience the world’s summons for our concrete response. And, for United Methodists, authentic response to the world’s need has always demanded that we give grace a concrete shape—a form attuned to this place, this time, this context. Hence the ever-recurring question “[W]hat is grace . . . for us?” (para. 29, emphasis added) As United Methodist historian Russell Richey has pointed out, at its best, Methodism has thrived when it held in dynamic tension a missionary imagination fired by a “confidence to go with the Spirit, to experiment, to try new things, to change”[1] and an obligation to give that imagination concrete form in discipleship contoured in discipline, structure, precept, polity. Yet, the all-too-familiar litany of lament in paragraphs 30-39 is testimony to our struggle to dwell in this tension for long. Abandoning the “creative tension”[2] of this space, we opt either for the comfort of a connectional covenant turned predictable bureaucracy or for an iconoclastic frenzy in which denominational “restructuring” stands proxy for missional vitality (as the 2012 General Conference illustrates all too well). Either way, as para. 38 reminds us, the church loses the “prophetic dimension” by which faithfulness to the missio Dei “brings it in conflict with culture” and, in so doing, sets it at odds with its own complacency.
That Methodist mission at its best invites us to expect, even to embrace, conflict may be less than welcome news for a conflict-ridden and conflict-weary United Methodist denomination today—in the midst once more of a contentious battle over human sexuality, episcopal authority, the propriety of church trials, and on. Yet para. 38 might hold a reminder for us precisely at this point. For I think the state of our current churchly bickering reveals a denomination that has made its peace with conflict, so to speak, by thoroughly domesticating it. Our present ecclesial Sturm und Drang, after all, exists in a predictable (if fragile) equilibrium of opposing forces holding each other at bay—“progressive” versus “conservative,” “liberal” versus “orthodox,” and the like. Have we not in the process, ironically, become the “comfortable church” that para. 38 indicts as a “questionable church”?
Paragraph 38 powerfully reminds us just at this point that conflict in fact signals a church alive to God’s mission on behalf of the world. But here is the crucial difference: This conflict is the work of “clear-eyed,” piercing grace (para. 37), exposing, making visible, the world and the church “as they are.” It is conflict that strips the world and especially the church of pretense and self-deception. It is the kind of conflict that sets a comfortable church at odds with its taken-for-granted internecine stalemates and stand-offs. And it is kind of conflict that allows United Methodists to embrace “crisis” not as a problem to solve but as a sign of missional faithfulness. As the great Dutch missiologist Hendrik Kraemer once remarked: “Strictly speaking, one ought to say that the Church is always in a state of crisis and that its greatest shortcoming is that it is only occasionally aware of it.” Crisis, says Kraemer, is a sign of the church’s faithfulness because of “the abiding tension between (the church’s) essential nature and its empirical condition.”[3] Comments David Bosch, “Like its Lord, the church—if it is faithful to its being—will, however, always be controversial, a ‘sign that will be spoken against’ (Lk 2:34).”[4] It is on these terms, I think, that this section in Grace Upon Grace invites United Methodists to make our peace with conflict, to welcome crisis as a state of being. We can do so, however, only in once more indwelling that tensive space between confession and vision, repentance and imagination of which Rev. White has reminded us in her post—a space that is the lifeblood of a United Methodist Church enabled to be “challenged by Christ and, with Christ, [to] challenge[] the world and offer[] its life for that world.” (para. 38)
As both Dr. Carlos-Orlandi and Rev. Lisa-Beth White point out in their reflections, the section “Mission: An Expanding Agenda” interprets grace as a form of “seeing.” And both point to the increased complexity of such “grace-ful” seeing for United Methodist mission today—a complexity, as they both note, that now challenges the adequacy of the expansiveness of that original agenda. And both, rightly, suggest important ways in which United Methodism’s missionary agenda today needs fresh interpretation, correction, and expansion.
Rev. White points to an important dynamic at the heart of Methodist mission—a kind of hermeneutical dance of vision and confession, imagination and repentance. It is just the interplay of these two modalities that enables us to see the world rightly—the world as grace sees it (para. 37)—and precisely so to experience the world’s summons for our concrete response. And, for United Methodists, authentic response to the world’s need has always demanded that we give grace a concrete shape—a form attuned to this place, this time, this context. Hence the ever-recurring question “[W]hat is grace . . . for us?” (para. 29, emphasis added) As United Methodist historian Russell Richey has pointed out, at its best, Methodism has thrived when it held in dynamic tension a missionary imagination fired by a “confidence to go with the Spirit, to experiment, to try new things, to change”[1] and an obligation to give that imagination concrete form in discipleship contoured in discipline, structure, precept, polity. Yet, the all-too-familiar litany of lament in paragraphs 30-39 is testimony to our struggle to dwell in this tension for long. Abandoning the “creative tension”[2] of this space, we opt either for the comfort of a connectional covenant turned predictable bureaucracy or for an iconoclastic frenzy in which denominational “restructuring” stands proxy for missional vitality (as the 2012 General Conference illustrates all too well). Either way, as para. 38 reminds us, the church loses the “prophetic dimension” by which faithfulness to the missio Dei “brings it in conflict with culture” and, in so doing, sets it at odds with its own complacency.
That Methodist mission at its best invites us to expect, even to embrace, conflict may be less than welcome news for a conflict-ridden and conflict-weary United Methodist denomination today—in the midst once more of a contentious battle over human sexuality, episcopal authority, the propriety of church trials, and on. Yet para. 38 might hold a reminder for us precisely at this point. For I think the state of our current churchly bickering reveals a denomination that has made its peace with conflict, so to speak, by thoroughly domesticating it. Our present ecclesial Sturm und Drang, after all, exists in a predictable (if fragile) equilibrium of opposing forces holding each other at bay—“progressive” versus “conservative,” “liberal” versus “orthodox,” and the like. Have we not in the process, ironically, become the “comfortable church” that para. 38 indicts as a “questionable church”?
Paragraph 38 powerfully reminds us just at this point that conflict in fact signals a church alive to God’s mission on behalf of the world. But here is the crucial difference: This conflict is the work of “clear-eyed,” piercing grace (para. 37), exposing, making visible, the world and the church “as they are.” It is conflict that strips the world and especially the church of pretense and self-deception. It is the kind of conflict that sets a comfortable church at odds with its taken-for-granted internecine stalemates and stand-offs. And it is kind of conflict that allows United Methodists to embrace “crisis” not as a problem to solve but as a sign of missional faithfulness. As the great Dutch missiologist Hendrik Kraemer once remarked: “Strictly speaking, one ought to say that the Church is always in a state of crisis and that its greatest shortcoming is that it is only occasionally aware of it.” Crisis, says Kraemer, is a sign of the church’s faithfulness because of “the abiding tension between (the church’s) essential nature and its empirical condition.”[3] Comments David Bosch, “Like its Lord, the church—if it is faithful to its being—will, however, always be controversial, a ‘sign that will be spoken against’ (Lk 2:34).”[4] It is on these terms, I think, that this section in Grace Upon Grace invites United Methodists to make our peace with conflict, to welcome crisis as a state of being. We can do so, however, only in once more indwelling that tensive space between confession and vision, repentance and imagination of which Rev. White has reminded us in her post—a space that is the lifeblood of a United Methodist Church enabled to be “challenged by Christ and, with Christ, [to] challenge[] the world and offer[] its life for that world.” (para. 38)
[1] Russell E. Richey, with Dennis M. Campbell and
William B. Lawrence, Marks of Methodism: Theology In Ecclesial Practice (Abingdon, 2005), 25.
[2] The phrase belongs to David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Orbis, 1991), 11.
[3] Quoted in Bosch, Transforming Mission, 2.
[4] Ibid.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Lisa Beth White on Grace Upon Grace: Mission: An Expanding Agenda
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 Lisa Beth White, doctoral student at Boston University School of Theology. Rev. White is commenting on the sixth section of the document, "Mission: An Expanding Agenda." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
The section of “Grace Upon Grace” before us today titled “Mission: an expanding agenda”, asks what is grace in the twentieth century? When this was written in the 1980s, the question of grace in the twentieth century was timely, but we have turned the corner into a new century and are several years into that new century. The question before us now is: what is grace in the twenty-first century?
In an earlier post, Dr. Sathianathan Clarke wrote that the church lives today in the “hybridity of the modern and post-modern world”. Dr. Clarke argued that it is the responsibility of the United Methodist Church in response to God’s grace to purge ourselves of overconfidence in mission to the world. In this modern/postmodern hybrid, the extremes of absolutism and relativism are giving way to a chastened optimism in which “the Christian church and the Christian mission may once again, humbly yet resolutely, present the vision of the reign of God” (Bosch, 1991, p 361). The title “Mission: an expanding agenda” might suggest an outward look alone, but this section provides us with two movements for mission grounded in twenty-first century grace. These movements are an honest confession and looking at the world with a new vision.
The first movement is confession. Paragraph 31 states that to respond faithfully to God’s grace in Christ “it is necessary to confront our own unfaithfulness: unfaithfulness generated by bland, sentimental, comfortable, and blurred relating of the gospel to the world.” Our missionary response to the grace of God begins with a call to pause and reflect on ourselves and our own unfaithfulness, as individuals and as a church. These are boundary crossings – the boundaries of our own hearts and the boundaries we have within our denomination. God’s grace is a “strong love, a judging and transforming love” (paragraph 29). This grace calls the church to begin with the judgment and transformation of individuals and the church, and calls the church to stand with God against injustice and oppression.
We confess that we have not seen our own spiritual poverty. A bland or comfortable gospel does not challenge us. God’s judging and transforming grace confronts us. The boundaries we have around our heart keep us from close self-examination, and blind us to seeing God’s vision for a transformed world. In the United States, our consumer culture makes it easy to hear a bland gospel, easy for us to be rich in things and poor in spirit. God’s 21st century grace calls us to confess our spiritual poverty.
We are challenged by God’s strong love to confess that we have not seen the physical poverty, injustice and oppression that surrounds us. Too often the church in the United States searches for mission projects beyond its own zip code, failing to see our neighbors who struggle. God’s 21st century grace calls us to confess where we have failed our neighbors.
God’s grace in the twenty-first century requires confession of our failures as a church. Today in the UMC in the United States there is a great deal of attention paid to LGBT rights and inclusion. Clergy engage in passionate debate online, and national news coverage highlights the controversies and church trials within our beloved UMC. Paragraph 33 in “Grace Upon Grace” states that “the body of Christ is a reality which must be made incarnate in our living”. When Paul writes to the Corinthian church regarding their divisions, he tells them they are part of the body of Christ which God has put together. Although there are divisions due to their human failings, Paul describes God’s more excellent way to live together as this body of Christ – the way of humble love. God’s strong and transforming grace calls the UMC in the U.S. to confess the sin of disunity and to live instead with patient, humble love for each other.
This movement of confession is not easy. David Bosch says that “we hate to expose ourselves, to take off our masks, for we do not want [the other] to peep into our own struggles and weaknesses, into our own processes of spiritual development. We present ourselves to them as those who already have all the answers, who are finished products, and who have now come to tell them what to do to become like us” (2001, p 68). Twenty-first century grace gives us the confidence to confess our missionary failings. God’s strong and judging love is also a transforming love which makes the next movement possible.
The second movement of 21st century grace is new vision. Paragraph 37 states that God makes the invisible visible. Sin clouds our vision and makes it difficult to see injustice and oppression; God’s grace is clear-eyed. When we have confessed our sin, God’s grace enables us to see the world as it really is. This is the chastened optimism Bosch spoke of – our hearts, humbled by confession, have renewed vision to see where our neighbors suffer and are oppressed. We have hope because we see our neighbor through the lenses of grace, the lenses of God’s love for all people.
Twenty-first century grace calls us through confession to a clear vision of our need for each other. Once we recognize our need for God’s grace and our place in the whole body of Christ, our mission is transformed by God’s love into a relationship with those whom we serve. This is the love Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians, God’s true love expressed in the body of Christ. For mission, this true love means “accepting that you are dependent and expecting something from the other” (Bosch 2001, p 71).
Paragraph 37 states that God’s clear-eyed grace mandates action. Once we accept God’s grace, we see the world as God sees, and we must act. God’s mission to the world is not passive. God’s 21st century grace requires our participation. Further, paragraph 38 emphasizes the prophetic dimension of mission. The United Methodist Church must face difficult questions and speak prophetically about our complicity with systems of power and oppression such as globalism, consumerism, immigration, economic disparity and the criminal justice system. The mission of God’s transforming love calls us to critique ourselves in these systems and to look for ways to be in solidarity with the powerless.
Twenty-first century grace is challenging. Through it the United Methodist Church can be transformed to be in every aspect of our life and work, the people of God, the people for God in the world.
Works cited:
Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.
Bosch, David J. A Spirituality of the Road. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.
The section of “Grace Upon Grace” before us today titled “Mission: an expanding agenda”, asks what is grace in the twentieth century? When this was written in the 1980s, the question of grace in the twentieth century was timely, but we have turned the corner into a new century and are several years into that new century. The question before us now is: what is grace in the twenty-first century?
In an earlier post, Dr. Sathianathan Clarke wrote that the church lives today in the “hybridity of the modern and post-modern world”. Dr. Clarke argued that it is the responsibility of the United Methodist Church in response to God’s grace to purge ourselves of overconfidence in mission to the world. In this modern/postmodern hybrid, the extremes of absolutism and relativism are giving way to a chastened optimism in which “the Christian church and the Christian mission may once again, humbly yet resolutely, present the vision of the reign of God” (Bosch, 1991, p 361). The title “Mission: an expanding agenda” might suggest an outward look alone, but this section provides us with two movements for mission grounded in twenty-first century grace. These movements are an honest confession and looking at the world with a new vision.
The first movement is confession. Paragraph 31 states that to respond faithfully to God’s grace in Christ “it is necessary to confront our own unfaithfulness: unfaithfulness generated by bland, sentimental, comfortable, and blurred relating of the gospel to the world.” Our missionary response to the grace of God begins with a call to pause and reflect on ourselves and our own unfaithfulness, as individuals and as a church. These are boundary crossings – the boundaries of our own hearts and the boundaries we have within our denomination. God’s grace is a “strong love, a judging and transforming love” (paragraph 29). This grace calls the church to begin with the judgment and transformation of individuals and the church, and calls the church to stand with God against injustice and oppression.
We confess that we have not seen our own spiritual poverty. A bland or comfortable gospel does not challenge us. God’s judging and transforming grace confronts us. The boundaries we have around our heart keep us from close self-examination, and blind us to seeing God’s vision for a transformed world. In the United States, our consumer culture makes it easy to hear a bland gospel, easy for us to be rich in things and poor in spirit. God’s 21st century grace calls us to confess our spiritual poverty.
We are challenged by God’s strong love to confess that we have not seen the physical poverty, injustice and oppression that surrounds us. Too often the church in the United States searches for mission projects beyond its own zip code, failing to see our neighbors who struggle. God’s 21st century grace calls us to confess where we have failed our neighbors.
God’s grace in the twenty-first century requires confession of our failures as a church. Today in the UMC in the United States there is a great deal of attention paid to LGBT rights and inclusion. Clergy engage in passionate debate online, and national news coverage highlights the controversies and church trials within our beloved UMC. Paragraph 33 in “Grace Upon Grace” states that “the body of Christ is a reality which must be made incarnate in our living”. When Paul writes to the Corinthian church regarding their divisions, he tells them they are part of the body of Christ which God has put together. Although there are divisions due to their human failings, Paul describes God’s more excellent way to live together as this body of Christ – the way of humble love. God’s strong and transforming grace calls the UMC in the U.S. to confess the sin of disunity and to live instead with patient, humble love for each other.
This movement of confession is not easy. David Bosch says that “we hate to expose ourselves, to take off our masks, for we do not want [the other] to peep into our own struggles and weaknesses, into our own processes of spiritual development. We present ourselves to them as those who already have all the answers, who are finished products, and who have now come to tell them what to do to become like us” (2001, p 68). Twenty-first century grace gives us the confidence to confess our missionary failings. God’s strong and judging love is also a transforming love which makes the next movement possible.
The second movement of 21st century grace is new vision. Paragraph 37 states that God makes the invisible visible. Sin clouds our vision and makes it difficult to see injustice and oppression; God’s grace is clear-eyed. When we have confessed our sin, God’s grace enables us to see the world as it really is. This is the chastened optimism Bosch spoke of – our hearts, humbled by confession, have renewed vision to see where our neighbors suffer and are oppressed. We have hope because we see our neighbor through the lenses of grace, the lenses of God’s love for all people.
Twenty-first century grace calls us through confession to a clear vision of our need for each other. Once we recognize our need for God’s grace and our place in the whole body of Christ, our mission is transformed by God’s love into a relationship with those whom we serve. This is the love Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians, God’s true love expressed in the body of Christ. For mission, this true love means “accepting that you are dependent and expecting something from the other” (Bosch 2001, p 71).
Paragraph 37 states that God’s clear-eyed grace mandates action. Once we accept God’s grace, we see the world as God sees, and we must act. God’s mission to the world is not passive. God’s 21st century grace requires our participation. Further, paragraph 38 emphasizes the prophetic dimension of mission. The United Methodist Church must face difficult questions and speak prophetically about our complicity with systems of power and oppression such as globalism, consumerism, immigration, economic disparity and the criminal justice system. The mission of God’s transforming love calls us to critique ourselves in these systems and to look for ways to be in solidarity with the powerless.
Twenty-first century grace is challenging. Through it the United Methodist Church can be transformed to be in every aspect of our life and work, the people of God, the people for God in the world.
Works cited:
Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.
Bosch, David J. A Spirituality of the Road. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)