Ole Birch, a pastor in the Denmark Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church has suggested that body appoint a commission to recommend "a better way forward" for the UMC in Denmark. While Birch's suggestion is just that - a suggestion - it reveals the range of options that may be under consideration in Denmark following the adoption of the Traditional Plan by the special General Conference 2019. A translation by David Scott of an interview with Birch by the official website of the UMC in Denmark is below.
Proposal for a Better Way Forward (Forslag om en bedre vej fremad)
After the conclusion of the extraordinary General Conference last week, Ole Birch, pastor of the Jerusalem Church, posted a proposal to Facebook that he will present to the Methodist Church's National Meeting [Annual Conference]. Ole Birch calls the proposal "A better way forward," and it is about establishing a commission that will have the task to prepare a report for the 2021 annual conference on a future for the United Methodist Church in Denmark where gays and lesbians enjoy the same opportunities to have their relationships blessed and to serve in the church as all others.
You can read the proposal here. [Link in Danish.]
Proposals are made to the National Meeting and are handled by the delegates that the local congregations elect to represent them.
Metodistkirken.de has asked Ole Birch to explain the background for his proposal:
Ole Birch writes:
I have sent a proposal to the [United] Methodist Church in Denmark's annual conference about a commission for a better way forward. Moderator Anne Thompson has asked if I would shortly explain my thoughts in this regard, and I will do that gladly.
Like many others, I have experienced repeated disappointments that our more conservative brothers and sisters are not willing to allow room for different theologies on the question of human sexuality. I had dared to hope a little bit that our bishops initiative and support for the One Church Plan at the now concluded General Conference could have helped us into a new situation. As all who followed along saw, it went very differently. It is difficult to see how it would possibly go differently in the foreseeable future. It is my experience that many Danish Methodists experience discouragement and a feeling of powerlessness over this.
I make my proposal on two grounds. First, to point out that we are not powerless. We can, with God's help, take the situation into our own hands and form our future as we think it should be shaped. We must not give in to discouragement, which is a great temptation in this situation. Discouragement will lead us to give up and take us away from our fellowship in the church. I cannot think of any that feel discouraged, namely not the LGBTQ people that have held fast to their church, which has condemned and discriminated against them, but I will say that there is hope for a better way forward, if we stay together to form the way.
Second, I think we need to investigate what possibilities we have to come to a situation where we do not condemn and do not discriminate. Many have asked if one or another solution could not work? The commission I suggest should investigate to answer this question. Can we work together with European Methodists on a new church? Can we find ecumenical partners in Denmark to be church together with? Can we be autonomous? Can we ever leave the United Methodist Church? Can we become an affiliate church to the United Methodist Church, and thereby open more freedom? There are many such questions, but we lack answers. It is my hope that the commission can help us to find a better way forward.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label Ole Birch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ole Birch. Show all posts
Friday, March 15, 2019
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Ole Birch: What happened to the worldwide church? A response to Wonder, Love and Praise
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the second of two written by Rev. Ole Birch, pastor in Copenhagen, Denmark Annual Conference, and member of The Connectional Table.
In the introduction to “Wonder, Love and Praise”, the motivations behind the document are presented and among them, the following is mentioned:
“The dramatic recent growth of The United Methodist Church in parts of Africa and Asia, and the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries in its leadership, are gradually bringing United Methodists in the United States to a greater (if belated) awareness that theirs is, if not a “global” or “worldwide” church, at least not simply an American denomination”.
The text then proceeds to talk about the “adequacy of a polity that has been essentially U. S.–centric, taking for granted a basic, normative national identity for the denomination”.
My intention with these two blogposts is to offer two European (or Central Conference) perspectives on the church that can perhaps deepen this question of center and periphery, and bring something new to our understanding of Methodist Theology on the church.
What if there was no center?
My second point in looking at the text from a Central Conference perspective goes to the identity we try to claim as a global or worldwide church.
In our present church structure, it is fair to speak of a strong center and a periphery. At the center we find the General Conference and the administrative order (the agencies, the commissions and the Connectional Table. The program agencies and the administrative organizations have historically been set up to provide support functions for the connectional system in the US. Their purpose and functions have been determined by the perceived missional needs of the five jurisdictions, and their mandates reflect theological and sociological developments in the American church and society. In 1996, General Conference gave the agencies a new identity as Global Agencies, with a global mandate. At the center, the agencies have their mandate, a budget, some staff and the power to determine how to implement the wisdom of the GC.
At the periphery, we find the church in Africa, Asia and Europe. The seven Central Conferences are very different because they serve in very different circumstances. Some are small, in wealthy countries; some are big, in poor countries. Some are highly dependent on financial support, while others are not. What unites them is that their pastors, laypeople and leadership possess contextual competence in their unique missional situation.
In some parts of the world, the church, under the leadership of these people, has demonstrated astonishing growth over the last 20 years. Today more than 40 % of the UMC membership is in the church outside the US.
If the church in these parts of the world needs support, it can ask the center for it.
The administrative order we have today is heavily dominated by the UMC in the United States. Communication is always determined by the need of the periphery and the power at the center.
All agencies are based in the US. All but one have a US born (and educated) general secretary. All have US bishops as presidents. The boards of the agencies do have CC representation. The Connectional Table of 2016-20 has approx. 85% US members.
The very real problem is an administrative order for at global church that cannot possibly be contextually relevant in Africa, Asia and Europe.
My questions regarding our understanding of our church are these; in a worldwide church, what should be the relationship between center and periphery? Do we need a center? Is our present American center determined by history, theology, need for control or American power?
Let’s presume that the church in the US becomes its own region, and we therefore have a unified structure throughout the world. Then each region (or CC) could establish the administrative order it needs to do the mission of the church (No global agencies) These regional bodies relate to each other and find partners around common projects.
What would that mean?
In terms of contextual mission? It could mean that the contextual competence present in the church in the different parts of the world would gain influence on the administrative order and the programs that were created.
For connectionalism? It could mean that the focus of our connectionalism would move towards mission, instead of policy.
In terms of equity? Less dominance by the already privileged.
For subsidiarity? It could mean that decisions would be made close to, and even by, the people affected by the decisions.
In the introduction to “Wonder, Love and Praise”, the motivations behind the document are presented and among them, the following is mentioned:
“The dramatic recent growth of The United Methodist Church in parts of Africa and Asia, and the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries in its leadership, are gradually bringing United Methodists in the United States to a greater (if belated) awareness that theirs is, if not a “global” or “worldwide” church, at least not simply an American denomination”.
The text then proceeds to talk about the “adequacy of a polity that has been essentially U. S.–centric, taking for granted a basic, normative national identity for the denomination”.
My intention with these two blogposts is to offer two European (or Central Conference) perspectives on the church that can perhaps deepen this question of center and periphery, and bring something new to our understanding of Methodist Theology on the church.
What if there was no center?
My second point in looking at the text from a Central Conference perspective goes to the identity we try to claim as a global or worldwide church.
In our present church structure, it is fair to speak of a strong center and a periphery. At the center we find the General Conference and the administrative order (the agencies, the commissions and the Connectional Table. The program agencies and the administrative organizations have historically been set up to provide support functions for the connectional system in the US. Their purpose and functions have been determined by the perceived missional needs of the five jurisdictions, and their mandates reflect theological and sociological developments in the American church and society. In 1996, General Conference gave the agencies a new identity as Global Agencies, with a global mandate. At the center, the agencies have their mandate, a budget, some staff and the power to determine how to implement the wisdom of the GC.
At the periphery, we find the church in Africa, Asia and Europe. The seven Central Conferences are very different because they serve in very different circumstances. Some are small, in wealthy countries; some are big, in poor countries. Some are highly dependent on financial support, while others are not. What unites them is that their pastors, laypeople and leadership possess contextual competence in their unique missional situation.
In some parts of the world, the church, under the leadership of these people, has demonstrated astonishing growth over the last 20 years. Today more than 40 % of the UMC membership is in the church outside the US.
If the church in these parts of the world needs support, it can ask the center for it.
The administrative order we have today is heavily dominated by the UMC in the United States. Communication is always determined by the need of the periphery and the power at the center.
All agencies are based in the US. All but one have a US born (and educated) general secretary. All have US bishops as presidents. The boards of the agencies do have CC representation. The Connectional Table of 2016-20 has approx. 85% US members.
The very real problem is an administrative order for at global church that cannot possibly be contextually relevant in Africa, Asia and Europe.
My questions regarding our understanding of our church are these; in a worldwide church, what should be the relationship between center and periphery? Do we need a center? Is our present American center determined by history, theology, need for control or American power?
Let’s presume that the church in the US becomes its own region, and we therefore have a unified structure throughout the world. Then each region (or CC) could establish the administrative order it needs to do the mission of the church (No global agencies) These regional bodies relate to each other and find partners around common projects.
What would that mean?
In terms of contextual mission? It could mean that the contextual competence present in the church in the different parts of the world would gain influence on the administrative order and the programs that were created.
For connectionalism? It could mean that the focus of our connectionalism would move towards mission, instead of policy.
In terms of equity? Less dominance by the already privileged.
For subsidiarity? It could mean that decisions would be made close to, and even by, the people affected by the decisions.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Ole Birch: What happened to the worldwide church? A response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part 1
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of two written by Rev. Ole Birch, pastor in Copenhagen, Denmark Annual Conference, and member of The Connectional Table.
In the introduction to “Wonder, Love and Praise”, the motivations behind the document are presented and among them, the following is mentioned:
“The dramatic recent growth of The United Methodist Church in parts of Africa and Asia, and the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries in its leadership, are gradually bringing United Methodists in the United States to a greater (if belated) awareness that theirs is, if not a “global” or “worldwide” church, at least not simply an American denomination”.
The text then proceeds to talk about the “adequacy of a polity that has been essentially U. S.–centric, taking for granted a basic, normative national identity for the denomination”.
My intention with these two blogposts is to offer two European (or Central Conference) perspectives on the church that can perhaps deepen this question of center and periphery, and bring something new to our understanding of Methodist Theology on the church.
Wesley’s threefold ecclesiology
I want to start with some observations made by Ph. D. Jørgen Thaarup[1] about the ecclesiology of early British Methodism. He claims that John Wesley held three dimensions of church in dynamic tension with each other.
First, Wesley formed his societies, bands and classes for the people who wanted to be in association with him and his great sanctifying project. This structure corresponds with the Wesleyan teaching on accountable discipleship and sanctification, as well as demanding and exclusive membership. Its focus is the development of a strong personal spirituality and character. Drawing on the first part of the ecclesiology of Confessio Augustania and the Anglican Art. of Rel. XIII: "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men ..." Later reformulated in the EU Art. Rel. V: "... the Christian Church is the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ." This is ecclesiola, the church within the church. Here Wesley exercised strict discipline and removed people who were not serious about their Christian life. Note that this did not mean that anybody was excluded from the sacraments or the institution
Secondly, Wesley respected and utilized the forms and privileges of the official state church, The Anglican Church. He demanded that his followers attended the Sunday service and made frequent use of the sacraments there. This is ecclesia as the institution. This institutional church structure corresponded with the Wesleyan reformatory preaching on justification. The church was public and open to all people. There were low demands for membership, as well as service for the people of the country coming to the church. Drawing on the second part of the ecclesiology of Confessio Augustana and the Art. Rel. XIII: "... in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance..." Later re-formulated in the EU Art. Rel. V: "... in which the Word of God is preached (...) and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ’s own appointment." This is church as the institution of the means of grace.
The third concept of church in early British Methodism was that of The Evangelical Revival. This evolving platform of pietistic, Calvinistic and later more and more Methodist preachers in Britain was seen and used by Wesley as an expression of Church for his time, and his organizing of “his” preachers in The Conference established a new dimension of church as a connection around mission. This understanding of being connected to a larger movement of God’s activity in the world opens a greater perspective of the Kingdom of God, and in more modern terms, the mission of God (Missio Dei) in the present world. It corresponds with the Wesleyan teaching on evangelism, diaconal ministry, ethics and the task to go out and seek the lost sheep of God. Drawing on what is formulated in the last part of the EU version Art. Rel. V: "Under the discipline of the Holy Spirit the Church exists for (…) the redemption of the world."
Reading our new study document, I ask myself if we still claim all three dimensions of church in the UMC? Becoming an independent church in America, where there was no Anglican Church be the broad, open institution, changed something. Wesley held these three dimensions of church separate from each other, and could therefore benefit from their different perspectives and possibilities. He could have tolerance and openness, and at the same time, he could enforce strict discipline without losing the emphasis on free grace and the availability of the means of grace. He could support the institution and he could act with the agility of a movement.
I would suggest that these aspects of our theology of church be brought into the coming work on the text.
In the introduction to “Wonder, Love and Praise”, the motivations behind the document are presented and among them, the following is mentioned:
“The dramatic recent growth of The United Methodist Church in parts of Africa and Asia, and the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries in its leadership, are gradually bringing United Methodists in the United States to a greater (if belated) awareness that theirs is, if not a “global” or “worldwide” church, at least not simply an American denomination”.
The text then proceeds to talk about the “adequacy of a polity that has been essentially U. S.–centric, taking for granted a basic, normative national identity for the denomination”.
My intention with these two blogposts is to offer two European (or Central Conference) perspectives on the church that can perhaps deepen this question of center and periphery, and bring something new to our understanding of Methodist Theology on the church.
Wesley’s threefold ecclesiology
I want to start with some observations made by Ph. D. Jørgen Thaarup[1] about the ecclesiology of early British Methodism. He claims that John Wesley held three dimensions of church in dynamic tension with each other.
First, Wesley formed his societies, bands and classes for the people who wanted to be in association with him and his great sanctifying project. This structure corresponds with the Wesleyan teaching on accountable discipleship and sanctification, as well as demanding and exclusive membership. Its focus is the development of a strong personal spirituality and character. Drawing on the first part of the ecclesiology of Confessio Augustania and the Anglican Art. of Rel. XIII: "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men ..." Later reformulated in the EU Art. Rel. V: "... the Christian Church is the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ." This is ecclesiola, the church within the church. Here Wesley exercised strict discipline and removed people who were not serious about their Christian life. Note that this did not mean that anybody was excluded from the sacraments or the institution
Secondly, Wesley respected and utilized the forms and privileges of the official state church, The Anglican Church. He demanded that his followers attended the Sunday service and made frequent use of the sacraments there. This is ecclesia as the institution. This institutional church structure corresponded with the Wesleyan reformatory preaching on justification. The church was public and open to all people. There were low demands for membership, as well as service for the people of the country coming to the church. Drawing on the second part of the ecclesiology of Confessio Augustana and the Art. Rel. XIII: "... in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance..." Later re-formulated in the EU Art. Rel. V: "... in which the Word of God is preached (...) and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ’s own appointment." This is church as the institution of the means of grace.
The third concept of church in early British Methodism was that of The Evangelical Revival. This evolving platform of pietistic, Calvinistic and later more and more Methodist preachers in Britain was seen and used by Wesley as an expression of Church for his time, and his organizing of “his” preachers in The Conference established a new dimension of church as a connection around mission. This understanding of being connected to a larger movement of God’s activity in the world opens a greater perspective of the Kingdom of God, and in more modern terms, the mission of God (Missio Dei) in the present world. It corresponds with the Wesleyan teaching on evangelism, diaconal ministry, ethics and the task to go out and seek the lost sheep of God. Drawing on what is formulated in the last part of the EU version Art. Rel. V: "Under the discipline of the Holy Spirit the Church exists for (…) the redemption of the world."
Reading our new study document, I ask myself if we still claim all three dimensions of church in the UMC? Becoming an independent church in America, where there was no Anglican Church be the broad, open institution, changed something. Wesley held these three dimensions of church separate from each other, and could therefore benefit from their different perspectives and possibilities. He could have tolerance and openness, and at the same time, he could enforce strict discipline without losing the emphasis on free grace and the availability of the means of grace. He could support the institution and he could act with the agility of a movement.
I would suggest that these aspects of our theology of church be brought into the coming work on the text.
[1] “Methodism with a Danish Face” Jørgen Thaarup 1998, Wesley Theological Seminary, ISBN: 978-87-90828-76-9 and “The Praxis of Wesleyan Ecclesiology and the Effectiveness of the Methodist Mission in Scandinavia” Jørgen Thaarup 2002, Oxford Institute. https://oimts.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2002-8-thaarup.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)