United Methodist Professor of Mission and past UM & Global contributor Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini wrote an article for Firebrand magazine last spring entitled "Would Wesley Get a COVID-19 Vaccine?" With the delta variant driving a current surge in coronavirus cases, especially among the unvaccinated, Bellini's piece is well worth revisiting.
Bellini frames the question in terms of the relationship between science and theology. He writes, "I believe, in some quarters of the church, we are facing ... a suspicion of the discoveries of science." Bellini explains that an exclusive reliance on divine healing coupled with a distrust of science causes some to reject medical approaches to healing.
Yet Bellini argues that, while divine healing is a possibility, that does not preclude the use of medical healing as well. He asserts, "As the grace of God in creation causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust, so also does the grace-filled created order of God allow for healing in creation through the internal healing mechanisms of our body, medical advancement, and the gifts of care in the health professions. Healing can occur through supernatural, natural, and even artificial means, all under the providence of God."
To further bolster his argument, Bellini turns to John Wesley's approach to the issue of healing. Bellini notes, "Wesley considered both spiritual and natural factors that cause and treat health problems. Rarely did he take a single approach, but often integrated a variety of treatments that were available, including prayer, medicine, natural remedies, and other therapies."
Bellini adds, "The theological point is that Wesley did not find science and religion strictly incompatible. In fact, he believed their partnership could contribute to the overall well-being of the human person. To this end, Wesley meticulously attended to every dimension of health and wholeness found in the eighteenth century. Wesley believed the sick should first consult a physician. Methodist leaders, when visiting the sick, were trained to support and supplement the care that was already provided for by medical professionals."
These investigations into Wesley's attitudes towards science and scientific medicine lead Bellini to conclude, "Would Wesley get a COVID-19 vaccine if he were around today? I speculate that as Wesley trusted the advancements of science and the medical profession of his day, so would he today as well. I venture that he would receive the vaccine. More so, when I think of his innovative use of the electric machine, I think he might have been one of the first in line!"
If Wesley would have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine, then we, the followers of Wesley, should too!
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label Peter Bellini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Bellini. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 8, 2021
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Recommended Reading: Peter Bellini - Methodism on Fire
Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini is Assistant Professor in the Practice of Global Christianity and Intercultural Studies in the Vera Blinn Chair at United Theological Seminary. Dr. Bellini is a member of the United Methodist Professors of Mission, sponsors of this blog. He has written a recent piece for the Wesleyan Accent blog of World Methodist Evangelism.
The piece is entitled "Methodism on Fire." Dr. Bellini's piece expresses his convictions about the Holy Spirit's role in renewing Methodism, especially in the midst of present uncertainties about its future. In his piece, Dr. Bellini also touches on the Spirit's role in mission and on the global nature of Methodism.
The piece is entitled "Methodism on Fire." Dr. Bellini's piece expresses his convictions about the Holy Spirit's role in renewing Methodism, especially in the midst of present uncertainties about its future. In his piece, Dr. Bellini also touches on the Spirit's role in mission and on the global nature of Methodism.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Peter Bellini: Global Mental Health and the Church, Part III
Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor of Evangelization in the Heisel Chair and President's Associate for Global Partnerships at United Theological Seminary. It is the third in a three-part series.
In the first part of this series, I provided an overview of the global scope of depression and other mental disorders. In the second part, I shared examples of how The United Methodist Church is responding to this problem. In my conclusion to this brief discussion on global mental health and the church, I share 10 insights on healing that can be contexualized and implemented in most settings as more United Methodists seek to minister with those impacted by mental disorders:
1. RESURRECTION - Build your healing ministry on a robust and comprehensive theology of the resurrection. The resurrection is the origin, source, power, authority, and goal of our healing. Thus, God works from and to resurrection. Resurrection is the foundational evidence of the Kingdom of God, and the restoration of all things in heaven and earth, here and now. Restoration includes our health and wholeness. God desires to restore all things to their original purpose including our bodies and our minds. Healing is God’s gift to us both now and for the future. Our healing, and the healing of all things, begins now and culminates with the resurrection and redemption of our bodies, as well as a new heaven and a new earth (the new creation). All healing is a foreshadowing of this ultimate healing and prefigures it.
2. GOD HEALS - Since the resurrection is the complete picture of our healing, our faith and expectations should be based on the power of the resurrection and in the God of the resurrection. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Although repentance, faith, wisdom and proper medical treatment are essential to the process of healing, we rely ultimately on God who raises us from the dead. It does no service to the ministry of healing or the integrity of persons to judge, stigmatize, condemn or blame persons for sin or a lack of faith when we do not see or receive our expectation or our version of healing.
3. EDUCATION - Educate the community of faith concerning divine healing. Prepare the community by utilizing the teaching ministry. Instruct on healing from the pulpit, Sunday School, small groups, seminars, webinars, health fairs and by other means. People are able to process change and adopt new practices more easily once they are informed about the subject. Education clarifies and diminishes the strangeness and unfamiliarity of a complex subject such as healing or mental health. Work to create a culture of nurturing and healing.
4. COMMON LANGUAGE – Since healing, health, and wholeness can be complex, seek to communicate and operate out of a common language. For example, if you are to officiate a healing service, do it in the liturgical language with which your congregation or participants are familiar. For United Methodists, which is my tradition, I use the healing service in the UM Book of Worship. People are more apt to participate and receive in an ecclesial culture that is familiar, especially something as sensitive and complex as healing.
5. TRAIN & CERTIFY - Train, certify and install (publicly in a service) workers for a healing ministry. For example, if your local church has persons gifted to pray for the sick in the church, the community, or throughout the world, set them apart for proper training, and then recognize and commit their gifts and leadership in a public service. Those asked to pray for healing should feel equipped and confident for the task, and the people should feel confident to receive ministry from such persons. The community of faith needs to affirm and confirm such a ministry and its workers.
6. COMPREHENSIVE - A healing ministry should be comprehensive, encompassing physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, relational and other types of healing. Local churches and ministries should partner with other persons and institutions that are better trained at ministering healing in a certain area. Partnering with nurses, therapists, nutritionists, clinics, or 12 step groups adds to the bandwidth and effectiveness of the healing ministry. A good holistic health network, in-house training, and a thorough referral system are essential to an effective healing ministry.
7. INTEGRATIVE APPROACH - A healing ministry is most effective when it takes on an integrative approach. Theology and science, at their best, should work hand in hand. Do not be afraid to take an approach that identifies multiple causes and solutions to problems. For example, counseling, medications, intercessory prayer, laying on of hands and anointing with oil can work together effectively to combat mental health issues. Not every problem is an ‘either/or’ issue of faith or science.
8. NETWORK OF MINISTRIES- Contrary to popular opinion or even stereotype, there are many types of healing ministries that one can have in and from the local church: healing services, an altar team, a visitation team, 12 step groups, health fairs, an in-church clinic, a medical missions team, deliverance and exorcism ministries (Yes, I said that), a Zumba class, a weight training room or gym, Stephen ministries or similar grief recovery ministries, various support groups like NAMI, nutrition classes, suicide awareness seminars, classes for Christian forms of yoga and or intentional deep breathing (may not be acceptable to all local churches), confessional and accountability groups (i.e. Wesleyan band meetings), Theophostic, Sozo, and other types of more “charismatic” inner healing prayer ministries, healing prayer teams, food pantries, free community meals, cooking classes, along with a host of other courses, events, ministries and teams. Think of creating an environment or culture of wholeness that nurtures and fosters health rather than merely relying on crisis intervention that addresses the problem after it occurs. Think of creating a healthy environment that fosters wholeness as a lifestyle: prevention as well as intervention.
9. EXPECTATION - Expect healing to come at any time, any place or in any way. If you are a leader, teach the people under your care likewise. Many are disappointed because they do not receive the healing they wanted or in the way or time they wanted it. Resurrection comes in many ways and at different times, and at all times death and resurrection become the greatest healing. Teach people to look for and expect resurrection every day and in every way. Give God the space and time to work God’s will and expect miracles.
10. OUR PART- Educate people to be responsible in terms of doing their part in the process. In Philippians, Paul instructs us that it is God who works within us the desire and the will to carry out his purposes. Healing is in God’s hands, but some things God has providentially given to our care and responsibility. Through prevenient grace, God chooses to use the practice of medicine, proper diet, sleep, exercise, wisdom, repentance, faith and other means of grace to work healing. Teach responsibility and education for our health.
In the first part of this series, I provided an overview of the global scope of depression and other mental disorders. In the second part, I shared examples of how The United Methodist Church is responding to this problem. In my conclusion to this brief discussion on global mental health and the church, I share 10 insights on healing that can be contexualized and implemented in most settings as more United Methodists seek to minister with those impacted by mental disorders:
1. RESURRECTION - Build your healing ministry on a robust and comprehensive theology of the resurrection. The resurrection is the origin, source, power, authority, and goal of our healing. Thus, God works from and to resurrection. Resurrection is the foundational evidence of the Kingdom of God, and the restoration of all things in heaven and earth, here and now. Restoration includes our health and wholeness. God desires to restore all things to their original purpose including our bodies and our minds. Healing is God’s gift to us both now and for the future. Our healing, and the healing of all things, begins now and culminates with the resurrection and redemption of our bodies, as well as a new heaven and a new earth (the new creation). All healing is a foreshadowing of this ultimate healing and prefigures it.
2. GOD HEALS - Since the resurrection is the complete picture of our healing, our faith and expectations should be based on the power of the resurrection and in the God of the resurrection. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Although repentance, faith, wisdom and proper medical treatment are essential to the process of healing, we rely ultimately on God who raises us from the dead. It does no service to the ministry of healing or the integrity of persons to judge, stigmatize, condemn or blame persons for sin or a lack of faith when we do not see or receive our expectation or our version of healing.
3. EDUCATION - Educate the community of faith concerning divine healing. Prepare the community by utilizing the teaching ministry. Instruct on healing from the pulpit, Sunday School, small groups, seminars, webinars, health fairs and by other means. People are able to process change and adopt new practices more easily once they are informed about the subject. Education clarifies and diminishes the strangeness and unfamiliarity of a complex subject such as healing or mental health. Work to create a culture of nurturing and healing.
4. COMMON LANGUAGE – Since healing, health, and wholeness can be complex, seek to communicate and operate out of a common language. For example, if you are to officiate a healing service, do it in the liturgical language with which your congregation or participants are familiar. For United Methodists, which is my tradition, I use the healing service in the UM Book of Worship. People are more apt to participate and receive in an ecclesial culture that is familiar, especially something as sensitive and complex as healing.
5. TRAIN & CERTIFY - Train, certify and install (publicly in a service) workers for a healing ministry. For example, if your local church has persons gifted to pray for the sick in the church, the community, or throughout the world, set them apart for proper training, and then recognize and commit their gifts and leadership in a public service. Those asked to pray for healing should feel equipped and confident for the task, and the people should feel confident to receive ministry from such persons. The community of faith needs to affirm and confirm such a ministry and its workers.
6. COMPREHENSIVE - A healing ministry should be comprehensive, encompassing physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, relational and other types of healing. Local churches and ministries should partner with other persons and institutions that are better trained at ministering healing in a certain area. Partnering with nurses, therapists, nutritionists, clinics, or 12 step groups adds to the bandwidth and effectiveness of the healing ministry. A good holistic health network, in-house training, and a thorough referral system are essential to an effective healing ministry.
7. INTEGRATIVE APPROACH - A healing ministry is most effective when it takes on an integrative approach. Theology and science, at their best, should work hand in hand. Do not be afraid to take an approach that identifies multiple causes and solutions to problems. For example, counseling, medications, intercessory prayer, laying on of hands and anointing with oil can work together effectively to combat mental health issues. Not every problem is an ‘either/or’ issue of faith or science.
8. NETWORK OF MINISTRIES- Contrary to popular opinion or even stereotype, there are many types of healing ministries that one can have in and from the local church: healing services, an altar team, a visitation team, 12 step groups, health fairs, an in-church clinic, a medical missions team, deliverance and exorcism ministries (Yes, I said that), a Zumba class, a weight training room or gym, Stephen ministries or similar grief recovery ministries, various support groups like NAMI, nutrition classes, suicide awareness seminars, classes for Christian forms of yoga and or intentional deep breathing (may not be acceptable to all local churches), confessional and accountability groups (i.e. Wesleyan band meetings), Theophostic, Sozo, and other types of more “charismatic” inner healing prayer ministries, healing prayer teams, food pantries, free community meals, cooking classes, along with a host of other courses, events, ministries and teams. Think of creating an environment or culture of wholeness that nurtures and fosters health rather than merely relying on crisis intervention that addresses the problem after it occurs. Think of creating a healthy environment that fosters wholeness as a lifestyle: prevention as well as intervention.
9. EXPECTATION - Expect healing to come at any time, any place or in any way. If you are a leader, teach the people under your care likewise. Many are disappointed because they do not receive the healing they wanted or in the way or time they wanted it. Resurrection comes in many ways and at different times, and at all times death and resurrection become the greatest healing. Teach people to look for and expect resurrection every day and in every way. Give God the space and time to work God’s will and expect miracles.
10. OUR PART- Educate people to be responsible in terms of doing their part in the process. In Philippians, Paul instructs us that it is God who works within us the desire and the will to carry out his purposes. Healing is in God’s hands, but some things God has providentially given to our care and responsibility. Through prevenient grace, God chooses to use the practice of medicine, proper diet, sleep, exercise, wisdom, repentance, faith and other means of grace to work healing. Teach responsibility and education for our health.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Peter Bellini: Global Mental Health and the Church, Part II
Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor of Evangelization in the Heisel Chair and President's Associate for Global Partnerships at United Theological Seminary. It is the second in a three-part series.
In my previous post, I described the global scope of the problem of depression and other mental disorders. The problem of mental disorders is wide-spread and, especially in developing nations, often untreated. Yet the church can play a role in responding to this problem.
WHO claims the misconception is that many believe that amelioration of such mental health conditions requires sophisticated, highly specialized or expensive responses, which is not the case. The WHO goal is to increase the development of non-specialist healthcare providers through training, support, and supervision. The Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) is part of the WHO’s comprehensive plan and strategy, which was adopted by the 66th World Health Assembly, for each country to develop non-specialist healthcare to supplement any existing specialized health care.[1] The plan seeks to create “more effective leadership and governance for mental health; the provision of comprehensive, integrated mental health and social care services in community-based settings; the implementation of strategies for promotion and prevention; and strengthened information systems, evidence and research.”[2]
The WHO along with other organizations are planning and executing strategies to tackle the global challenge of mental disorders. The church is also in the midst of the fray. The United Methodist Church has clear statements about the nature of the problem and has also strategized through its Boards (i.e. GBGM) and Agencies (i.e UMCOR) to address the crisis. The Book of Resolutions cites a lack of knowledge as a chief contributor to the problem. I would encourage our churches to become familiar with the statements on mental health from The Book of Discipline 2012, The Social Principles, and the Book of Resolutions 2012. These resources provide informed theological responses for the church to minister comprehensive healing to a broken world. These resources draw from the ministry of Jesus Christ, the model of John Wesley and the early Methodists, and the scientific and medical communities to shape a United Methodist theology and practice of healing.[3]
One such example is the United Methodist Mental Illness Network of "Caring Communities” developed by the General Board of Church and Society. According to Mental Health Ministries, #3303, Book of Resolutions 2012, global United Methodists are invited to join the Caring Communities program that unites congregations and communities in covenant relationship with persons with mental illness and their families to educate and help remove the stigma around mental health issues.[4] Caring Communities “Educate congregations and the community in public discussion about mental illness and work to reduce the stigma experienced by those suffering. Covenant to understand and love persons with mental illness & their families. Welcome persons and their families into the faith community. Support persons with mental illness and their families through providing awareness, prayer, and respect. Advocate for better access, funding and support for mental health treatment and speak out on mental health concerns.”[5]
The theological statement on mental illness from the Book of Resolution 2012 stresses education as the key to opening the door to healing and wholeness, and the Caring Communities program models this type of education. The statement also specifically calls our seminaries to train clergy to educate and equip congregations and communities to minister with those impacted by mental disorders.[6] At United Theological Seminary where I teach, I designed a course entitled “Renewal Ministry and Practice” that focuses on a comprehensive theology and practice of healing and wholeness. Students learn to construct theologies of healing and wholeness as modeled in Scripture and the history of the church. Students also engage in “labs” that challenge them to put their theology to practice in situation in their local contexts.
In my final post on this topic, I will offer 10 insights on healing from that course that can be contexualized and implemented in most settings, insights that can help guide United Methodists around the world who are seeking to develop their own responses to the problem of depression and other mental disorders.
In my previous post, I described the global scope of the problem of depression and other mental disorders. The problem of mental disorders is wide-spread and, especially in developing nations, often untreated. Yet the church can play a role in responding to this problem.
WHO claims the misconception is that many believe that amelioration of such mental health conditions requires sophisticated, highly specialized or expensive responses, which is not the case. The WHO goal is to increase the development of non-specialist healthcare providers through training, support, and supervision. The Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) is part of the WHO’s comprehensive plan and strategy, which was adopted by the 66th World Health Assembly, for each country to develop non-specialist healthcare to supplement any existing specialized health care.[1] The plan seeks to create “more effective leadership and governance for mental health; the provision of comprehensive, integrated mental health and social care services in community-based settings; the implementation of strategies for promotion and prevention; and strengthened information systems, evidence and research.”[2]
The WHO along with other organizations are planning and executing strategies to tackle the global challenge of mental disorders. The church is also in the midst of the fray. The United Methodist Church has clear statements about the nature of the problem and has also strategized through its Boards (i.e. GBGM) and Agencies (i.e UMCOR) to address the crisis. The Book of Resolutions cites a lack of knowledge as a chief contributor to the problem. I would encourage our churches to become familiar with the statements on mental health from The Book of Discipline 2012, The Social Principles, and the Book of Resolutions 2012. These resources provide informed theological responses for the church to minister comprehensive healing to a broken world. These resources draw from the ministry of Jesus Christ, the model of John Wesley and the early Methodists, and the scientific and medical communities to shape a United Methodist theology and practice of healing.[3]
One such example is the United Methodist Mental Illness Network of "Caring Communities” developed by the General Board of Church and Society. According to Mental Health Ministries, #3303, Book of Resolutions 2012, global United Methodists are invited to join the Caring Communities program that unites congregations and communities in covenant relationship with persons with mental illness and their families to educate and help remove the stigma around mental health issues.[4] Caring Communities “Educate congregations and the community in public discussion about mental illness and work to reduce the stigma experienced by those suffering. Covenant to understand and love persons with mental illness & their families. Welcome persons and their families into the faith community. Support persons with mental illness and their families through providing awareness, prayer, and respect. Advocate for better access, funding and support for mental health treatment and speak out on mental health concerns.”[5]
The theological statement on mental illness from the Book of Resolution 2012 stresses education as the key to opening the door to healing and wholeness, and the Caring Communities program models this type of education. The statement also specifically calls our seminaries to train clergy to educate and equip congregations and communities to minister with those impacted by mental disorders.[6] At United Theological Seminary where I teach, I designed a course entitled “Renewal Ministry and Practice” that focuses on a comprehensive theology and practice of healing and wholeness. Students learn to construct theologies of healing and wholeness as modeled in Scripture and the history of the church. Students also engage in “labs” that challenge them to put their theology to practice in situation in their local contexts.
In my final post on this topic, I will offer 10 insights on healing from that course that can be contexualized and implemented in most settings, insights that can help guide United Methodists around the world who are seeking to develop their own responses to the problem of depression and other mental disorders.
[1] WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP), http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/en/
[2] WHO Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020. http://www.who.int/mental_health/action_plan_2013/en/.
[3] http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/ministries-in-mental-illness The United Methodist Church website offers the entire theological statement of the church on ministries in mental illness from the Book of Resolutions 2012.
[5] Faith and Mental Health Bulletin Insert, 2013. http://umc-gbcs.org/resources-websites/creating-caring-congregations
[6] Book of Resolutions 2012, Theological Statement on Ministries in Mental Illness from United Methodist Church website. Accessed January 20, 2016. http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/ministries-in-mental-illness
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Peter Bellini: Global Mental Health and the Church, Part I
Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor of Evangelization in the Heisel Chair and President's Associate for Global Partnerships at United Theological Seminary. It is the first in a three-part series.
The United Methodist Church has a theological statement in the Book of Resolutions 2012 on ministries in mental health that opens:
According to a World Health Organization report in 2012 entitled “Depression: a Global Public Health Concern,” one in four persons suffers from a mental disorder, and among mental disorders, depression is the most prevalent. Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide in terms of total years lost due to disability.[2] Depression, as well as other mental disorders, adversely impacts the ability of affected persons to perform at work, school, and in the family.
The World Health Organization (hereafter referred to as WHO) estimates 350 million people of all ages around the world suffer from depression, contributing significantly to the overall global burden of disease.[3] Lack of treatment compounds the problem. Less than half of the persons afflicted with depression, and in some countries less than 10%, receive any kind of treatment.[4] Lack of treatment is due to a lack of resources, including education, diagnostic tools, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, medication and support systems. Lack of resources is directly connected to the poverty and underdevelopment of such countries. Misdiagnosis is also another contributor to improper treatment. Untreated or improper treatment of depression can lead to other more dangerous mental disorders and often to suicide. The WHO cites that over 800,000 persons commit suicide every year, and it is the second leading cause of death globally in 15-29 year olds.[5]
Depression is not the only mental disorder that afflicts persons globally. Anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, autism spectrum disorder and other mental and developmental disorders are on the rise as well, and countries face the similar challenges in treating these disorders. There are many individual and social factors that determine risk: genetics, perinatal infections, nutrition, stress, environment and environmental hazards, individual cognitive-behavioral coping skills, trauma, life crises, national policies, social protection, standards of living, work conditions and community support among others.[6]
Many of these factors are part of the larger systemic issue of poverty and underdevelopment. The WHO has identified a mental health care gap between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries. In low- and middle-income countries, 76%-85% of persons with mental disorders receive no treatment, while in high-income countries the figure is 35%-50%.[7] When it comes to treatment of mental disorders, substance abuse, and neurological conditions four out of five persons in low-and middle-income countries do not receive them. The resources are often not available, and when some resources are available, many of these countries allocate less than 2% of their overall health budgets for mental health.[8]
For example in Sierra Leone where I have ministered, the WHO cites that there is no mental health policy or national mental health program and thus no allocated funds in the budget beyond taxation as the primary source for funding. There are also no benefits paid for persons with disability due to mental disorders. However, a mental health policy and programming are currently being developed.[9] The Mental Health Atlas put out by the WHO also cites that in Sierra Leone “Regular training of primary care professionals is not carried out in the field of mental health. There are no community care facilities for patients with mental disorders. Some traditional healers and general practitioners provide mental health care in the community setting.”[10] Much of the lack of treatment is due to the poor socio-economic conditions in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone ranks 181 out of 188 countries in the 2015 Human Development Index.[11] Poverty is clearly a factor in their ability to minister mental health care.
Having detailed the scope of the problem in this post, I will turn to how the church can respond in my next post.
The United Methodist Church has a theological statement in the Book of Resolutions 2012 on ministries in mental health that opens:
We believe that faithful Christians are called to be in ministry to individuals and their families challenged by disorders causing disturbances of thinking, feeling and acting categorized as "mental illness." We acknowledge that throughout history and today, our ministries in this area have been hampered by lack of knowledge, fear and misunderstanding. Even so, we believe that those so challenged, their families and their communities are to be embraced by the church in its ministry of compassion and love.[1]
According to a World Health Organization report in 2012 entitled “Depression: a Global Public Health Concern,” one in four persons suffers from a mental disorder, and among mental disorders, depression is the most prevalent. Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide in terms of total years lost due to disability.[2] Depression, as well as other mental disorders, adversely impacts the ability of affected persons to perform at work, school, and in the family.
The World Health Organization (hereafter referred to as WHO) estimates 350 million people of all ages around the world suffer from depression, contributing significantly to the overall global burden of disease.[3] Lack of treatment compounds the problem. Less than half of the persons afflicted with depression, and in some countries less than 10%, receive any kind of treatment.[4] Lack of treatment is due to a lack of resources, including education, diagnostic tools, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, medication and support systems. Lack of resources is directly connected to the poverty and underdevelopment of such countries. Misdiagnosis is also another contributor to improper treatment. Untreated or improper treatment of depression can lead to other more dangerous mental disorders and often to suicide. The WHO cites that over 800,000 persons commit suicide every year, and it is the second leading cause of death globally in 15-29 year olds.[5]
Depression is not the only mental disorder that afflicts persons globally. Anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, autism spectrum disorder and other mental and developmental disorders are on the rise as well, and countries face the similar challenges in treating these disorders. There are many individual and social factors that determine risk: genetics, perinatal infections, nutrition, stress, environment and environmental hazards, individual cognitive-behavioral coping skills, trauma, life crises, national policies, social protection, standards of living, work conditions and community support among others.[6]
Many of these factors are part of the larger systemic issue of poverty and underdevelopment. The WHO has identified a mental health care gap between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries. In low- and middle-income countries, 76%-85% of persons with mental disorders receive no treatment, while in high-income countries the figure is 35%-50%.[7] When it comes to treatment of mental disorders, substance abuse, and neurological conditions four out of five persons in low-and middle-income countries do not receive them. The resources are often not available, and when some resources are available, many of these countries allocate less than 2% of their overall health budgets for mental health.[8]
For example in Sierra Leone where I have ministered, the WHO cites that there is no mental health policy or national mental health program and thus no allocated funds in the budget beyond taxation as the primary source for funding. There are also no benefits paid for persons with disability due to mental disorders. However, a mental health policy and programming are currently being developed.[9] The Mental Health Atlas put out by the WHO also cites that in Sierra Leone “Regular training of primary care professionals is not carried out in the field of mental health. There are no community care facilities for patients with mental disorders. Some traditional healers and general practitioners provide mental health care in the community setting.”[10] Much of the lack of treatment is due to the poor socio-economic conditions in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone ranks 181 out of 188 countries in the 2015 Human Development Index.[11] Poverty is clearly a factor in their ability to minister mental health care.
Having detailed the scope of the problem in this post, I will turn to how the church can respond in my next post.
[1] “Ministries in Mental Health, Theological Statement” from the Book of Resolutions 2012. Accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/ministries-in-mental-illness.
[2] “Depression:
a Global Public Health Concern,” World Health Organization, 2012. Accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.who.int/mental_health/management/depression/en.
[3] “Depression, Fact Sheet No. 369,” World Health Organization, October 2015. Accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs369/en/
[4] WHO, “Depression, Fact Sheet No. 369.”
[5] WHO, “Depression, Fact Sheet No 369.”
[6] “Mental Disorders, Fact Sheet No. 396,” World Health Organization, October 2015, Accessed January, 20, 2016, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs396/en/
[7] WHO, “Mental Disorders, Fact Sheet NO. 396.”
[8] WHO, “Mental Disorders, Fact Sheet NO. 396.”
[9] World Mental Health Atlas, 2005, WHO. http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/atlas/profiles_countries_s1.pdf?ua=1
[10] World Mental Health Atlas, 2005, WHO.
[11] United Nations Development Program: Human Development Reports, Human Development Index, 2015, http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/SLE
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Grounding ourselves in God (Part 2) - Peter Bellini on Grace Upon Grace: A Church Formed By Grace
Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace
(Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission
professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement
and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist
Church today. This piece is written by Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor in the Practice of Global Christianity and Intercultural Studies in the Vera Blinn Chair at United Theological Seminary. This piece is the second part of Dr. Bellini's response to Dr. Elaine Robinson's comments on the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." The first part of Dr. Bellini's response is here. Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
The comments below continue my response to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). Again, it is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
In pars 50-54, GUG speaks to a vast “list of structural and relational commitments” that have been discussed at other points in this series, and so Robinson limits her analysis to the discussion of “connectionalism” and “inclusiveness.” Her basic critique of the statement on connectionalism is that although the document claims connectionalism as “the primary and distinct vehicle for the United Methodist Church’s “missional life”, it reads more like the typical need to justify the top heavy machinery (my image) required to keep the church connected. The result is an apologia for connectionalism rather than for the missional life of the church.
My read is similar to Dean Robinson’s, and in the end the connection becomes a mission and end in itself. Robinson states that “No mention is made of the scale at which mission can unfold in a connectional system nor of the work of grace in creating the bond that enables the connection to “discover and support” mission” (Robinson par.7). We have an infrastructure and possibly the vehicle for mission in connectionalism, but we lack or are unaware of the true tie that creates the connection and the fuel that drives the mission, and this is Spirit of God at work in the global and local church. Simply put, connectionalism needs to be identified and built around the unity of the Spirit found on the local and global levels of the church rather than in the denominational machinery, which ultimately is a connectionalism that becomes an end in itself.
Finally in par. 51, GUG makes a clarion call for inclusiveness to be “characteristic of the missional church.” Robinson notes that the document’s call to inclusivity is an embrace of the variety of difference in the church, i.e. “race, ethnic, class, age and gender differences.” She recognizes that behind this call to inclusivity however is a tacit claim of the normativity of whiteness in the church (Robinson par. 8). “Whiteness” becomes the de facto norm and default for race and ethnicity. In fact, we often refer to non-whites as “racial and ethnic people,” as if “white” were the norm and not also another racial and ethnic social category. Even the Book of Discipline par. 162 A refers to the “Rights of Racial and Ethnic Persons.” The very notion and development of Whiteness Studies was to recognize that such language, ideas and categorizes have come to construct a world where white is the norm and default and other groups are construed as “other.”
In this way the hegemony of whiteness remains ubiquitous and yet invisible and unquestioned, as opposed to being another socially constructed category and power play. Thus like Robinson, I believe a hermeneutic of suspicion is called for here to discern what we mean by “norm” and “difference,” especially since, as Robinson has indicated that the racial makeup of the United Methodist Church in the United States does not resemble the demographics of this nation (Robinson par. 8). She rightfully calls for a “mutuality of mission” in which the church is open to be transformed by the so-called other, “a relational commitment to mutuality.”
One other point that was not mentioned by GUG or Dean Robinson that I might briefly add in terms of diversity and global awareness, (pars. 53-54), there needs to be some statement that begins to address global faith in terms of theologies of religions and comparative theology, either in the way of awareness, frameworks, or guidelines.
The comments below continue my response to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). Again, it is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
In pars 50-54, GUG speaks to a vast “list of structural and relational commitments” that have been discussed at other points in this series, and so Robinson limits her analysis to the discussion of “connectionalism” and “inclusiveness.” Her basic critique of the statement on connectionalism is that although the document claims connectionalism as “the primary and distinct vehicle for the United Methodist Church’s “missional life”, it reads more like the typical need to justify the top heavy machinery (my image) required to keep the church connected. The result is an apologia for connectionalism rather than for the missional life of the church.
My read is similar to Dean Robinson’s, and in the end the connection becomes a mission and end in itself. Robinson states that “No mention is made of the scale at which mission can unfold in a connectional system nor of the work of grace in creating the bond that enables the connection to “discover and support” mission” (Robinson par.7). We have an infrastructure and possibly the vehicle for mission in connectionalism, but we lack or are unaware of the true tie that creates the connection and the fuel that drives the mission, and this is Spirit of God at work in the global and local church. Simply put, connectionalism needs to be identified and built around the unity of the Spirit found on the local and global levels of the church rather than in the denominational machinery, which ultimately is a connectionalism that becomes an end in itself.
Finally in par. 51, GUG makes a clarion call for inclusiveness to be “characteristic of the missional church.” Robinson notes that the document’s call to inclusivity is an embrace of the variety of difference in the church, i.e. “race, ethnic, class, age and gender differences.” She recognizes that behind this call to inclusivity however is a tacit claim of the normativity of whiteness in the church (Robinson par. 8). “Whiteness” becomes the de facto norm and default for race and ethnicity. In fact, we often refer to non-whites as “racial and ethnic people,” as if “white” were the norm and not also another racial and ethnic social category. Even the Book of Discipline par. 162 A refers to the “Rights of Racial and Ethnic Persons.” The very notion and development of Whiteness Studies was to recognize that such language, ideas and categorizes have come to construct a world where white is the norm and default and other groups are construed as “other.”
In this way the hegemony of whiteness remains ubiquitous and yet invisible and unquestioned, as opposed to being another socially constructed category and power play. Thus like Robinson, I believe a hermeneutic of suspicion is called for here to discern what we mean by “norm” and “difference,” especially since, as Robinson has indicated that the racial makeup of the United Methodist Church in the United States does not resemble the demographics of this nation (Robinson par. 8). She rightfully calls for a “mutuality of mission” in which the church is open to be transformed by the so-called other, “a relational commitment to mutuality.”
One other point that was not mentioned by GUG or Dean Robinson that I might briefly add in terms of diversity and global awareness, (pars. 53-54), there needs to be some statement that begins to address global faith in terms of theologies of religions and comparative theology, either in the way of awareness, frameworks, or guidelines.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Grounding ourselves in God - Peter Bellini on Grace Upon Grace: A Church Formed By Grace
Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace
(Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini, Assistant Professor in the Practice of Global Christianity and Intercultural Studies in the Vera Blinn Chair at United Theological Seminary. Dr. Bellini is responding to Dr. Elaine Robinson's comments on the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
I have been asked to respond to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). First, I would like to thank Dean Robinson for her evident love of the church and mission and her prophetic insights and responses to the document. It is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
Historically a movement whose soteriology has defined its ecclesiology, Methodism has often lacked a robust ontology of the church. Robinson notes that “ecclesiology has never been a strong suit of Methodists” and has lacked “practical,” “experiential,” and I might add theoretical, reflection on the subject as well (Robinson par. 1).
Often considered more a soteriological movement, at least in its early years, Methodism at times has had a tendency to emphasize human response over against the sovereign acts of God, or at best a synergy of divine-human action. Robinson points out that GUG’s discussion on ecclesiology “conceives of the church in terms of the actions of human beings, rather than focusing on the formative and prior dimension of God’s grace” (Robinson par.3). I concur with Dr. Robinson and prefer her move to GUG’s that is to locate our starting point with the Missio Dei and thus our participation in the ”formative and prior dimensions of God’s grace.” The body of Christ finds its origin and purpose in God’s grace in Christ Jesus.
I would also extend the Missio Dei further even to a Missio Trinitatis and the internal processions of the divine persons, which ground the missio in the very ontological nature of God. Such a move could function as a corrective for an ecclesial body that tends to stress human and soteriological dimensions over against the eternal ontological dynamics of the divine. While pars. 47-55 are silent in regards to the Trinity, Robinson does make a brief mention of the Trinity and its mission to offer wholeness to the world. I think these are all forward moves, as we seek to discern and participate in the mission, as it originates and flows from the Triune God.
Like Robinson, I get the sense that GUG at times understands the formation of the church as more our “self-giving” rather than God’s grace-giving, or in my words more of our liturgy rather than God’s doxology. “A Church Formed by Grace,” pars. 47-54, does not begin ecclesiologically with God but with the church and its “worship and service” (par. 47). Instead of grounding our worship and service as the body of Christ in identification and participation with (the risen) Christ, GUG seems to root our ecclesial being in our “offering” and self-giving,” rather than on Christ’s offering and self-giving, which again goes back to Robinson’s original contention that ecclesiology has never been the strong suit of Methodists.” Thus United Methodist ecclesiology takes on a more functional rather than relational shape.
Robinson offers a corrective through a “more grace-centered theological statement” in which God “ingathers the church as the body of Christ where God is worshiped and the sacraments administered, in order that the people of God might be sent into the world to discover and participate in the Missio Dei” (Robinson par.3). Here ecclesial initiation is rooted in God’s acts, and mission flows from our sacramental union with Christ.
In spite of GUG’s emphasis on human agency, there is a place where GUG defines the shape of the church within our sacramental covenant with God, specifically the baptismal covenant (Par. 48). Although GUG spells out the implications of our baptismal covenant in terms of conversion and discipleship, it fails to discern the missional implications of our baptismal covenant, which is a call to ministry as well as a call to discipleship. The administration of the sacrament of baptism is a call into ministry through participation in the death, burial, resurrection, life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
In par 49, GUG defines and makes clear the imperative for mission; “it is impossible to be a true church without being a missionary church” (Par. 49). Robinson seeks to strengthen GUG’s call to mission by connecting it to our Wesleyan via salutis. Mission is the natural fruit of growing in grace, from justification to sanctification. Dean Robinson also rightfully connects mission to the work of God’s prevenient grace (Par.49). God goes into the world before us and calls us to share in God’s mission and be stewards of this gift. Robinson, however, wants to stress that the “impetus and reason for mission” is “grace upon grace” more so than the duty and vocation of the church, as GUG seems to suggest (Robinson par. 5).
Throughout the document and Robinson’s response I picked up on the tension of synergy, and the need to identify the primary movement of God, especially in the missional life of the church. As the document seeks to define the church and mission, it does so through a theological lens that seems to reflect the missiology of a century ago, which was more invested in the human agency of the missional enterprise. Such a missiology is shaped and driven by our “vocation” and “service” to the world “in and for God’s kingdom”, rather than shaped and driven by God as the primary agent of mission in which the church is called to participate in the missional life of God (Par. 49).
I have been asked to respond to Professor Elaine Robinson’s thoughts on paragraphs 47-55 of the document “Grace Upon Grace: a Church Formed by Grace,” a theological reflection on the mission of The United Methodist Church, approved by the 1988 General Conference (hereafter referred to as GUG). First, I would like to thank Dean Robinson for her evident love of the church and mission and her prophetic insights and responses to the document. It is my blessing to be in dialogue with her and the church in these matters.
Historically a movement whose soteriology has defined its ecclesiology, Methodism has often lacked a robust ontology of the church. Robinson notes that “ecclesiology has never been a strong suit of Methodists” and has lacked “practical,” “experiential,” and I might add theoretical, reflection on the subject as well (Robinson par. 1).
Often considered more a soteriological movement, at least in its early years, Methodism at times has had a tendency to emphasize human response over against the sovereign acts of God, or at best a synergy of divine-human action. Robinson points out that GUG’s discussion on ecclesiology “conceives of the church in terms of the actions of human beings, rather than focusing on the formative and prior dimension of God’s grace” (Robinson par.3). I concur with Dr. Robinson and prefer her move to GUG’s that is to locate our starting point with the Missio Dei and thus our participation in the ”formative and prior dimensions of God’s grace.” The body of Christ finds its origin and purpose in God’s grace in Christ Jesus.
I would also extend the Missio Dei further even to a Missio Trinitatis and the internal processions of the divine persons, which ground the missio in the very ontological nature of God. Such a move could function as a corrective for an ecclesial body that tends to stress human and soteriological dimensions over against the eternal ontological dynamics of the divine. While pars. 47-55 are silent in regards to the Trinity, Robinson does make a brief mention of the Trinity and its mission to offer wholeness to the world. I think these are all forward moves, as we seek to discern and participate in the mission, as it originates and flows from the Triune God.
Like Robinson, I get the sense that GUG at times understands the formation of the church as more our “self-giving” rather than God’s grace-giving, or in my words more of our liturgy rather than God’s doxology. “A Church Formed by Grace,” pars. 47-54, does not begin ecclesiologically with God but with the church and its “worship and service” (par. 47). Instead of grounding our worship and service as the body of Christ in identification and participation with (the risen) Christ, GUG seems to root our ecclesial being in our “offering” and self-giving,” rather than on Christ’s offering and self-giving, which again goes back to Robinson’s original contention that ecclesiology has never been the strong suit of Methodists.” Thus United Methodist ecclesiology takes on a more functional rather than relational shape.
Robinson offers a corrective through a “more grace-centered theological statement” in which God “ingathers the church as the body of Christ where God is worshiped and the sacraments administered, in order that the people of God might be sent into the world to discover and participate in the Missio Dei” (Robinson par.3). Here ecclesial initiation is rooted in God’s acts, and mission flows from our sacramental union with Christ.
In spite of GUG’s emphasis on human agency, there is a place where GUG defines the shape of the church within our sacramental covenant with God, specifically the baptismal covenant (Par. 48). Although GUG spells out the implications of our baptismal covenant in terms of conversion and discipleship, it fails to discern the missional implications of our baptismal covenant, which is a call to ministry as well as a call to discipleship. The administration of the sacrament of baptism is a call into ministry through participation in the death, burial, resurrection, life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
In par 49, GUG defines and makes clear the imperative for mission; “it is impossible to be a true church without being a missionary church” (Par. 49). Robinson seeks to strengthen GUG’s call to mission by connecting it to our Wesleyan via salutis. Mission is the natural fruit of growing in grace, from justification to sanctification. Dean Robinson also rightfully connects mission to the work of God’s prevenient grace (Par.49). God goes into the world before us and calls us to share in God’s mission and be stewards of this gift. Robinson, however, wants to stress that the “impetus and reason for mission” is “grace upon grace” more so than the duty and vocation of the church, as GUG seems to suggest (Robinson par. 5).
Throughout the document and Robinson’s response I picked up on the tension of synergy, and the need to identify the primary movement of God, especially in the missional life of the church. As the document seeks to define the church and mission, it does so through a theological lens that seems to reflect the missiology of a century ago, which was more invested in the human agency of the missional enterprise. Such a missiology is shaped and driven by our “vocation” and “service” to the world “in and for God’s kingdom”, rather than shaped and driven by God as the primary agent of mission in which the church is called to participate in the missional life of God (Par. 49).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)