Philip Wingeier-Rayo Interview of Ruth Duck on Mission

Well-known hymnwriter Rev. Dr. Ruth Duck passed away on Dec. 26, 2024. Among other hymns, Duck was known for her missiological hymn, “As Fire Is Meant for Burning.” Below is an interview of Duck by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo about that hymn. The interview is from 2008. It has been edited for clarity and length.

PWR: What inspired you to write the hymn, “As Fire Is Meant for Burning”? What are the origins of this hymn?

RD: The Lutheran Church of America sponsored a hymn competition, and I think I entered it because I was on the UCC mission Board of Directors. It was the only time I ever entered a hymn competition in my life. It didn’t win the competition, by the way.

I was on the Middle East committee of the Board, and so I went to Turkey. They were trying to transition the mission to local control. The UCC had social works across the country. They had schools and hospitals in Istanbul, Izmir and Cappadocia. This hymn was really written about how I saw them in mission.

PWR: How much did you read of Emil Brunner of Niles?

RD: Not much at all.

PWR: What connection did you have when you were writing this hymn between early Christian missionaries and apologetics and modern missionaries?

RD: [The UCC missions in Turkey] were trying to make a connection with people. The interesting thing is that this is the first or second most popular hymn of mine. And I received some letters from Catholics who complain that I am against creeds. It’s not that I am necessarily against creeds.

I like much more the idea of witnessing in an interfaith situation where people have different faiths. It’s okay to witness to your faith and to share your faith. Ideally, in a dialogue both might be changed, at least to break down the prejudices that they have against each other.

PWR: Turkey is 99% Muslim. As you reflect on the plight of Christians there, to what degree should missionaries witness and seek converts?

RD: I’m ambivalent about that because I know there are people in the world who would be glad that Christians came to them. I think that I feel much more comfortable having people in the country themselves carrying out the mission. So, it’s not that I’m against evangelism, but my way of evangelism would never be coercive or judgmental. It doesn’t have to come in and harm culture and alienate people from their family. Well, you’re asking the question, so I guess this is what you are looking for.

PWR: I ask the question because I know that this question will be asked. If you’re going to have a Christian mission and a Christian presence in a country that is 99% Muslim, should the mission be on outreach and church growth and not just be satisfied with 1% of the population?

RD: Well, that’s somebody else’s decision, not mine. I grew up knowing people who started a fundamentalist student movement. The daughter of this evangelist who was a leader of the movement was a friend of mine, and she went to Turkey. I got these letters from her, and she was risking her life almost to try to convert people. That’s her interpretation of the Gospel.

I know I sound wishy-washy. I think that whatever is done should be done with respect. I suppose that we should believe enough in our faith that we would want to share it. It might be a little like in Timothy that we should be ready to give an answer when asked. We see something in your life—What makes you tick? What is the hope? What are you looking for?

Everybody should go to Turkey because it would disarm all their prejudices against Muslims. We probably have a lot more to learn. Or we have to learn as well as teach. “We are pilgrims on the way.” This is a UCC reference because they were pilgrims. We seek, and we give.

PWR: Another way to interpret pilgrims, at least how I read the hymn, is that we are on a pilgrimage, and there is not a set destination. We are companions together on a journey as teachers and learners. We are going to learn from you, and you’re going to learn from us.

RD: I’m trying to remember exactly what I meant. We can come into [mission] feeling like God has the answers and we want to live up to the best of each of our faiths. But hopefully we are trying to go together to a world of better understanding.

So, if you think of yourself as a pilgrim on the way, you definitely don’t have all the answers. You don’t know what’s going to happen to you on the way. You don’t know who you’re going to meet. You don’t know what ends are going to be closed. You don’t know if your means of transportation are going to break down or somebody will steal your horse or deflates your tires. The pilgrim is also a medieval definition of pilgrim as spiritual meaning of pilgrim and not a sightseer.

“By our gentle, loving actions, we would show that Christ is light. In a humble, list’ning spirit, we would live to God’s delight.” Because they [Christians in Turkey] couldn’t say it in words, they needed to show it with their actions. And it seemed to me that they were. It is dedicated to them.

One of my favorite passages is II Corinthians 4:7: “that it is not ourselves who we preach but Christ.” We become like Christ. Chapter 3 talks about the reflective glory of Christ. We reflect the glory of Christ. So, we are not preaching ourselves.

PWR: Is this passage your main scriptural reference as far as inspiring this stanza? Or was it for the whole hymn?

RD: Yes. I think that this is the theology of preaching and missions. Paul says, “Be what we preach.” That would seem to be contradicted here. The point here is not the preaching, it is preaching Christ, but even more in this preaching context you’re showing Christ, not preaching him. You’re not preaching yourself; you’re preaching Christ. I don’t know if Mother Teresa converted many people. But she showed Christ to many, many people. And they were Christ to her.

The other passage that is important is Mathew 4:14-16: that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

PWR: Yes, like adding flavor to the dish, not by taking over, but by adding flavor to the whole plate. Is this what you meant by the salt of the earth?

RD: In that period of my life, I don’t know if I would call it dating, but I was in an interesting, complicated relationship with a man who was Bahai, and he was really pressing me on my faith, so I was having to answer these questions.

Even at the age of 37, I was a little idealistic. I know that at that stage a person may see part of the truth that they didn’t see before. And you don’t see all the things, as when you know better. But there is a spirit that I really like.

This is the hope of what mission could do—signs of oneness. This is what people can see: we are signs.

PWR: Meaning unity?

RD: And we might want to express it differently. Here it is in the next line: “‘mid earth’s peoples, many hued.”

PWR: What does hued mean?

RD: I was thinking of a rainbow. You know it rhymes. I have always been interested in racial reconciliation. “As a rainbow lights the heavens when a storm is past and gone, may our lives reflect the radiance of God’s new and glorious dawn.”

This also answers the question of where we are going as pilgrims. In the Hebrew Bible, God wanted everyone to get along. So that’s also probably behind there, you know—Noah, the rainbow, and the storm is over. It’s a sense of a new beginning. A new way of being.

PWR: Do you have any sense of how this hymn might affect the way that the singers and hearers of this hymn carry out and see their mission work?

RD: Again, I might be a little naïve, but I would expect that most people involved in mission work would look at it at lot this way. Some of them might be offended like a few Catholics are offended, but I hope that this is what a lot of them would aspire to. Don’t you think? I do, but there is also a lot of variety.

This hymn was written in the context of Turkey where open proselytism by Christians is not legal, though it doesn’t mean that some people can’t do it. I know that won’t be where everyone is, perhaps, but I also hope that you are going with the idea of respecting and listening to the people that you are working with. I believe that whatever your theology of mission, you have to do a lot of listening and a lot respecting, and at that point you are going to be more able to have people hear your message.

I hope also that the hymn would remind you of the side of missions that is more than speaking and doing but also being. Because I think that we do more to draw people to Christ by who we are sometimes than by what we say or what we do.

It is really a tribute to those missionaries who I saw those two weeks in Turkey. I saw this in them, and I’m sure that you want to exemplify that. I’m not opposed to preaching, but we should preach Christ and not ourselves.

PWR: I was just playing the devil’s advocate about church growth, and not seeking converts, but do you think there is a connection between mission and evangelism?

RD: I think there really is. Life in Christ is not easy, of course, but it is a great thing, and I think that we should want to share it. I don’t think people learn very much by coercion anyhow.

PWR: Thank you for reflecting on the context and the meaning of your hymn “For Fire is Meant for Burning.” I learned so much that I would not have known by simply reading or singing the hymn.

RD: Thank you for asking. I hope the hymn inspires people to reflect on how they understand mission.

Philip A. Wingeier-Rayo: Puerto Rico and Cuba: Diverging Religious and Cultural Histories

A Cuba

Cuba y Puerto Rico son
de un pájaro las dos alas,
reciben flores o balas
sobre el mismo corazón

Cuba and Puerto Rico are
As two wings of the same bird,
They receive flowers and bullets
Into the same heart ...

Excerpt of a poem entitled “A Cuba” by Puerto Rican journalist and poet Lola Rodriguez de Tío

Recently, I had the opportunity to travel to Puerto Rico to visit historical Protestant churches. After serving as a missionary in Cuba in the 1990s, I was struck by both the uncanny similarities and stark differences between the two Caribbean islands. Obviously, the inhabitants of both islands speak Spanish, have similar food and music that are a mix of Spanish and African influences, and both cultures have a joyous warm enthusiastic Latin flair. 

Both islands were inhabited by the Taino tribe, a subgroup of the Arawak people of South America, before being colonized by Spain for nearly 400 years. Africans were brought as slaves to work on Spanish haciendas, or plantations, that produced sugar, rum, and tobacco that were exported back to Europe. 

The Roman Catholic Church was dominant on both islands until Protestant missionaries arrived following the Spanish-American War of 1898. Protestantism spread on both islands and built churches, schools, and hospitals that shared an expression of American Christianity. Both islands have vestiges of the Spanish American War with U.S. military bases: Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba and Buchanan in Puerto Rico.

Cuba fought for its independence from Spain with several insurrections and slave rebellions during the nineteenth century, beginning with the “Ten Year War” from 1868-1878. The final push was led by José Martí, known as “The Apostle,” who founded the Cuban Revolutionary Party in 1892 to fight for independence. 

During their independence war, the U.S. feared regional instability and dispatched the USS Maine. It mysteriously exploded while anchored in the Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898, killing 267 sailors aboard and giving the U.S. a motive to intervene. The U.S. troops, known as the “Rough-riders” and led by Teddy Roosevelt, came to the aid of the Cuban insurgents and sieged a Spanish fort in Santiago on July 1, 1898 – known as the Battle of San Juan Hill. On July 25^th of the same year, the U.S. invaded Puerto Rico. The last Spanish troops retreated on October 18^th. 

Collectively known in U.S. history books as “the Spanish-American War,” the conflict ended with Spain relinquishing the rights to Cuba, and ceding the islands of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the U.S. in exchange for $20,000.

The U.S. President during the Spanish-American was William McKinley, a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC). At first, he didn’t know what to do with these new territories. McKinley shared his plans for the Philippines with the General Missionary Committee of the MEC:

“When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them…and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way—I don’t know how it was, but it came (1) That we could not give them back to Spain—that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany—our commercial rivals in the Orient—that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government—and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.”[1]

A similar logic was applied to Cuba and Puerto Rico.

In coordination with President McKinley and the American military presence, Protestant mission boards signed comity agreements to coordinate their outreach in these new U.S. colonial possessions. Missionaries from the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Disciples of Christ, among other denominations, such as the Lutherans, established churches, schools, and hospitals on the islands. The United Brethren Church of Christ articulated the task in Puerto Rico:

“To inaugurate a work that assures the Americanization of the island, similar to the work of welcoming individuals into the joys and privileges of being a Christian disciple… we should inaugurate schools that will reach hundreds of children who can be formed through these institutions in the responsibilities of being an American citizen.”[2]

Methodist missionary Sterling Augustus Neblett arrived in Cuba in 1902 and compared the U.S. military occupation of Cuba to Protestant missions: “The entrance of God’s messengers, who were few in number and who came to bring peace and safety to the Cuban people, was militant but not military.”[3] He also referred to the expansion of Methodism following the Spanish-American war as “occupation.”[4]

The mission work in Cuba was well organized and resourced. By the end of the first decade of Methodist missions, there were 33 preachers, 15 of them Cuban, serving in 32 churches with a total membership of 3,000 people.[5] The mission work in Puerto Rico enjoyed similar success.

In the early 20^th century, the history, culture, and religious contexts of both islands were amazingly similar. However, fast forward 100 years to the 21^st century, and the realities of both islands are night and day. Today, the religious and political contexts are very different. Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens, tend to be politically progressive and vote Democrat, while Cubans, despite the Socialist government, tend to be more conservative—especially those who immigrated to the U.S. They tend to vote more Republican. Puerto Ricans tend to be more open-minded on social issues such as LGBTQ inclusion, while Cubans are more conservative. Ironically, Cubans tend to be pro-American, while Puerto Ricans are suspicious of the United States’ colonial past.

Even though both islands have very similar political and religious histories--both being colonized by the Spanish and the United States, the Puerto Ricans and Cubans today live in completely different social, political and religious realities. One would never guess that the islands are only 750 miles apart. Much of these differences stem from the islands’ different histories since the Spanish-American War.

Cuba was granted its independence through the Platt Amendment, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1903, which included the right for the U.S. to interfere in Cuban affairs. Today, Cuba is an independent nation, but it has been ruled by the Communist Party for the last 65 years following the 1959 Socialist Revolution led by Fidel Castro. Puerto Rico, on the other hand, is still a U.S. territory.

An example of the fate of two mission initiatives describes the differences between the two trajectories. MEC Bishop Warren Candler traveled to Cuba in 1898 to plan mission efforts. The following year, a Methodist school was established in Havana, which would eventually expand to a university known as Candler College. Similarly, Presbyterian missionaries John and Eunice Harris sailed to Puerto Rico in 1906 and established a polytechnical school. That school expanded to become InterAmerican University, which today has eight extension sites, in addition to the main campus in San German, and a total enrollment of 5,000 students. By contrast, Candler College was intervened by the Cuban government and is used as a public school today.

Religiously and culturally, both islands were heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, and many people remain nominally Catholic today. There is also an underlying influence of African religions, such as Spiritism and Santería. This has been attacked by Catholics and Protestants alike as being demonic, but it has experienced a surge in recent years. 

The Protestant churches are strong in both islands, but there are stark differences. The churches in Puerto Rico do a lot of social outreach to the marginalized, while the Cuban churches tend to focus more on evangelization. This is due, in part, to the government restrictions on social services. The Cuban Socialist Revolution, allied to Soviet Russian, implemented an atheist constitution, which repressed religion in Cuba and created a decline in religious affiliation from the 1960s through the 1980s. Religious schools and hospitals were nationalized and are run by the state. 

In 1991, Cuba amended its constitution from an official atheist state to a secular state, and restrictions against church participation were eased. After the fall of the Soviet bloc, a religious revival began in Cuba, and a generation of young people, curious and spiritually hungry, converted to Christianity.

Recent comments about Puerto Rico in the news are a reminder that Americans in general and United Methodists in particular have a responsibility to understand the role of the U.S. and U.S. denominations such as Methodism in shaping the histories of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and other lands.

---

[1] This quote specifically referred to Philippines, but could be applied to Cuba and Puerto Rica, as well. General James Rusling, “Interview with President William McKinley,” The Christian Advocate 22 January 1903, 17. Reprinted in Charles Sumner Olcott, The Life of William McKinley, Volume 2 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 109-111.

[2] Samuel Cruz, Masked Africanisms: Puerto Rican Pentecostalism (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 2005), 23

[3] Sterling Augustus Neblett, Methodism’s First Fifty Years in Cuba, Wilmore, KY: Asbury Press, 1976, 6.

[4] Sterling Augustus Neblett, Methodism’s First Fifty Years in Cuba, 6.

[5] La Disciplina de la Iglesia Metodista en Cuba, Havana, Cuba, v.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Was John Wesley a Missionary to Georgia?

Today's piece is by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary and author of the forthcoming book, John Wesley and the Origins of Methodist Missions.

It is widely assumed that John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, was a missionary to Georgia. I have seen this matter-of-fact statement multiple times in biographies about John Wesley’s life and ministry. If, indeed, Wesley was a missionary, was he commissioned? What entity or missionary agent sent him? This blog will reflect on this assumption and raise some questions about its veracity.

Background

Wesley graduated from Christ Church, University of Oxford, in 1724 and was ordained a deacon in the Church of England in 1725. After assisting his father in parish ministry in Epworth and Wroot, he was ordained an elder in 1728. When Wesley’s father, Samuel Wesley, became ill in 1734 he unsuccessfully attempted to convince his son to succeed him as rector in Epworth. As John wrestled with whether or not to go to Epworth he wrote his father on November 15, 1734 with his decision: “The question is not whether I could do more good to others there or here, but whether I could do more good to myself; seeing wherever I can be most holy myself, there, I am assured, I can most promote holiness in others. But I am equally assured there is no place under heaven so fit for my improvement as Oxford.”

Epworth, Georgia or remain in Oxford?

Another of Samuel Wesley’s connections, John Burton, was a trustee of the Colony of Georgia and entered into correspondence with Wesley about America. The trustees were unhappy with the ministry of missionary Quincy Adams and wished to replace him.

Meanwhile, John Wesley had returned to Oxford where he was leading a group of students, including his younger brother Charles, on their spiritual quest for holy living. The group, known as the Holy Club—and later Methodists—sought to renew themselves and the church in the spirit of Primitive Christianity. The spiritual quest of the Oxford Methodists, including the Wesley brothers, could be described as mysticism. Wesley’s goal was to work out his salvation by faith and trembling (Phil. 2: 12-13). He also felt a sense of persecution and the desire to suffer on his faith journey.[1] When John Burton proposed mission work in Georgia, Wesley saw this as an opportunity to suffer and work out his salvation.

So, Wesley turned down his father’s invitation to succeed him at Epworth because he felt that Oxford was the best place to pursue his spiritual growth. Burton’s invitation, on the other hand, captured Wesley’s imagination. When General Oglethorpe, the de facto governor of Georgia, brought the Yamacraw chief, Tomochichi, to England to meet with King George, Wesley became even more fascinated with the idea of evangelizing Native Americans. This opportunity aligned with his vision of self-sacrifice and recovering the spirituality of early church in Jerusalem, who shared all things in common. While Europeans had been corrupted, Wesley held the belief that Native Americans were pure and closer to Primitive Christianity, embodying a communitarian lifestyle.

Motivation to go to Georgia

After his father’s passing on April 25, 1735, Wesley consulted his mother, Susanna, about going to Georgia as a missionary, to which she responded, “Had I twenty sons, I should rejoice they were all so well employed, though I should never see them more.”[2] With his mother’s approval, he recruited his younger brother Charles and Oxford Methodists Charles Delamotte and Benjamin Ingham, and they embarked for Savannah on December 10, 1735. On board the ship, Wesley wrote John Burton about his motivation for going to America:

“My chief motive, to which all the rest are subordinate, is the hope of saving my own soul. I hope to learn the true sense of the gospel of Christ by preaching it to the heathens…But you will perhaps ask, Can’t you save your own soul in England as well as in Georgia? I answer, No, neither can I hope to attain the same degree of holiness here which I may there, neither, if I stay here knowing this, can I reasonably hope to attain any degree of holiness at all.”

In other words, Wesley’s motivation for going to preach to Native Americans was intimately tied to his own spiritual journey toward holiness. Of this momentous vocational decision, Kenneth Collins writes in his biography, John Wesley: A Theological Journey: “upon further reflection and prayer, Wesley finally decided to accept the invitation to become a missionary…” (p. 55).

Was John Wesley a missionary?

John Wesley volunteered to go to Georgia to evangelize Native Americans without any conversation of official missionary status. At the time, there were many volunteer societies functioning in England, but two primarily had to do with overseas missions: The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Both of these societies were formed by Thomas Bray, in 1698 and 1701, respectively. The former provided Christian literature for priests and the later focused on supporting priests to minister among the colonists. Bray was an Anglican priest who traveled to Maryland and saw the need for spiritual care among the colonists, as well as the enslaved Africans and Native Americans in the British colonies.

While Wesley knew of these societies, he did not go to Georgia under their auspices. Rather, his invitation came from the Georgia Trustees via John Burton and General Oglethorpe. During his voyage and unbeknownst to him, however, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts held its annual meeting on January 16, 1736, and approved John Wesley, retroactively, as a missionary in Georgia. The SPG recorded in its journal: “…he had nearly arrived in Georgia by the time he was approved without consultation as a SPG missionary.”[3] The SPG re-assigned Adam’s £50 missionary salary to Wesley, but he did not accept these terms and saw himself as a volunteer missionary. His vision was to evangelize the Native Americans, and he did not consider himself an SPG missionary. After Quincy Adams was dismissed from his post, General Oglethorpe asked Wesley to not leave Savannah “destitute of a minister.” Meanwhile, Charles became an assistant of Oglethorpe and Secretary of Indian Affairs for the colony and did not seek a missionary designation either.

Conclusion

The SPG Journal for the following year, 1737, lists John Wesley as an SPG missionary, but with no salary. The 1738 SPG journal states that “Wesley thought of himself as an independent volunteer missionary.”[4] Wesley also did not fulfill all the requirements of SPG missionaries, for example, sending regular reports and updates to the society. He did, however, receive funding and books from the SPCK, which he utilized, and he gave an account with receipts. Although John Wesley did not receive a salary as a missionary, the SPG continued to include his name in their journals. So, was Wesley a missionary to Georgia? In spite of multiple unqualified accounts, this assumption joins the list of Wesleyan hagiography. While the SPG would like to claim him, Wesley saw himself as a volunteer missionary and not an official missionary of the SPG.

[1] Geordan Hammond, “John Wesley’s Mindset at the Commencement of His Georgia Sojourn: Suffering and the Introduction of Primitive Christianity to the Indians,” Church History, October 2008, vol.47, No. 1, pp18-25.

[2] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. I, p.234.

[3] SPG Journal, 16, January, 1736, vol.6, fo.305, SPG Archives, Rhodes House Library, Oxford, p.146.

[4] SPG Journal, 21 July 1738, vol.7, fos.26:1-2. Also see Wesley letter to the SPG, July 6, 1737, Works of John Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, 25:516.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: The Mission of the Church in the World

Today's piece is by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary. This piece was originally published on United Methodist Insight and is republished here with the permission of the publisher.

Every other year I have the privilege of teaching a course for aspiring United Methodist elders and deacons entitled “Mission of the Church in the World.” Along with Evangelism, Old and New Testament, Church History, Theology, United Methodist History, Doctrine and Polity, this is one of nine courses that is required for ordination in our church.

I love the title of the class—in fact I love everything about the class. I have taught this course in various settings, modalities, and institutions over the last two decades. Before Covid-19 this course was taught face-to-face both in semester-long and intensive formats. Since the pandemic, I have taught it online and hybrid (some in-person and some online). One of my favorite ways to teach the class is experiential. I have taught the class at Brooks Howell Home in Asheville, North Carolina, and students interviewed retired United Methodist missionaries and deaconesses, as part of the course requirements.

We have combined reading and writing assignments with experiential learning and field trips to ministries that prioritize those who are overlooked by society. We have invited guest speakers participating in God’s mission around the world, and used tools like “Mission Insite” to understand mission opportunities in one’s local community. During these days of reorganizing and refocusing the mission of the church considering our colonial history, it is helpful to reflect on the mission of the church in the world.

The title of the course reflects a change in the way that mission has traditionally been understood. Historically mission has been a one-way street from the center to the periphery. The western Church inherited the traditional mission model from Christendom when the Church and the State were fused together in Western Europe. Following Christopher Columbus’s voyage to the West Indies and the subsequent “Doctrine of Discovery,” the missionaries accompanied colonial expansion to newly settled territories to teach native peoples western civilization. Mission became centered within Christendom and went out to the margins. Mission was an overseas task from “us to them.” Mission started in the Church and went out to the unchurched. This was still the missiological view at the 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland with the goal to spread Christianity from Christendom to non-Christian lands.

This traditional understanding of mission started to change midway through the 20th century following World War II. Following Edinburgh a continuation committee formed and the international missionary community gathered every ten years or so to reflect on the mission of the church. There was an inherent imbalance of power between mission-sending and mission-receiving churches that gradually began to change. The self-determination movement and independence movement of formally colonized nations awakened a new understanding of mission.

Six years prior to the 1938 Tambaram (India) Conference, Karl Barth read a paper at the Brandenburgh Missionary Conference where he described missions as an activity of God. A couple years later Karl Hartenstein articulated a similar understanding and coined the term “Missio Dei” to emphasize that it is God’s mission and not the mission of the church (“missio ecclesiae”).[1] The Church also shifted its understanding of mission to be God’s mission. Karl Barth was one of the first theologians to state that mission was God’s activity.[2] About the same time frame Emil Brunner wrote: “The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission there is no Church; and where there is neither Church nor mission, there is no faith.”[3]

The next meeting of the International Missionary Council in 1952 was held in Willingen, Germany in the aftermath of World War II. The conference built on the concept prevalent at Tambaram that mission is derived from the very heart of God, especially within the Trinity. The conference findings viewed God as the source of missions. Hartenstein’s concept of the “Missio Dei” or a missionary God influenced the conversations. David Bosch summarized the image of mission developed at Willingen as “…participating in the sending of God.”[4] In other words, God is the source of mission, not the church. This theme continued the movement away from an ecclesio-centric understanding of mission to a mission-centered church.[5] Instead of the church being the one who sends, the church itself is sent.[6]

One of the unexpected twists of missions in the 20th century was that the so-called “younger” or “receiving” churches grew stronger meanwhile secularism weakened the “sending” churches in the West. After the Great Depression, two world wars, and colonial wars, the West was not in an economic or moral position to claim that they had the exclusive right to do mission. In 1961 the International Missionary Committee was dissolved, and the World Council of Churches formed with younger and established churches having equal representation. A Scottish theologian and missionary, Leslie Newbigin, was the General Secretary of the International Missionary Committee and stewarded the transition into the World Council of Churches, where he became Associate General Secretary. He returned to his home country of Scotland in 1974, after serving as a missionary in India for more than three decades and was astounded the decline of Christianity and the secularization in the United Kingdom. He had left Scotland during an era of Christendom, but upon his return found a society that was post-Christian or even anti-Christian.[7] He realized that the West is a mission field. This broke down the traditional paradigm of mission “from the West to the rest.”

In 1983 Newbigin published "The Other Side of 1984: Questions for the Churches" in which he built upon the theological consensus of the “missio Dei.” Newbigin’s work that emerged in the late 20th century with a focus on moving beyond Christendom, seeing the West as a mission field, and the Missio Dei. This is the historical background of the shift to seeing the Church as an instrument of God’s mission in the world.

As we reflect on the mission of The United Methodist Church in the aftermath of schism and division, it is important to go back to our mission “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” I treasure the opportunity to reflect with aspiring United Methodist clergy about the mission of the church in the world.

^[1] Hartenstein, Karl (1934). "Wozu nötigt die Finanzlage der Mission". Evangelisches Missions-Magazin. 79: 217–229.

^[2] David Bosch, Transforming Mission, Orbis Press, 1991, 389.

^[3] Emil Brunner, The Word and the World, 1931.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Bosch, 370.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Darrell Guder, ed., Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, 3.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Celebrating 150 Years of Methodism in Mexico: Napoleon, Cinco de Mayo, and Reform

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Rev. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary.

What does Cinco de Mayo have to do with Methodism in Mexico? Restaurants, schools, and breweries in the U.S. have made the holiday popular—mostly for commercial gain. However, few can articulate the history or significance of the Cinco de Mayo holiday. Some people wrongly assume that it is Mexican Independence Day. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mexico launched its war on September 16, 1810, and won its independence from Spain in 1821, while the Battle of Puebla happened over 50 years later on May 5, 1862. Mexico’s victory was against the French army. 

Now what were the French doing in Mexico? This brings us to our topic of Methodists in Mexico. But first a little background.

Ever since Hernan Cortez and Spanish conquistadors conquered the Aztecs and Emperor Moctezuma in 1521, politics in Mexico have been intimately intertwined with religion. The Spanish arrived with the sword in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Roman Catholic Church and clergy enjoyed broad ranging power, influence, and wealth – owning approximately 1/3 of Mexican land.

This began to change when President Benito Juarez (1806-1872) and the liberals advocated for the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. They fought for a constitutional federal state, subjugation of the army to civil authorities, public education, freedom of religion, and the equal distribution of wealth through the sale of unused church property. In 1856, the liberal government headed by Juarez passed the Ley Lerdo, which ordered the sale of church lands (monasteries, cemeteries, etc.) not used for religious purposes. The Catholic Church and clergy fought back in the War of Reform (1858-1860). The liberals won this war and recaptured Mexico City in 1860, passing the freedom of religion law, which allowed other denominations besides Catholics to legally operate in Mexico. The government carried out reforms, nationalizing Catholic properties and secularizing charitable institutions (e.g., hospitals). The liberals turned around and sold these properties to the public, which allowed for the creation of a Mexican middle class.

The Roman Catholic clergy and conservative allies were on the losing end of these reforms and encouraged French Emperor Napoleon III to intervene, which he did under the pretext of an outstanding national debt to France. The French invaded Mexico in 1862, and Napoleon named Maximiliano I to be emperor of Mexico. A sense of national pride and sovereignty rallied Mexican troops, who initially defeated the French army on May 5 at the Battle of Puebla. The victory was short-lived as the better-equipped army advanced and entered Mexico City in 1864. Maximiliano I tried to create a unified government, but he was caught between the competing claims of liberals and the coalition of conservatives and clerics. In 1867, Maximiliano was defeated by Benito Juarez and executed, marking a victory for the liberals and for the Reform. 

What does this have to do with Methodism? 

The liberal government found an ally in North American and European Protestants who believed in literacy, public education, health care, democracy, and ministry in rural areas—especially to the indigenous populations. A former Franciscan convent on Gante Street in Mexico City was one once of the properties confiscated and sold by the liberal government. It was and is a majestic site. Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the lands had been used by Emperor Moctezuma as a garden before it became the first and largest Franciscan convent in New Spain. Between 1862 and 1873 after being sold during the Reforma, this building had various owners and was used for different purposes. In 1865, it was home to the Chiarini Circus, which Emperor Maximiliano once attended with his wife, Carlota. While the National Palace was under repair during 1868-9, this site became a place of legislation as temporary home to the Chamber of Deputies. It was also used as a theatre, restaurant, and cantina, among other functions. 

In 1871, the Missions Committee of the Methodist Episcopal Church approved $10,000 for missions in Mexico. The following year, William Butler, missionary and founder of the Methodist Church in India, was named secretary of the American and Foreign Christian Union and was tasked with mission work in papal lands, specifically in Latin America. Ms. Matilda Rankin, a Congregationalist based in Brownsville, Texas, invited the Butlers to go to Mexico, and so on February 1, 1873, the family sailed for Veracruz and took a train to Mexico City. The Butlers purchased the former Franciscan monastery for $16,300 to start the first Methodist Church. They began an orphanage with 37 girls, and Mrs. Butler established a support group for mothers every Tuesday night. 

Alejo Hernández became the first Mexican to be ordained by the MEC, South in December of 1871. Born in Aguascalientes, Hernández came to Brownsville, Texas, in search of a Protestant Bible and was ordained a deacon by Bishop Enoch Martin in Corpus Christi, Texas, and then he traveled back to Mexico City to assist Butler to help the new Methodist mission on Gante Street in 1873. The same year, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South sent Bishop JC Keener, and he purchased the former chapel of St. Andrew on the corner of San Andres and Callejon 57 streets in Mexico City. 

The liberal reforms and defeat of the French army created a window of opportunity for the Methodists, along with the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other Protestants, to begin mission work in Mexico—150 years ago this year. To honor this history, the Methodist Church of Mexico will hold a celebratory conference later this year with the theme “Renovation and Future,” to be held at the Santisima Trinidad Methodist Church at Gante Street 5, November 30 – December 2.

Robert Hunt – Response to Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Implications of Online Education for the Future of the Church, Part II

Today’s post is by Dr. Robert A. Hunt. Rev. Dr. Hunt is Director of Global Theological Education and Professor of Christian Missions and interreligious Relations This post responds to an earlier series of posts by Rev. Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo, which can be found here: [1], [2], and [3].

In my last post, I suggested that the move to online-only M.Div. degrees is another sign that theological education across-the-board must be completely rethought in a radical way. Only by so doing can we respond to the fundamental changes in the self-understanding of contemporary people and thereby hope to present a comprehensible gospel to the contemporary world.

There are ways that theological education can address some of these challenges, and they go hand in hand with the new possibilities for online learning.

First, we must recognize that while a set-apart community life is an important phase in preparation for ministry, it is not necessarily its heart. Instead of assuming that putting students in proximity with one another will manufacture community life, we need to build intentionally constructed retreat-like experiences combining learning, worship, and spiritual formation as part of the theological education experience. There are multiple possible models for this, and any and all will need to be operative depending on specific needs and circumstances.

Moreover, we must take seriously the possibilities for real, virtual communities, many of which already exist. This isn’t simply a matter of capturing the imaginations of Millennials and Gen Z. One of my differently abled students pointed out to me that the best-intentioned disability access programs are still burdensome compared to entering a virtual world in which he and his friends can meet without navigating any physical restraints. For many “virtual” worlds are at least in part better and more fulfilling than “real” worlds, assuming that this distinction is even valid.

Second, given the unsettled state of our churches and church institutions, it is unfair to ask students to commit to a degree program as their initial engagement with a theology school. We’ll need to accept and move toward what are commonly called “stackable” credentials based on focused training in particular skills or realms of inquiry that persons already in ministry need to master. These could then be built up to credit for a full semester course and so-on to a degree. And we need to accept that many competent pastors will not need to complete a degree to begin and carry on good ministry.

Third, we’ll need to recognize that online pedagogy is completely different from classroom pedagogy, but it does match much of what has been accepted in higher education for the last 15 years or more. The “sage on the stage” isn’t dead, but for the most part needs to be replaced by the “guide on the side,” a model suited to online and hybrid education. And after all, I had incredible sages in seminary at Perkins who were no more available to me emotionally and spiritually than if I’d been watching a video of the lecture. People of my generation reveled in the sage on a stage. That simply isn’t true of millennials and Gen Z.

Fourth, this means that credentialing for teaching needs to be seriously reconsidered. American PhD programs are designed to reproduce 20th century scholars, researchers, and authors of monographs, not necessarily teachers and leaders. The church needs professional theologians, but seminaries also need teachers and guides.

Fifth, we must master the emerging digital media as means of communication and interaction.

One of the things most difficult to accept, but absolutely necessary to understand in a rapidly changing multi-cultural context, is that there is no universal standard for either ordering information so that it constitutes understanding and knowledge or conveying that understanding in a comprehensible way. We must become open to the fact that a standard academic essay is only one of many possible models of thinking rationally from question to answer, and thus only one of many possible models of conveying understanding achieved to others. We are training pastors to engage the world with the gospel, not to become members of the academic guild. They must speak the languages of the people to whom they minister.

Sixth, and following from the above, theological educators must create curricula and course content relevant to a rapidly changing social and cultural situation. Precisely because the socio-cultural situation is rapidly changing, there is no fixed model for theological education that won’t soon be out of date. Instead, theology schools will need to create models for learning that have clear goals but are internally flexible -- with the capability of changing on a semester by semester, or at most year by year, basis. There will be no comfortable place where we have mastered our field of study and the ways in which to communicate our knowledge to students.

Similarly, pastors and church leaders cannot be trained just to become competent spiritual guides and denominational functionaries. United Methodist theological education in the 20th century assumed a stable organization within which changing theological expressions would address a changing society. That stability is gone. Now, pastors and church leaders will need to be prepared to foster creativity and manage change within congregations. Critical theological reflection will need to be supplemented by teaching more practical forms of leadership.

Finally, balancing this focus on teaching with the need for faculty to pursue longer term research projects will require new ways of thinking about how research requiring commitment over years fits with the need for constantly changing subject matter in courses. A tenure system that rewards only monographs that take years to write will exclude the necessary faculty who are willing and even desire to engage the edges of change in a field or many fields. Dilettantes and non-credentialed experts have an important role in theological education and shouldn’t be pushed into second tier positions.

There is a church in County Durham in England called the old Saxon church. It has stood for 1250 years. It was built from stones taken from Hadrian’s Wall, which was no longer relevant to the defense of England. Stones intended for one purpose were used for another.

Modern theological educators must look at the stones we have, look at the challenges we face, and begin to both tear down and rebuild. It will not be easy. The old barbarians remain a danger. And yet our defenses against them convey no gospel, no good news to rising generations.

Suggested Readings: Raymond Martin, John Barrisi, The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self; Charles Taylor, A Secular Age; Calvin Schrag, The Self in Post-Modernity; Jeffry Bishop, Anticipatory Corpse; Meghan O’Gieblyn, God, Human, Animal, Machine; Matthew Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head.

Robert Hunt – Response to Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Implications of Online Education for the Future of the Church, Part I

Today’s post is by Dr. Robert A. Hunt. Rev. Dr. Hunt is Director of Global Theological Education and Professor of Christian Missions and interreligious Relations. This post responds to an earlier series of posts by Rev. Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo, which can be found here: [1], [2], and [3].

In his recent posts, Phil Wingeier-Rayo has brought our attention to the United Methodist University Senate’s recent decision to allow fully online M.Div. degrees for United Methodist ministry candidates. Phil asks what the implications of this decision will be for students, the denomination, and seminaries and suggests a hybrid model as an alternative to a fully online degree.

In my comments about online teaching and the future of theological education, I will essentially make two points.

The first is that modern hybrid theological education actually goes way back to the 1960s and 70s. There are well formed pedagogical models for bringing students together over a period of one or two weeks, and then interacting with them remotely over the rest of the semester. This is classic theological education by extension (TEE). It was pioneered by Pentecostals in the Netherlands, conservative Christians from Texas and California, and others extending theological education to underserved areas.

I was the Director of such theological educational programs in both Malaysia and Singapore. The key feature of these programs was that they focus on forming proven leaders rather than young people who thought they might potentially be leaders. The TEE model allows men and women already in ministry to gain the education and professional skills they need to lead more effectively. Allowing fully online degrees simply makes it possible to do in the United States what has already been well done for many decades in some places.

The second and more radical point is that higher education across-the-board must be rethought. The idea that degrees are necessary to the preparation of persons or ministry must be abandoned. The Master of Divinity degree is declining because it is seen as irrelevant. It is irrelevant to The United Methodist Church, and it is irrelevant to people who are seeking to serve Jesus Christ. Indeed, the very concept of academic credentials needs to be rethought, as it is being rethought across many fields and industries.

Further, in rapidly changing times every possible question that can be asked must be asked. Do pastors actually need to be theologians? Why is critical thinking important for ministry? Why teach people to think theologically, and then demand that they pass tests for doctrinal correctness?

Are pastors entrepreneurial leaders and potential missionaries, or are they functionaries with defined tasks in relation to the congregation and its maintenance? Are the contemporary fields of study in a theological school actually relevant to contemporary Christian ministry? Are PhD programs in theology relevant to creating teachers for men and women entering Christian ministry?

Is it not possible that the entire system linking preparation of pastors to institutions of higher education is no longer useful or relevant? Is it not possible that we should be taking the resources that we have and deploying them in completely new and different ways to serve the church?

Ultimately, I would suggest that Philip is not radical enough. Contemporary theological education is based on an enlightenment understanding of both religion and the human person. We are in the midst of a sea change in which those understandings are being swept away, and along with them, the institutions that served their intellectual and spiritual needs.

We are moving into an era in which changes in the self-understanding of contemporary people will rival and surpass those changes created by the Enlightenment and modernity. These factors at the least are changing human self-understanding. 1. The rise of AI and, related to it, changes in psychology and neurobiology. 2. Advances in medical science, particularly related to the manipulation of genes and the mechanization of the body. 3. Cultural shifts with regard to sexuality. 4. Emergent understandings of the human biome in relation to the biosphere under the influence of evolving evolutionary theory. 5. Multi-cultural and multi-ethnic environments as the norm for human experience. 6. Changing ways in which contemporary people construct their human identity.

These factors are rapidly making Enlightenment era models of human personhood obsolete. As a result, articulations of the meaning of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ for 21st century persons must inevitably change to address them as they are.

In this situation, all past theological work, from the apostolic witness in the New Testament to the theologians of the 20th century, is better understood as normative examples of the process of faithful contextualization rather than as generators of normative doctrines. And that alone tells us that all Enlightenment era constructions of theological school curriculum and even individual courses need to be reworked.

As importantly, the church must learn to speak the contemporary vernacular, a vernacular that is either missing or transforms the theological language of 20^th century Christianity. And it is the task of theological educators to prepare pastors to learn that vernacular, which means first that theological educators themselves learn it, something that many if not most appear reluctant to do.

In my next post, I will suggest some of the ways in which theological schools and theological educators can engage in that very task.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Implications of Online Education for the Future of the Church, Part 3

Today's piece is the second in a three-part series by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary.

Part Three: The Impact of a Fully Online MDiv for Theological Schools

On February 9, 2023, the University Senate of the UMC announced that they have approved a fully online MDiv degree to meet the educational criteria for ordination orders. https://www.gbhem.org/news/university-senate-approves-policy-change-to-offer-fully-online-master-of-divinity-degree/ This is a monumental change from the previous policy that required at least one-third of the degree to be completed in-person.

This is the final part of a 3-part blog on the implications of this policy change. The first part explored implications for students and future pastors, part 2 examined the impact for the UMC, and this final segment analyzes what this change will mean for theological schools and propose a mediated alternative between the two extremes of the costly traditional residential model and 100% online delivery.

Theological education, just as all of higher education, has been in crisis in recent years due to rising costs and a decline in enrollment. For decades, the MDiv has been the bread and butter for seminaries, and this has meant a consistent tuition revenue, but fewer students are enrolling in the MDiv. According to a 2018 report by Chris Meinzer using data from 240 member institutions of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS), enrollment in MDiv programs declined from 43% to 40% of total students, while enrollment in academic MA degrees increased from 12% to 17% of degree-seeking  students.  While 40% is still the largest of the seminary programs, it is significant that less than half of students are preparing for parish ministry. This trend has accelerated since 2018.

Historically, the UMC has subsidized the 13 official United Methodist seminaries through the Ministerial Education Fund (MEF). A formula divides the designated funds based partially on the number of United Methodist ordination candidates who graduate from a seminary. The number of seminarians pursuing ordination has declined, and so the school won’t be credited for these students.

Many students are instead enrolled in other degree programs, such as the Master of Theological Studies (MTS) or the Master in the Arts in Theology (MA) and feel led to work in non-for-profits, chaplaincy or some para-ecclesial ministry. MA in Religion programs require fewer credit hours and can be completed in two years, as opposed to three to five years for the MDiv. As a result, seminaries will be hit by a double-whammy of both a lower MEF allotment and also less tuition revenue. Seminaries are feeling this economic pressure.

Many schools also receive revenue through room and board in their residential facilities. The University Senate’s decision will likely lead to less demand for physical facilities for seminaries as future students will not reside on campus, eat in the dining hall, sit in class, or do research in a brick-and-mortar library.

These added financial pressures will accelerate the trend of seminaries merging, embedding in larger universities, and closing campuses. For example, in the last two years Lancaster and Moravian Seminaries in Pennsylvania combined, General Theological Seminary in New York came under the umbrella of Virginia Theological Seminary, and Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary became embedded in Lenoir Rhyne University. In March of this year, Claremont School of Theology announced that they will relocate from their historic campus in Claremont to Westwood UMC in Los Angeles. Saint Paul School of Theology was ahead of the curve when it sold its historic campus in 2012 to have a smaller physical footprint renting space from the Church of the Resurrection and a second campus at Oklahoma City University.

With fewer residential students and more distance learners, aging campuses that require maintenance become more of a burden than an asset. This, of course, will depend upon the enrollment, budget, and ethos of each school. However, this announcement from University Senate will impact all the schools, as they will need to take into account the increased competition, as ministry candidates do a cost-benefit analysis and weigh their options.

In light of the University Senate’s announcement, the decline in MDiv enrollment, the cost of maintaining a physical plant, and the challenges with online pedagogy, I would like to propose a via media—a middle way. I propose a path the has the best of residential pedagogy and the accessibility and cost-effectiveness of online education.

Contextualized theological education is not new to ministerial training. Even before the latest technological advances, Methodism has a long tradition of training pastors by extension. John Wesley created the Christian Library, an anthology of classical theological writings that he deemed essential for new preachers to read. Aspiring circuit riders on the American frontier were assigned reading, and they were partnered with experienced pastors, called “yokefellows,” for apprenticeship.

Eventually, a more formalized 4-year reading list was published by the Methodist Book Concern, which led to the Course of Study for local pastors. As transportation improved, the Course of Study moved from correspondence courses to a residential model. Even still, this training method was contextual because pastors were under appointment and their courses only required 2-4 weeks of residence each year—usually in the summer.

Institutions of higher learning, particularly Ivy League schools on the East Coast, were the forerunners in professional theological education. Yale University, for example, graduated its first Bachelor of Theology (BT) class in 1869. The emergence of graduate theological education and the MDiv as the gold standard for ministerial training didn’t become common place until the mid-1950s. Yale changed its BT to an MDiv in 1971.

So, the University Senate decision to allow a fully online MDiv degree for ministerial candidates is not entirely new or without precedence, and, in fact, is actually closer to the early training model for American Methodism.

Contextual theological education has several advantages. I have taught in the Course of Study for 25 years, and local pastors bring their pastoral experience into the classroom. They engage course readings with a pastoral lens as to what is useful and what is hyperbole. They practice the advice of Paul, who wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “test everything; hold fast to what is good.”

In other words, local pastors want a practical theological education they can use in their ministry settings. One student under appointment reported: “Since I was a student pastor, therefore it was an excellent experience because I was applying the knowledge as the seminary shaped my theological and ministry understanding.” I’ve received reports from Course of Study students who study a concept during the week and then preach on it on Sunday.

This is very different from young MDiv students who are straight out of college often studying theory to be applied later in their field education site or their first appointment. Thus, online-only degrees will push seminaries to reevaluate their pedagogy.

On the flipside, as discussed in Parts I and II of this blog, students who remain in their home contexts and aren’t exposed to a wide variety of experiences in residential theological education often complete seminary without major changes in their worldview or theological perspectives. This also creates pedagogical challenges.

I propose a hybrid pathway where students are allowed to remain in their communities and maintain their current family and work commitments and travel to the seminary campus for intensive face-to-face immersions with their professors and their classmates. These intensive immersion classes can be week-long or for just a weekend.

This model retains the best of both extremes while still creating spaces to embrace diversity, to sit in class, in chapel, or across the table from someone from a different life experience than one’s own. It will force students to get out from behind a computer screen and open the door for deeper relationships and cognitive dissonance. Students will build community, and this will improve morale and retention. Students who are more connected with their professors and classmates in a cohort model are more likely to complete the degree.

A hybrid delivery method also justifies the use of seminary residential and dining facilities. Students can rent a room and eat meals in the dining hall, giving the schools some additional revenue.

This model isn’t completely new, as it has a great deal of similarity to the summer Course of Study, where students serve as local pastors throughout the year and travel to a seminary campus for 2-4 weeks every summer. This hybrid pathway will create a cohort where ministerial candidates can build community as they journey through the MDiv program together, seeing their classmates for a few intensive encounters every year.

In conclusion, the announcement earlier this year from the University Senate will have major repercussions for theological education in The United Methodist Church. Candidates for ordination no longer have a residential requirement and can now complete 100% of their MDiv online. This allows students who are tethered to their local communities to study while remaining in place. This pedagogical model is a throw-back to earlier models of contextualized theological education where students completed their training while under appointment, such as the Course of Study. To mediate the 100% online vs. traditional theological education debate, I propose a hybrid pathway that involves courses taught online with intermittent intensive immersion encounters placed in the middle of the semester. This will allow students and professors to have the advantages of both delivery methods. 

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Implications of Online Education for the Future of the Church, Part 2

Today's piece is the second in a three-part series by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary.

Part Two: The Impact of Fully Online Theological Education on the UMC

On February 9, 2023, the University Senate of the UMC announced that they have approved a fully online MDiv degree to meet the educational criteria for ordination orders. This is a monumental change from the previous policy that required at least one-third of the degree to be completed in-person.

This is the second of a three-part blog analyzing the impact of this policy on the student in preparation for ministry, on the UMC, and on theological schools. In this part, I will look at the impact on the UMC. The third and final part will propose a model that addresses some of the concerns and questions raised in the first and second parts.

In my opinion, this new policy will favor those annual conferences that do not have a seminary (either a UM seminary or a seminary that is approved by University Senate) within their geographical boundaries. There has historically been a “brain drain,” where rural areas lose talent when young people go off to study in urban areas and don’t return.

Similarly, when ministry candidates move from their homes to a major metropolitan area such as Atlanta, Chicago, or Washington DC, many do not return to their home conferences. Talented young people are enticed to divinity schools with full scholarships for three years where they are exposed to new opportunities and connections at seminary. Students participate in a very diverse community and are exposed to new ideas. Students are tempted by studying for a PhD. There is also an increasing number of seminary graduates who do not feel led to serve the church, whether ordained or not. Many enter into chaplaincy, non-for-profit organizations, or other career options.

This is not true of all students from rural areas; some candidates are far enough along in the ordination process, or they have significant community ties, so that they indeed do return to their home conferences, accept an appointment to a local church, and continue the ordination process once they have completed seminary.

The new University Senate policy permitting a 100% online MDiv degree will allow more ministry candidates to stay within their annual conference, which could lead to a higher percentage of young people who remain in the candidacy process and continue on through ordination. The Lewis Center of Wesley Theological Seminary began reporting on the decline in numbers of young clergy under the age of 35 in 2006. In 2005, the number of young elders declined to a historic low of 850 in the United States. For a few years, the denomination provided greater support and incentives for young clergy, and the number rose to 1003 in 2016. However, in recent years the decline in young clergy has continued. A 2022 report by Lovett Weems stated, “The number of young elders in 2021 hit a new historic low of 742. The trend of steep losses continues in 2022 with a loss of another 94 and thus another record low number of young elders at 648.”  

This University Senate policy change may help annual conferences retain young people, who can stay within their geographical boundaries while they complete their seminary training. Moreover, annual conferences can appoint ministry candidates to an appointment as a student pastor while they are completing their degree.

On the downside, I also foresee fewer opportunities for transformational learning experiences for students who stay put to attend seminary. When one does not have to be directly confronted with another person’s reality and life circumstances that are very different from one’s own, then there are fewer opportunities for cognitive dissonance. I fear that students who study for their seminary degree completely online will go through the curriculum without major challenges to their beliefs. This could lead to a lack of critical thinking skills. If an author, instructor, or classmate presents an idea that is mediated by technology, then one is safely behind a computer screen unchallenged.

Students will not have to live in residential student housing, eat in the dining halls, and attend chapel with other students from different walks of life. The richness of campus life is a seminary community of students who identify as rich and poor, gay and straight, rural and urban, as well as international students. You may encounter students different from you in an online class, but there won’t be spontaneous and perhaps uncomfortable conversations in the parking lot after class, late night theological discussions or weekend road-trips.

While online students can still access e-books and electronic resources, they will have fewer opportunities to peruse the reference materials or get lost in the stacks of a theological library. Online education can also rely on “cookie cutter” and “check the box” methodology that transmits knowledge but without liberatory pedagogy that teaches critical thinking.

These changes matter not just for students, but for the church at large. They could result in pastors who are not trained as public theologians to think on their feet and lead their congregations through the unchartered challenges ahead. The church will need skilled leaders and theologians in the years ahead. Online study could result in fewer MDiv graduates with the academic preparation to pursue a doctorate or to lead in innovative and inclusive ways.

In conclusion, a student who completes seminary in a fully online platform may produce pastors who are more deeply rooted locally with less exposure to the national and global church and the reality of those whose life experiences are different than themselves. I foresee that the long-term impact for the annual conference will be pastors who have a more local or regional worldview—largely unchanged from the time that a student enters seminary. Collectively for the annual conference, the clergy will become more like-minded without the national or international connections of those who have been exposed to a broader range of seminary experiences and relationships.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: Implications of Online Education for the Future of the Church, Part 1

Today's piece is the first in a three-part series by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Professor of Missiology, World Christianity and Methodist Studies at Wesley Theological Seminary.

Part One: The Impact of Fully Online Theological Education on Seminary Students

On March 11, 2020, while serving as Academic Dean at Wesley Theological Seminary I did something that I never thought I would do. I sent out an email to faculty that stated: “We are cancelling all classes.” The first positive case of Covid-19 had come too close to our seminary community, and so I cancelled all in-person classes and campus activities and instructed the faculty to transition their classes online by the following week. This was a very sudden pivot, but necessary to practice social distancing and still advance our educational mission.

Nearly three years later, on February 9, 2023, the University Senate of The United Methodist Church announced the inevitable consequences of the changes wrought by the pandemic: approval of a fully online MDiv degree for ministerial candidates. This is a monumental change from the previous policy that required at least one-third of the degree to be completed in-person. Citing accessibility, global access, and especially the Covid-19 pandemic as the impetus for accelerating change, the University Senate acknowledged the need to keep pace with changing times.

Now that this policy change is official, I’m pausing to ask what are the long-term implications of this decision for training clergy for The United Methodist Church? What will the impact be upon students themselves and for theology schools? This is the first of a 3-part blog series that will examine the consequences. This first part will deal with the implications for the students themselves and for future pastors. Part II will explore the implications of this decision for the United Methodist Church, and part III will examine the impact for theological schools.

To begin, I want to emphasize the obvious: this is a major change and will have serious implications for future clergy and the church. It is an attempt to make theological education more accessible and affordable for students who are unwilling or unable to move to a brick-and-mortar campus for a traditional residential seminary experience. There are other denominations where one can complete the educational requirements, become ordained, and enter full-time ministry with fewer hurdles and less financial burden—not to mention more lucrative non-ministry career options. The UMC is competing for talent against other denominations and other vocational choices, so it makes sense to remove barriers from the journey toward ordained ministry.

Removing the residency requirement will even the playing field, removing barriers for those who are not able bodied, untethered candidates with the financial means to pick-up and move to another part of the country for 3 or more years to complete an MDiv. Students will no longer need to move to a seminary campus, or within commuting distance, to study in the traditional residential method. Due to the decision to allow a fully online MDiv for ministry candidates, I foresee more students taking advantage of this distance learning option and staying in their home communities.

This will be especially advantageous for the second career or working student who is tethered to work and/or family commitments. This also applies to international students who will no longer need to obtain a visa and plane ticket and travel far from home. This move will also make theological education more accessible for persons with a physical disabilities or other limitations, such as time and money.

There is a financial incentive for students to stay in one’s current setting where one can remain employed, stay in current housing (living at home), and not be uprooted from one’s community. If a student is married or has family obligations (childcare, eldercare, etc.), one can continue to uphold these commitments while pursing an MDiv, perhaps part-time. If a student has a job, or even a career, then one can study in one’s free time and not quit in order to pursue theological studies, resulting in fewer student loans and less student debt.

This delivery method will help more rural communities retain talent and avoid the “brain-drain” to urban centers and conferences that do have seminaries within their geographic boundaries. International and domestic ministerial candidates in rural settings can remain close to family or to their current employment—as long as they have access to reliable internet.

Another, perhaps unintended, outcome that I foresee is greater affinity with technology. Since the learning process will be mediated through the computer, the online student will gain greater aptitude at editing videos, blogging, and PowerPoint presentations. Here I’m thinking of the 10,000 hours rule referred to by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers. The basic thesis of Gladwell is that the more you practice something, the better you become. It would follow that the more seminary students use technology, the more comfortable and adept they become.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding, and tech-savvy students who are on computers more will learn more about technology and can harness these skills for ministry in the 21st century. Just in the last couple of months, articles and blogs have reported pastors and rabbis experimenting with chatGPT in writing sermons. Students be particularly adept at using technology as a medium for digital ministry, such as teaching a Zoom Bible study, broadcasting worship, or facilitating their Ad Council meetings on an online platform. As we emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic and churches face decisions around the future of live-streaming worship vs. in-person worship, pastors who are more knowledgeable and skillful with technology can help the church re-imagine the opportunities for digital ministry church in the 21st century. This skillset could help pastors reach millennials and younger generations who regularly use technology as part of their daily lives.

These technology skills, however, may come at the cost of interpersonal skills, such as building deeper personal relationships, spiritual formation, or pastoral care with their parishioners. During the Covid-19 pandemic, students at Wesley Theological Seminary reported a loss of connection and difficulty building community. As dean, I responded to this feedback by encouraging faculty to open up their zoom platform 30 minutes before class and leave it open after class to allow students to connect with one another in a more informal online environment.

Generally speaking, studying for a degree online is a much lonelier endeavor without a close cohort of classmates. After graduation, this could translate into pastors who don’t have a support community and don’t have the interpersonal skills to create one. Pastors trained in the fully online modality may score lower in emotional intelligence, or the ability to “read the temperature of the room,” while guiding a congregation through difficult decisions about the future direction of the church. The online modality could lead to more “group think,” where difference is white-washed, and assumptions remain unexamined. With less direct exposure to difference in seminary, future pastors may have a more difficult time dealing with diversity.

In sum, the University Senate’s decision to allow a fully online MDiv degree will make theological education more accessible and allow students to remain in their communities, but with fewer opportunities for those transformational encounters. Students will graduate with the same credentials; however, the seminary experience will be very different, producing a graduate with a very different skillset than your traditional residential program. Students will have better technology skills, but not as much experience dealing with diversity or as much interpersonal aptitude.

The next part of this blog will address how technology will impact the UMC as a whole.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: The Missional Division in The United Methodist Church

Today's piece is by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Dean of Wesley Theological Seminary.

On a recent jog near my home, I happened upon the former Marvin Memorial UMC, now a mission annex of Silver Spring UMC since the two congregations merged several years ago. Although little-known, the former Marvin Memorial UMC is the site of an important development in the looming division of the UMC. While the differences on human sexuality date back to the 1972 General Conference, the conflict over missions began in 1977. This difference eventually led to the founding of the Mission Society for United Methodists—a second non-official UM missionary-sending agency—which further exacerbated denominational tensions.[1]

This division began in 1977 when Linda and David Jessup sent their children to Sunday School at Marvin Memorial UMC, and the children brought home appeals for wheat shipments to the Vietnamese government.[2] David Jessup began to research the destination of church offerings and traced money through the UMC to the Church World Service Fund of the National Council of Churches, which supported causes that he deemed to be left-leaning. His research led him to write his findings in what came to be known as the “Jessup Papers,” which were distributed at the 1980 General Conference.

In the report, Jessup stated that local church offerings went to “groups supporting the Palestinian Liberation Organization; the governments of Cuba and Vietnam; the pro-Soviet totalitarian movements of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and several violence-prone fringe groups in the United States.”[3] He alleged that the GBGM, the Women’s Division, and the National Council of Churches financed left-wing movements, such as the PLO, the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe, and even socialist governments around the world. These accusations were interpreted through the lens of the Cold War and the Moral Majority religious right and fueled distrust of UM Boards and Agencies—especially the General Board of Global Ministries.

The “Jessup Papers” played an instrumental role in the distrust of GBGM, the UM boards and agencies, and ecumenical agencies by more conservative church members. The Good News movement did not like the boards and agencies spending denominational money on progressive causes—especially in countries considered socialist. Conservatives felt uncomfortable with mission funds promoting social justice agendas and not using traditional understandings of mission and evangelism. Moreover, the Good News movement believed that boards and agencies were too bureaucratic and didn’t reflect the views of the average person in the pews.

The pastor of First United Methodist Church[4] in Peoria, IL, Ira Galloway, picked up the cause and targeted the Women’s Division of the GBGM, citing the reading material about Cuba for UMW’s School of Christian Mission in 1980 that stated: “The revolutionary government established a socialist society that focused national priorities on the needs of the people instead of those of multi-national corporations.”[5] Moreover, GBGM made a $18,000 grant to the Cuba Resource Center, a Catholic and Protestant non-governmental agency founded “…to promote communication between North Americans and Cubans.”[6]

Another frustration for Galloway was the rejection of more evangelical missionary applicants by GBGM. Galloway wrote, “…the staff leadership of the Board has essentially frozen out or refused to consider for placement many missionaries who are primarily concerned with evangelistic or evangelical priorities.”[7] In particular, he cited a missionary couple who wanted to go to Peru in the 1970s whose application was not approved by GBGM. And so Galloway’s church sponsored the couple; this effort was a forerunner of the Mission Society.

Growing frustrations led to a group of 34 people—mostly UM pastors—meeting in St. Louis in 1983 to select Rev. H.T. Maclin as the first president of the alternative, unofficial mission agency. Based in Atlanta, the Mission Society for United Methodists, now simply known as TMS Global, was incorporated on January 6, 1984.[8] The emphasis would be more on evangelism and church planting than social justice ministries. Not drawing on the UMC general budget, missionaries for TMS Global raise their own funding from local churches and seek their own placements.

How I discovered this division
While I only recently discovered the former Marvin Memorial UMC on my neighborhood runs, I have known about this split for some time. I was a GBGM missionary in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Mexico from 1988-2003 and had several covenant (supporting) churches. I itinerated every three years to witness to the congregations. I often was asked “Are you from GBGM or the Mission Society?” I found this split to be confusing for local churches who just wanted to support missions but didn’t know the history or reasons why we had two United Methodist mission agencies—one official and one unofficial.

If United Methodists found this confusing, just imagine our mission partners abroad who began to receive missionaries from both agencies—each with very different priorities and theologies! This division created schizophrenic mission efforts around the world and led to having UM missionaries in several countries, such as Nicaragua, Venezuela and Argentina, from two different UM mission sending organizations.[9]

For example, in Argentina the bishop of the Methodist Church discovered that a missionary from the Mission Society had purchased land under the name of the Methodist Church—an action that he didn’t authorize. In the case of Venezuela, a country without an historical Methodist expression, GBGM worked with La Comunidad Cristiana Metodista de Venezuela (CCMV) and the Mission Society started Concilio de Iglesias Evangélicas Metodistas en Venezuela (CIEMVE). Both churches began about the same time in different regions of Venezuela—each without the knowledge of the other. If this is confusing alphabet soup for you, just imagine how it looked to the Venezuelans!

In Nicaragua there have been GBGM missionaries for a long time, and suddenly the Mission Society sent missionaries that did not work or have anything to do with the Methodist Church of Nicaragua. It is one thing to have a division within the United Methodist Church in the US, but it is poor witness to export internal differences to people who are new Christians. In an ironic twist, the General Board of Global Ministries moved their headquarters to Atlanta in 2016—about 20 miles from the Mission Society—and the two agencies have since conducted some joint missionary trainings.

Discussions about a division in the UMC are currently on the backburner as plans for General Conference have been postponed until 2021. This delay is also an opportunity to reflect on how we got to be where we are today. Just as I discovered the former Marvin Memorial UMC and the “Jessup Papers,” we can also look at how our history has contributed to different approaches to missions, missiology and ecclesiology. While the debate within the UMC mostly focuses on human sexuality, different understandings of mission and missiology are other sources of tension.

---

[1] The Mission Society for United Methodists changed its name to simply “The Mission Society” in 2006 and then “TMS Global” in 2017. It is based in Norcross, GA.

[2] Rael Jean Isaac, "Do You Know Where Your Church Offerings Go?," Reader’s Digest, January 1983, 120-125, http://www.materialreligion.org/documents/july99doc.html

[3] Jessup Papers, 1980.

[4] It is of interest to note that First UMC in Peoria had some prominent members who were executives at Caterpillar, Inc., which receives about $250 million in development contracts through the USAID. See Helen Milner and Justin Tingley, “The Political Economy of U.S. Foreign Aid,” Economy & Politics, vol.22, no.2, (July 2010). In the spirit of transparency, First UMC in Peoria later become a supporting church for me as a missionary, and I met one such executive at Caterpillar, Inc.

[5] James and Margaret Goff, In Every Person that Hopes (New York: Friendship Press, 1980), 55-56.

[6] “The Use of Money in Mission—An Opportunity for Understanding,” United Methodist Communications brochure (October 17, 1980), 3.

[7] Ira Galloway, Drifted Astray: Returning the Church to Witness and Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), 109.

[8] TMS Global, https://www.tms-global.org/test-page-for-reed (accessed February 8, 2020).

[9] As recently as 2018, CIEMAL has moderated conversations between the two Methodist Churches in Venezuela to merge, but this is still inconclusive. See “Metodistas en Venezuela buscan camino a la unidad,” Servicio Metodista Unido de Noticias, November 20, 2018.