William P. Payne - How the Missional Hermeneutic Reveals the Missio Dei, Part II

Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. William P. Payne. Payne is the Professor of Evangelism and World Mission at Ashland Theological Seminary. The following exerts are from a soon-to-be-published book on missional theology.

Joseph and Moses

Having previously described what the missional hermeneutic is, I will demonstrate the missional hermeneutic by means of the Joseph and Moses narratives.

As I look at the missional direction of the story, I must ask myself a question.^[1]Why did God call Joseph and then cause him so much hardship? Answer, even though Jacob and his family were situated in the Promise Land, they could not survive in it as a distinct nation because they were a small people. If they had remained in that land, they would have sustained intense social contact with the Canaanite peoples including bride exchanges, joint business endeavors, and participation in cultural events. In time, they would have been assimilated into the existing social lattice. When that happened, they would have ceased to be God’s special people (Lev. 18:24-30).^[2] The story of Esau demonstrates this. He became compromised when he married a Canaanite woman and interacted with the local peoples. Afterward, he and his progeny were assimilated into the Canaanite world.

This concern is illustrated when the Jews began to return from Babylonian captivity. While in Babylon, the people intermingled with the nations and married their daughters. This diluted their Jewish identity and threatened to lead them into idolatry. That is why Ezra made them put away their foreign wives and rededicate themselves to their Jewish culture. As he read the Torah to them, they wept because they had all but forgotten it (Ezra 10:1-3).

Also, cultural assimilation threatened to destroy the Jewish witness when the Jews began to adopt the Greek culture in the time of the Maccabees. In particular, Jason the high priest tried to accelerate the process (2 Macc. 4:7-22). The miracle-filled Jewish uprising that freed the nation also purged the nation of Greek influences and restored biblical Judaism.

During the time of Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, the Bible says that the Canaanites were a wicked people who had defiled the land. They were so bad that the land wanted to vomit them out (Lev. 18:24-26). They practiced the worst forms of idolatry. Also, the Jewish spies said that giants lived in Canaan (Josh. 14:6-15). The giants point to genetic contamination from the Nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4). So, in order for the Jews to fulfill God’s purposes and fully occupy the Promised Land that God claimed for them (his portion), they had to leave Canaan and return to it once they were able to displace the peoples that did not follow God. This was their “manifest destiny.”

When God sent Joseph to Egypt by means of filial betrayal to prepare the way for his family and facilitate the move to Egypt, Joseph could not have imagined that God was working out God’s plan. After all, he was abandoned by his brothers, sold into slavery, and wrongly thrown into jail. However, after God put Joseph in a position of power, God drove his family to the land of Goshen by means of a great famine. When Joseph realized what God was doing, he told his brothers that they meant it for evil, but God intended it for good (Gen. 50:20). Furthermore, he knows that God will return them to the Promise Land at a later time. For that reason, he tells them to take his bones with them when they leave (Gen. 50:24-25).

The Jews were not assimilated in Egypt because they did not have routine social interactions with the Egyptians when they lived in the Land of Goshen. For this reason, the land of Goshen became the womb of Israel. While in Goshen, the people grew into a large nation. Hundreds of years later, God was ready to birth the nation. In order to do that, God needed a deliverer to lead the people through the birth canal (i.e., a narrow opening in the Red Sea) and into the Promise Land. God picked Moses.

Previously, when Pharaoh was killing the baby boys, God saved baby Moses from the reeds and placed him in Pharaoh’s home to prepare Moses for his mission. After Moses fled for his life, God caused him to learn pastoral skills while tending sheep in the wilderness because Moses would need to shepherd God’s people. At the right time, God revealed God’s plan to Moses and worked through him to defeat the gods of Egypt, free the Hebrew people from slavery, and displace the Canaanites from the Land of Promise.^[3]

When viewed as individual stories, the narratives about Joseph and Moses do not fit together. However, when they are seen in light of the missional direction of the grand narrative, it is obvious that they participate in the same movement of God. The same process can be applied to the entire Bible.

Conclusion

This paper has made a case for the missional hermeneutic. It flows from the missio Dei and is employed by the New Testament writers. It posits that God has a plan and that God is pursuing that plan. Both Scripture and salvation history reveal that plan.

---

^[1] See George Hunsberger’s the missional direction of the story in “What Is a Missional Hermeneutic?

^[2] “For we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou didst command by thy servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever” (Ezra 9:10-12).

^[3] For a fuller understanding of this, see Henry Blackaby, Experiencing God, 51.

William P. Payne - How the Missional Hermeneutic Reveals the Missio Dei, Part I

Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. William P. Payne. Payne is the Professor of Evangelism and World Mission at Ashland Theological Seminary. The following exerts are from a soon-to-be-published book on missional theology.

Imagine that you are touring a large mansion. Upon entering, a labyrinth of opulent corridors greets you. As the tour guide leads you through the halls, you notice that each room is painted a different color, has its own design, and is furnished in a particular way. To get a better feel for the mansion’s floor plan, you walk around the perimeter. As you stroll, you notice large walls, decorations, a solid foundation, and gorgeous landscaping. You note that the building is not rectangular because the walls do not connect at 90-degree angles. Because of all the turns, you cannot visualize the full layout of the mansion. Finally, you go up in a hot air balloon and look down upon the mansion. From this vantage point, you can see the external design.

In this metaphor, the mansion is the Bible. The rooms are the books of the Bible. The outside walls are the main groupings of scripture. The foundation is the eternal truth that the Bible reveals. The landscaping is the socio-cultural context that influenced the Bible writers. The corridors are varying themes that connect the books together. The tour guide is the history of interpretation. The roof is the grand design that overshadows the Bible.

What Is the Missio Dei?

The missio Dei^[1] (God’s mission) is the grand design of the Bible and the missional hermeneutic allows one to see it. In this sense, the missio Dei is the hermeneutical key that holds the Bible together – the all-inclusive story that the Bible tells.^[2] Michael Goheen calls it the “One unfolding story of redemption against the backdrop of creation and humanity’s fall into sin.”^[3] In its simplest form, the missio Dei says that God is a missionary God; the Bible from Genesis to Revelation tells God’s missional story; and the church is God’s missional agent in this age. The missio Dei begins with God, runs through the church, and ends with the fulfillment of God’s purposes on earth and in the heavenly realms (Eph. 1:19-20).^[4] When the end comes, every knee in heaven, on the earth, and below the earth will bow before the glorious name of Jesus (Phil. 2:10-11). Until that time, God continues to pursue God’s mission.

Mission is the mother of theology because it is the theological hub around which all other biblical themes revolve.^[5] God’s self-revelation serves God’s mission. God’s action in history shows God’s mission. Prophecy declares the direction of God’s mission. Jesus embodies God’s mission. The Holy Spirit enables God’s mission.^[6] The church serves God’s mission. All of scripture explicates God’s mission. God’s mission is God’s purpose and God’s will. God’s missional character and God’s missional work are fully intertwined. To know God is to be caught up in God’s mission.

David Bosch adds a necessary nuance. He says that the missio Dei is “God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world.”^[7] God’s love is not silent. It is demonstrated by God’s involvement with the world. For instance, God created humans because God loves them and wants to be in a relationship with them. When they inhaled God’s Spirit and became sapient beings (Gen. 2:7), God gave them rulership and invited them to serve with him (Gen. 2:16 and Psalm 8:5-6). They were to be God’s representatives on this earth. When they rebelled against God’s design, God did not abandon them to sin, death, and Satan. The sacrificial system pointed to God’s plan (Lev 16).

In the New Testament, the missio Dei announces the good news that God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and brings people into a right relationship with the Father (John 1:29 and 36). In this age, Jesus is undoing the catastrophe of the fall. His ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation destroy the power of Satan and give people the hope of full restoration into the image of God. Those who receive Christ and live under God’s rule are called the children of God (1 John 3:2-3). They are restored to their rightful place as members of God’s family (John 1:12-13).

The church is apostolic because God sends it into the world to announce God’s mission and do God’s work (John 20:21). The church does not have its own mission. Rather, it manifests and extends God’s mission.^[8] Leslie Newbigin captures this when he says, “Mission is God’s, not ours. But God chooses men and women for the service of God’s mission.”^[9] Yes. As the living Body of Christ, the church is the face of God’s mission in the world.

Theologians who make an exaggerated distinction between the mission of God and the mission of the church fail to realize that the church is dynamically and intimately caught up into God’s mission. In the same way that God worked through Moses to defeat the gods of Egypt and set the Israelites free, God works through God’s church to accomplish God’s mission today. This does not mean that God cannot work through a donkey, a Persian king, the magi, angels, a traitor, or an earthquake. Rather, it means that the apostolic church is so tightly tied to God’s mission in this world that it is defined by it.^[10]The church has no reason to exist if it is not accomplishing the missio Dei.^[11]

The Missional Hermeneutic

The missional hermeneutic is a heuristic device that enables Christ followers to read the metanarrative of the Bible in light of God’s missional intentions; purposes that supremely swirl around Christ and his ongoing work. It affirms that the whole Bible points to the missio Dei and that God’s mission is the central theme of the Bible.

When speaking of the missional hermeneutic, Boubakar Sanou says that the entire Bible reveals the various means by which God is seeking to redeem lost humanity.^[12] He drives this point when he writes, "Missional hermeneutics seeks to recover biblical interpretation from a mere creedal and academic reading of the Bible and refocus it on the missio Dei. As both the central interest and the unitive theme of the scriptural narrative. From this perspective, biblical interpreters will see Scripture, as a whole, a missional thrust rather than having to focus only on the theme of mission in select texts."^[13]

Stephen utilized this approach when he recounted the history of the Jews (Acts 7). His interpretation of sacred history shows that he and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church read the Hebrew scriptures from the perspective of the Christ event. I say this because Stephen reiterated what he had learned while studying at the feet of the apostles (Acts 2:42). Paul did the same thing when he preached in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-41). His sermon retells the history of the Jewish people from the perspective of salvation history. God was working through the events of the Jews to bring them to a new reality in Christ. Paul concludes his sermon by saying, “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus” (Acts 13:32-33 RSV). From the perspective of the unfolding story, sacred history points to the crucifixion, resurrection, and the new reality that has come into existence through Jesus. In order to continue with God, the Jews must receive Christ and follow in the new way.

---

^[1] L. Hoedemaker provides an excellent overview and critique of missio Dei in Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction, 162-166. Also, see Darren Sarisky, “The Meaning of the Mission Dei,” 258-269, Eddie Arthur, “Missio Dei and the Mission of the Church,” 1-7, and Timothy Tennent World Missions, 487-489.

^[2] Boubakar Sanou, “Missio Dei as the Hermeneutical Key for Scriptural Interpretation,” 301.

^[3] Michael Goheen, “Continuing Steps,” 61.

^[4] In Ephesians, the “heavenly realms” (epouranios) refers to the place where God is (Eph. 1:3, 1:20, 2:6) and the place where the powers and principalities reign (Eph. 3:10 and 6:20). As a general term, it means, the spiritual realm.

^[5] Martin Kahler, Schriften zur Christologie und Mission, 190.

^[6] Newbigin connects the mission of the Spirit to the mission of the church when he says, “It is the Spirit who will give them (the disciples who are sent out in Jesus’ name to do his work) power and the Spirit who will bear witness. It is not that they must speak and act, asking the help of the Spirit to do so. It is rather that in their faithfulness to Jesus they become the place where the Spirit speaks and acts” (The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, 117-118).

^[7] Bosch, Transforming Mission, 10.

^[8] Ibid., 391.

^[9] Newbigin, The Open Secret, 19.

^[10] Emile Brunner says that “The Church exists by mission just as fire exists by burning,” (The Word and the World, 108).

^[11] Girma Bekele, “The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei,” 154.

^[12] Boubakar Sanou, “Missio Dei as Hermeneutical Key for Scriptural Interpretation, 308.

^[13] Ibid., 306.

Recommended Reading: William P. Payne on Irish Religion

United Methodist Professor of Mission and UM & Global contributor Rev. Dr. William P. Payne has recently published an article entitled "Report of Survey Completed for Irish Evangelical Leaders" in Witness: Journal of the Academy for Evangelism in Theological Education. As the title suggests, the article unpacks the results of a survey of the Irish population that Dr. Payne conducted in 2018.

The survey was intended to explore whether disgruntled and disaffiliating Irish Catholics might be receptive to Irish evangelicalism as an alternative Christian tradition. However, what the research found instead was that, for a variety of reasons, evangelicalism was not seen as an attractive alternative. Instead, former Catholics overwhelmingly became de-traditioned (i.e.,"nones"), instead of converting to an alternate Christian tradition.

As Dr. Payne notes in an email, "Even though the results of this survey only apply to Ireland, the implications show that the growth of secularism is a threat to all forms of Christian faith in America. Evangelicals, progressives, and Roman Catholics must find a positive way to respond to this ideological challenge if they desire to remain a popular option for future generations."

Dr. Payne's research can help further understanding of the important question of why religious change in the modern West is primarily (though not exclusively) a movement away from organized religion rather than movement across religious traditions.

William Payne: Biblical Interpretation, Gender Equality, and the Evangelistic Mandate

Today's blog post is written by Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

John Wesley famously stated that he was homo unius libri (a man of one book). Following that lead, United Methodism affirms that Holy Writ is the primary authority for issues related to right faith and right practice. Considering this, how should Bible-affirming people make sense of the New Testament’s mixed messages about female Christ-followers?

In Titus 2:2-4, Paul says that the old women should behave themselves with reverence and not gossip or drink too much. They should give a good example, teach the young women to love their husbands and their children, remain judiciously pure, be keepers of the home, remain full of kindness and be subject to their husbands.

On the surface, this sounds very sexist and out of step with our modern world. After all, American society values gender equality. I also value gender equality because the spirit and teaching of the New Testament establishes this ideal.

In the church, the cultural categories that diminish women should be reconsidered in the light of the gospel message that emphasizes equality in Christ (Gal 3:28). As such, I do not believe that American women need to follow Paul's exhortation as if it were a universal law to be mimicked.

Why do I say this? Verse 5 makes the point. Do all of this so that "no one will be able to speak badly against the gospel message."

In other words, the culture of the people to which Paul was writing had normative expectations regarding the proper way for a woman to behave in public and in the home. If Christian women acted contrary to the cultural norm, they would bring discredit on the Gospel and would cause the unbelieving public to think that Christianity was a bad religion that should be shunned.

First Peter 2-3 makes a similar point when writing to slaves, to women who are married to harsh unbelievers, and to Christians who live under an evil government. In this light, one should not read 1 Peter 2:18ff as if it were establishing slavery.

The larger teaching of the New Testament points to an in-breaking kingdom of God that transforms human societies that are under the tutelage of the gospel. Ultimately, God will abolish all forms of injustice and sin to include slavery.

As such, 1 Peter does not endorse slavery. Rather, it assumes the unjust reality of slavery in the Roman Empire. It was a social fact for the people of its time. In the context of slavery and other forms of unjust systems, 1 Peter tells Christian slaves how they should live so they can influence others for Christ. In other words, Peter tells his audience that those who abuse you will be drawn to you and the Christ in you because of your exemplary behavior. As such, “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet 3:15b).

First-century slaves did not have the freedom to preach or to protest against social injustice. However, they could lay a foundation for witnessing by living a life that was beyond reproach. When we approach 1 Peter and other similar verses from the perspective of social justice, we miss this point.

For Paul and 1 Peter, the evangelistic mandate was more important than personal liberty. That is why Paul affirms that he compromises his personal liberty by becoming all things to all people in order to win some to Christ (1 Cor 9:19-23). Paul did not ask others to do something he was not willing to model in his own life.

In both Paul and 1 Peter, the evangelistic mandate requires that Christian act in ways that do not bring discredit to the gospel to the extent they can without compromising the gospel message. This is a critical point. To do this, we must identify what is essential and what is cultural. On points related to the essential, we cannot water down the faith or change the clear teaching of scripture.

In the context of today’s debates, I place sexual purity in this category because it is a moral imperative. However, I do not place social gender roles in this category. Different societies have different social structures. The Bible does not establish a normative social structure for every culture. An old professor used to say, “The gospel will offend. However, it should offend for the right reasons.”

Let me offer a simple example that shows why scripture must be interpreted in terms of meaning rather than form. Proverbs 23:13 opines, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Many people who fail to make a distinction between meaning and culture have used this proverb as a mandate for corporal punishment. However, this proverb is not mandating corporal punishment. Rather, it is mandating that parents correct and discipline their children in order for them to grow up well. Corporal punishment was the culturally appropriate way that people did that in the time of the proverb.

United Methodists have to affirm that scripture is sacred and that it is the word of God. We must place ourselves under the authority of God as it has been mediated to us through the divine witness of scripture and tradition. However, we must make cultural adjustments as we interpret it and apply it to any given social context. Scripture has to be interpreted before it is rightly applied!

Robert Hunt: The Connection Between Text and Context, Part I

Today's post is written by Dr. Robert Hunt, Director of Global Theological Education, Professor of Christian Mission and Interreligious Relations, and Director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of Theology. It is the first of a three-part series on contextualization.

Interpreters of contextualization as a theological concept often rely on a distinction between text and context to make sense of the term. Yet the Christian “text,” whether conceived of as the Bible or the Apostolic tradition normalized in the Creeds is inseparable from its context, because historically context always precedes the text, even if metaphysically the source of the text (God's Word) creates the context.

The first of this three-part series will show how this relationship characterizes the Bible and its early contexts. The second part will draw on Newbigin to suggest a different approach to the relationship between textual worldview and cultural context than those taken by previous theologies. The third part will present an understanding of inculturation that draws on these reflections and will explore what this new understanding means for the Church’s engagement with the Word about the world.

The challenge of separating text from context runs through our efforts to interpret the Bible. Take Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. In it we have a clear affirmation of the validity of Jewish law.

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

In these few sentences Jesus’ text simply reiterates its context in Jewish thought. The righteousness he preaches is non-different from that of other Jewish leaders. Their problem, we learn as we read onward, isn’t that they have the wrong law. It is that they are hypocrites whose actions don’t match their words.

This sermon by Jesus was sufficiently clear that when Gentiles began to seek entry into the church a major dispute arose about whether or not they would be required to follow the complete Jewish law. The context of that debate, which we read about the Acts and the Epistles isn’t just the teaching of Jesus. The debate about the obligations of converts to know and follow the Mosaic law was also part of the Jewish context in the time of Jesus and his followers. As recounted in the Talmud, the rabbis argued over the extent to which Gentile converts to Judaism were required to keep the law. (Shabbat 31a and elsewhere) So the argument among the apostles is taking place not merely in the context of Jesus’ teaching or Peter’s vision or Paul’s call, but a longer internal Jewish argument about what was essential to Jewish identity and thus inclusion in God’s covenant.

Indeed, this context of rabbinic contestation over the meaning and purpose of Mosaic law is in the background of every single saying of Jesus about the law. Much of Jesus' teaching in this regard isn’t unique, and doesn’t set proto-Christian teaching apart from Jewish teaching. As E.P. Sanders showed decades ago, Jesus’ teaching often takes one side of an ongoing debate, so that at least initially Christians could easily be understood to be members of a Jewish sect.

The way in which this distinction between text and context problematizes concepts of contextualization can be found when we examine a paragraph of Bill Payne’s recent essay on contextualization in this forum:

"Furthermore, contextualization is not an excuse for heterodoxy or for affirming practices that apostolic tradition and the witness of Scripture have rejected. For example, the New Testament Church argued against the Judaizers who tried to force Gentile believers to follow certain Jewish practices. Additionally, it rejected many aspects of the receiving cultures. The New Testament vice lists point to the church’s engagement with Hellenistic culture and its rejection of cultural practices that were not compatible with the Gospel. Just because the culture affirms something does not mean that God will affirm the resulting practice or related belief. The gospel is for culture and against culture at the same time.”

Actually both opposition to the “Judaizers” on one hand and to Hellenistic cultural practices on the other were extensions of existing rabbinical teaching by Paul and the apostles into the realm of the Jewish Christian community. They are not the application of a distinct normative text that is now critiquing a cultural context. They are just a new community continuing to debate issues raised in an older context. There may not be anything distinctly “Christian” at work here.

I’ll push the question of what is distinctively “Christian” about the Bible further in the next post as I turn to questions about the biblical “worldview.”

William Payne: Contextualization: The Movement between Text and Context

Today's blog post is written by Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

Contextualization is a theological imperative and a mission strategy. Succinctly, in the same way that God incarnated the divine self in Jesus by taking on the culture of a specific people, God calls the church to incarnate the faith into the cultural categories of the peoples that it seeks to reach as it “makes disciples of all nations.” Biblical faith is always a culture-specific faith. For this reason, world evangelization, contextualization, and indigenous Christianity go together.

Contextualization moves beyond cultural accommodation or translation of the Gospel. Through contextualization, God becomes Polish, Argentine, Chinese, and Mexican. In this sense, the incarnation is an ongoing process as the missional church continues to make Jesus Christ a living option to those who are separated from him by an assortment of social barriers related to culture, language, religion, and behavior.

Subcategories of people within a larger cultural group may continue the process of micro-contextualization. In the latter case, Jesus reveals himself to the poor, the disenfranchised, the abused, the neglected, the immigrant, and the unloved in specific ways. In the American context, Black theology is an example of contextualization. Theology is contextualized when a particular people who have internalized the gospel do theology from the perspective of their lived context.

Since there is an essential interplay between the community of faith, the scriptures, the Holy Spirit, and a given context, one should expect global diversity. In fact, global Christianity should reflect distinctive theological orientations and ecclesial practices. The reality of contextualization pushes against the idea of dominant global traditions with homogenous practices.

The diversity that contextualization fosters should be celebrated as a sure sign that the Holy Spirit is leading a people into a deepening encounter with God and the scriptures. Dominant traditions that use power to westernize, civilize, secularize, or Latinize indigenous faith communities are working against contextualization and the Holy Spirit. Since all theology is contextual theology, the imposition of a dominant theology onto a receiving people leads to theological imperialism and works against the goal of contextualization.

For this reason, denominational extensions must be carefully managed so that the receiving population is able to contextualize and adapt the faith to their lived context as they engage the scriptures under the direct leadership of the Holy Spirit. Missionaries are evangelists, guides, encouragers, representatives, and friends; not policemen.

Having stated the obvious, advocates for contextual theology do not argue that church tradition is unimportant or that theological orthodoxy does not exist. In fact, discrete peoples do theology within a given set of orthodox boundaries. Furthermore, all Christians affirm that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one Church. When Jesus inaugurated the new humanity after his resurrection, he created a universal church in which the designation of “Christian” became a disciple’s primary identity marker. Because of that, the Body is not divided by race, gender, socio-economic status, political orientation, denominational affiliation, or geographic barriers. All Christians of every social location are called to strive for mutuality and unity in Christ. There is one, holy, apostolic, catholic church of which all true Christians participate. For this reason, Christians from a given context have a shared accountability with Christians from other contexts (mutual accountability).

Furthermore, contextualization is not an excuse for heterodoxy or for affirming practices that apostolic tradition and the witness of Scripture have rejected. For example, the New Testament Church argued against the Judaizers who tried to force Gentile believers to follow certain Jewish practices. Additionally, it rejected many aspects of the receiving cultures. The New Testament vice lists point to the church’s engagement with Hellenistic culture and its rejection of cultural practices that were not compatible with the Gospel. Just because the culture affirms something does not mean that God will affirm the resulting practice or related belief. The gospel is for culture and against culture at the same time.

In the same way that people have a fallen nature that needs to be transformed by grace, the cultures of the world are infected by the DNA of the fall. This is seen when the culture works against the purposes of God and becomes a means by which its people are kept in bondage, locked away from the truth of God and the liberation that God brings to those who receive Jesus.

Many evils are sanctioned by particular cultures around the world. The fact that a culture sanctions a behavior does not mean that the church should accommodate it. The scriptures do not affirm cultural relativism. For this reason, the church cannot support cultural practices that go contrary to the teaching of scripture.

Since contextualization is a process and not an event, after the people have enjoyed a sustained encounter with the Gospel, the fruit of social transformation should become visible. In the same way that the work of sanctification gradually moves forward in the individual, over time the community of faith will leaven the larger society as it lives into its calling to be salt and light. Social transformation should be an end result of contextualization.

Finally, missiologists do not use the term “contextualization” in the same way as other disciplines. For example, advocates for contextualized learning argue that true learning only takes place when teachers present information in a way that students can construct meaning based on their own experiences. Like a reader-response theological hermeneutic, a literary text or an old constitution does not have an independent or self-evident meaning. Rather, people give meaning to what they read based on their own experiences and social location. As such, the intent of the author is subordinated to the experience of the reader and the interpretation that arises from that.

The theology of scripture that emerges from the above approach views the scriptures as a cultural artifact that needs to be conformed to the modern context and the experience of the western reader. For example, demythologizing the text and the Jesus Seminar both reflect western attempts to contextualize the text to the western mind and its experience of reality. In the ensuing dance between gospel and culture, the culture is the leading partner. The theological outcome reflects the normative aspirations of secular society and creates a domesticated Gospel. That is, one fully decontextualizes the scriptures so one can reconstruct the scriptures in one’s own image. This process devalues the normative authority of scripture, overemphasizes a particular culture, and makes the church the master of divine revelation.

Traditionally, Methodists have affirmed the primacy of scripture and have argued that the church is tightly tethered to the scriptures. The scriptures are not a point of reference or a guide. Instead, they are a divine revelation that reveal God and show humankind God’s will. Even though the scriptures must be contextualized when they move from one culture to another, the meaning and intent of the scriptures cannot be changed. Otherwise, we move from contextualizing the text to reimagining the text. In the end, UM preachers are given authority to preach and teach the Holy Scriptures in light of our tradition. They are not given authority to change the meaning of the text in the name of contextualization or to accommodate culture in ways that the scriptures do not permit.

In conclusion, in the same way that God became a Jew in order to reveal the divine self and communicate God’s will to a people who were embedded within a cultural context, the church is called to “incarnate” the gospel into every culture so that the members of every society (people group) can have a culture-specific encounter with God and God’s revelation so that they can receive Christ and enter into God’s reign.

Recent Public Access Articles by United Methodist Professors of Mission

Today we introduce a new feature. This blog is a project of the United Methodist Professors of Mission, and it is important to engage with each other's scholarship. Thus, below are links to and abstracts for two recent missiological articles written by United Methodist Professors of Mission. Both are available for public access, though Dana Robert's article will only be so for a limited time.

William Price Payne, "Folk Religion and the Pentecostalism Surge in Latin America," The Asbury Journal 71 no. 1 (2016), 145-174.

Abstract: "Latino Pentecostalism and the Roman Catholic Charismatic Movement have experienced massive numerical growth since becoming viable options for the masses in the late 1960s. Contextualization theory suggests that they have experienced exponential growth because they have become indigenous faith systems that mesh with Hispanic cultures and give folk practitioners functionally equivalent alternatives to the syncretistic practices associated with popular religion. Specifically, as a native religion that engages all aspects of the Latino worldview, Latino Pentecostalism operates at the level of a popular religion without being inherently syncretistic. In this regard, it can be described as 'folk Christianity.'"

Dana L. Robert, "One Christ--Many Witnesses: Visions of Mission and Unity, Edinburgh and Beyond," Transformation 33 no. 4 (2016), 270-281.

Abstract: "This paper surveys the relationship between mission and Christian unity from the Edinburgh 1910 conference to the present. It then identifies several factors that cohere in recent missiological reflection, and concludes with a scriptural model for our contemporary pilgrimage together."

Other United Methodist Professors of Mission with recently published scholarly articles are invited to send information about such articles to the blogmaster, David Scott. Such information will be collated on this blog approximately once a quarter.

William Payne: Historical perspectives on the United Methodist bishopric

What is a United Methodist bishop? The idea continues to evolve in United Methodism. In early American Methodism, the use of the term “bishop” caused great distress. Thomas Coke told the Christmas Conference that he and Asbury were de facto bishops because they functioned like bishops in their ministry.

Wesley strongly argued against this innovation. He called them general superintendents. Even though Wesley argued that he was a “Scriptural Episcopus,” he never called himself a bishop. In fact, he rejected the term for himself and Methodism. Wesley writes, “How dare you suffer yourself to called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake put a full end to this!”

How did we get bishops? Simply stated, Coke wanted to become a bishop. Under the influence of Coke, the American conference voted to form itself into an "episcopal" church.[1] In common parlance, the term "episcopal" implies "bishop." According to the Minutes, “Therefore, at this conference we formed ourselves into an Independent Church: and following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the Episcopal mode of government, we thought it best to become an Episcopal church, making the episcopal office elective, and the elected superintendent or bishop, amenable to the body of ministers and preachers.”

However, the above quote came as a result of a later redaction because the 1785 Discipline does not use the term bishop. In the founding documents that Wesley sent to America, he purposely substituted "superintendent" for the office of bishop and elder for the office of priest. The Christmas Conference followed Wesley's guidance at this point. Wesley’s letter calls Coke and Asbury joint superintendents over our brethren in North America. Coke arrogated the title bishop and Asbury consented to its use.

While revising the 1787 Discipline, Coke and Asbury changed the word “superintendent” to bishop in Section IV “On the Constituting of Bishops and their Duty.” According to Jesse Lee’s history, Asbury and Coke did not have approval to change the Discipline or to call themselves bishops. In fact, in terms of the Anglican and Roman Catholic use of the world, they were not bishops. Obviously, United Methodism does not claim “apostolic succession” in the same way as Anglicanism or Catholicism since it takes a bishop to make a bishop. Methodism is apostolic in terms of its doctrines and practices.

The issue of the identity and power of the episcopacy was most strongly argued in the South and southern frontier. The conversation paralleled a national debate that argued about the role of government and the power of rulers. It came to a head in the ill-fated Council in 1791, was a primary reason for James O’Kelly’s defection in 1792, contributed to the huge numerical decline in southern Methodism in the 1790’s, and became a cutting question that caused schisms and determined many future disputes.

Was the general superintendent a constitutional monarch or a president who ruled with the consent of the people? Asbury fought for a strong episcopacy. He believed that he walked in the stead of Wesley and needed episcopal authority to carry out the mission of the church. Asbury had a national vision for the MEC. The young church needed a strong leader to guide it and deploy its resources in an effective way so that it could evangelize the nation. In an attempt to do that, he personified the highest ideals of a Methodist circuit rider.

Those who argued against Asbury reflected an emphasis on personal choice and a localized vision for the church in which the authority was vested in the conference with lay representatives. They believed that the conference walked in the stead of Wesley. Issues related to the stationing of the preachers, the ownership of chapels, shared decision-making power in a general conference, and elected presiding elders were heralded by these people. After fighting a revolutionary war with a monarch who abused his powers, many American Methodists were cautious about yielding to an ecclesial autocratic. Their attitudes represented the southern mindset.

The issue continued to be debated by church reformers. With the exception of the African American churches, break away Methodist churches all rejected the term bishop. In fact, even in United Methodism, a bishop is an elder consecrated to a special ministry. Elder is the primary category. Bishops function as general superintendents. They are not ordained bishops. When they retire or cease to function in that capacity, they cease to be general overseers. As such, retired bishops should revert back to an annual conference and cease to have the power and authority of a bishop. In fact, this is the way that it is in Africa and in many of the autonomous conferences in Latin America.

Where should we go from here? The UMC needs to authorize a commission to study the episcopacy in United Methodism. What is it and what should it do? Recommendations should be forwarded to the General Conference.

---

[1] Coke thought that American Methodism would become a national Episcopal church and he would be its head bishop. When that did not work out, he tried to cut a deal with Bishop White of the newly formed Protestant Episcopal Church to unite the MEC to it so he could become a "real" bishop.

William Payne: Response to Jacob Dharmaraj

Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

I read Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj’s recent blog on diaspora missiology with great interest. His careful prodding is timely and much needed. Great population shifts are taking place as vast numbers of vulnerable people relocate for a variety of reasons. War, genocide, sexual abuse, economic disaster, religious persecution, destruction of social systems, and disease continue to foment dislocation. The exodus from northern Africa and the Middle East is staggering.

Matthew reminds us that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape the wrath of an evil king. God provided a sanctuary for the holy family in a foreign land. Certainly, God wants the church to provide sanctuary to the modern immigrants.

Still, I struggle with Dr. Dharmaraj’s one dimensional approach to the diaspora mission because it pulls apart what God holds together. In light of the current global situation, he advocates putting physical needs ahead of spiritual needs, and advocacy ahead of evangelism. He also argues that the world wants the church to move beyond mission as usual. He says that the church must partner with the ecumenical community and secular prophets (environmentalists and human rights advocates) to pursue a social justice advocacy that strikes at the root of the human disruption. I assume that “ecumenical partners” includes practitioners of non-Christian faith traditions.

In the blog, it appears that social justice advocacy is the great calling of the church in this era and that evangelistic mission is less important or unwelcomed. Frequently, such thinking influences the hierarchy of mainline denominations. Often it assumes a theocentric ideology that makes common cause with all who desire to purse a particular formulation of social justice. One denominational leader put it this way: “Since all are saved, we need to get on with social justice and the great task of loving each other.”

Instead, I believe that UM missional priorities should align with biblical priorities. A bifurcated mission that neglects evangelism is not a biblically sustainable model for engaging the world with God’s mission. When Jesus advocated for the poor or challenged unjust religious orders, he did so from the perspective of a personal relationship. For example, the Rich Young Ruler wanted to be saved. Jesus told him to divest of his riches, give to the poor, and become his disciple.
John the Baptist preached a similar message as he invited soldiers, tax collectors, religious leaders and the crowds to flee from the wrath to come by joining a just community that gave voice to the righteousness of God and pointed to the coming kingdom of God. Point being, justice is not a standalone category in the gospels. It takes on form when seen in light of the in-breaking kingdom that calls all people and institutions to align with God and God’s righteousness.

For that reason, the church should not ignore the evangelistic mandate or minimize the spiritual needs of those for whom it advocate even when engaging in crisis mission. We must remind ourselves that we share a gospel that incarnates Jesus in word and deed. Suffering people deserve to know about Jesus’ love for them. They need to know that Jesus offers them hope. They need to realize that Jesus offers real solutions to real problems. Through the church, Jesus advocates for his kingdom agenda.

Additionally, no matter how tempted the UMC is to prioritize social justice ministries, it should remind itself that social justice is not the primary mission of the church. The gospels model the kingdom of God. Jesus preached it as he brought it to bear on the suffering people he encountered. He is the gateway into God’s kingdom. He invites the rich and the dispossessed to enjoy God’s shalom by aligning with him. Those who align with Jesus become kingdom people who carry forth God’s kingdom agenda in this world. Jesus commissioned the church to give witness to this mission in the world in word and deed.

In truth, Jesus is Lord of all things. That includes the social order. Any attempt to fix the social order by by-passing Jesus and his kingdom is bound to fail. More importantly, such efforts compromise the gospel and hurt the holistic mission of the church in the world.

Additionally, in terms of our biblical faith, the term "secular prophet" is an oxymoron. Activists who minimize the name of Jesus and disavow his lordship may partner with the church in social justice witness to the extent that it aligns with God’s purposes. However, such people are not prophets. Biblical prophets give witness to the reign and righteousness of God as they invite people to align themselves with God's rule.

When the Jerusalem Church was scattered due to persecution, the members went in all directions evangelizing and church planting (Acts 8:4). To a lesser extent, the Jewish diaspora witnessed to the world when it scattered. These are biblical examples that the UMC should remember when considering diaspora mission.

Immigrants to Europe and America often see themselves as missionaries. Many have a strong desire to reach their people and the larger community for Christ. I wish that all could see how the African Diaspora in Columbus, Ohio is planting churches everywhere. They are reaching thousands of African immigrants for Christ. They are also reaching secular Americans who are drawn to their spiritual vitality and their clear witness of faith. They are partners in mission; not mere recipients of western hospitality. They have much to teach the western church about faith sharing.

When pastoring in a southern state from 1998-2001, I partnered with a Hispanic immigrant to form an outreach ministry that evangelized and discipled hundreds of Latino immigrants who did not speak English. Not only did we outgrow our facilities and plant external ministries in the surrounding urban areas and rural migrant camps, we also fed the hungry, worked with a healthcare clinic, provided transportation, and taught them English. All of it was done in partnership with the immigrants. Evangelism and advocacy do not need to be separated.

Like it or not, Christian immigrants plant churches and talk about Jesus even when the official churches are fixated on political advocacy and material needs. The UMC should remember that many immigrants were not allowed to witness openly in the places from which they have fled or immigrated. The hordes of Christians escaping from Syria and Iraq can vouch for this. A holistic mission strategy should seek to form partnerships that enable the immigrants to evangelize their people. Such a strategy would allow the immigrants to set their priorities, and would honor and utilize their gifting. In the end, it would balance word and deed mission.

Last night, my family read Acts 3 during our devotional time. In that chapter, a lame man is carried to the Temple every day to beg for alms. Pilgrim Jews to the Temple may have felt an urge to fulfill the commandments by giving to the poor. Quite possibly, the beggar received a lot of cash on a typical day. His family would have managed his alms.

One day, John and Peter went to the Temple to pray. As they approached the Temple, the beggar fixed on them. He expected to receive money. However, Peter looked past his economic need and saw the deeper need. In the end, he offered him the name of Jesus and God healed his lame legs.

Post-colonial interpretations of this passage may seek to couch the encounter in terms of unjust economic systems that dehumanize those on the margins. However, those readings are read onto the passage. They do not flow from it. In fact, at that moment, Peter knew that the man needed Jesus more than he needed social advocacy or money. The beggar’s live was forever changed by his encounter with Jesus. Shouldn’t the church in mission seek to do the same as Jesus and the apostles?

In conclusion, the biblical Jesus manifested a relational gospel that met people at the point of their needs and gave them a radically new orientation. That is why he set the captives free by healing the sick, purifying the lepers, welcoming the outcasts, casting out the demons, feeding the hungry crowds that desired to know him, raising the dead, and preaching kingdom justice. Jesus’ mission is Christocentric. It reveals God’s love as it calls people into an alignment with God and God’s work. Ultimately, the light that shines in the darkness will displace the evil when the church advocates for Christ’s lordship and for his righteousness. A mission that avoids evangelism is only half a mission.

William Payne: Tithe Preaching Churches in Latin America

Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

During a recent sabbatical, I conducted 50 interviews with Protestants,[1] Roman Catholics, and unchurched people in Costa Rica. Each conversation included discussions about the tithe. Additionally, I preached in many Costa Rican churches in which the pastors required that the people pay the tithe in order to remain in good standing. In this blog, I will share my tentative thoughts on this practice.

First, tithing or giving ten percent of one’s gross income is a means by which many local churches provide monetary support for pastors who do not draw a salary or receive financial support from outside sources. All Christians should give generously to the collective ministry of the local church. Additionally, the scriptures allow a gospel preacher to receive substantive support for the ministry that he or she provides. Even though Jesus did not get a salary, he was supported by gifts that others gave to his ministry (cf. Lk 8:3). Matthew 10:5-12 says the laborer deserves food and shelter. On numerous occasions the Apostle Paul argued that he had a right to be paid for the ministry he provided even if he chose not to receive it (cf. I Cor 9:14, I Tim 5:18, II Cor 11:7-11 and Phil 4:15). Early Methodism also required that the circuit riders be paid. At times, this became a great burden that hindered the expansion of the MEC into new areas. Many of those early itinerants suffered great privation because they did not receive their salary. None became rich or well-off from their labors.[2]

Second, most of the churches that preach tithing connect the practice to some form of prosperity gospel. Often one will preach that the tithe is a seed that one plants in the kingdom of God. When sowed with faith, sacrifice, and obedience, giving the tithe will yield positive material, physical, and spiritual blessings in this life. Additionally, many pastors argue that the Bible requires a Christian to pay the tithe and give an offering. The tithe goes to the pastor and the offering funds the mission of the church.

Third, in other writings I have argued that the prosperity gospel preached by those who come from the margins of society has been shaped and formed by their context of poverty and oppression.[3] It is a contextualized theology that the poor discern from scripture. Many of the poor are attracted to it, eagerly participate in it, and can be manipulated by it. Because of my social location, I do not feel that I have sufficient standing to dismiss this theology or tell the poor that their theology is incorrect.

Fourth, the tithe has inspired many people to plant churches and do extraordinary evangelism. Throughout Latin America, “tithe seeking pastors” have started countless churches in places where new churches needed to be planted. Additionally, in many larger churches that have a strong cadre of leaders, one of the assistant pastors often will leave to start a new church. In an ecclesial system that does not pay people to plant churches, the tithe allows a church planting pastor with as few as ten families to survive without denominational support.

Fifth, tithe preaching has a long history in western Christianity. It is still preached in many ethnic and independent churches in the United States. Additionally, in the current Western context of material opulence and low demand Christianity, preaching may serve more of an educational, ethical, and “after death” purpose than it does when the poor preach it in the context of material and physical want. Even though the preaching of the tithe may seem oppressively legalistic to middle class majority Christians for a variety of culturally formed reasons, the mainline churches of the West should be slow to judge.

Sixth, without a doubt, the tithe has damaged the credibility of the Protestant church in Latin America. In Costa Rica some have complained that poor immigrants who lack sufficient training and pastoral skills have planted new churches simply because they want to get the tithe. Many of the unchurched people with whom I spoke told me that they were disgusted by the tithe and they thought that Protestant pastors who preached the tithe abused their flocks in order to get rich. They offered many anecdotal stories to support their prejudice about the “Gospel industry.” Roman Catholics tended to be the most critical. They emphasized that their church took an offering and did not ask for the tithe. Those who feel repulsed by the constant preaching on the tithe will not affiliate with a tithe preaching church.

Seventh, many who have been reached by the Protestant churches have gone inactive because of tithe preaching. Often, pastors tell their members that those who do not pay the full tithe are stealing from God and that one should not buy other things like cellular phones if they do not pay the full tithe. One poor woman told me that a rich pastor told her husband that he had to pay the tithe in order to avoid misfortune and the wrath of God. This caused her family to suffer emotional pain. Even though the husband paid the tithe, his wife begrudged the church. Another man told me that he wanted to get back in church but could not do it until his finances improved. One national leader told me that half of the people who claim to be born again do not attend church on a regular basis because of the tithe. As long as the church demands the tithe, it is unlikely that these people will reaffiliate.

Eighth, the tithe preaching church in Latin America needs to have an honest conversation with itself about this issue. From my perspective, the stress should switch from a legalistic emphasis on tithing to a biblical emphasis on stewardship. From the perspective of the New Testament, the church building is not the Temple, the pastor is not the Levite, and giving ten percent to support the pastor is not a commandment. To the contrary, God demands the entire person, not a mere ten percent of the person’s income. Additionally, a pastor who is more concerned with getting a person’s tithe than in ministering to the flock should not be in pastoral leadership.

I will conclude with an anecdote. For two weeks I ministered with a new church start that is led by a gifted pastor who has a full-time professional job. All the members of the ministerial team have jobs outside the church and none get paid from the offering. For that reason, all the money that is given in the offering is given back to the community or is used for internal ministry. As one would expect, this church appeals to lapsed Protestants and other types of unchurched people. I sense that this type of a church will grow with populations that will not attend a traditional tithe preaching church. Not every pastor is called to be bi-vocational. Still, more bi-vocational churches like the one I just mentioned are needed in Latin America.

---

[1] Throughout the Spanish speaking portions of Latin America, Protestants are referred to as evangelical or Christians. The Latino use of evangelical does not correspond to the American usage of the term.

[2] See “The Poverty of the Itinerants and Issues Associated with It” in American Methodism: Past & Future Growth (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2013), 125-130.

[3] See “Discerning an Integral Latino Pentecostal Theology of Liberation” Ashland Theological Journal (Fall 2013): 87-106.

God's gifts for mission - William Payne 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 Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary. Dr. Payne is commenting on paragraph 54 on "global awareness," from the ninth section of the document, "A Church Formed By Grace." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.

Paragraph 54 of Grace upon Grace rightly emphasizes that God has equipped the UMC to engage God’s mission. It begins with a quote from I Cor 12:4-6. “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but the same God who inspires them all in every one.” Ministry to the whole world requires that the whole church utilizes all the gifts of all the people.

Paul’s organic analogy related to the Body of Christ requires unity within diversity. Accordingly, we are one Body; yet, each member in the Body occupies a special ministry position. When the spiritually animated Body works in unison, it is fully equipped to do the work of God in the world. As such, the locus of mission is the spiritually gifted church; not a mission board, a mission team, or a missionary. The mission of the church comes from God and belongs to the whole people of God.

I am reminded of my recent Pentecost sermon. It examined the “pouring out” of the Spirit and investigated how the phenomenon was tied to calling and mission. In Numbers 11:24-29 Yahweh pours out the Spirit on 70 elders so they can share the burden with Moses. Without it, they are not equipped to participate in his labors. As a sign of their anointing for service, the elders prophesied after receiving the Holy Spirit. The sign was given for the benefit of the people and the elders. Likewise, God anoints Saul with the Holy Spirit in order to prepare him for his new calling as king over God’s people (cf. I Sam 10:6[1]). In like manner, God pours out the Holy Spirit on all the gathered disciples in Acts 2. In the New Testament, the Spirit is given to all believers because everyone is called and gifted to participate in God’s work.

The outpouring with the gift of languages should be seen in light of the church’s global commission in Acts 1:8, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (NRSV). Before the outpouring of the Spirit, Jesus sternly warned the disciples to remain in Jerusalem and wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4). Even though the eager disciples had been personally trained by Jesus, they were not prepared for the global mission of the church until they were spiritually equipped.

Obviously, global Methodism has not arrived at this ideal. For example, many in the West value formal education more than spiritual vitality. I have overheard American colleagues sneer at the African connection’s lack of academic training. At the same time, friends from the Cuban connection have sneered at the spiritually dead conditions in American Methodism. Some years back I worked with a Methodist missionary from South Korea who was dispatched from his connection to teach American Methodists how to pray. In fact, formal training and Spirit anointing (vital piety) belong together.

After the outpouring in Acts 2, Jewish pilgrims heard the disciples proclaiming the gospel message in their native languages. As a result, about 3,000 Jews from all regions of the known world believed, received baptism, and were discipled. In Acts 4:4 another 5,000 people were added to the church as a consequence of the healing of the crippled beggar and Peter’s anointed preaching. Later, due to the persecution described in Acts 8, God scattered the new disciples in all directions. As they fled, they planted the seed of the gospel by preaching the word from place to place (cf. Acts 11:19). Some of the foreign pilgrims who had been assimilated into the Jerusalem Church on the Day of Pentecost returned to their home communities and started house churches. In this sense, disciples who were scattered became inadvertent church planters.

In the book of Acts, one may discern the “evangelize, disciple, and scatter” strategy. First, people are converted, baptized, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Afterward, they are discipled. Next, the new disciples engage in the mission of the church as they are deployed in gifted ministry inside and outside the local church.

From this perspective, one can argue that God has gifted the church, both locally and globally, so that it can work God’s mission. As such, a critical linkage exists between the local church and God’s mission. Individuals are gifted, called, and trained within the context of a local community of faith that is sent into the world. The entire community of faith is called into mission. By means of one’s gifting and calling, one participates in and enables the local church to do God’s mission. Gifting must be seen in light of mission. Gifting is never an individual thing or a cause for personal pride.

Additionally, within the UM connectional system local congregations are also called and gifted for specialized ministries within their communities and the larger connection. Still, the mission of the church is never subsumed by the local context. For this reason, local congregations should not emphasize the local mission to the neglect of the global mission. All churches must jointly discern the mission and work of the UMC so that they work together to achieve it on the local and global scene. No local church exists solely for itself. The same can be said of conferences. The entire UMC is one body called and equipped to do God’s multiverse mission together.

When the entire Methodist connection works together to discern the need and give voice to the global mission, it will find a basis from which it can fulfill that to which Paragraph 54 aspires.

---

[1] “Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy with [the group of prophets] and be changed into another man.”

William Payne: Culture clashes, secularism, and the LGBT debate in the global UMC

Today's blog post is written by Dr. William Payne.  Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.

In the 1980s Charles W. Ferguson argued that Methodism is America in microcosm.[1] In a similar fashion, I have argued that American Methodism has always been characterized by regional identities and that it is essentially a regionally-based denomination.[2] Specifically, via a contextualization process, American Methodism adapted the genius of Methodism to its various locations without compromising the heart of Methodism. In the process, it became an American tradition that has greatly influenced American culture even as it has been swayed by American culture.

Today, United Methodist regionalism conflicts with the national identity to which it aspires. Specifically, the growing hegemony of American secularism poses a challenge that highlights regionalism and questions whether the denomination can maintain its national unity. If the UMC decides to emphasize its national identity over its regional character, it must choose between adapting to the secular culture by jettisoning aspects of its tradition or rejecting aspects of secular culture. Both options pose a very real potential of alienating significant sectors of the US population.

Clearly, ideological secularism does not have as firm of a grip on the South from Texas to Virginia, as it does on other parts of the US connection. That is one reason why southern jurisdictions continue to affirm the language of the Discipline on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In fact, many southern evangelicals want the UMC to become a bulwark against the rising tide of secularism. In their vision, the UMC can save society from itself by remaining committed to “biblical” faith. Other regions of the UMC have made peace with secularism and want to become more “relevant” by affirming the cultural values of the majority population in the regions where they exist.

The fight for the heart and soul of the UMC also extends to the Central Conferences. Like the various regions in the US connection, they also reflect the values and culture of their discrete locations. According to a 2013 Pew Report entitled “The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in More Secular and Affluent Countries,” Western Europe, North American, and South America largely affirm gay rights. On the other hand, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia strongly reject gay rights and the normalization of homosexual behavior in society. Due to the location of the Central Conferences, the UMC can anticipate that global United Methodism will not follow the lead of the US connection on the issue of gay rights.

In an effort to explain the global divergence, the Pew report makes a significant observation that highlights the encounter between African traditional society and western secular society:

There is a strong relationship between a country’s religiosity and opinions about homosexuality. There is far less acceptance of homosexuality in countries where religion is central to people’s lives – measured by whether they consider religion to be very important, whether they believe it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral, and whether they pray at least once a day.

If the Pew report is correct, the homosexual debate should be viewed through the larger lens of a rising secularism that diminishes the influence of religion on society. At the deepest level, the confrontation reflects a clash of cultures. A recent AP report illustrates this point. Vice President Biden and the US administration stated that gay rights must take precedence over culture. In the article, Biden declares that “protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions.” One should assume that he includes deeply held religious convictions under social traditions. He also implies that African nations and American evangelicals that do not support gay rights are not civilized. He avows that the US will use diplomatic coercion and economic incentives to impose its gay rights agenda on African nations. For Biden, “civilize” means to become like and acquiesce to the values of the secular West. It also means that the West arrogates the authority to unilaterally determine what constitutes inviolate human rights even when there is no global consensus or historical precedent. Not surprisingly, African societies who have lived under the political, economic, militaristic, and theological domination of the West are actively pushing back against this ideological imperialism in an attempt to regain and/or reaffirm their native cultures.

Regardless of what happens within the American connection, I hope that American UMs will not mimic the vitriolic tone of Biden. Yes, proponents on both sides of this issue have gone the way of rancor and antipathy. At times the soliloquies have reflected disdain. In regards to global United Methodism, I have heard fellow UMs lament, “If it weren’t for the Central Conferences, the UMC would be a gay affirming denomination.” Others have suggested that the Central Conferences should not have equal representation at General Conference because they are not theologically adept. Such sentiment is unfortunate and not helpful in discerning the voice of God or maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In fact, it might be good if American UMs actually stopped being paternalistic long enough to hear the African critique of secularism, individualism, materialism, and permissive values related to human sexuality. After all, a global church should do theology in the context of the global community without disparaging any part of the connection.

---

[1] Charles W. Ferguson, Methodists and the Making of America. (Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 1983).

[2] William P. Payne, American Methodism: Past and Future Growth. (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2013).

William Payne: Jesus is every race

Today's post is by guest blogger William P. Payne, the Harlan and Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions at Ashland Theological Seminary.

In reference to the misguided “Jesus was White” comment, I affirm that God is always culture-specific when God interacts with humans. The incarnation illustrates this truth. Historically, Jesus came as a Jew, a tangible human with a real body that contained DNA. By American standards, Semites are classified as White because the term refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Granted, such categories diminish ethnic diversity and build upon a false premise. For instance, how much does a Romani (Gypsy) have in common with an Afrikaner or an Albanian with an Arab? Still, the social construction of race persists and must be acknowledge as an unfortunate fact.

Fortuitously, the church proclaims that Christ is not limited by social constraints or bound by race categories. That is why he takes on the likeness of a variety of peoples when the gospel is properly incarnated in their midst. In the same way that Paul adopted a missionary strategy to become all things to all people (I Cor 9:19-23), Jesus enters into the cultural reality of all peoples when the church adopts culture-specific methods of witnessing to him. He is not foreign to any people! Furthermore, no one should have to cross cultural boundaries to encounter him. He is Asian & African, Latino & mulatto.

Since Jesus is a personal Savior, it is OK for people to think of him in culture-specific ways as long as they do not attempt to restrict Christ to their culture or require others to convert to their enculturated Christ in order to have a relationship with him. At the same time, because the UMC attempts to make disciples of all people groups (Matt 28:19), we want people of every ethnic, national, and racial category to have an authentic, culture specific encounter with the risen Lord.

In sum, since God is culture specific in his dealings with humanity, the UMC needs to take the concept of culture seriously without falling into the sin of ethnocentrism. Regardless, UM clergy can never be satisfied with a monocultural Christ because we are in the business of giving Christ away as we actively seek to translate him into other cultural categories in word and deed.

Merry Christmas to all who wonder after the incarnation.

William Payne: Learning about faith from Mexican immigrants

Today's post is by guest blogger William P. Payne, the Harlan and Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions at Ashland Theological Seminary.

A recent UMCMission.org article entitled “Low-WageWorkers Seek Moral, Livable Wages,” explores the plight of immigrant workers who are abused by an economic system that exploits their labor and does not pay them a fair salary with benefits.The article is written from the perspective of an Anglo US-2 working with Interfaith Worker Justice. The article grows awareness as it argues for a significant increase in the federal minimum wage and immigration reform.

For my part, I have enjoyed close relationships with marginal peoples from various Spanish speaking nations, including working for a local Spanish newspaper while in high school, pastoring a Cuban refugee camp in Panama in 1994 through 1995 (see “Religious Community in a Cuban Refugee Camp: Bringing Order out of Chaos,” in Missiology 25, no 2 [1997]:141-154), and organizing a flourishing ministry with Mexican immigrants while serving a church in the Florida Conference from 1998 through 2001 (see American Methodism, Past and Future Growth. Emeth Press 2013, p. ix-xiv). That ministry included nightly services, Sunday school, evening meals, an evangelism team, and community based ministries. It did not include social advocacy.

I wanted to advocate for my Mexican parishioners. In fact, I shared this concern with a lawyer who worked with our Hispanic Ministry Team. However, when she spoke to the leaders of the Mexican ministry, they told her that they did not want or need our help. I was appalled. Of course they needed our help. I pushed the social justice issue with righteous indignation. After all, most worked in low paying jobs related to agriculture, construction, landscaping, or the service industry. Clearly, they were the victims of an unjust economic system. 

One day, the lay leader for the Mexican ministry met with me to explain how the Mexican immigrants in our church saw it. First, in Mexico, they were really poor. They lived on a few dollars a day and barely eked out a living. Second, a working couple in America could earn $50 a day. From their perspective, that was a lot of money. With that money, they provided for themselves and sent money home to family members. Third, the church family became an extended family. They shared vehicles, lived close to each other, parented each other’s children, networked for jobs, pooled food, took one another to medical appointments, and watched over one another’s soul. Finally, my friend observed that the English speaking families in the church lived in isolation and were so intent on getting and maintaining things that they neglected each other and had little time for church. In his opinion, they completely lacked meaningful community.

At first, my friend’s words shocked me. I wanted to protest and defend my culture. However, as I pondered his observations I realized that he and the people in the Mexican ministry lived closer to the biblical ideal than I.  In my desire to impose my values on the Mexican congregants, I had failed to see the situation through their eyes. In this state of heightened conviction, I realized that I and much of the American church were guilty as charged. The conviction produced a renewed desire to more closely follow the example of the New Testament church by living a simple life while striving for more intentional community.

Much has changed in the Spanish speaking immigrant communities since 2001. They have become more Americanized and they are keenly aware of issues related to economic justice. Many are no longer content with $50 a day. In fact, most would not resonate with the convictions of the above mentioned Mexican lay leader. Yet, I wonder, has the UMC considered the unintentional social and spiritual consequences of climbing the American economic latter? John Wesley and Francis Asbury both lauded simplicity and strongly condemned the acquisition of wealth. Wesley’s famous maxim states, “It is a mere miracle for a Methodist to increase in wealth and not decrease in grace.” Early Methodism maintained a constant battle against “prosperous” religion.

I have additional questions. How much money is enough money? Americans are notorious for wanting more. Greed is a public value and crass materialism is a prime export. Also, by what biblical standard should the UMC measure a fair, living wage? Does a fair wage mean becoming a middle class American with all the accompanying vices and temptations? Furthermore, to what extent does our concern for economic justice reflect an unconscious ethnocentrism that values things over community? Most importantly, what can the immigrant Christians in our midst teach American United Methodism about spirituality, community, and faith?

Many New Testament scriptures point to a “preferential option for the poor.” Truly, God calls the church to join with them in their sufferings and their struggles. Yet, many are so busy trying to fix their condition that we fail to learn from them, be changed by them, or enter into their world. Yes, the admonition of my former Mexican lay leader still rings in my ear.