Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part IV

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the fourth of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.

There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.

While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.

Institution
Another area in which we at Global Ministries appreciated what WLP said but wished it would go further was in talking about the human dimension of the church. As WLP states, “The truth—the theological truth, even—is that the church is indeed also a very human community, an association of often all too like-minded individuals, and that it does also serve human purposes quite distinct from, and sometimes counter to, the purposes of God.” (lines 406-408). The document also makes frequent reference to the “human uses” of the church and draws on the language of the “visible” and “invisible” church to talk about the distinction between the church as God intends it and the church as humans have made it for their own purposes. We found the recognition of the failings of the church contained in these discussions useful.

Yet we also felt that it was possible to go beyond what was already included in the text. While the text explores “human uses” of the church and “human abuses” of the church, these discussions are not grounded in a theological anthropology or a theology of sin, both of which would give greater insight into what it means to be human and when humans depart from the will of God. As we noted in our discussion, merely being human is not itself problematic. Indeed, in light of the Incarnation, God highly values the human. Wesley affirmed the imago Dei in humanity. Humanity is not inherently deficient or broken, but sin is a rejection of our “humanness” as God created and intended it to be. Thus, the problem is not the church being at times human but the church being at times sinful in its actions and attitudes. WLP does not contradict these theological affirmations, but could benefit by stating them more clearly.

This discussion of the human aspect of the church would also be strengthened by a thorough theology of institutions. At the same time as the church is a movement and a community, neither of which are institutions, it is also an institution. A solid understanding of institutions could also help us better understand Methodism as a movement by allowing us to draw clear distinctions between the two categories. Moreover, many of the conflicts within The United Methodist Church revolve around the institutional structures of the church. A theology of institutions would complement a theological anthropology to help us understand our church institutions in more than a solely functional or merely political way but also help to make sense of the political and functional dimensions of the church.

Admittedly, there are fewer resources to draw on here, as modern institutions are in general under-theologized. Nevertheless, some conclusions are possible. Such a theology of institutions would have to balance the natural human tendency toward organization with the sinful human tendency to use institutions as a means to pursue power, control others, and indulge our base and selfish motives. Thus, a proper theology of institutions should be confessional, prophetic, aspirational, and humble.

There are moments at which WLP does strike confessional notes on the ways in which Methodists and their institutions have failed to live up to the calling of God. It makes brief nods to the racism and colonialism that characterize the history of the church. Yet there is more for United Methodists to confess. We have also sinned in our treatment of women, the poor, immigrants, foreigners, and God’s creation. Moreover, our sins are not entirely behind us. We as a denomination continue to be Americentric in our structures and thinking. We let money distort relationships and the mission of the church. We exclude, denigrate, and discriminate against people based on a whole host of characteristics. We choose our own comfort over God’s calling. We continue to reflect rather than challenge the world around us in too many ways.

Thus, we thought it important for WLP to not only confess the sins of the church but to affirm and model the church’s prophetic calling. WLP chooses to use Christ’s threefold offices as priest, prophet, and king to frame its discussion of ordained ministry. However, this framework seems at times forced to encompass the ways in which United Methodism has structured its ordained ministry. While a prophetic dimension is theoretically part of ordained ministry in the UMC, our theological documents and structural practices frequently discourage the exercise of such an office. For example, we might note here how the 1968 Book of Discipline, quoted and discussed in lines 724-746 of WLP, defines ordination primarily as being entrusted with special authority over Word, Sacrament, and Order. Priestly and kingly functions (as well as administrative responsibilities) are clearly contained within this understanding of ordination, but prophecy is conspicuously absent.

Too often we expect our members and our ordained leaders to keep the system going rather than to challenge it with a prophetic vision of God’s calling for our institutions. Since this document is intended as a teaching document, it should not only reflect the church as it is, but also project a vision of the church as it should be.

Thus, a good theology of institutions must also be aspirational. The prophetic voice should not only condemn the injustices that are but paint a picture of the church and the world as God intends them to be. It should show how our deepest theological convictions are expressed in the church currently but also what a fuller expression of those beliefs would look like – in structures, in practices, in attitudes. At several points, WLP does recognize the aspirational nature of the church as the document describes it, and we appreciated these moments. For instance, WLP recognizes that the Methodist distinctives we proclaim are often aspirational. Such an affirmation seems a very Methodist statement – proclaiming that we are individually and collectively going on toward perfection but are not there yet.

Thus, the final necessary element for a good theology of institutions is humility. In present day American if not global culture, there can seem to be a tension between being prophetic and being humble. Yet this tension resolves when both are properly understood. Prophecy is not shouting loudly about how one is right and others wrong. Prophecy begins with the ability to be self-critical, a deeply humble and humbling activity. Pride binds us to institutions as they are, but humility frees us to imagine them another way, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to grant a prophetic vision for change. Humility allows us to recognize, to borrow an ecumenical term from Karl Barth, that ecclesia semper reformanda est – the church must always be reformed. Finally, recognizing the common root of humble and human, an ecclesiology with humility allows us to embrace an ecclesiology with humanity, even as we reach toward the divine.

Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part III

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the third of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.

There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.

While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.

Community
Community is an important term for WLP. One of the three core theological convictions that shape the document is, “The saving love of God creates community.” Global Ministries appreciates and affirms this focus on the church as a community. Nevertheless, we also felt there were important ways in which this focus on community could be extended and given additional Wesleyan theological grounding.

Such additional grounding could be achieved by noting the connections between the three theological emphases of WLP: that the saving love of God is for all, that the saving love of God is transformative, and that the saving love of God creates community. Put another way, WLP could enrich its discussion of community by focusing on community as not merely a static state, part of the unchangeable essence of the church, but by focusing on community as an active entity, the body that carries out the works of the church. Such an active understanding of community would highlight the connection between community and mission (related to the first emphasis) and between community and discipleship (related to the second emphasis).

We have already noted the need for a greater mission-orientation in the ecclesiology presented in WLP. In addition to the already given reasons for doing so, such an orientation could help uncover important insights into the nature and activities of the church as a community. The church as a community is always invitational. It is perpetually reaching beyond itself, seeking to bring new members into itself. Even in the face of rejection, the church continues to extend the invitation of Christ to the world, thereby participating in God’s mission of redemption.

Yet to say that the church is (or should be) such an invitational community is to make a claim that sets the church apart from many other communities. Community of any type presumes some level of similarity. All too often, however, similarity implies group boundaries, and those boundaries make it difficult for those outside of a group to join it. In our world today, we see the tragic consequences of such an approach to community formation in nationalism, racism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, and sexism. These chauvinistic forms of community wound the world and the church. The church is called to bind these wounds inflicted by false understandings of community and to seek reconciliation in such conflicts.

The church can most effectively do so when it remembers its missional, invitational nature as a community. For the church, unlike almost any other community, the commonality that brings us together also impels us to reach beyond ourselves, rather than focus within or on precisely drawing the boundaries. The saving love of God in Jesus Christ is the commonality upon which Christian community is built (as WLP recognizes). Yet our experience of that saving love must, according to Wesleyan theology, lead us to respond by seeking to share that love with others. Thus, any community that is not actively engaged in God’s mission to share the saving love of God in Christ cannot claim to be a fully Wesleyan expression of the church. We recognize that we as a United Methodist community are still, as WLP puts is, “in pursuit of God’s gift of community,” and thus imperfect in living out this task, but the task should be named.

Just as Christian community cannot be separated from active participation in God’s mission, so it also cannot be separated from the process of forming individual believers as disciples. As WLP notes, “the saving love of God is transformative,” and as it further notes, “growth in love and in the other fruits of the Spirit is possible only in community.” Yet given the emphasis that Wesley and other Methodists have placed on this practice of social holiness – growth in discipleship in community – it is disappointing that WLP does not spend more time discussing this aspect of the church as a community. Classes, bands, and other small fellowships have been central Methodist means to make disciples in community, and it would be nice to see such groups lifted up in the document.

Moreover, a discussion of the relationship between community and disciple-making would be an opportunity for WLP to bring additional Wesleyan theological insights into the conversation. In particular, WLP could talk about the communal practices involved in Wesley’s means of grace. Methodism as an expression of church originated in just such a setting – believers joining together in class meetings and bands to hold one another accountable in their process of growing as disciples. By acknowledging the importance of community as a context for experiencing the transformative love of God, WLP would have an opportunity to exposit key Wesleyan ecclesiological concepts such as discipline. Such a discussion could help laity better understand such historically important practices of Methodism, commend them to Methodists today, and emphasize the practical nature of Methodist ecclesiology.

Furthermore, a discussion of the communal means of grace could further enrich WLP’s exploration of the relationship between koinonia and ekklesia. The two Articles WLP cites from United Methodism’s theological affirmations both mention the sacraments and the word of God. Wesley mentions the importance of both communion and Bible study as communal works of grace. While sermons are certainly not the only means for studying the Bible, they are a means. Affirming communion and group engagement with the Bible as elements of both koinonia and ekklesia would make an important connection between the two, one that highlights our Wesleyan theological heritage.

Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part II

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the second of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.

There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.

While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.

Mission
While there are times at which WLP discusses the missional nature of the church, such an understanding of the church could use greater emphasis in the document. Although the document makes regular references to the “mission of the church,” it spends relatively little time exploring mission as an activity of the church or sent-ness as a characteristic of the church, i.e., the church’s missional nature. To make this assertion is not to take issue with WLP’s choice to use the Wesleyan theology of grace as a framework, but to call for the inherent missional nature of Wesley’s theology to be more clearly explicated.

Indeed, many commentators have seen Methodism as a missional movement at its core. Both in its efforts to “spread scriptural holiness” and in its efforts to “reform the nation” (in John Wesley’s words), Methodism has served missional goals, and much of the theology and structure of The United Methodist Church evolved to serve these missional ends. WLP references Russ Richey’s remarks on the missional nature of connectionalism in lines 196-203, but it does not seem to have taken these remarks to heart. An emphasis on mission as part of the nature of the church would seem appropriate, even necessary, for a United Methodist ecclesiology.

Such a focus on mission would be furthermore appropriate because of the significance of ecumenical theological reflections on the missional nature of the church. Several ecumenical theologians have opined on the essentially missionary nature of the church, including such famous statements as Emil Brunner’s “The church exists by mission as fire exists by burning.”

Even if one might like to interject that mission is not the entirety of the church’s nature, it is beyond dispute that mission is a central aspect of both what the church does and what the church is. As Article V of the EUB’s Confession of Faith indicates, the church exists for worship, discipleship, and mission. In this formulation, mission is one of the three primary tasks of the church. WLP recognizes this aspect of the Article but could do more to expand upon it. Such an expansion is especially important given that mission is the only of the three tasks that is primarily focused beyond the church. This makes it an essential task for the propagation of the church throughout time and space.

The outward-facing nature of mission highlights something about the church’s nature as well as its activity. The church is not a closed set. It does not exist merely for the sake of those who are already members of it. Indeed, Anglican Archbishop William Temple famously remarked, “The Church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members” (emphasis added). As WLP recognizes in its discussion of grace, the church is a gift of God to the world. Thus, the church is sent from God to the world; or in other words, the church is an expression of God’s mission in the world. A focus on mission as an essential aspect of the church would help The United Methodist Church reclaim this vital theological insight and move past much of the organizational and theological navel-gazing that has beset the church in the past half century, to deleterious ends.

As this discussion of mission suggests, an adequate ecclesiology must explore the relationship between the church and the world. The world does not define the church, but the church must be defined in relation to the world. World may be taken in several senses here: The church itself is part of God’s created world. The church is in the world but not of the world, in the sense of the social order of things. The church is a sign from God to the world, here understood as that which is not church. And the church seeks the redemption of the world, in all three senses of world.

In its introduction, WLP does mention several significant features of the world today. Nevertheless, after raising these issues, it does not explore them or their meaning for the church today. Issues such as globalization, migration, economic inequalities, and climate change can and should have profound implications for the church, especially a church that views “the world as [its] parish.” Yet WLP does not go into any of these issues.

Some might argue that this omission is an indication of a primarily privileged white, American perspective pervasive throughout the document – only those with such privilege could ignore the implications of these trends in the world for the nature of the church. Such an allegation is another instance in which the document would benefit from more serious engagement with mission as an aspect of the church, as such as discussion would entail a theology of culture. As The United Methodist Church seeks to live into its nature as a “global” or “worldwide” church, it is in sore need of such a theology of culture. How are we to understand the church both as a community that includes people of all races, cultures, and nations and as a collection of particular communities, each shaped by their own cultural understandings of the world? WLP is silent on such questions.

While the concept of diakonia or service is distinct from the concept of missio or mission, the two are related in their orientation toward care for a creation that “groans for redemption.” WLP does make some scant references to mission, but the concept of diakonia is completely missing from the document. Some exploration of this term would help United Methodists understand not only the church’s relation to the world but also its internal leadership structures, as the order of deacons is predicated on this concept.

WLP shows significant interest in ecumenical questions, and this is another area in which a discussion of mission, service, and the church’s relation to the world would benefit the document. The document does note the connection between mission and the unity of the church in lines 91-96, but this insight is not carried out in the rest of the document’s discussion of ecumenism or unity, nor does this paragraph define mission or unity. Yet the challenges of the world are often them means through which individual churches are prompted to work together and recognize their unity in God’s calling to serve the world in mission.

Mission can potentially be a means to foster internal Methodist unity as well, to distinguish between so-called “legitimate” and “illegitimate” forms of diversity (mentioned in lines 599-639). The authors of WLP claim that we possess “no workable means of resolving this question” about legitimate v. illegitimate difference. Could not a focus on mission (as well as an emphasis on the importance of humility and love the authors mention in the concluding section of the document) give us some common ground upon which we could adjudicate our differences? Wesley indicates that missional unity aimed at helping people grow in the love of God and others, which is Wesley’s definition Christian holiness, should create a sense of fellowship among Christians, even when they are separated by significant and deeply held beliefs about aspects of the Christian religion.

Global Ministries Response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part I

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of four written by a group of Global Ministries staff persons on behalf of the agency. That group includes Malcolm Frazier, David Logeman, Emily Richardson-Rossbach, Jerome Sahabandhu, and David W. Scott.

There is much to be appreciated and affirmed in “Wonder, Love and Praise,” the United Methodist Church’s ecclesiology document drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order (CFO). Global Ministries is grateful for the work of CFO is preparing this document for comment by the church. This piece is intended as a response to that call for church-wide feedback, and is offered in hope that other United Methodist individuals and entities will also heed the call.

While “Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP) does include useful pieces of theological reflection, Global Ministries would like to lift up four ways in which the document could go further or explore more theological territory than it does. These four areas are the role of laity, the church’s relationship with the world through mission, the church’s nature as a community, and the church’s nature as an institution.

Laity
We will begin with the role of the laity. WLP, following the example of the WCC documents The Church: Towards a Common Vision and Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, explores issues related to the roles of those set aside for leadership within the church through ordination. Such an exploration is worthwhile, as ordained leadership is a significant aspect of the church. Yet WLP fails to give sufficient attention to an exploration of the theological understanding and significance of the laity within the church. The document could have drawn on other United Methodist theological resources such as By Water and the Spirit to discuss the common Christian calling that all members of the church enter into through their baptismal vows.

Overlooking the role of the laity is a significant miscalculation for several reasons. First, it seems a missed opportunity in terms of the document’s envisioned purpose. WLP is intended to serve as a teaching document for the church, similar to This Holy Mystery and By Water and the Spirit. If the document is used as such, the primary audience who will engage it will be laity. It is important, therefore, that laity see themselves in the document. If they do not, the chances it will be adopted and used as a teaching document will significantly decrease.

Second, by overlooking the laity, WLP also overlooks a primary Methodist distinctive. Section III of WLP examines three aspects of The United Methodist Church’s distinctiveness within the church universal: the scope of grace, connectionalism, and theological reflection as a task of the whole church. While the wording of this last aspect of distinctiveness might seem to indicate some attention to the role of laity within theological reflection, the discussion here is about General Conference without any specific references to the laity. Moreover, while WLP asserts that theological reflection is a distinctive mark of Methodism, we felt that practically, not enough space was created for such reflection. Few would call General Conference a space for deep theological reflection.

Although the laity are not mentioned in this section or in the rest of the section on United Methodism’s distinctiveness, arguably a large role for laity in the church has been one of the most distinctive aspects of Methodism since its beginning as a movement led predominantly by lay preachers, lay class leaders, and lay stewards. Methodists have taken Luther’s concept of the priesthood of all believers and thoroughly applied it. In Britain, in America, and around the world, Methodism often spread through the initiative of laity. Laity have long held crucial leadership roles within the church, both on the local and general church levels. United Methodist governance structures are set up to reflect equal participation by clergy and laity. Thus, by omitting specific attention to the role of the laity, WLP overlooks what is one of the most important aspects of United Methodist distinctiveness and therefore one of its contributions to the church universal.

Third, a more thorough theological exploration of the role of the laity within the church would have served to better ground WLP’s discussion of the role of ordained clergy within the church. Since significant leadership roles are available to laity within The United Methodist Church, confusions frequently arise about what the distinctions between laity and clergy are. How are lay licensed local pastors and clergy elders different when they serve similar functional roles? How is a deacon who serves as a social worker different than a lay person who serves as a social worker? Such questions must be answer not only through a theology of the clergy, but a theology of the laity, or a theology of the whole people of God, as well.

By omitting such a theological discussion of the laity and their relation to the clergy, WLP inadvertently reinforces a tacit hierarchical understanding of The United Methodist Church, one with laity at the bottom. Too often, United Methodists view the church as a pyramid of prestige proceeding from laity to licensed local pastor to deacon to elder to bishop. Deconstructing such a view of the church requires a firm understanding of the common baptismal ministry that all Christians are called to, regardless of ordination status. Indeed, Methodists have always emphasized witnessing to Christ in the world in vocations of daily life and service through secular occupations. Such faithful living is a primary and not secondary aspect of what it means to be the church.

James Labala: Comment on Wonder, Love and Praise

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is written by Rev. Dr. James Z. Labala, Associate Dean of the Gbarnga School of Theology and Conference Secretary for the Liberia Annual Conference.

We are living a in time in the life and history of the church when the need for our self-understanding is very critical. There are challenges within and without that make this need very acute. From the general global, continental and local contexts, the image of the church as a sign of hope has become so blurry that there seems to be very little difference between the church and the world which the church is called to transform. At such a time in the varying contexts of The United Methodist Church, I see “Love, Wonder, and Praise” as a necessary instructive construct which invites us to engage in an intentional process of critical reflection on our nature, vision and mission as a church.

Drawing from the historical, theological and missional roots of the church and locating The United Methodist Church in that general background, the document develops a framework that provides much needed insights about its distinctive convictions. The distinctive convictions include the following: the saving love of God is intended for all people everywhere; the saving love of God is transformative, transforming the life of everyone that embraces it by the power of the Holy Spirit; and it is a love that creates community, a community in which love is learned and lived out.

The document uses the three convictions as a foundation to cast a renewed vision that is relevant for the present and varying contexts of The United Methodist Church. This renewed vision challenges the church to see itself as a gift of the triune God, a communion whose life is sharing in the life of the Triune God. The new vision of The United Methodist Church, gleaned from careful analysis of the core belief or creed of the Christian tradition as well as the ecumenical document, Towards a Common Vision, presents the church as a community whose life is generated by the very life of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. It describes the life of the church as “a sharing in the life of the Triune God,” and the mission of the church as communicating “that possibility to a world in need.” As koinonia, “the church is not an association of like-minded individuals serving purposes they may have devised for themselves.” It is rather a community established by God and rooted in the very life of God. But “Wonder, Love and Praise” is quick to point out that the church is also a human community which serves human purposes that sometimes counteract the purposes of God.

Our awareness of the church as human community lifts up its need of constant self-evaluation of its self-understanding and missional effectiveness. As such, the church must be intentional to engage in self-critical reflection in an effort to determine its areas of need for reformation and renewal. The document argues that Wesley himself presents a lesson to learn in this regard: the church is to exercise a realistically self-critical capacity when it comes to the quality of our own life and witness as Christians and Christian communities and be sensitive to the danger of self-deception and be aware of our own permanent need for repentance and renewal… we are to also be open to the presence of God, and open to the love of God that might come to us through them.

Critical in the life and structure of the community is the theology of ministry, “Wonder, Love and Praise” argues. It is a theology that is rooted in the “threefold office” of Christ as prophet (bearing witness to God’s word), as priest (offering the life of a life lived in discipleship), and king (serving as instruments for the establishment of God’s reign). In this new age our participation in the ecumenical forum, reaffirmation and exploration of the triadic pattern of “Word, Sacrament, and Order” would serve to strengthen our theology of ministry.

Finally, the document discusses the question of locating The United Methodist Church within the global Christian community and the impact its participation in the ecumenical conversations might have in addressing the issues of its diversity. The effort is to construct a renewed ministry theology. Amongst the points the document uses in fashioning this ministry theology, two really stand out for ministry context particularly in the west Africa Central Conference: the first is the fact that our connection is intended for “the strengthening of all by the gifts of all.” We are stronger together as we value one another for who each one is and for what each brings to the table for the common good of all. The other is the emphasis on theological reflection. This is the tool that helps to keep us in check as a people of God when appropriately utilized, for the un-reflected life is not worth living (Socrates in Plato’s Apology).

The last portion of the work discusses diversity and conflict leading a new vision of the church that is relevant to the present reality with which the church is faced. As called out people from diverse backgrounds, we are challenged to see our differences as a gift that enhances our unity. Our differences should be seen as an opportunity to open ourselves to learning from those who do not see things as we do. This means that such learning experience should empower us to be who we are and at the same recognize and honor those with whom we might not agree. This is the church we are called to be, a sign of hope and life to a hopeless and dying world.

Ole Birch: What happened to the worldwide church? A response to Wonder, Love and Praise

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the second of two written by Rev. Ole Birch, pastor in Copenhagen, Denmark Annual Conference, and member of The Connectional Table.

In the introduction to “Wonder, Love and Praise”, the motivations behind the document are presented and among them, the following is mentioned: 

“The dramatic recent growth of The United Methodist Church in parts of Africa and Asia, and the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries in its leadership, are gradually bringing United Methodists in the United States to a greater (if belated) awareness that theirs is, if not a “global” or “worldwide” church, at least not simply an American denomination”.

The text then proceeds to talk about the “adequacy of a polity that has been essentially U. S.–centric, taking for granted a basic, normative national identity for the denomination”.

My intention with these two blogposts is to offer two European (or Central Conference) perspectives on the church that can perhaps deepen this question of center and periphery, and bring something new to our understanding of Methodist Theology on the church.

What if there was no center?
My second point in looking at the text from a Central Conference perspective goes to the identity we try to claim as a global or worldwide church.

In our present church structure, it is fair to speak of a strong center and a periphery. At the center we find the General Conference and the administrative order (the agencies, the commissions and the Connectional Table. The program agencies and the administrative organizations have historically been set up to provide support functions for the connectional system in the US. Their purpose and functions have been determined by the perceived missional needs of the five jurisdictions, and their mandates reflect theological and sociological developments in the American church and society. In 1996, General Conference gave the agencies a new identity as Global Agencies, with a global mandate. At the center, the agencies have their mandate, a budget, some staff and the power to determine how to implement the wisdom of the GC.

At the periphery, we find the church in Africa, Asia and Europe. The seven Central Conferences are very different because they serve in very different circumstances. Some are small, in wealthy countries; some are big, in poor countries. Some are highly dependent on financial support, while others are not. What unites them is that their pastors, laypeople and leadership possess contextual competence in their unique missional situation.

In some parts of the world, the church, under the leadership of these people, has demonstrated astonishing growth over the last 20 years. Today more than 40 % of the UMC membership is in the church outside the US.

If the church in these parts of the world needs support, it can ask the center for it.

The administrative order we have today is heavily dominated by the UMC in the United States. Communication is always determined by the need of the periphery and the power at the center.

All agencies are based in the US. All but one have a US born (and educated) general secretary. All have US bishops as presidents. The boards of the agencies do have CC representation. The Connectional Table of 2016-20 has approx. 85% US members.

The very real problem is an administrative order for at global church that cannot possibly be contextually relevant in Africa, Asia and Europe.

My questions regarding our understanding of our church are these; in a worldwide church, what should be the relationship between center and periphery? Do we need a center? Is our present American center determined by history, theology, need for control or American power?

Let’s presume that the church in the US becomes its own region, and we therefore have a unified structure throughout the world. Then each region (or CC) could establish the administrative order it needs to do the mission of the church (No global agencies) These regional bodies relate to each other and find partners around common projects.

What would that mean?

In terms of contextual mission? It could mean that the contextual competence present in the church in the different parts of the world would gain influence on the administrative order and the programs that were created.

For connectionalism? It could mean that the focus of our connectionalism would move towards mission, instead of policy.

In terms of equity? Less dominance by the already privileged.

For subsidiarity? It could mean that decisions would be made close to, and even by, the people affected by the decisions.

Ole Birch: What happened to the worldwide church? A response to Wonder, Love and Praise, Part 1

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of two written by Rev. Ole Birch, pastor in Copenhagen, Denmark Annual Conference, and member of The Connectional Table.

In the introduction to “Wonder, Love and Praise”, the motivations behind the document are presented and among them, the following is mentioned: 

“The dramatic recent growth of The United Methodist Church in parts of Africa and Asia, and the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries in its leadership, are gradually bringing United Methodists in the United States to a greater (if belated) awareness that theirs is, if not a “global” or “worldwide” church, at least not simply an American denomination”.

The text then proceeds to talk about the “adequacy of a polity that has been essentially U. S.–centric, taking for granted a basic, normative national identity for the denomination”.

My intention with these two blogposts is to offer two European (or Central Conference) perspectives on the church that can perhaps deepen this question of center and periphery, and bring something new to our understanding of Methodist Theology on the church.

Wesley’s threefold ecclesiology
I want to start with some observations made by Ph. D. Jørgen Thaarup[1] about the ecclesiology of early British Methodism. He claims that John Wesley held three dimensions of church in dynamic tension with each other.

First, Wesley formed his societies, bands and classes for the people who wanted to be in association with him and his great sanctifying project. This structure corresponds with the Wesleyan teaching on accountable discipleship and sanctification, as well as demanding and exclusive membership. Its focus is the development of a strong personal spirituality and character. Drawing on the first part of the ecclesiology of Confessio Augustania and the Anglican Art. of Rel. XIII: "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men ..." Later reformulated in the EU Art. Rel. V: "... the Christian Church is the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ." This is ecclesiola, the church within the church. Here Wesley exercised strict discipline and removed people who were not serious about their Christian life. Note that this did not mean that anybody was excluded from the sacraments or the institution

Secondly, Wesley respected and utilized the forms and privileges of the official state church, The Anglican Church. He demanded that his followers attended the Sunday service and made frequent use of the sacraments there. This is ecclesia as the institution. This institutional church structure corresponded with the Wesleyan reformatory preaching on justification. The church was public and open to all people. There were low demands for membership, as well as service for the people of the country coming to the church. Drawing on the second part of the ecclesiology of Confessio Augustana and the Art. Rel. XIII: "... in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance..." Later re-formulated in the EU Art. Rel. V: "... in which the Word of God is preached (...) and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ’s own appointment." This is church as the institution of the means of grace.

The third concept of church in early British Methodism was that of The Evangelical Revival. This evolving platform of pietistic, Calvinistic and later more and more Methodist preachers in Britain was seen and used by Wesley as an expression of Church for his time, and his organizing of “his” preachers in The Conference established a new dimension of church as a connection around mission. This understanding of being connected to a larger movement of God’s activity in the world opens a greater perspective of the Kingdom of God, and in more modern terms, the mission of God (Missio Dei) in the present world. It corresponds with the Wesleyan teaching on evangelism, diaconal ministry, ethics and the task to go out and seek the lost sheep of God. Drawing on what is formulated in the last part of the EU version Art. Rel. V: "Under the discipline of the Holy Spirit the Church exists for (…) the redemption of the world."

Reading our new study document, I ask myself if we still claim all three dimensions of church in the UMC? Becoming an independent church in America, where there was no Anglican Church be the broad, open institution, changed something. Wesley held these three dimensions of church separate from each other, and could therefore benefit from their different perspectives and possibilities. He could have tolerance and openness, and at the same time, he could enforce strict discipline without losing the emphasis on free grace and the availability of the means of grace. He could support the institution and he could act with the agility of a movement.

I would suggest that these aspects of our theology of church be brought into the coming work on the text.

---

[1] “Methodism with a Danish Face” Jørgen Thaarup 1998, Wesley Theological Seminary, ISBN: 978-87-90828-76-9 and “The Praxis of Wesleyan Ecclesiology and the Effectiveness of the Methodist Mission in Scandinavia” Jørgen Thaarup 2002, Oxford Institute. https://oimts.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2002-8-thaarup.pdf

Steven Ybarrola - Response to Wonder, Love and Praise

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is written by Dr. Steven J. Ybarrola, Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Asbury Theological Seminary.

Let me begin my reflection on the “Wonder, Love, and Praise” document by situating myself in this conversation. I am a secularly trained anthropologist (PhD Brown University) who taught 15 years at a loosely church-affiliated liberal arts college, and for the past 11 years have been teaching anthropology and missiology at a Wesleyan theological seminary (Asbury). Therefore, I approach this document more from a theologically-informed social scientific perspective than a social scientifically-informed theological one. Also, I am not a member of the United Methodist Church, so approach the document from a critical outsider’s perspective, which has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that I am not encumbered by longstanding theological discussions and divisions within the denomination when it comes to the topics covered. The disadvantage is obviously the same—I am not evaluating the document based on issues that the UMC may have been dealing with for some time now. What follows is an anthropologically and missiologically Wesleyan-informed outsider’s perspective on this important document.

Based on my reading, I find this document to be a positive attempt to deal with the global diversity found within the Body of Christ. As the demographic shift has taken place from the West to the Majority World as far as the growth and expansion of Christianity is concerned, churches like the UMC, which tend to be declining in the West but growing, and in some cases thriving, in the Majority World, have had to come to terms with how to deal with this cultural diversity. This document, “Wonder, Love, and Praise,” seems to be a welcome response to this demographic shift of Christianity (though I will leave that final judgment to my brethren in the Majority World).

Following the teaching of Christ, and given the limits of space, let me concentrate on love. The document does a very nice job of pointing out that the UMC is but one manifestation of the Church universal, and as such, needs to take a humble and loving approach to our brothers, sisters, and their respective denominations, when it comes to working together in the missio Dei. The mission of God is not confined to any one denominational expression or understanding of God, but is what should unite us, even while we acknowledge and appreciate our different practices and, to some extent, beliefs. As the document states, “We might want to say, then, that, theologically understood, the church is not an association of like-minded individuals serving purposes they may have devised for themselves. Instead, it is a community established by God, grounded in the very life of God, an aspect of the new creation” (lines 400-403). The ecumenical focus of the document is refreshing, emphasizing as it does our unity as the Body of Christ without sacrificing or watering down the key elements of what it means to be the church in our contemporary global context.

The tension between our unity in Christ and our cultural/theological differences is a key theme in the document. As an anthropologist, this is a tension I am quite familiar with, as anthropologists distinguish between the emic (i.e., experience-near) and etic (i.e., experience-distant) in our research and analysis (see Geertz 1983 for an anthropological discussion of this distinction, and Priest 2006 for a more theological discussion).

The Scottish theologian and missiologist cited in the document, Andrew Walls, cogently discusses this tension by delineating the “Indigenizing Principle” and the “Pilgrim Principle.” Most of the readers of this blog will be familiar with Walls’ distinction, but let me briefly outline each of these as I believe it gets at an important element that this document is addressing. The indigenizing principle as Walls describes it is the idea of “[t]he impossibility of separating an individual from his or her social relationships and thus from his or her society [which] leads to one varying feature in Christian history: the desire to ‘indigenize,’ to live as a Christian and yet as a member of one’s own society, to make the Church…‘A place to feel at home’” (1996, 7).

In other words, when people become Christians they do so within their sociocultural context, and as such become Christians within that particular understandings of the world. This may be referred to as the “particular” aspect of the gospel—to truly take root it must always be understood within its local sociocultural environment. But Walls continues that we as Christians should never feel too much at home in these environments, because we are also called to something greater, to see ourselves as pilgrims in whatever sociocultural context we find ourselves. He states,

Along with the indigenizing principle which makes his faith a place to feel at home, the Christian inherits the pilgrim principle, which whispers to him that he has no abiding city and warns him that to be faithful to Christ will put him out of step with his society; for that society never existed, in East or West, ancient time or modern, which could absorb the word of Christ painlessly into its system….Not only does God in Christ take people as they are; He takes them in order to transform them into what He wants them to be” (1996, 7).

This can be understood as the “universal” nature of the gospel, that the Kingdom of God calls us to be countercultural in whatever context we find ourselves, and unites us with believers from all over the world and from very different cultural backgrounds.

What this calls for, and which the document acknowledges (lines 107-109, and elsewhere), is an intentional reflexivity. As culturally different believers in the Kingdom of God we must be willing not only to learn from each other, but we must also be willing to take a critical look at our own beliefs and practices in light of how God is working in these different contexts. This has been one of the great blessings, and challenges, I have had in teaching students from different parts of the world, as well as traveling to different parts of the Majority World. Interacting with these believers has made me realize how deeply affected I have been by a modernist view of the world which, among other things, focuses on the material over the spiritual. I recall sitting in the international airport in Nairobi after participating in a consultation with believers from different contexts in east Africa, and feeling like a fraud because what I said I believed was just a shadow of what the Christians I interacted with had actually experienced. This is one of the real advantages of being reflexive in the context of world Christianity.

I’m certain there are constructive criticisms to be made of the “Wonder, Love, and Praise” document, some of which I’ve read and appreciated, but from a critical outsider perspective I believe the document is a positive step forward for the UMC as it struggles to maintain its unity not only as a denomination, but with Christianity globally, amidst the tremendous cultural and theological diversity that makes up the Body of Christ worldwide.

Joon-Sik Park - Response to Wonder, Love & Praise

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is written by Dr. Joon-Sik Park, Professor in the E. Stanley Jones Chair of World Evangelism at Methodist Theological School in Ohio.

“Wonder, Love and Praise” (WLP), an important and timely statement on ecclesiology, is to be welcomed with appreciation by those who grapple with the question of what it means to be the authentic church. It deserves wide reading and careful study, as it intends to engage United Methodists in inquiring into the nature and purpose of the church. A critical reflection on the church is crucial to aligning our life and ministry as a community of faith and witness with God’s purpose for the world.

WLP rightly seeks to set an ecclesial vision of The United Methodist Church (TUMC) within an ecumenical context, stressing that unity is both a gift and task. It keenly recognizes the massive demographic shift of Christianity toward the global South that brings about “the increasing visibility and involvement of United Methodists from other countries” in the leadership of TUMC and challenges the adequacy of its long-standing U.S.-centric polity. It is good that WLP searches for “a renewed ecclesial vision” with a full awareness of the partial character of TUMC understanding and expression of the church and with a proper desire for mutual affirmation and reciprocal correction through ecumenical dialogue.

Yet, there are some areas in WLP that might need greater attention or further development. First, WLP appears to give rather too much priority to its engagement with the WCC document, “The Church: Towards a Common Vision.” It is important to recognize the significance of an ecumenical statement on ecclesiology, and to engage in sustained conversation with it. However, ecumenical sensitivity and humility, although an indispensable virtue, might have kept WLP from more fully exploring and presenting the distinctive characteristics of TUMC understanding of what it means to be the church. Considering that at the heart of ecumenism is a gift exchange,[1] a greater focus on identifying and sharing the unique gift of TUMC would further enrich the ecumenical dialogue on ecclesiology.

Second, although the missionary nature of the church is acknowledged in WLP, it does not become a central concern of the document. The church’s identity and calling defined in WLP is not intrinsically rooted in the conception of the church as a “sent” community. The three distinctive theological convictions that have shaped and guided the life and witness of TUMC are clearly laid out, but their concrete implications for the mission or structure of the church are not fully examined. It would have been desirable for WLP to ground its ecclesial vision more firmly in the essentially missionary nature of the church, whose calling is to participate in the missionary action of the Triune God.

Third, WLP fails to offer an account of the nature of the relation between church and world. Yet, a perception of the world in relation to the church is an element of great import that cannot be overlooked in an integral ecclesiology. It would be necessary to define the church vis-à-vis the world, as the church’s view of the world significantly affects its vision of mission, and its faithfulness is measured at the point where it encounters the world.

Last, perhaps the most notable omission in WLP is the understanding of the church as an eschatological community. As Lesslie Newbigin argues, “the Church can be rightly understood only in an eschatological perspective. Whenever we seek to define it simply in terms of what it is, we go astray.”[2] When the eschatological nature of the church is not fully appreciated, the tension between the present reality and the expected future of God’s kingdom may get lost, and the church’s missionary responsibility between the times may not be paid careful heed. Furthermore, the presence and work of the Holy Spirit—the first fruits and down payment of what will ultimately come—in guiding and empowering the church to fulfill its mission may not be sufficiently recognized. “The Church: Towards a Common Vision,” a point of reference for WLP, clearly presents the church as “an eschatological reality”: The Church is “already anticipating the kingdom, but not yet its full realization. The Holy Spirit is the principal agent in establishing the kingdom and in guiding the Church so that it can be a servant of God’s work in this process. Only as we view the present in the light of the activity of the Holy Spirit, guiding the whole process of salvation history to its final recapitulation in Christ to the glory of the Father, do we begin to grasp something of the mystery of the Church” (para. 33).

The WCC has produced two separate documents in recent years: one on mission (“Together towards Life” in 2012) and the other on ecclesiology (“The Church: Towards a Common Vision” in 2013). Yet, TUMC would not necessarily have to follow that pattern. Considering that the church is missionary by its very nature, that Methodists became a church for missional reasons, and that every church in the 21^st century—whether in the West or in the global South—is in a missionary context, to create one document in which ecclesiology and missiology are integrated might be equally appropriate. And such document that faithfully reflects the Wesleyan understanding of the church and mission could be a unique gift to the Church Universal.

---

[1] Margaret O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998).

[2] Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church (London: SCM, 1953), 135.

David Field: Response to Wonder, Love & Praise, Part 3

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the third of three written by Dr. David N. Field, the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.

International Connectionalism and the Ecclesia
In this third blog I will look at three themes addressed to varying extent in WLP and argue that when related to each other they have significant impact on the understanding of the church that is absent from WLP. These themes are the international character of the UMC, the terminology of ecclesia, and connectionalism.

WLP briefly discusses the meaning and associations of the word ecclesia and settles on an interpretation of it as community. While it does note the political associations of the term as the gathering of the voting citizens, it does not explore these associations. I would propose that these political associations, along with its use in the Septuagint, are significant. The early Christians did not adopt the normal terms for religious or voluntary associations but a term with social and political connotations. It is also interesting to note how Paul interplays the geographic political location (polis) of the church with its identity as the church of God in the introduction to his letters.

The connotations of these references suggest that ecclesia is not merely to be understood as a general term for community paralleling koinonia but as the transnational messianic/eschatological community of the people God which manifests itself in a particular polis. Ecclesia is a community distinguished by its loyalty to the crucified messiah which stands in tension with the broader civic community of that particular polis. As the church developed and spread, it came into increasing tension with the civic community and its social and political structures for two reasons. Firstly, its loyalty to its crucified Lord relatavized all loyalty to civic authorities, including the emperor. Secondly, its communal order (its polity) undermined the dominant social hierarchies and divisions.

The UMC claims to be a manifestation of this ecclesia in the contemporary context. A particular feature of the way it manifests this ecclesia is its polity of connectionalism. In one sense connectionalism emerged as a series of pragmatic responses to particular issues confronting the early Methodist movement and the churches that emerged from it. The result, however, is a complex network which has horizontal and vertical dimensions. Methodist congregations are linked together across geographical space. There are vertical relationships between congregations and conferences. The superintendency and itinerancy provide another interrelated set of networks. Binding these networks together is a set of interlocking covenant relationships centered on the covenant with God renewed regularly in a covenant renewal service.

The result is a complex network providing mutual support, mutual responsibility, mutual oversight and mutual decision making but at the same time is directed toward equipping local churches for mission. This interlocking network emerged at a time when nation states were beginning to come into being in Europe and later in the Americas. Hence it is of significance that Wesley described the early Methodists as “the people called Methodist”. Methodist together formed a new corporate community – a people in a way similar to the approach of the framers of the US constitution when they began with “We the people…”

Wesley envisaged Methodism as an international network – in his time covering England, Ireland, and America – in his words “Methodists all over the world are one people.” It is not insignificant that he chose a French-speaking, Swiss immigrant John William Fletcher to be his successor. The UMC as an international church is an embodiment of this Wesleyan vision. The significance of this international character is experienced differently by people in different parts of the UMC connection. And for many the denomination is still experienced as very US-centric despite its growing numbers outside of the USA. In Europe, where Methodists are mostly small minority churches, being part of an international church is of particular significance. For some, the international character is a burden and a hindrance to moving in a more “progressive” direction on the issue of LGBTQ inclusion. In the US, where the UMC is a major denomination, the focus tends to be on the US context as is evidenced in WLP.

In my previous blog, I argued that contextuality is of fundamental significance for ecclesiology as different contexts provide for diverse embodiments of the divine love. The UMC in Congo has sought to embody love in the context of wars and continuing factional conflicts in which millions have been killed and wounded; and in which hundreds of thousands of women have been raped. The UMC in Russia and Ukraine is working out what koinonia means in response to civil war in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by Russia. European Methodists are gaining new understandings of what it means to embody love as they engage in ministry to the thousands of refugees and other migrants that are arriving in Europe.

These diverse embodiments are invaluable to the church in other contexts modeling alternatives which challenge, compliment and enrich their own embodiment and understanding of the ecclesia. The international character of the UMC provides a unique opportunity for such mutual learning. However, the present structures of the church remain too US-centric and do not allow for sufficient contextual embodiments of the ecclesia; going into the future, it is imperative that the UMC develops new structures which enable both greater contextuality and more fruitful opportunities for mutual learning and growth.

The international connectional character of the UMC has perhaps more important theological significance in that it provides a remarkable embodiment of the transnational character of the ecclesia of God. In an age of globalization, resurgent nationalism and mass migration the significance of this transnational character needs to be emphasized and expounded.

Three points can be noted for our purposes. Firstly, while a certain love for and pride in one’s own nation is legitimate, to affirm the transnational character of the ecclesia is to submit that legitimate patriotism to critique and in particular circumstances to reject it altogether. Paul’s comments in Philippians that the church’s citizenship is in heaven are worth noting not in an other-worldly sense but in the affirmation that the church is the ecclesia of the ascended Lord who was rejected and crucified by the imperial authorities. When loyalty to the nation and its interests or the pursuit of its greatness compromises in any way our prior loyalty to the crucified Lord and the values and purposes revealed in the cross, they must be rejected. It is always the ecclesia of the crucified Christ and its mission first and the interests of our own nation subordinate to it. Why is it that so many Christians experience the presence of migrants as a threat to their national identity rather than as an opportunity to embody God’s love to them?

Secondly, our relational bonds with our fellow Christians ought to be stronger than our bonds with our fellow citizens. As Paul puts it in Colossians, in Christ there is no longer Greek, Jew, barbarian, or Scythian. We are fellow Christians and siblings in Christ with people from diverse nations, cultures and societies. Together we represent the ecclesia of God in the world.

Thirdly, the church always exists as alien community within particular societies and nations. It is never at home – it is an assembly of foreigners – of immigrants who do not belong. When the church begins to be too comfortable in a given culture or society it is in danger of betraying its true identity as the manifestation of the ecclesia of the crucified and resurrected Lord.

The UMC as an international church is in a unique position to embody the transnational character of the ecclesia – both in its explicit ecclesiology and in its denominational praxis. This can only be achieved when the international character is not viewed as a burden and a problem but as a unique opportunity to discover new ways of embodying what it means to be the church. It will also require a radical questioning of the continuing US-centricity in the structures and mindset of many United Methodists and a critical engagement with the colonialist and paternalist legacy of the past.

David Field: Response to Wonder, Love & Praise, Part 2

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the second of three written by Dr. David N. Field, the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.

Contextuality and the nature of Koinonia
Wonder, Love and Praise (WLP) places the reflections on the nature of the church within the context of the UMC’s mission today and its particular history. There are two striking aspects of these contextual reflections. The first is that, while the context is described, it plays little if any role in the theological reflection. The result is that the main theological reflection is an a-contextual and universalised presentation. The second feature is the overwhelming focus on the US context and history; this will be the subject of my final blog.

In my first blog I argued that one of the gifts that the UMC brings to the ecumenical table is the particularities of its own history. I also argued that an ecclesial body is a manifestation of the universal church to the extent that it embodies the divine love or, to use another term from WLP, manifests koinonia. Embodiments of the divine love are always historical and contextual. That is, they are always actualized in relation to particular socio-historical and religio-cultural dynamics which enhance, enable or hinder the embodiment of God’s love.

There is thus an important sense in which we only discover what the shape and implications of koinonia and thus the nature of the church as it takes form or does not take form in particular contexts. As the church engages new and different contexts the nature of the koinonia unfolds. Hence, the particular contextual history of a given church is significant as it offers an actualisation of koinonia that is a gift to the church ecumenical that enables a fuller understanding of the nature of the church. There is also a negative dimension in that the failures of a particular church are also instructive. To take a biblical example, the struggle recorded in the New Testament about the conditions for the inclusion of gentiles within the church gave rise to a dramatically new understanding of what it meant to be the people of God – as for example worked out in the letters to the Ephesians and the Galatians. Over its history, the church has encountered new challenges requiring new answers, thus developing new dimensions of what it means to be the people of God.

Two such challenges that have faced the predecessor denominations of the UMC, which are referred to in WLP, and which still have an impact on the UMC today are the confrontation with slavery and racism and the struggle for the ordination of women. The long and painful history of Methodism’s compromised relationship with racism and slavery in America is particularly instructive. Without recounting this history in detail, we can see how the embodiment of koinonia, the complex set of reciprocal relationships between people, was deeply compromised for over a hundred years by racial segregation and discrimination within and without the church. African Americans were treated as less than true siblings in Christ by white Methodists. Their presence was not a source of delight nor were they allowed to be part of a community characterised by genuine reciprocity. This was given structural form in the formation of the various historically African American Methodist Churches and the Central Jurisdiction.

The abolition of the Central Jurisdiction, the increasing levels of racial integration within the UMC and then statements in the constitution of the church that emphasise the inclusiveness of the church and racial justice are pointers to a new enlarged and deepened understanding of koinonia. What some leaders and members of the Methodist Churches regarded as legitimate expressions of fellowship amongst Christians within the church a hundred years ago is now recognised to be a fundamental denial of the nature of the church. Even when racism is not perfectly overcome, its presence, at least in theory, stands under condemnation. This history and its theological outworking needs to be an integral aspect of a document that seeks to describe the identity of the church from a UMC perspective.

The second and equally important contextual dimension is the struggle for full clergy rights for women. It is important to see this not merely as an issue related to the offices of the church; it is an issue that affects our understanding of the nature of koinonia and thus of the identity of the church. WLP does argue that the UMC has an “irrevocable commitment to the full participation of women in ministerial leadership.” This irrevocable commitment is the consequence of a long struggle whose significance is not to be underestimated even if it was not fully recognised at the time. The recognition that women may not be excluded from equal ministry is an unfolding of the meaning of koinonia as it is expressed in Paul’s well known declaration that in Christ there is “no male and female”. It is irrevocable, for to go back on it would fundamentally change the understanding of koinonia and thus of the identity of the church.

This of course raises complex issues in relationships with churches that do not ordain women. These issues need to be honestly acknowledged in the recognition that this is about our understanding of the identity of the church and not just about the nature of ministry. It must also be recognised and confessed that despite the official affirmation of the ordination of women there remains within parts of the church resistance to this.

These are of course not the only issues that the UMC and its predecessor denominations have encountered and continue to encounter in their struggle to embody the divine love in the world.  What is important is that these two struggles are not merely issues of church polity, nor are they purely ethical struggles; they are at their core theological struggles about the nature of koinonia and thus of the character and identity of the church.

This raises significant ecumenical questions. While it would be unthinkable for the UMC to engage in ecumenical relationships with a church which enshrined racial qualifications for membership or office bearing, it continues to be in dialogue with churches which have gender qualifications for ordination. Perhaps this is inevitable as the vast majority of churches today reject racism but significant traditions still affirm male-only ordination.

This relationship between our understanding of koinonia and context needs further exploration and theological analysis, not the least in relation to the continuing debate over the nature, conditions and extent of the inclusion of LGBTQ people within the UMC. This debate also raises significant issues about our understanding of koinonia, not only as it relates to LGBTQ people, but also as to what it means to embody God’s love in a community which includes people with contradictory views and practices in relation to LGBTQ inclusion.  The way we deal with theological diversity goes to the core of our understanding of the church.

As ecclesiology is the critical examination of what it means to concretely embody God’s love in the world, it is inherently contextual. Given our historical and present struggles to embody the divine love, the critical ecclesiological question and the invaluable contribution that we as the UMC can make to the ecumenical church is a critical theological reflection on what we have experienced and learnt.

David Field: Response to Wonder, Love & Praise, Part 1

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is the first of three written by Dr. David N. Field, the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.

The publication of the initial version of a document on UMC Ecclesiology is to be welcomed, as is the call for responses to it. This is particularly given the present stress that the UMC is undergoing. If the church is to find a way forward as a substantially united body this must be undergirded by well thought out self understanding of its identity as an manifestation of the one body of Christ. The document contains much that is to be affirmed; while I will mention some of this in what I write, I will focus my discussion on areas that appear to me to require critical engagement or are deficient.

A significant feature of Wonder, Love, and Praise (WLP) is that it locates itself within the context of the ecumenical discussion on the identity of the Church by engaging in a dialogue with the WCC document The Church: Towards a Common Vision. This ecumenical engagement is to be affirmed, but a more fruitful approach would have been to adopt Pope John Paul II’s concept of ecumenicism as an exchange gifts. The diverse churches bring their heritages to the ecumenical table to be shared with others. Such an approach recognizes that through the particularities of a church’s history it has come to actualize distinctive facets of what it means to be the Church of Jesus Christ. These particularities are crucial not only for the self identity of the church but also for the ecumenical church.

Hence, I would propose that a document on UMC ecclesiology needs to locate its discussion in the particularities of its heritage and then to bring these into a dialogue with the ecumenical community. So then the question becomes what are the defining characteristics of a UMC understanding of the church that it can bring to the ecumenical table. From my perspective, there are three distinctives that should shape a UMC understanding of the church. They are its Wesleyan theological heritage, its particular history and its international connectional character. All three of these are present to some degree in WLP but do not shape the document in such a way as to articulate the particular gift that the UMC offers to other churches.

In this first blog I will focus on the Wesleyan heritage. WLP clearly does not ignore the Wesleyan heritage. The three “distinctive convictions” – “the saving love of God is meant for all people,” the saving love of God is transformative,” and the saving love of God creates community” are deeply rooted in the Wesleyan tradition. It includes a number of lengthy quotes from Wesley with regard to prevenient grace and disagreements in the church. However, what is missing is the location of these convictions and quotations in the context of Wesley’s understanding of the church and of God’s mission in the world. There is no interaction with Wesley’s sermons “On the Church” and “On Schism,” with his Notes upon the New Testament, nor with his various discussions of the Church of England Article on the Church. The latter is particularly problematic given the discussion of this article in WLP in its UMC form. In what follows I will briefly outline aspects of Wesley’s ecclesiology and note how they are a corrective and enrichment of WLP.

The roots of Wesley’s ecclesiology lie in his understanding of God “whose nature and name is love.” God loves all human beings, who were created to image God’s character by loving God and loving their fellow human beings. Despite human sin, God continues to love all human beings and desires to transform them by love, renewing the divine image within them so that their characters are dominated by love for God and our fellow human beings. God is now active in the world to overcome sin and evil and to transform human beings and human societies so that love reigns throughout the earth. The center of God’s mission work is the transformation of human persons, who then transform the societies in which they live. God unites these transformed persons into the church which is to be the embodiment of the divine love, both in its own life and in its mission in the world. The universal church manifests itself as concrete communities of love in the real world. This participation in, embodiment of and reflection of the divine love distinguishes the church from the broader society, constituting it as a counter cultural community and as a sign and anticipation of God’s final redemption of all things. To participate in this embodiment of God’s love is to “anticipate heaven below.” The three “distinctive convictions” fit within this broader understanding of God’s mission in the world.

That the saving love of God is transformative lies at the center of Wesley’s ecclesiology. The goal of this transformation is creation of a people characterized by a love for God and neighbor. This love for one’s neighbor is expressed in a radical, self-sacrificial commitment to the well-being of friends, strangers, enemies and even those one considers to be the enemies of God. In a particular way, Christians are to delight in their siblings in Christ. The emphasis that God’s love is transformative is only genuinely Wesleyan when it is complemented by the emphasis that this transformation enables and requires a human response. This response is expressed in participating in the full range of the means of grace, a concept which is not to be reduced to the sacraments and is strikingly absent in WLP. Important aspects of the means of grace are “works of piety” and “works of mercy”.

WLP, in explaining the effect of grace, describes how this transformation involves “holiness of heart” and “holiness of conversation” and argues that, while there is a close relationship between the two, in different contexts Methodist have emphasized one or the other. While this is no doubt an adequate description of Methodist praxis, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Wesley’s theology. Wesley’s emphasis in his well-known discussions of social holiness and social religion is that these are not just closely related to each other but that they are inseparably integrated with each other – this is the revolutionary genius of Wesley’s theology. The transformation of the heart is primary but a transformed heart will manifest itself in a life of love for others expressed in diverse concrete actions that promote their comprehensive well-being. If there is no “holiness of conversation,” there is no “holiness of heart.” In turn, the life of love for others is a means of grace that leads to the growing transformation of the heart. New contexts and new struggles provide new opportunities for us to grow in holiness of heart and life. Hence, in Wesleyan perspective the mission of the church is always the integrated and holistic embodiment of love.

The emphasis on the transformative love of God has as its consequence that for Wesley the visibility of the church is not constituted by its outward structures but by its embodiment of love in the world. An ecclesial structure that does not embody love is not a visible manifestation of the church regardless of its doctrinal affirmations, sacramental celebrations or orders of ministry. (This emphasis is lacking in WLP.) Hence, Wesley down played the significance of the traditional Protestant marks of the church. It was for this reason that Wesley emphasized discipline in the early Methodist societies – they were open to all who desired salvation but continued membership depended upon lives that demonstrated a commitment to loving God and neighbors described in the General Rules. Wesley was quick to exclude from membership those who failed this standard. His poem “Primitive Christianity” expresses it thus:

Ye different sects, who all declare

‘Lo! Here is Christ!’ or ‘Christ is there!’

Your stronger proofs divinely give,

And show me where the Christians live.

Your claim, alas! Ye cannot prove;

Ye want the genuine mark of love:

Thou only, Lord, thine own canst show,

For sure thou hast a church below

That the “saving love of God creates community” is a consequence of the emphasis on love. People transformed by the love of God love each other with a reciprocal love characterized in delight in each other and a mutual concern for the comprehensive well being of each other. WLP rightly roots this community in our common union with God in Christ by the Spirit. This emphasis is not prominent in John Wesley’s writings but is more present in Charles Wesley’s hymns. John Wesley’s practice is a better expression of the community created by God than his theology which has deeply individualistic aspects. WLP points us in an important direction where we need to go beyond Wesley. The network of early Methodist societies with their various small groups gave structural form to a community that embodied the love of God through mutual responsibility and oversight designed to facilitate growth in love.

One of Wesley’s significant contributions was his insistence that the community created by God’s love embodied in mutual reciprocal relationships between Christians is of greater significance than theological differences – it is this which he describes as a catholic love. The challenge then is how churches embody this love in the context of contradictory theological positions within the church and between churches? This is dealt with in WLP but what is important is to insist that the embodiment of a catholic love within a church and the imperative of seeking greater unity between Christians are essential dimensions of a Wesleyan understanding of the church and thus an essential dimension of Methodist identity.

The affirmation that the saving love of God is meant for all people does not do full justice to the universal dynamic of Wesley’s theology. Wesley not only affirmed that God loved all humanity but also emphasized that God in grace is present and at work in all human beings, drawing them to Godself – hence, it would be better to rephrase this as God’s saving love is present in all people. WLP does refer to this in its discussion of God’s work in people outside of the visible church. However, this is a more fundamental affirmation that is the basis both for the mission of the church and its relationship with people of other faiths and no faith. Wesley’s views here are carefully nuanced, recognizing a diversity of situations in which people find themselves, and the affirmation of God’s gracious work in all does not become universalism. It remains the basis for evangelism and mission in the knowledge that this is a participation in God’s mission in the world.

More could be said, but in conclusion let me affirm the core of a Wesleyan ecclesiology is that the church is to be the visible embodiment of God’s love in the world – when it fails to do this it ceases to be a church.

Norma Dollaga: A Write-Back on Wonder, Love and Praise

This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is written by Norma Dollaga, a deaconess from the Philippines Annual Conference of the Manila Episcopal Area - Philippines Central Conference. Her episcopal appointment is at Kapatirang Simbahan Para a Bayan (KASIMBAYAN) / Ecumenical Center for Development.

The Lenten season is always an invitation to ponder upon the path that Jesus has taken, the choices he made, and the love he shared. His passion, death, and resurrection have become who we are now as a Church.

I read with great interest an important church document – Wonder, Love, and Praise. As I reflect upon it, I was wondering what does it mean to be a church in the context of poverty, hunger, homelessness, imperialist war, exploitation, oppression, human trafficking, landlessness of the peasantry, climate change, militarism and indigenous people as they defend their land and long for agrarian reform; of workers fighting for their rights, peace and human rights activists; and drug-related killings in the name of war on drugs. The killings happen with impunity. The Church faces the challenges for the prophetic and priestly response. She is always in the kairos moment – or at the crossroads, how it could nurture the grace and the power of resurrection!

I weep inquiring whether it is still true that grace is for all people, as I am reminded of a boy who could not even shed a tear for the death of his father who was a victim of drug-related killing right at the very shanty they considered as home. He could not even afford to mourn and stay at the wake, as he needed to work at the fish port, otherwise, the family would not be able to have their meals. Where is the grace promised in a heart- wrenching situation when even weeping is denied to poor ones?

I seek the Holy Spirit to shepherd me in understanding that the saving love of God is transformative. How do we as a church become a body that participates in the radical LOVE of God that would enable us to stand side by side with the “blessed poor”? Are they not the exploited and the oppressed? They are blessed with the gift of knowing and visioning a transformed world where exploitation exists no more, but rather is replaced with genuine love and justice that become a norm in any relationships. Thus, SALVATION is experienced in a concrete sense through a transformed community manifested when exploitation is eradicated.

Who are we as Church? What defines our being? Are we overcoming our internal contradictions by following the greatest commandment? (Matthew 22:36-40)? Have we become now as she promised to be? Do we belong in the world – as salt of the earth, integrated, immersed in the journey of the people towards the resurrection of humanity – not just a few, but all.

Are we afraid to be irrelevant? Not because we have not responded to the needs of the broken world, but the Church would no longer be needed because the HEAVEN on earth has come, and that GRACE and REDEMPTION are no longer confined in conferencing, in the fellowship of believers, in the edifices and the endless engagements with the principalities that destroy the great destiny and design for humanity: the love and joy.

When the exploitation of one against another, personal and structural shall have ceased, HEAVEN shall replace the salvific work and mission of the church.

Meanwhile, we struggle to become a church, to be a Church. This process leads us to wonder, love and praise!

The teachings and preaching of the Church are much needed today. She needs to fulfill her prophetic role to denounce injustice, to proclaim gospel wisdom and values, and to work for ethical alternatives to poverty, want, the sufferings of the many – alternatives to the increasing structural violence of exploitation and oppression. It is right and just to condemn unjust practices that have been well-institutionalized in the economic, political, and cultural life of society.

We need a Church that will take the side of the poor who have been wronged by the system that benefits only the rich and powerful elites. We need a Church that denounces the powers-that-be, who have entitled themselves to an exclusive right to accumulate properties, profits, and personal benefits at the expense the poor. We need a Church that will align herself with farmers asserting their right to own the land, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and to share these with the people. We need a Church that will not hesitate to cry out loud along with the workers as they demand living family wages and security of jobs. We need a Church that would denounce the evil of contractualization, an invention of capitalism to advance its greedy purpose. We need a Church scandalized by any curtailment of people’s freedom to resist the fetters of oppression and the seduction of corruption. We need a Church that seeks the release of political prisoners put behind bars because they lived out teachings of the prophets to defend the rights of the poor and to struggle for their emancipation.

We need a Church that would stand with the people in claiming the people’s right to self-determination, including the right to resist and engage in liberation movements to unshackle themselves from slavery, exploitation, oppression (Exodus 1:1-10:5). The historic Exodus narrative could be a shining exemplary for those desirous of justice and peace and prosperity for all. It was wrong was for Pharaoh to enslave the Hebrews. It was right for slaves to defy and subvert the oppressive rule and go for a historic exodus. No one dared to say that God was not with them.

There will neither be harmony in this world that we consider our home nor common good in human community probable in a structure and system of society characterized by injustice. Where social justice is absent, love is far away and peace, distant. The Church’s participation in the journey of the people to a better life is always righteous. She is called to immersion in the hope and struggle of the poor for salvation and liberation.

A great priest, Fr. Joe Dizon, a humble priest of Cavite who died a simple man of God once said: “The Church will never go astray if it continues to be with the poor as they work and struggle for their resurrection from the many forms of “deaths” imposed upon them by the evils of injustice.”