Unity and the Modern Denomination

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Unity has been much on the minds of United Methodists lately. There has been extensive discussion (including by me on this blog) of the theological and spiritual grounds of unity. There has not been as much attention paid to what unity looks like in functional, organizational terms.

First, it is important to note that unity need not be taken in a structural sense. It is possible to have spiritual unity with fellow Christians from other denominations, and that is real unity. Nevertheless, since the question at hand is the question of the unity of The United Methodist Church, a particular Christian denomination, it is worth thinking about what structural unity means for a denomination.

The question of what unity means functionally and organizationally for a denomination is actually a complicated one, given the complicated nature of modern denominations.

Many might assume that denominations are primarily about setting doctrinal standards. Here perhaps echoes of the recently observed 500^th anniversary of the Reformation ring in people’s ears. The Reformation was about debates over beliefs, so denominations must be about belief, right? Yet while setting doctrine is (at least in many cases) one function of denominations, it is not the only one.

Another function of denominations is establishing systems of authority. The Reformation, especially the English Reformation, was as much about questioning the pope’s authority as it was about doctrine. Denominational structures indicate who has authority to make what decisions in the common life of a group of Christians. Those decisions may or may not be related to doctrine.

While it is easy to see the roots of denominations in the Reformation, the modern denomination as an organizational form was perfected in the United States. Here, denominations have taken on at least two additional functions.

First, denominations serve to credential clergy and connect clergy and congregations. They define a pool of Christians designated as clergy who are commissioned to perform sacraments. Denominations also provide some assistance to congregations in helping identify credentialed clergy to exert congregational leadership and perform sacraments in those congregations (though the extent and form of that assistance vary widely).

Second, denominations provide a means for congregations, clergy, and individual Christians to collaborate in joint ministry. This joint ministry can include everything from evangelistic campaigns to mission organizations to pension systems to publishing efforts to colleges. The list goes on. These joint ministries are in many ways the most visible part of the denomination, since they are the most numerous and link individual congregations on the most regular basis.

Hence, there are at least four components to denominations and thus denominational unity: theology, authority, clergy, and joint ministry.

What makes the question of unity in modern denominations complicated is that unity or disunity in one area does not necessary, but may, imply unity or disunity in another area. This observation holds both within and between denominations. For instance, the UMC’s full communion agreement with the ELCA recognizes unity in clergy and sacraments and some theological unity without implying any unity in authority or joint ministry or complete theological unity.

Thus, it is possible for a denomination to be simultaneously united and in a state of disunity. In the UMC, there has been long-standing disunity on theological understandings of homosexuality and related theological questions. In recent years, these have increasingly been translated into disunity regarding clergy (Can LGBTQ+ persons be ordained?) and authority (What authority do Boards of Ordained Ministry, bishops, and clergy have to make case-by-case decisions in disputes about ministry with and by LGBTQ+ persons?).

The situation in which the UMC currently finds itself is asking to what extent the existing theological, clergy, and authority disunity should be formalized and whether and to what extent these forms of disunity will cause disunity in the joint ministry of United Methodists. The answers to these questions are complicated not just because there are strongly held theological differences, but because it is unclear what this theological disunity should mean for other functions of a denomination and, furthermore, because the answer might be different for different functions.

Among the components of denominational unity, shared authority and clergy are the most basic. Shared authority and mutually recognized clergy are both necessary and sufficient for a group of Christians to function as a denomination. It is possible to do joint ministry through interdenominational (or nondenominational) means. Theological debates always exist within denominations, to some extent and on some issues, though they are often what motivate people to sunder the basic unity of shared authority and mutually recognized clergy.

Another way to ask the questions facing the UMC, then is to what extent theological disagreement necessitates ceasing to share common authority structures and mutually recognition of clergy, and if so, to what extent continued joint ministry in a newly interdenominational sense is possible.

Thus, there is a range of options for the UMC from complete separation (formalized disunity in all four areas) to confederated churches (formalized theological, authority, and clergy disunity, with continued unity in joint ministry and possibly some continued shared authority and clergy) to continued existence as a single denomination (with unity in authority, clergy, and joint ministry despite theological differences). At play here are not just individuals’ theological beliefs about sexuality but their understandings of the nature of unity and the nature of denominations. It makes for a complicated debate, but one that will be interesting to watch.

Youth and differing views of authority in the global UMC

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.

Recently, two 12-year-olds spoke to a convention of 55,000 United Methodists in Zimbabwe.  Chelsea Chipendo preached to the revival meeting, which included United Methodists from both annual conferences in Zimbabwe as well as Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia.  In addition, Tapiwa Makamba recited poetry.  Both were well-received by the adults in attendance at the assembly.  It's easy to hear this story and think of Chipendo, "Oh, what a remarkable girl."  Yet this story is more than just a great human interest piece.  It's a demonstration of the theological differences that exist between Zimbabwe and the US, theological differences that, while they do not make global United Methodism impossible, certainly do present challenges to developing common understandings across cultural divides in United Methodism.

To be fair, having a 12-year-old preach to such a large gathering is unusual in Zimbabwe.  Indeed, this is the first time such a thing has ever happened.  Yet, I think it would be even more remarkable were a 12-year-old to preach to such a gathering in the United States.  (Of course, the sort of large-scale revival event at which Chipendo preached at is almost unheard of in contemporary American United Methodism, but that's another story.)  The question, then, is why Zimbabweans were willing to let a 12-year-old preach and why Americans wouldn't be, and this turns out to be a question about authority.  Chipendo was allowed to speak because she was seen as having sufficient authority to speak by Zimbabwean United Methodist leaders, but American United Methodists do not regard 12-year-olds, even particularly precocious 12-year-olds, to have sufficient authority.  That's because Zimbabweans and Americans, by and large, have different understandings of the sources of authority within the church.

For most Zimbabweans, authority in church settings is derived from spiritual power.  Spiritual gifts, such as the ability to preach with the Spirit, convey authority that legitimates the exercise of leadership.  In Western terms, one could think about Max Weber's definition of charisma.  God may tend to confer spiritual gifts in certain ways, but there's no a priori reason why God couldn't bestow the gift of preaching on a 12-year-old girl.  If others are convinced that God has so gifted that girl, then she's qualified to preach, even to a large gathering of adults.  God's spiritual gifts, demonstrated in practice, bestow that authority on her.

In the United States, most mainline Christians think of authority (in the church and elsewhere) as stemming from training, knowledge, professional credentialing, and/or professional success.  In Weberian terms, this is a bureaucratic understanding of authority.  We may recognize the some children are particularly gifted in speaking, and perhaps they might address a local congregation on youth Sunday, but we probably wouldn't have them preach to a large gathering of adults, unless perhaps they were speaking directly about youth-related issues. While being a youth might be an indication of sufficient knowledge to speak about youth-related issues, children are too young to have the training, knowledge, and experience to speak about general topics to adults, and they lack any sort of professional credentialing.  Thus, they lack authority to speak.

My point here is not that one understanding of authority is right and the other is wrong, but rather to point out how they are different.  Moreover, that difference is important for more than just the question of whether or not to let 12-year-olds preach to adults.  This difference in understanding of authority has the potential to cause rifts over a whole set of issues related to church government.  While that doesn't mean Zimbabweans and Americans can't be part of the same church, it does mean that acknowledging such differences is important to figuring out how to accommodate them.