David W. Scott: On the Post-Pandemic Church

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

The COVID-19 pandemic is over. That is to say, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States government, and other authorities, the COVID-19 virus no longer constitutes a public health emergency. It is, instead, “an established and ongoing health issue,” as the WHO put it.

On a practical level, the most visible signs of the pandemic – widespread lockdowns, restrictions on gatherings, extensive public masking, frequent testing, etc. – have been over for several months or a couple of years, depending on what measures and where in the world you are talking about.

As part of this end to preventative measures, churches around the world have returned to in-person worship. Churches everywhere ceased meeting in person in 2020, and most of them instead sought electronic ways to stay in touch with members, whether livestreaming, Facebook, WhatsApp, or other means. In most places, though, churches have been meeting in person again for a year or two. The WHO announcement merely recognizes what has already happened.

Yet, in almost no places has the church gone back to what it was before the pandemic. For some churches, that means continuing to provide electronic forms of connection that were adopted during the pandemic. For others, it means continuing the changes in routine regarding handwashing, communion, or fellowship food that were adopted during the pandemic.

And for many churches, it means reduced numbers of people showing up to church.

The decrease in church attendance in the United States in the wake of COVID has been well documented for some time. The Pew Research Center conducted a meta-analysis of five such studies earlier this year and found complicated but consistent findings that the COVID-19 pandemic correlated with a drop in worship attendance by any means.

This finding seems plausible, since it coincides with a long-term trend in the United States away from worship attendance and affiliation with organized religion. Again, the reporting on that topic has been extensive and consistent for over a decade. An NPR story earlier this week discussing the decline of religion in America (and citing the COVID pandemic) seemed less like news and more like a reminder.

What has been surprising for me, however, is learning that this phenomenon of reduced attendance and connection to church is not just a U.S. phenomenon or even a Western phenomenon.

Over the past year, as I have traveled to visit mission sites and had conversations with mission partners, I have consistently heard people talk about how the pandemic has set the church back. Churches around the world have lost attendance and momentum due to the pandemic. This is true in many different contexts – Korea, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, various African countries, Europe, and Latin America.

What’s more is that in several of these contexts, Christianity was doing well prior to the pandemic. Churches were strong and growing. That hasn’t completely ceased, as there is wide variation across congregations and denominations, and many churches that were strong prior to the pandemic are likely to rebound from pandemic setbacks.

Nevertheless, for churches that had been on an upward trajectory prior to COVID, the pandemic represents not the continuation of a long-term trend towards decline, as in the United States, but the interruption of a long-term trend towards growth. In other words, the pandemic didn’t just accelerate trends already underway; it also created new trends, at least in some locations.

It is too early to say what the long-term effects on churches will be from the pandemic, and certainly these will vary widely by contexts, Christianity tradition, individual congregation, and other factors. Some churches saw opportunity and increased connection during the pandemic, even if by different (and usually electronic) means. So, I do not wish to suggest that the pandemic is a universally negative force that will continue to weigh down the church everywhere.

Yet, as we mark and even celebrate the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, we must think about what it really means to be a “post-pandemic” church.

There was an English professor at my college who was fond of critiquing the term “post-modern.” “How can it be separate from modernism?” he would say. “The word ‘modern’ is part of the term “post-modern.’ How can it be beyond something that’s in its very name?”

Thus, as scholars of Christianity in various contexts around the world reflect on the “post-pandemic” church, they will do well to heed both parts of that name: The ways in which the church is “post-“ and has moved beyond the pandemic, and the ways in which the pandemic continues to shape the church and people’s engagement with it.

Recommended Viewing: Nazarenes Plan Regional Caucuses before General Assembly

The Church of the Nazarene recently announced plans related to their upcoming 30th General Assembly in 2023. The General Assembly is the denomination's highest body, analogous to The United Methodist Church's General Conference.

General Assembly had been scheduled for 2021, but the Nazarenes announced in June of 2020 that, due to travel difficulties and visa restrictions, General Assembly would be postponed until 2023. Like the UMC, the Nazarenes determined that an electronic or virtual meeting would not allow them to accomplish what was required by their Manual (the equivalent of the Book of Discipline). At the time of the postponement, they named "significant global participation via attendance and an appropriate emphasis on the health and safety of visitors and delegates" as goals for holding General Assembly.

In their recent update about General Assembly, the Church of the Nazarene acknowledged that, even though General Assembly is still over a year away, visa delays will prevent some delegates from attending. Delegates to General Assembly come from a very wide range of countries. The Church of the Nazarene will, however, continue with plans to hold General Assembly in June 2023, and still does not believe a virtual or distributed conference is feasible. Nevertheless, the Nazarene leadership emphasized that representation of all districts is important.

Fortunately for the Nazarenes, their Manual allows for several solutions: It provides more latitude for districts to select alternate delegates who already have visas. But more importantly, the Manual allows for early regional causes. Therefore, Nazarenes in regions outside the United States will gather by region before General Assembly meets to deliberate on the business of the General Assembly, make nominations for denomination-wide positions, and convey the results to the General Assembly via the delegates that can attend. While voting on final legislation is not possible at the regional caucuses, the recommendations will be taken into official consideration by the relevant legislative committees.

The Board of General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene recognizes that this arrangement is still "not ideal." Nevertheless, it is a way to balance the stated value of global participation and the need to hold a General Assembly.

This plan is only possible, though, because the provisions of the Nazarene manual allow for it. The United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline does not make similar provisions for early regional caucuses. Thus, this is not an alternative that the UMC could have taken to allow General Conference to meet in 2022.

But, it is a model that the UMC would be wise to keep in mind as it continues to develop its polity. I have previously suggested that regionalization would have prevented some of the problems with delaying General Conference 2020. The Church of the Nazarene shows that greater regionalization can also help address issues around equality of representation at denominational gatherings.

While the UMC cannot go back in time to prevent some of the problems associated with a delayed General Conference 2020, it can and should take steps to ensure that the next time General Conference is unable to meet or to meet fully--whether that is because of a future pandemic, war, climate disaster, or other reason--the church is able to be more flexible and respond better.

UMVIM Experiences Newness of Mission After COVID

Today's post is jointly authored by the jurisdictional coordinators of United Methodist Volunteers in Mission (UMVIM). Those coordinators are named at the bottom of the piece.

The COVID pandemic interrupted ministry all over the world. Churches were forced to ask, “how do we worship without being together physically?” Mission projects saw an increased need all over the world but were unable to gather volunteers to meet those needs in person. COVID changed how we thought about ministry, what it meant to serve those in need, and how we live out our call as Christians.

For many years, mission teams shared in global journeys every year through UMVIM. Projects in Haiti, Panama, Alabama, Alaska, Malawi, and more, hosted these teams and forged strong relationships as they worked together to show Christian love in action. COVID changed all that. Almost overnight, those strong relationships were tested.

Yet, UMVIM volunteers, staff, and partners have remained faithful through it all, and many mission projects are now experiencing newness as people continue to recognize the importance of being in partnership as we serve in God’s mission. The pandemic created new ministries and new ways of doing old ministries.

Connections and relationships established over many years have not been eliminated during this liminal time. Some have been strengthened as missionaries share virtually with small groups and read scripture in worship. Project site directors are creating partnerships with organizations in the community to provide greater resources for people in need. God is moving in new ways and guiding the church in new learnings.

UMVIM helped connect projects and teams during the pandemic through Virtual Missions. Churches, missionaries, and projects in the US and abroad were brought together to share culture, language, food, and their vulnerabilities with one another. Individuals who rarely engaged in physical mission explored new ways to form relationships and help their neighbors.

Many Virtual Missions have been celebrated over the past two years. The jurisdictional United Methodist Volunteer in Mission (UMVIM) coordinators work to assist team leaders and project site hosts in this new format of being in mission. People who were unable to travel as part of a team can now connect via Zoom and learn about the God-work happening in places like Liberia, Cambodia, Honduras, Palestine, Mexico, and Laos. Ministries on the border are sharing the important work of assisting refugees and disaster response depots, Sager Brown and Midwest Mission Distribution Center, share the news of kits and meal packs sent to many places domestically and internationally.

New in-person projects have been added to the lists. Waverly, TN is a new long-term recovery site assisting survivors of flooding with housing rehab. Cass Community Social Services in Detroit, MI, and the Fuller Center are new projects for Mission Volunteers.

Youth groups traveling to Daytona Beach, FL for Youth 2023 have the opportunity to stop on the long drive and be in mission. Stefanie Williams, the Youth2023 team leader, is making connections with project sites to host these groups for one day or several days before or after the big event. She looks forward to presenting the places and ways youth can do the Jesus thing in the Jesus way.

Teams were challenged to continue disaster ministries as more and more disasters affected many more people throughout the country. Survivors face the challenge of the loss of their homes on top of living through their own COVID story.Faith-filled volunteers worked in their own communities and at nearby long-term recovery sites to help rebuild homes.

Work did not stop. It was just done differently. One strategy was for the project to be managed in one 6–8-hour day. These ‘done in a day’ VIM Teams brought their tools and lunches, wore their masks and social distanced, and completed the task. The next day a team from another area would be on site to continue the work from the previous day, all with the vision of serving Christ. Teams did not travel to their partners in mission in other countries, yet they were still able to serve and make a difference in the lives of their neighbors.

Ray Yarnall joined the UMVIM coordinator team this spring as the Northeastern Jurisdiction coordinator. The collaboration of the jurisdiction coordinators provides many opportunities to share in Mission Academies and trainings, connect with project sites around the world, and encourage teams to serve safely, always building relationships and partnerships. New Team Leader Trainers are ready to empower team leaders as teams begin to move into the world and serve as the hands and feet of Christ.

The mission piece that remains the same is the focus on relationships and partnerships. COVID remains a huge hurdle for ministry, yet it helped those who call themselves Volunteers in Mission see ministry in a new way. Something emerged because of the pandemic: the realization that despite the number of bricks laid, the amount of money given, or miles traveled – the love and relationships are what truly matters. It is about the people, not the projects.

Please visit https://www.umvim.org/ to see all the possibilities!

Ronda Cordill, wj@umvim.org Western Jurisdiction

Karen Distefano, scj@umvim.org South Central Jurisdiction

Rev. Matt Lacey, sej@umvim.org Southeastern Jurisdiction

Gray Gambrell, sejinfo@umvim.org Southeastern Jurisdiction

Ray Yarnall, nej@umvim.org Northeastern Jurisdiction

Rev. Tammy Kuntz, ncj@umvim.org North Central Jurisdiction

Stefanie Williams, y2023@umvim.org North Central Jurisdiction

Recommended Reading/Viewing: Love Beyond Borders Campaign

The United Methodist Church's involvement with UNICEF's push for global vaccine distribution, called Love Beyond Borders, was announced last October and received press coverage at the time. Now, there are two additional ways to learn about this initiative.

First, the podcast Get Your Spirit in Shape has released an episode featuring Dr. David Boan, a member of First United Methodist Church of Boise, Idaho, who pushed for United Methodist involvement in Love Beyond Borders, and Kathleen Griffith of the General Board of Global Ministries' Global Health team, who has helped coordinate Global Ministries' pandemic responses. The two discuss the Love Beyond Borders campaign.

Second, next Thursday at 7pm EST, there will be a public webinar about Love Beyond Borders as an expression of an interfaith movement to end the pandemic. Interested viewers can register online.

Finally, you can get a sense of how Love Beyond Borders fits into Global Ministries' larger COVID-1i pandemic response in this recent statement outlining that response.

The Great Resignation, the Great Retirement, and the Great Reconsideration among Clergy

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Many commentators have written about how the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed clergy in the United States to think about resigning from ministry, including a previous post on this blog. While much of the evidence for this trend is anecdotal, there has also been survey research to back it up. A Barna Group study released in November found that 38% of all clergy, including 46% of pastors under 45 and 51% of mainline clergy have considered leaving ministry in the past year. This commentary about clergy resignations comes on top of news from the Lewis Center that the number of young United Methodist elders in the U.S. is lower than ever.

What has not been much emphasized in the reporting on clergy resignations or on United Methodist clergy age trends is trends among older clergy. The Lewis Center report acknowledged that after decades of a growing number of older clergy, that trend has reversed over the past two years, with the number of older clergy now falling. A Washington Post article looking at the labor shortage across job sectors found that the largest declines in labor force participation from pre-pandemic to the present were among older workers, many of whom opted for earlier retirement. Both these data points suggest there may be an increased retirement rate among clergy, though more specific data is needed to prove that.

Thinking about the dynamics of age and career stage leads to a more complex understanding of the multiple crises facing denominations trying to supply congregations with enough clergy. We can think of three related but distinct crises: the Great Resignation, the Great Retirement, and the Great Reconsideration.

The Great Resignation is one of several terms that have been used to describe a trend across job sectors over the course of the pandemic for people to quit their jobs. In some instances, people have not taken new jobs, but the Washington Post evidence suggests that most people under 55 have found other work. Applied to clergy, the Great Resignation describes the trend of clergy to leave ministry before the end of their careers. While this trend applies across age brackets, the Barna and Lewis Center data suggests this trend is most pronounced among clergy in the first half of their career lives, who have more time to build a career in an alternate field. Late middle aged clergy may feel a greater compulsion to stay in their current occupation, rather than attempt to switch careers in their 50s.

The Great Retirement describes people who, because of the pandemic, denominational uncertainty, or other reasons, are leaving ministry to retire earlier than they would have otherwise. Rather than continuing to pastor until they are at the UMC mandatory clergy retirement age of 72, they retire earlier, perhaps at 62 when Social Security benefits become available. Not all may be retiring a full decade early, but this category captures all whose retirement schedules are moved up because of larger systemic (rather than entirely personal) issues. While losing an older clergyperson with 5 years of service left to early retirement is not the same as losing a young clergyperson with 35 years of service left to another career, given the number of older clergy in the UMC, a trend towards earlier retirement nonetheless has the potential to be significant.

The Great Reconsideration, then, describes people who are considering or might have considered a career in ministry but decide not to pursue that sense of calling because of the same set of COVID-related, denominational, and other external factors negatively impacting clergy work for existing clergy. They reconsider their sense of calling. While the Great Reconsideration impacts people across age brackets, it is likely a significant factor impacting the decline in the number of younger clergy. Faithful young people are finding means to serve God with their careers other than as clergy.

Again, more data would be helpful to establish the scope and extent of each of these three clergy challenges, but the existing data suggests it is fair to think of there being three related but distinct clergy crises.

Thinking of these crises as related but distinct helps clarify the sorts of responses required by denominational leaders to address these crises and ensure an adequate supply of clergy for existing and new congregations. Some of the drivers of these crises are common across categories: the ways in which the pandemic, denominational conflict, and societal polarization have made the experience of ministry more difficult and decreased clergy well-being. But the contexts that shape how these external factors impact individual's sense of vocation, career, and alternative options are distinct according to stage of life and ministry.

Thus, efforts to increase clergy well-being are likely to make a positive impact on each of these three clergy crises. But denominational leaders should also be mindful of the unique needs of clergy at different stages of their lives and careers and seek to provide stage-appropriate resources as well.

2021 Year in Review

As 2021 draws to a close, here are some of the most read themes and stories from UM & Global over the course of the past year:

1. Questions about General Conference
Out of everything that UM & Global published this last year, stories about what might happen with General Conference proved to be among the most popular to readers, from (correctly) predicting in January 2021 that the pandemic would prohibit holding General Conference in 2021 to analyzing the aborted May 8 virtual General Conference to reviewing how the pandemic and travel might impact the currently scheduled General Conference in 2022.

2. Analysis of UMC politics and current events
Readers have also turned to this site for thoughtful analysis of the internal conflicts and struggles of the UMC, especially from an international angle. That has included everything from historical background on current conflicts in the UMC in Nigeria to identifying the current issues of contention within the UMC to analysis of the strategic choices facing those seeking to launch the Global Methodist Church.

3. Understanding church decline
This blog has also spent a good deal of time seeking to understand various forms of decline in The United Methodist Church--from the "hollowing out" of the church to institutional decline to the connection between US membership decline and the rhetoric of the global church, and readers have found those explorations interesting.

4. Grappling with emotional impact
Conflicts in the church and in society, combined with the impacts of the on-going pandemic, have taken an emotional toll on people, and so pieces on grief in the church and pastors considering leaving the ministry have also appealed to readership.

5. Confronting racism
Amid conflict in the church and problems in the world, good ministry still goes on. This blog has tried to highlight over the past year the ways in which the church is (or should be) engaged in confronting the sin of racism. In that vein, John Oda's piece on why Asian Americans should speak out about racism has been one of the most read posts of 2021.

At this point, there is no particular reason to assume that the topics that will be of most interest to readers in 2022 will be any different, but if the past several years have taught us anything, it is that there are always surprises in store.

A Primer on General Conference, Travel, and Vaccines

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Today's post is an attempt to address frequently asked questions about General Conference and the effects of the on-going pandemic on it.

I have seen contradictory statements about General Conference 2022. The "A Call to Grace" statement said it was unlikely to happen, but Good News says that's not true. Is General Conference happening next year or not?

In short, that decision has not been made yet.

The Commission on General Conference is the group tasked with preparing for General Conference, and they get the final say on whether General Conference happens or not. The Commission has already decided to postpone the General Conference twice, to its currently scheduled dates of Aug. 29-Sept. 6, 2022. While the group is making preparations for an in-person conference next year, there is also the possibility that the could decide that conditions related to the pandemic necessitate a further postponement or even cancellation of General Conference. In the latter case, General Conference would likely not meet again until its regularly scheduled 2024 meeting.

The Commission will make a decision sometime in the first several months of 2022.

What about a virtual General Conference? Is that another possibility?

While holding a virtual or distributed General Conference is an idea that has gotten a lot of discussion, including on this blog, the Commission on General Conference seems opposed to the idea. A sub-committee released a report earlier this year that explored a variety of virtual options, but ultimately concluded that such options did not provide for equitable participation across the globe. A proposal by the Council of Bishops for a very limited virtual General Conference earlier this year had to be scrapped because of opposition. While it is possible that the Commission on General Conference could reconsider the idea, that seems unlikely.

What factors will the Commission on General Conference use to make a decision on whether or not to hold General Conference next year?

Based on the decisions made and reports issued by the Commission thus far, its strong preference seems to be for an in-person meeting that a broadly representative swath of delegates are able to attend. The main factors then become whether delegates from around the world are able to travel to Minneapolis, MN to attend. The largest influencing factor there is the policies that the United States government sets for travel to the United States for visitors from other countries.

What are those US government travel policies? I heard that the United States reopened to visitors this week.

The US government did update its travel policies for visitors to the United States as of this Monday, Nov. 8. It loosened requirements to allow all fully vaccinated persons from outside the United States to travel to the United States, provided they had a negative COVID test within three days before travel. While this is good news for delegates from Europe, where there has been extensive access to vaccine, this policy change does not much help delegates from many parts of Africa, where less than 10% of the population in almost all cases and less than 1% of the population in some cases is fully vaccinated.

But isn't there an exception for travelers from countries with low vaccination rates?

There is such an exception, but only for certain types of visas. B1/B2 visas, which are the type of visa that General Conference delegates use, are not covered under this exception.

Can't UMCOR do anything to vaccinate delegates to allow them to attend?

UMCOR is helping sponsor the “Love Beyond Borders: The Interfaith Movement to End the Pandemic” campaign to promote global vaccine distribution. That campaign does not allow UMCOR to direct vaccine doses to particular recipients. The process of distributing vaccines, especially internationally, is a complicated logistical process that requires significant medical, storage, legal, and transportation infrastructure. UMCOR does not possess such infrastructure on its own, which is why it is partnering with other organizations to promote global vaccinations.

But if delegates can get vaccinated, they should be set, right?

Even vaccinated delegates from developing countries could still face obstacles in obtaining visas or may have limited access to COVID tests, which must be taken within three days before travel. Even when such tests are available, they may be expensive or may add to the expenses of in-country travel for delegates, if they must therefore arrive in an airport city an extra day or two in advance of their departure to take a COVID test.

How much world-wide participation will be enough for the Commission on General Conference to decide to proceed?

This is ultimately the big question. No General Conference has the full participation of all its elected delegates, if for no other reason than US visas are a perennial problem for General Conference delegates. The Commission on General Conference cannot guarantee that all delegates will be able to attend a General Conference in 2022, no matter what. But they seem to want to make sure that large groups are not automatically excluded from participation.

The biggest consideration to watch, then, is the Democratic Republic of Congo. With nearly a quarter of the denomination's membership and over a sixth of General Conference delegates, the DRC is the largest group of United Methodists outside of the United States. It also currently has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the world (0.04% of its population fully vaccinated). If it looks like most delegates from the DR Congo will be unable to attend General Conference, then the Commission is likely to postpone or cancel General Conference, rather than hold it without representation from such a significant group within the church. There will be and should be "no GC without the DRC."

Recommended Reading: The Pandemic's Impact on Short-Term Medical Missions

Short-term medical missions, in which teams of medical professionals travel from the West to a developing nation to provide services for a week or two, are a common model of both church and secular mission. However, like many aspects of mission work, such trips have been disrupted by the pandemic over the past two years. While there are negative outcomes to such disruptions, they also provide a space for rethinking mission practice. A recent post on NPR's Goats and Soda blog titled "COVID is changing medical fly-in missions — and it might be for the better" shares examples of how that rethinking of short-term medical missions is happening. In brief, the pandemic has accelerated pre-existing trends towards focusing on developing local medical expertise and capacity, rather than focusing on provision of services by Western experts. New communication technologies have made such capacity-building work possible even without Western travel, though the article notes that travel can still play a role in the work of building relationships across contexts. Focusing on the growth of local expertise and capacity provides for a more sustainable and equitable long-term approach to the provision of medical services. While the article's main examples come from secular work, those involved in church-related short-term medical mission projects would do well to consider the implications for their own work.

The UMC and Institutional Decline: The Impact of COVID and Denominational Crisis

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Having looked at various reasons for the decline of denominational institutions—the unwillingness and/or inability of their constituency to support them and de-legitimization from vested interests—there remains one last set of contributing factors to explore: the impact of crises on denominational institutions, specifically internal denominational conflict and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The basic insight here is that the more institutions fail to serve the purposes for which they were created, the weaker they become. When institutions are unable to produce their intended regular behaviors, it reduces their ability to do the same in the future. Unless skillfully addressed, institutional failure usually begets further institutional decline.

In large part, this is because institutional malfunction delegitimizes institutions by lowering constituents’ expectations and willingness to have their behavior shaped by the institution in the future. Regardless of whether the sentiment on the part of constituents is “That institution won’t work for me” or “I don’t want to work for that institution” or some combination of the two, the result is decreased institutional capacity to shape the behaviors of its constituents.

While such institutional breakdown can happen at any time, crises are particularly fraught situations that make failure more likely.

Unfortunately for its institutions, The United Methodist Church has been in a prolonged crisis in the form of the debate over the place of LGBTQ+ persons in the church. This crisis has undercut the institutions of the church in at least three ways.

First, the conflict between Traditionalists and Progressives in the UMC has led to the polarization of almost everything in the church, including its institutions. Thus, one’s willingness to participate in and give heed to the church’s institutions, from the boards and agencies to the Judicial Council to the appointive process to apportionments, becomes a function of whether one sees those institutions as aligning with one’s own theopolitical stance. Support for institutions is no longer a given part of denominational membership; it is a political statement in an ongoing conflict.

Second, the debate over sexuality has undermined many of the institutions of the denomination because of their failure to resolve the debate. A mutually acceptable for both sides solution may always have been a fantasy, but many institutions within the church have still tried and failed to find such a solution. This includes General Conference, the Council of Bishops, and the Judicial Council. When the highest authorities within the denomination are unable to resolve a crisis, it undercuts the membership’s trust in and expectations of their ability to successfully regulate behavior.

Third, the denomination’s divisions have made it increasingly difficult for any other business to get accomplished. The debate between Traditionalists and Progressives has come to dominate more and more spaces within the denomination, which has reduced the capacity of denominational institutions to produce regular behavior even in matters unrelated to the main debate. There is less time and attention available, so less gets done. This lack of capacity can lead to the inability to carry out even routine other forms of business.

Of course, denominational division is not the only crisis the UMC has faced in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has added an additional layer of crisis. And, as in discussions of other sorts of institutions in US society and the world, the pandemic has both amplified and accelerated the pressures already facing denominational institutions. Again, this has taken several forms.

Related to the challenges of denominational division, the pandemic has forced the postponement of many denominational meetings. While necessary, such delays have forced United Methodists to devise other means for making decisions and doing work. In the process, it has raised questions about the value of traditional means for doing so. If it’s possible for the work of the church to get done without meetings of the standard institutions (such as General Conference), and if the main function of those institutions is just to serve as a forum for fighting, how important is it really to have those institutions?

The COVID crisis has revealed another way in which institutional weakness begets institutional weakness. Many annual conferences in the United States have struggled over whether and how to issue guidance to their congregations about in-person gatherings and health precautions during the pandemic. Especially in light of the politization of COVID precautions within secular society, denominational leaders have been faced with a tough choice:

On the one hand, annual conference leaders could issue guidance, knowing that some pastors and congregations would not follow that guidance. But issuing guidance that one knows will not be followed (and cannot be enforced) exposes the weakness of an institution: It shows that the institution is unable to produce regular behavior among its constituents. Moreover, if congregations flaunt annual conference guidance in this area without consequence, it emboldens them to flaunt guidance in other areas as well.

On the other hand, annual conference leaders could not issue guidance or issue guidance that leaves decisions up to pastors and congregations. This avoids exposing the weakness of annual conferences’ inability to produce required behavior. But it ends up weakening the institution in another way: By doing nothing, it raises questions among those who would like guidance about why the institution is not doing anything. If the institution is not going to provide guidance during a crisis, what good is it? Why pay for an institution if it is not going to serve you when you need it most?

The result of these overlapping crises is that the institutions of the church emerge weakened. People have fewer expectations that denominational institutions will try to influence their religious behaviors, and people are less willing to go along with those institutions when they do. And this process compounds upon itself: failure begets weakness, which makes future failure more likely, thereby accelerating decline.

Having now surveyed the variety of forces that are currently conspiring against denominational institutions, I will turn in my next post to the question of whether there is anything that could be done to support or strengthen denominational institutions amid such a climate.

Rosemarie Wenner: God is on the Move – A Call to be the Church in a New Way

Today's post is by Bishop Rosemarie Wenner. Bishop Wenner is a retired bishop in the United Methodist Church, having led the Germany Central Conference, and is currently the Geneva Secretary of the World Methodist Council.

As I noted in an earlier piece, in my role as Geneva Secretary of the World Methodist Council to connect the World Methodist Council (WMC) with the World Council of Churches (WCC), ecumenism is my daily work. In my previous blog, I discussed new expressions of ecumenism. Now, I would like to turn to the topic of migrants, mission, and ecumenism.

Methodist history has been influenced by migration. In the 18th and 19th century Methodist ministers and lay preachers served those immigrants to what is today the USA. They offered spiritual support to those who settled on the East Coast and accompanied those who went westwards.

German settlers came to personal faith in Methodist congregations in the USA. They became instrumental in sending missionaries to their home country which led to the foundation of Methodist congregations in Germany.

Migration is an opportunity to share Gods love also in our days. According to the 2020 World Migration Report of the International Organization on Migration, in the year 2000, 2.8 % of the world population were migrants, and it increased to 3.5 % in the year 2019. Unfortunately, the growth of refugees is even higher: In 2000, 14 million people were forced to leave their homes; in 2020, 25.9 million people seek refuge in a foreign land, and 41.3 million people are internally displaced.

In several countries, including Germany, discussions of migration have the potential to divide society. Fear of an increase of migration is nourished by the false assertion that migrating people are enemies of the “Christian Occident” because they belong to other religions and potentially bring fundamentalistic Islamic beliefs.

Statistics prove, though, that 55 % of the immigrants to Germany are Christians. Many of them worship in so called migrant congregations. These congregations often operate separately from the well-established churches. If anything, there are only loose links to the national or regional ecumenical councils. Even on a local level we rarely interact in worship and service.

Churches in countries where many people leave for economic reasons or because of conflict or climate change often seek to accompany their migrating people. We see this phenomenon within the World Methodist Council. The Korean Methodist Church established congregations all over the globe. The United Methodist Church in the Philippines responds to the call of the huge number of migrant workers by sending pastors or officially recognizing lay preachers in the Middle East, in Europe, in several Asian countries and in Australia. The United Methodist Church in Zimbabwe formally registered in Great Britain to serve their members in the British diaspora. The Methodist Church Ghana supported the inclusion of Ghanaian Methodist congregations into the UMC in Germany. In North America though, a mission diocese was established.

These migrant churches are outposts for mission, evangelism, service, and advocacy mainly for migrants of the same country of origin. Long established Methodist and Wesleyan churches in the various countries where migrant congregations are formed, though recognizing the spiritual needs and missional opportunities of the migrating siblings, often receive the formation of new Methodist churches as a lack of ecumenical courtesy, if not as offence.

In June 2019, the World Methodist Council organized a Consultation on Migrant/Diaspora Churches at the Heigh Leigh Center near London, UK. Church leaders and practitioners from both migrant sending and receiving countries listened to reports from the various regions and engaged in honest conversations. Those who are long experienced in humanitarian aid and advocacy to refugees and asylum seekers shared experiences with those from countries like Bangladesh or Peru, where the work with refugees is relatively new and often the needs are overwhelming. Stories were shared of mission activities, of struggles to overcome the trauma many migrants face, of gracious ways to support refugees, of pain because of a lack of mutual understanding, and of cooperation and growth in building diverse communities.

The participants worked on a statement: “God is on the Move – a Call to be the Church in a New Way.” It is an invitation to intentionally re-think theology, relationships, and mission in the light of migration and it offers joint principles: Being “in mission together” shall be expressed by “collaboration through partnership and mutual accountability,” “intercultural awareness” and “advocacy and humanitarian assistance.”

Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted efforts to intentionally overcome silos between “old” churches and “new” congregations. Plans to organize round tables to establish formal partnerships had to be postponed. People got stuck when boarders were closed. Online worship services and webinars offer possibilities to connect with home churches, which is well received by migrating people. Yet uprooted people need more then virtual worship services; they need fellowship and accompaniment just where they are right now. This is especially true for migrating children and youth.

COVID-19 increases the vulnerability of migrants and refugees. Immigrants who are illegally in a country do not dare to ask for vaccination. Workers in precarious conditions lost their jobs. Do established churches see the siblings in Christ who are on the move? To be the church in a new way not only calls for acts of mercy, but also for repentance and restauration of those who build their economic wealth and their intellectual superiority on the exploitation of other people and of mother earth.

We have to take into action what the participants of the WCC Conference on World Mission and Evangelism in March 2018 in Arusha, Tanzania, stated, when they called Christians to “transforming discipleship”: “We are called to break down walls and seek justice with people who are dispossessed and displaced from their lands—including migrants, refugees and asylum seekers—and to resist new frontiers and borders that separate and kill (Isaiah 58:6-8).” And: “We are called to follow the way of the cross, which challenges elitism, privilege, personal and structural power (Luke 9:23).”

Whilst we are waiting for opportunities to learn from one another at the World Council of Churches 11th Assembly August 31 to September 8, 2022, in Karlsruhe, Germany or at the World Methodist Conference on the theme “On the Move” postponed to 2023 or 2024, we can intentionally reach out to those who bring Global Christianity to our neighborhoods. Perhaps we might host angels as we create platforms for mutual learning and Christian fellowship (Hebrews 3:2).

Recommended Reading: Would Wesley Get a COVID-19 Vaccine?

United Methodist Professor of Mission and past UM & Global contributor Rev. Dr. Peter J. Bellini wrote an article for Firebrand magazine last spring entitled "Would Wesley Get a COVID-19 Vaccine?" With the delta variant driving a current surge in coronavirus cases, especially among the unvaccinated, Bellini's piece is well worth revisiting.

Bellini frames the question in terms of the relationship between science and theology. He writes, "I believe, in some quarters of the church, we are facing ... a suspicion of the discoveries of science." Bellini explains that an exclusive reliance on divine healing coupled with a distrust of science causes some to reject medical approaches to healing.

Yet Bellini argues that, while divine healing is a possibility, that does not preclude the use of medical healing as well. He asserts, "As the grace of God in creation causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust, so also does the grace-filled created order of God allow for healing in creation through the internal healing mechanisms of our body, medical advancement, and the gifts of care in the health professions. Healing can occur through supernatural, natural, and even artificial means, all under the providence of God."

To further bolster his argument, Bellini turns to John Wesley's approach to the issue of healing. Bellini notes, "Wesley considered both spiritual and natural factors that cause and treat health problems. Rarely did he take a single approach, but often integrated a variety of treatments that were available, including prayer, medicine, natural remedies, and other therapies."

Bellini adds, "The theological point is that Wesley did not find science and religion strictly incompatible. In fact, he believed their partnership could contribute to the overall well-being of the human person. To this end, Wesley meticulously attended to every dimension of health and wholeness found in the eighteenth century. Wesley believed the sick should first consult a physician. Methodist leaders, when visiting the sick, were trained to support and supplement the care that was already provided for by medical professionals."

These investigations into Wesley's attitudes towards science and scientific medicine lead Bellini to conclude, "Would Wesley get a COVID-19 vaccine if he were around today? I speculate that as Wesley trusted the advancements of science and the medical profession of his day, so would he today as well. I venture that he would receive the vaccine. More so, when I think of his innovative use of the electric machine, I think he might have been one of the first in line!"

If Wesley would have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine, then we, the followers of Wesley, should too!

COVID Culture Wars and GC 2022

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

We are now just over a year from the dates currently set for the next General Conference: August 29 - September 6, 2022. At this point, it is too early to tell whether such a meeting will actually be possible, given the challenges of organizing a large international event amid an on-going pandemic with unequal global access to vaccines. For the sake of this post, I will assume it will be.

In some ways, the COVID pandemic has felt like a break from denominational politics. There still have been some major developments--consecutive postponements of General Conference, the abortive May 8 Special General Conference, the announcement of the Global Methodist Church, continued promotion of the Christmas Covenant, etc.--and this blog has commented on those as much as anyone.

Still, without many large meetings of United Methodists from around the United States or around the world happening, a lot of the public politicking that characterized the several years before the pandemic has been on hold. Developments have still happened, but they have come more from closed networks not visible to the public. And many pastors and annual conference staff have had their attention consumed by local programmatic and financial concerns associated with the pandemic.

Yet, the ways in which the pandemic has distracted from and diminished denominational politics should not lead one to think that GC2022 will be any less conflict-ridden, if it happens. On the contrary, the coronavirus pandemic will likely increase the amount of conflict at GC2022.

To understand why, think of the current debates over school mask policies in the United States. Conservatives government leaders have forbidden schools in some parts of the country from instituting mask requirements, to the ire of local school leaders and parents concerned for the well-being of their children. Where schools have been able to require masks, there has been significant push back, at times even to the point of violence. COVID precautions have become a culture war issue.

This is apparent in local church ministry and at the annual conference level. Much of what has distracted clergy and annual conference leaders from denominational politics over the past year and a half has been trying to figure out how and when to require and/or provide guidance on COVID precautions. This has not just been a scientific issue of trying to understand medical best practices; it has been a social issue of negotiating vastly divergent views of the pandemic among congregants. Questions about whether churches should meet in person, wear masks, sing, be required to be vaccinated, shake hands, and more have generated heated debate in many congregations.

If such questions have divided congregations with pre-existing relationships, some shared characteristics, and immediate common interests, how much more will similar questions roil preparations for General Conference? How will debates about whether General Conference delegates must be vaccinated go? What will the guidance about masks at General Conference be, and how will participants react when some attendees do not follow, or even flout, that guidance? How will General Conference be set up to promote social distancing? What will worship look like when some will want to sing lustily and with good courage and others will feel threatened by the same?

Some of these questions will have to be settled before General Conference starts. But that is likely to leave people of varying opinions upset, defensive, and therefore aggressive before the meeting ever begins. It will not lead to people, as the bishops urged before GC2019, showing up with "a heart of peace." Moreover, whatever fights over setting COVID precautions happen before the meeting will be immediately compounded by whether or not people follow those precautions.

Beyond COVID, there's the issue of race, which has taken on increased salience within the United States and within the UMC during the pandemic. Both US Progressives and US Traditionalists are likely to try to use this issue against each other, with US Progressives accusing US Traditionalists of disregarding people of color in the United States on domestic racial issues, and US Traditionalists accusing US Progressives of disregarding people of color around the world on the issue of sexuality.

General Conference has long been a forum in which the tensions of US culture wars have exploded in increasingly dramatic ways. Historically, most (but not all) of those tensions have been focused on issues surrounding the status of LGBTQ persons in the denomination. Although delegate elections in 2019 may have shifted the balance of delegates identifying with different sides of the US culture wars, people on both sides will still be present.

The pandemic has also done nothing to reduce the tensions around the status of LGBTQ persons, which both sides have largely accepted as irreconcilable at this point. Instead, what the pandemic has done is provide a series of new cultural flashpoints to fuel conflict at General Conference. The pandemic has made United Methodists wait for the next General Conference. But the conflicts at that meeting will be only more spectacular because of it.

Recommended Reading: New UMVIM COVID Guidelines for Delta Variant

United Methodist Volunteers in Mission (UMVIM) put out new COVID guidelines earlier this week in response to the rising number of COVID cases resulting from the Delta variant. The new guidelines cover those traveling in mission and those hosting mission travelers; the fully vaccinated, the partly vaccinated, and the unvaccinated; and domestic and international mission journeys. The guidelines are based on CDC recommendations but helpfully condense that guidelines for mission team members. All churches considering short-term mission experiences this fall are recommended to consult these guidelines, whether or not the experiences are official UMVIM journeys.

After the Pandemic, Churches Are Done Putting Up with their Buildings

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Many US Christians grew up singing the Sunday School song "We Are the Church" by Richard Avery, with its lyrics asserting, "The church is not a building, the church is not a steeple." Yet despite how often these words have been intoned by US Christians, they have often acted as if the church were a building.

For a long time, constructing or buying a structure has been the sign that a congregation has arrived. This understanding was actively exported around the world, too, by Western missionaries. A real church has a building, or so the reigning assumption has been.

Much of a congregation's budget often goes towards maintaining and improving that building. The average mainline Protestant congregation in the United States is well over 100 years old. That means in many cases buildings that are similarly old and thus in need of frequent and frequently costly repairs. Yet it also means generations of emotional attachments to the building, which have driven congregations to keep investing in their buildings, despite the costs.

When the pandemic hit, most churches had to worship outside of their buildings. Many US Christians were eagerly awaiting the day that they could reconvene in their buildings and once again experience the sense of God in worshiping together in that place. The togetherness is certainly important, but the place is quite important for many too.

Yet for a small but noticeable group, the pandemic has had the opposite effect: Instead of eagerly awaiting the day when the congregation could return to its building, experiencing church apart from the building got those congregations to reflect on whether the time and money it costs to maintain a building are really worth it. Again, I'm not the first person to point this out. Mya Jaradat wrote an excellent piece for the Deseret News about this trend, focused on a profile of a recent United Methodist church start in Houston.

Congregations in older, dilapidated structures are probably more likely to entertain such questions. Smaller congregations, who have experienced greater financial impacts from the pandemic, may also be more likely to ditch their buildings, especially since it is easier to accommodate a smaller number of people in a variety of alternative settings, from living rooms to cafes to other community locations. And newer congregations, with less history and emotional attachment to their buildings, may also be more willing to ask whether a building is really worth it.

The question, then, is not just whether congregations will close and leave behind their buildings because of the effects of the pandemic, but whether congregations will decide to continue to exist but without their buildings, having been pushed in that direction by the pandemic.

This possibility that congregations might decide to continue to exist but without a building is both a revolutionary approach to being church in the United States and a missional opportunity. House churches have characterized Christianity is places from the early Mediterranean to contemporary China, but the model has not been extensively used in the United States. The pandemic may make the house church model more prominent, if congregations decide to ditch their buildings in favor of more distributed or virtual places to connect.

Another pre-pandemic model that might be useful for churches considering jettisoning their buildings is the Fresh Expressions movement. Fresh Expressions focuses on creating instances of church that are adapted to a specific local community. Quite often, these expressions of church do not meet in traditional church buildings, but rather cafes, parks, restaurants, and even tattoo parlors.

If a congregation decides to dispose of its building, that creates some different missional opportunities than if a the church closes and leaves the building to the denomination. Rick Reinhard argued in a commentary for UMNS that closing congregations could leave the denomination with a "real estate crisis." Pre-pandemic, The Atlantic called attention to this problem as well.

Yet local congregations have greater incentive to sell or repurpose their properties than annual conferences or other regional bodies who are trying to manage a portfolio of closed church properties and are less familiar with the specifics of any individual property.

This has led to some examples of churches finding creative solutions to use their buildings to forward mission instead of trying to keep a too-large physical plant going for a small number of people. Tom Sine and Dwight J. Friesen share some examples. Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel share another example. Even if the result of selling a church is just freeing up more money for mission and ministry, the results can be significant, as Weems and Michel mention.

Given the investment that most US congregations have in their buildings, it will likely be only a small number who decide to go building-less as a result of the pandemic. But, as in other aspects of life, this small number pushed in that direction by the pandemic will amplify nascent trends from before the pandemic. Even if church-in-a-building remains the dominant model, as it almost certainly will, the resulting ecclesiological and missiological reflections from building-less churches are likely to be helpful to the church's self understanding.

Recommended Reading: AU Wins Award for Their Contributions to Pandemic Response

In recognition of their production of U-Safe Hand Sanitizer during the COVID-19 pandemic, African University has been awarded the prestigious Jairos Jiri Humanitarian Award by the government of Zimbabwe, as reported in this press release. The U-Safe Hand Sanitizer is the only locally-produced hand sanitizer in Zimbabwe. Africa University, a United Methodist insitution, began production of the sanitizer as a way of aiding the coronavirus response in their setting.

After the Pandemic, Pastors Are Done Enduring Ministry

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Last week, I suggested that after the pandemic, people are done enduring wrongs. While that piece was primarily focused on movements in broader society, I connected this thesis to the church too. I wrote that, while there is an opportunity here to join in work toward the kingdom of God, "[f]or some, the things that they are no longer willing to endure are connected to the church." I want to explore that suggestion further in this week's post and a following one next week.

This week, I'd like to explore what it means that for some pastors, the things that they are no longer willing to endure are connected to their roles in and experience of church, and thus, after the pandemic, an increased number of pastors are done enduring ministry.

First, I must say out that I am far from the first to point this trend out. There has been a series of articles over the past year in both religious and secular press describing the exodus of pastors, including these sources: The Alabama Baptist, Kentucky Today, Religion News Service (also reprinted in The Christian Century and USA Today), ChurchLeaders.com, Lifeway Research, Business Insider, and Christianity Today. More citations could be added too.

It seems like this exodus of ministers is being driven by fall-out from a combination of the top headlines of last year: the COVID-19 epidemic, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the extremely contentious election cycle. All of these stories have made pastoral work harder, and misinformation related to the first and third of these stories has further added to pastors' challenges. The cumulative effects have been stressful and have left pastors asking questions about their place in the church.

The pandemic involved significant stress for pastors in figuring out what to do in the face of church shut-downs and how to do it, how to made decisions about remaining closed or reopening, and how to navigate the organizational dynamics of congregants' opinions on questions about reopening and COVID-19 precautions. Questions about how to meaningfully address racial conflict in the United States, especially when such issues are polarizing to (white) congregations, added to pastors' stress. Then trying to promote Christian love in a political climate of extreme division made the job more complicated, especially for pastors serving politically mixed churches.

In each of these instances, these issues presented large, complex challenges that required significant adaptation and presented no easy solution. In many instances, pastors felt alone in trying to navigate these challenges. Thus, the substantial stress of responding to such issues has been enough to leave some pastors wanting a break.

But these issues also raised questions for many pastors about their relationship to their congregants and denominational leaders. Pastors risking COVID infection for themselves and, sometimes, their families to do ministry wondered whether congregants or denominational leaders cared whether they got sick. Pastors asked whether their white congregants were more attached to white supremacy than they were to Jesus' gospel of love for people of all races and nations. Pastors watching their congregants write vicious or false things on Facebook, either about the election or the pandemic, questioned how that fit with the Christian message of truth and love. Pastors wondered whether denominational leaders would support them in conflicts with their congregations over any of these issues and sometimes felt that those leaders did not.

These questions also undercut pastors' willingness to endure the challenges of ministry, challenges which were usually significant pre-pandemic, but which have only grown in the last year and a half, as described above. Why endure the stress if those for whom you worked didn't care and your work wasn't going to change people's actions or hearts anyway?

So, an increased number of pastors have decided that they are done. They have left or are leaving ministry.

This trend seems to be impacting pastors across the theological spectrum, in different denominations and polity systems, and in different geographic areas (as indicated in the breadth of news sources quoted above). Varying age ranges are also involved, though anecdotal evidence collected by my wife suggests that the trend is especially pronounced among pastors in their 30s and 40s and among women. While many factors are likely at work, this group includes parents of school-aged children, some of whom are also caregivers for older relatives as well, both groups negatively impacted by the pandemic. Women in particular have borne a significant amount of the pandemic-related parenting stress.

While the resolve and faith of those pastors staying in ministry is certainly to be praised, we must be careful about treating those who choose to leave as "failures" or their complaints as unimportant. Such responses lack compassion and seek to justify oneself. Decisions to leave reflect real issues in the church laid bare by the last year, and these departures will have real impact on churches. We as the church must take both seriously and seek to learn from them, rather than write them off.

What implications does this trend have for churches? I see several.

1. Increased difficulty for congregations seeking a pastor. The number of congregations, while shrinking overall, does not seem to have reduced as sharply as the number of pastors in the past year. Thus, fewer pastors = fewer possibilities of filling open pulpits. This trend will play out in different ways in denominations with call vs. appointment systems, but it will impact them both. This impact will be manifest immediately.

2. Increased pressure on struggling congregations to close. There is already pressure on such congregations. Small, impoverished, or dysfunctional congregations will have the greatest struggles attracting new pastors and had the most significant pre-pandemic challenges. If they are unable to find pastors, that creates yet another incentive for them to close their doors. While the pressures may be immediate, the resultant closures are likely 2-5 years down the road.

3. Disruption of leadership pipelines. Especially if it proves true that a disproportionately high number of early- to mid-career pastors are leaving, that means that there will be fewer pastors to develop into leaders for large congregations and denominational positions. This impact won't be felt immediately. Instead, it will become increasingly manifest in the next 5-15 years.

Thus, the impact of the pandemic on clergy supply in the United States will last much longer than the pandemic itself, serving as a drag on Christian ministry for years to come. Clergy are not and should not be solely determinative of the health of Christianity, but it would be foolish to pretend that clergy leadership does not matter to the quality of the church's mission and ministry.

While these forces pushing pastors away from ministry are cross-cutting, there is something that congregations and denominational leaders can do. Pastors that feel supported by their congregation and their denominational leaders are less likely to leave. Tangible support can reduce stress levels from responding to the pandemic and other social forces, and the existence of support reduces the questions pastors have about their relationships to their congregations, colleagues, and supervisors. Pastors are often looked to as sources of love and comfort, but they need these mercies as well.

After the Pandemic, People Are Done Enduring Wrongs

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Last week, I wrote that the pandemic has broken our pre-pandemic story lines, and we as a church, a (US) society, and the world have not yet figured out what new story lines will absorb our focus as the pandemic is no longer the overwhelming story that frames all others. I would like to suggest a framing story that puts together a number of pieces of news that have come out of the context of the pandemic but are not necessarily about the pandemic itself.

After the onset of pandemic, and in large part because of the pandemic, people are done enduring wrongs. They have new energy to protest that which they see as unjust and are not putting up with the same problems they tolerated before. This unwillingness to continue to endure wrongs is manifesting itself on individual and societal levels in a variety of realms: political, economic, and social.

In some ways, the Black Lives Matter movement was the first sign that people were unwilling to continue to endure previously existing wrongs. Police violence against Black bodies had existed for years, including some high-profile cases over the past decade. But none of those cases galvanized an international movement until George Floyd's death during the pandemic. In part, this issue caught on last June because people had more time and attention since they were at home due to the pandemic. But in part, concern about Black deaths from police violence was amplified by the information about disproportionate Black deaths because of the pandemic, data that became available prior to Black Lives Matter. These pandemic racial disparities helped fuel the Black Lives Matter movement against police violence.

Such movements of protest against the powers that be have played out again and again around the world since the Black Lives Matter movement began. Last fall, protests swept Belarus. Most recently, there have been unprecedented protests in Cuba, Columbia, South Africa, and Eswatini, all of them directed against the government. In each of these cases, long-simmering resentments of government malfeasance have combined with complaints of mishandling of the pandemic to touch off mass protests. Even at this year's Olympics, athletes have felt freer than ever before to protest a variety of wrongs.

The point is not whether or not any of these protests have yet been successful in ending the wrongs protested or changing political systems. The point is that they are a sign that people are no longer willing to endure wrongs that existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it's because the pandemic has amplified those issues, has put them in a new light, or has just added one more significant item to a list of complaints.

The unwillingness to put up with wrongs is evident in the cumulative effects of personal decisions in the United States. This trend is most apparent in the labor market, where many workers previously employed in low-wage jobs, especially jobs that had other harmful aspects, have not been willing to resume those jobs after the pandemic, leaving those sectors short on workers. There's still debate over whether other factors - the hourly rate of these jobs or government financial assistance - have also impacted such decisions. But it's clear that thousands of people who had jobs they were not happy about pre-pandemic decided that it was not worth returning to those jobs post-pandemic, either because they had gained new perspective on employment and/or because the jobs had become more onerous.

While this does not rise to the level of social injustice, there has even been chatter on social media and in think pieces about what social customs people are not willing to go back to, whether that is in terms of dress, who people interact with, or the sorts of interactions and social conventions deemed acceptable. After having a break from what were unpleasant or offensive pre-pandemic social interactions, many have decided that they are not willing to resume such interactions post-pandemic.

I think there are a variety of reasons leading people to put new energy into changing pre-pandemic wrongs. The pandemic has created a situation of fluidity, where the future must be renegotiated and cannot merely continue as before. Renegotiation is an opportunity to try for something better, to try to avoid what wasn't working before, whether that's in one's relationship with their government, their employer, or their friends and family.

In addition, for many, the pandemic destroyed trust in those that were supposed to keep them and their loved ones safe. Whether it was a government or an employer that people thought was going to take care of them, those expectations were repeatedly dashed, as people were laid off and governments struggled to contain the virus while also imposing restrictions some saw as excessive.

Finally, the pandemic has given many new perspectives on what's important in life. Even for those who did not get sick, the pandemic was a brush with death of sorts. Confronting the reality of one's own mortality tends to make people rethink their priorities. Many have decided to prioritize trying to change the world for the better and trying to right the wrongs around them.

For the church, especially the church in mission, this new unwillingness to endure wrong is both an opportunity and a challenge.

It is an opportunity because new energy to right the wrongs of the world represents new energy among Christians to work for the kingdom of God and new potential partners outside of the church in that work. Many Christians pray for a movement of the Spirit. It is not difficult to interpret a movement towards justice as just that. If the church can join in what God is doing in the world in this pandemic-altered moment, then there is a huge missional potential.

Yet, there is also a threat or a challenge to the church. For some, the things that they are no longer willing to endure are connected to the church. These range from a new unwillingness to tolerate casual and systemic racism in the white church to unwillingness to put up with awkward or unpleasant social interactions that are part of in-person church events to unwillingness to excuse the failures of church leadership, locally or denominationally. The church deceives itself if it thinks there is no wrong in it, and leaders will be surprised when people are done enduring those wrongs associated with church.

Yet, if leaders in the church recognize people being done with enduring wrongs as a way in which the Spirit may be speaking to the church, then they can be prepared to capitalize on the opportunities and rise to the challenges of this moment. They can look for ways to join in the work of the kingdom and respond with humility and a willingness to change when confronted with protests against the church itself. Such a response requires courage and a willingness to change. Yet the world has changed, and we cannot continue to live as if it has not.

Recommended Viewing: Harriett Olson Emerging Methodism Interview

As part of the Connectional Table's "Emerging Methodism" series, Rev. Kennetha Bigham-Tsai, Chief Connectional Ministries Officer for The Connectional Table, recently interviewed Harriett Olson, Chief Executive Officer of United Methodist Women. The interview, which runs around 40 minutes, touches on several issues relevant to the readers of this blog: the nature of mission, the connection between mission and ecumenism, the impact of COVID-19 on mission work, the nature of Methodism, and how best to combat racism. The interview is well worth watching as a thoughtful and faithful reflection on what it means to be in mission as a Methodist in 2021.

The Pandemic Broke Our Narratives, and We Haven't Found New Ones Yet

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.

Do you remember January of 2020? I mean, really remember? What sorts of things were you spending your days thinking about?

Humans are story-telling creatures, and we usually have a number of stories that we tell ourselves about what is going on in our lives and in our world. So, in January 2020, people had stories that they were telling themselves about their lives, their families, their churches, their denomination, their city, state, and country. We remember what some of those stories were: In US politics, foreign election interference and the impeachment of President Trump dominated much of that January. For United Methodists, the story of the impending division of the church and the Protocol loomed large. People made plans based on the assumption that the narratives they were telling themselves would continue to carry them forward.

Then, in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic shut everything down. And with it, all of the story lines that we thought we were living in suddenly changed. The legacy of the impeachment or the possibility of church division suddenly became less relevant than trying not to get deathly sick while grocery shopping. In churches, not only worship but other programming and strategic initiatives like capital campaigns were suspended. In families, gatherings were postponed. Schools and companies shut their buildings and had to radically rethink their model of operation. The things that people thought they were preparing for in January or February of 2020 probably didn't happen, and if they did, they looked dramatically different than anticipated.

Of course, the pandemic itself was a tremendous source of story lines as people struggled to come to grips with what COVID was and what it meant for their individual and collective lives - spiritually, politically, socially, economically, etc. Although everyone experienced the pandemic differently, everyone had a story about what the pandemic meant for them and for those around them. The pandemic became one of the most significant stories in most people's lives and an overarching narrative impacting almost all other narratives.

The pandemic did not completely forestall other narratives. Some stories begun before the pandemic, whether they were about climate change or presidential elections or denominational division, continued, albeit with alterations and likely less attention. New stories emerged, too, most notably a reckoning with race in all aspects of US society and a divisive presidential election and its long aftermath. These new stories, however, were inflected by the story of the pandemic.

Even with the continuation in some form of old stories and the addition of new stories, the narrative worlds in which people had lived in January 2020 were broken by the pandemic. It was no longer possible to care about the same things in the same way to the same extent or to plan for the future with the same level of certainty about what it would be like. The pandemic had foreclosed that possibility.

The rollout of vaccines in the United States and elsewhere this spring raised the question then: Would it soon be possible to go back to normal? By June, people were discarding masks and returning to places they had not been in months, including, for some, in-person church. Would it now be possible to move on from the dominating story of the pandemic and return to focusing on all those stories that had shaped our worlds in January 2020?

No, as it turns out, and for several reason.

First, the story of the pandemic is not over. Granted, the pandemic no longer dominates all other aspects of life in the ways that it did six months or a year ago. Yet the rise of a fourth wave of the virus in the United States shows that the pandemic is still going in the United States, still capable of generating plot twists and uncertainty, despite the extensive availability of vaccines in this country. And the pandemic is certainly not over in other countries where vaccines are less available. The story of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to evolve, but it will not be over, not for a while, even if it gradually becomes less all-encompassing.

Second, even when other story lines are no longer subsumed under the larger story of the pandemic, we cannot go back to where we were in January 2020. In many cases, relevant details have changed: Main characters of the stories of our lives have died or moved or changed jobs. Organizational and financial realities have changed. Political realities have changed. And we ourselves have changed. Even when everything else is the same, we have, each of us, been shaped in some way by the pandemic. And for that reason alone, we cannot go back to things just as they were.

We must, therefore, continue to go forward.

But in so many areas, I don't think people yet know what that looks like. Church worship may be back in person, but does that mean we should resume planning for that building renovation? What work meetings will we continue to hold by Zoom? How can we address the racial and economic inequalities highlighted by the pandemic? What will school look like in the fall? Is it worth restarting that annual Christmas cookie sale, or should we replace it with something new? The answers to these and many other questions are still not clear.

So, we find ourselves in a liminal space. The old story lines from before the pandemic are broken. The story of the pandemic continues, but with less force. And it is not clear what new stories we will create about where we as individuals and communities are and where we are going. The future is never given, but we seem to be at a moment of cultural and narrative inflection, where it is particularly hard to predict what will come next and what will consume our time and attention in the months and years to come.

And there's not much we can do but wait to find out. Wait to see what stories will grow around us.

Waiting is rarely enjoyable or satisfying. But it can be deeply spiritual. Much of the rhythms of Christian life are built around waiting. Advent is the liturgical season of waiting par excellence, but Lent is a season of waiting in its own way. As members of Christ's already-but-not-yet kingdom, the entire Christian experience is situated within one large narrative pause, a period of waiting that has persisted for two millenia at this point.

Paul often acknowledges the incompleteness of our knowledge about the future, especially the eschatological future, though he always affirms that knowledge will come. Now we see dimly and what we will be has not been revealed; but later, after the waiting, we will fully know.

So what can we do but wait, and try to keep faith that whatever comes, whatever stories emerge to shape our lives and the lives of those around us, God will be with us, will be part of our stories? What can we do but wait, knowing that there may be no more Christian practice to which we can devote ourselves at this time.

Recommended Viewing: COVID Travel Tips from UMVIM

Although the COVID-19 pandemic remains a health threat around the world, access to vaccines in the United States has many traveling again. Included in this re-engagement with the world is the possibility for renewed travel for short-term mission. UMVIM has released this video with tips from UMVIM coordinators and project hosts about how to resume short-term mission travel in a safe way. This video is an excellent resource for anyone thinking about domestic or international mission travel in the near future.