Ubuntu and Sanctification

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 United Methodist leaders from Asia, Africa, and Europe behind the Christmas Covenant, the first major piece of UMC legislation from outside the United States, have identified three guiding principles behind that legislation: We are all children of God, ubuntu, and bayanihan. Two of these principles are notable in drawing on non-Western cultural concepts.

In the spirit of cross-cultural dialogue, I will treat the statement of these principles as an invitation to the whole church to engage in theological reflection on ubuntu and bayanihan and consider how these concepts can contain lessons for Methodist/Wesleyan theological thinking in other contexts as well. In this post, I will reflect on the connection between ubuntu and sanctification. In another, I will reflect on the connection between bayanihan and connectionalism.

The description of ubuntu offered by the Christmas Covenant reads as follows:

Ubuntu is an African concept that embodies a way of life where humanity is based on the understanding of interdependence and community life. It is lived recognizing that we are all created in the image of God and should do unto others as we wish it be done unto us. Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa declares, “The profound truth is, you cannot be human on your own. ... You are human because you participate in relationship. It says a person is a person through other persons. This is what we say. This is what the Bible says. This is what our human experience teaches us.”

The comments here on the image of God and the inability to be human on one's own made me think of the Wesleyan concept of sanctification.

According to Wesleyan theology, humans are created in the image of God. Sin, however, mars and defaces that image of God. Salvation, then, is about the restoration of the image of God in us through a two-step process: First, in justification, our guilt is removed. Second, through the on-going process of sanctification, we are made more holy, which is to say, more loving towards God and other humans.

I've known and believed this theological account for a long time and have looked at the concept of sanctification in particular as key to what it meant to be Methodist, one of the unique Methodist contributions to the pool of Christian theological insight.

I will admit, however, that, coming from an individualistic cultural background, I had understood the process of salvation and sanctification in primarily individual terms. Yes, sanctification was about growing in love for others, but it was a process that played out in the individual, or so I thought.

Meditating on the concept of ubuntu called that individualistic understanding into question for me. If we think about salvation as a process of being restored to true humanity (as encapsulated in the image of God), then ubuntu suggests that true humanity must be interpersonal, not merely individual. We are persons through other persons, and so we become saved persons through the salvation of our relationships with other persons. It is not possible to be sanctified, and thus not possible to be truly saved, apart from our relationships with others. Thus, the concept of ubuntu highlighted for me the interpersonal and communal nature of salvation and sanctification.

Seen in this way, then, the Wesley conjunction of personal and social holiness takes on a new light. Personal and social holiness are no longer two concepts that must be held together despite a tendency to fall apart. Much less are they two opposing concepts that people are asked to line up behind in a soft-pedaled version of the fundamentalist/social gospel or evangelical/progressive debate.

No, personal and social holiness are instead two logically interconnected aspects of what it means to be a full and sanctified human in light of the concept of ubuntu. Being a full human who lives up to the highest ideals of humanity necessarily involves connection to God (personal holiness) and love towards others (social holiness). Anything else would be an incomplete and truncated humanity.

(Incidentally, I think the Chinese Confucian concept of ren can be used as an interpretive lens for sanctification in much the same way. One bit of cross-cultural theology begets another.)

There are many further consequences of this ubuntu-informed understanding of sanctification that I do not have time or space to explore here. Relative to the current state of the UMC, one could probably reflect on what such an ubuntu-informed understanding of sanctification means for relations among different groups of Christians.

Let me conclude, therefore, by reiterating that reflecting on the concept of ubuntu challenged my theological thinking and suggested new insights to me. I hope it can do the same for you.

Benjamin L. Hartley: Becoming One, Becoming Holy: A Response to “Sent in Love”

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Benjamin L. Hartley. Dr. Hartley is Associate Professor of Christian Mission at the College of Christian Studies at George Fox University. He also blogs at http://www.missionandmethodism.net/. This post is part of a series on the UMC's new ecclesiology document, Sent in Love: A United Methodist Understanding of the Church, which will be presented to General Conference 2020 for review and adoption.

“There has never been a time in greater need of a compelling articulation of the message of holiness.” So begins the 2006 “Holiness Manifesto,” crafted by the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium (now called the Wesleyan Holiness Connection), an ecumenical body comprised of eighteen Wesleyan denominations in the United States, including the United Methodist Church.

At the request of the Council of Bishops, I have been honored to attend a number of annual “steering committee” gatherings with this group. I believe there is much to be learned from our Wesleyan sisters and brothers and much we United Methodists have to contribute – especially at this difficult time in our history as United Methodists.

“Sent in Love,” the recently revised United Methodist ecclesiology statement put forth by the Committee on Faith and Order, is, in part, also a kind of “holiness manifesto,” set forth at a time when there is again a great “need of a compelling articulation of the message of holiness.”

“Sent in Love” (henceforth, SIL) strikes an ecumenical tone at the very beginning, much like the previous draft, “Wonder, Love, and Praise,” did although it does not follow other ecumenical theological statements as explicitly as “Wonder, Love, and Praise.”

As a result, I think SIL portrays our Wesleyan distinctiveness better than its predecessor, and I hope that will aid in its reception by United Methodist congregations. SIL rightly stresses at the very beginning that ecumenical engagement is no extraneous add-on in our ecclesiological reflection, but is instead integral to who we are as United Methodists. “We have perspectives to contribute to a wider common Christian understanding of the church. We also learn about ourselves from other Christians and churches (SIL, paragraph 6).”

Our robust ecumenism stems not only from our denomination being a merger of Evangelical United Brethren and Methodist churches in 1968 but also from our global or oikoumene growth since 1968.  In these months before General Conference 2020, it is critical to remind ourselves in our prayers and in our work that we do not stand alone as individuals or as a denomination, but are part of a world Christian movement in which the Holy Spirit is working to make us all more perfect in love.

I believe SIL will be most useful for what it has to say about holiness. Holiness is an integrating and animating idea and practice too often relegated to the “ash heap” of Methodist history rather than history’s “garden” from which United Methodists may still yield abundant fruit.

In the eighteen years since I was commissioned as a deacon I have been a member of three different Annual Conferences in three different jurisdictions (Northeast, North Central, and Western). In all of the places where I have served I have been struck by the lack of attention given to holiness as an integrating and animating idea in United Methodist theological practice. I have seen this lack of attention at Annual Conference gatherings, in Boards of Ordained Ministry, and in local church preaching. I am also convinced that this is not only a problem for North American United Methodism.

I believe SIL portrays an expansive vision of what holiness is and can be in the life of United Methodist people. “Holiness is deeply personal and yet has inseparable public and social dimensions.  It is as intimate as each person’s inner experience of the pardoning and sanctifying grace of God, and as all-encompassing as God’s will for justice, peace, and the integrity of creation (SIL, pargraph 90).”

At a time when political movements inside and beyond the church seek to polarize people in various “camps,” I believe a reinvigoration of “holiness” language and accompanying practices in United Methodism has the potential to break down “dividing walls of hostility.”

That said, I am fully aware that debates about holiness have been a source of conflict in our history.  Areas of conflict will doubtless persist as they have in the church from the days of the apostles onward, but I believe that framing our disagreements in light of a common call to holiness can call forth within all of us a posture of reconciling love as we seek to model our lives after Jesus Christ, the Holy One. 

The theme of holiness resonates deeply with all four “marks” of the church discussed in SIL and does so implicitly and explicitly. I especially like the way these four marks are discussed (in Part Three) in an inverted order such that our missional impulse (apostolicity) is mentioned first and followed by catholic, holy, and one rather than the more conventional ordering.

In the ecumenical movement of the past several decades sometimes Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17, “that they may be one,” has been stressed to the neglect of his prayer “that the world may believe.” By inverting the traditional ordering SIL sends a different message, one that I pray unifies us around our common missional priorities instead of the issues that divide us. We are apostolic, catholic, holy, and one.   

Inspired by the ecumenical work of the Wesleyan Holiness Connection and as part of my own celebration of the Methodist missionary society centennial in 1819, I decided to organize a group of five Wesleyan pastors in my hometown to gather our congregations in weekly meetings during Lent to celebrate our common Wesleyan mission. I look forward to sharing excerpts from SIL concerning the theme of holiness during at least one of these meetings. I encourage readers to do the same in your own formal and informal efforts at living out Jesus’ prayer “that they may all be one… that the world may believe. It is our holy calling.

Nkemba Ndjungu on "Sent in Love," Part 1

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Nkemba Ndjungu. Rev. Nkemba is a missionary with Global Ministries. He formerly served as the Mission Superintendent of the Cameroon Mission and currently serves in Belize. This post is part of a series on the UMC's new ecclesiology document, Sent in Love: A United Methodist Understanding of the Church, which will be presented to General Conference 2020 for review and adoption. It is the first of two posts by Rev. Nkemba.

I like the title of this document: Sent in Love. The church is God’s mission to the world. As members of the Universal Church in general, and the United Methodist Church in particular, we are God’s envoys. My comments will address the four Marks of The United Methodist Church, marks that we share with the Universal Church: 1) The United Methodist Church is called to be apostolic; 2) The United Methodist Church is called to be catholic; 3) The United Methodist Church is called to be holy; 4) The United Methodist Church is called to be one.

The United Methodist Church is called to be apostolic
This is our commitment for mission. The Church is God’s mission to the world. A Church without mission is dead. Three fourth of the works performed by our Lord Jesus Christ on earth were social. While helping people with their spiritual needs, the church must also care for their social needs. The Church does not exist for itself. It exists for others.

“The apostolic community exists not for its own sake, but as a means of grace for the whole world, an instrument of God’stransforming and redeeming love. Starting with the sent character of the church should guard against an inward-looking and self-protective stance for the church toward the world” (Sent in Love, p.18). As much as this statement is true, it is also right to say that the church should not embrace the practices of the world that compromise its faith. In his Priestly Prayer, the Lord Jesus made it clear that although the church is in the world, it is not of the world (John 17: 14-19). Making disciples of Jesus Christ is the ultimate mission of the Church.

To make disciples is the mission that Jesus entrusted to us: "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I prescribed you. And behold, I am with you every day until the end of the world" (Matthew 28: 19-20).

To be able to make disciples of Jesus Christ, churchgoers must be true disciples themselves. For more than twenty centuries, it has been proven that one must be a disciple of Jesus Christ to make disciples of Jesus Christ. When this condition is not fulfilled, we may make disciples, but they are the disciples of a man, a movement or a sect. This is what we see in many churches today. People follow a man, and when that man falls, they are scandalized, and they fall with him.

The second part of the Great Commission, which is also our duty, is training. We make disciples by speaking, proclaiming the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. When someone becomes a disciple of Jesus it is not the end of the story. He must produce another disciple. A new disciple is someone who must be trained.

The disciple's duty is to make other disciples through training. This is what Jesus meant when he said: “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Jesus expects new disciples to be trained so that they do not remain babies in the faith, but that they grow up in faith. They must learn to do what Jesus commanded; and most importantly, they must make other disciples.

The only reason why we are in this world without being of it, is because our lives must reflect Jesus Christ; and we must be the image of our Master among the people that we are called to serve. To make disciples of all nations is to work with Jesus Christ who works in us, with us and through us, to meet, welcome, teach those whom he places on our way.

The United Methodist Church is called to be catholic
“When we as United Methodists affirm that the church of God is “catholic” we mean to affirm that God’s saving love has a universal intention, and wherever this saving intention draws people together in Christian fellowship, there the fullness of the church is present” (Sent in Love, p. 21). This is our commitment to universality, diversity and ecumenism. We are compelled to see beyond our walls in order to embrace people of different nations and faiths. To work with people of different cultures, traditions and denominations poses many challenges. That is why love must be our leading principle.

God is love, and all life revolves around love. Since God is love, the most important thing He wants us to learn on this earth is love; especially the love of the members of our spiritual family (See 1 Peter 2: 17b, Galatians 6:10). It is in loving that we resemble him the most. Love is the foundation of all the commandments he has given us. Paraphrasing the Lord Jesus, the Apostle Paul said, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this one, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Galatians 5:14). Many people who cause troubles in our societies are people who have not known the love of their parents. Love is the greatest testimony of our Christian life.

Therefore, because of the differences of views and opinions as we work with people different from us, we need to exercise “Universal Grace and a Catholic Spirit” (Sent in Love, p.21) by practicing two great principles: forgiveness and tolerance. Forgiveness is the act by which the Holy God decides not to hold human beings accountable for their sins. While the amnesty of men can be rigged, the forgiveness that God offers is sincere, true and irrevocable. That’s the kind of forgiveness believers must exercise.

Tolerance refers to the ability to accept what one disapproves of, that is, what one should normally refuse. In the moral sense, tolerance is the virtue of respecting what one would not accept spontaneously, for example when it goes against one's own convictions. It is also the virtue that leads to being vigilant both towards intolerance and towards the intolerable. Tolerance can allow unity to hold even in the midst of opposing views and beliefs.

The United Methodist Church is called to be holy
“Scriptural holiness has been understood to include the renewal of persons in the image of God, having the mind that was in Christ Jesus, and ultimately the perfect love of God and neighbor ruling in the heart” (Sent in Love, p.25). This is our call to spiritual and social transformation. God calls us all to be spiritually holy: “be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11: 44). Because salvation has a double dimension, the “now and the yet to come,” as Karl Barth puts it, spiritual holiness will not be complete until we achieve social holiness. Through spiritual holiness, we are personally transformed to resemble the God who calls us; and through social holiness, we transform the world that we are called to serve. The means by which we transform the world is service, because we are “sent in love” to serve.

We have been saved and we are sent to serve. It is true that the service does not save, but it is the mirror of our spiritual life. Every Christian has been called to serve God. Vocation is not the privilege of pastors and lay preachers only. All ministries in a church have the same importance. Sometimes even the small hidden ministries make the biggest difference. Size does not matter really. For instance, the liver is smaller than the leg. If your leg is cut off, you can still live long; but if your liver stops, life stops immediately. The Church of God suffers because some people think that they are too “small” to do anything in the church.

Serving God by serving others is giving a part of ourselves; and we renew our own life when we give ourselves to others. We all know the difference between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. The difference is that one receives water and gives it away, while the other receives without giving. The consequence is that there is life in the Sea of Galilee, but there is none in the Dead Sea.

At the end of our life, we will stand before God, and He will judge us according to the way we have served him by serving others on this earth. When our time arrives to stand before God, He will not ask us a question such as: How much money did you have in your bank account? Or what brand of car did you drive? No! Instead God will ask us this one fundamental question: How many people did you serve on my behalf? To live is to exercise a ministry.

Service is the path that leads to the true meaning of life. God wants to use each one of us to make a difference in this world. The most important thing is not the duration of our life, but its usefulness.

Recommended Reading: Norma Dollaga on having faith and being an activist

Friend of UM & Global Norma Dollaga has written a piece entitled "Having faith and being an activist is not a contradiction, but a fulfillment of self" on her personal blog, patentero. It in, she makes a case for faith-based activism. I appreciated the biblical grounding she provides for her argument and the connections she draws between activism and love. The latter seems a very Wesleyan approach.

Ms. Dollaga's piece comes out of long personal experience of faith-based activism and also serves as an important indicator of how Methodism is practiced in the Philippines, an area in which the UMC is confronted with serious issues of violence and justice in society and in which revivalism, evangelism, and social justice are not necessarily set against one another. In this regard, United Methodism in the Philippines more closely follows a holiness approach to Methodist theology common in the US in the nineteenth century, but neglected in the US since then.

Theology as basis for United Methodist unity

This is the first in a series of posts on unity in the United Methodist Church. This series of blog posts originally appeared on David W. Scott’s personal blog, Posts from the Frontier. The posts have been lightly edited and are being republished here.

Starting this week, and for the next several weeks, I’d like to look at the question of the basis of unity in The United Methodist Church.

I think a lot of Christians, especially those from creedal traditions, assume that the basis for unity should be theology or belief. I don’t think this works for United Methodism, though, and I’m not sure how well it works for any non-creedal tradition (or creedal tradition, for that matter).

Before I explain, let me make a disclaimer: I’m not saying in this post that theology doesn’t matter or that people should be able to believe anything they want and still call themselves a Christian or a United Methodist. I think theology does matter. I personally believe a number of things quite fervently and hope others do, too. I even think belief is something that’s worth arguing about at times. So, I’m not saying in this post that belief is unimportant. I’m saying that theology can’t serve as a good basis for unity in The United Methodist Church.

The first reason why theology is an insufficient basis for unity is that, if we look at the church today, it is not a current source of unity. In fact, it’s often a source of division within the church. Liberals and conservatives fight like weasels (a phrase I once heard a United Methodist layperson use to describe General Conference) over theological issues. In order to go from where we are now to a place where theology is the basis for United Methodist unity, either someone would have to persuade a whole lot of people or kick a whole lot of people out of the church. The first seems unrealistic, the latter unacceptable.

Second, it’s not really clear what theological pieces we would set up as the basis for United Methodist unity, were we to try to go that route. Most of what either evangelical or liberal United Methodists would like to get everyone to believe isn’t distinctively United Methodist but is tied into larger theological currents in the U.S. that cut across denominations, so in many cases, neither side is really presenting a distinctively Methodist vision of theological unity.

We could, then, turn to the Book of Discipline to see what it has to say about the doctrinal basis for Methodist unity. But it turns out the Book of Discipline is not very helpful in this regard. It states that the 25 Articles (John Wesley’s condensation/reduction of the Church of England’s 39 Articles of Faith) and John Wesley’s sermons shall be the standards of Methodist theology. Added to that are the EUB Confession of Faith.

But that’s such a large body of works that it’s not really useful in defining standards of United Methodist theology to serve as a basis for unity. It’s certainly no five point creed. There are many strands within the Sermons, Articles, and Confession on which to draw. Plus, how many people are you going to get to read even the 25 Articles and Confession, let alone all of Wesley’s sermons (which even most Methodist seminarians don’t read in their entirety)?

If we can’t use these textual resources for unity, perhaps we could identify a couple of historically distinctive doctrines as the theological basis for United Methodist unity. Here, two of the most distinctive Methodist doctrines have been an Arminian approach to salvation and the doctrine of sanctification. Arminianism states that God offers God’s grace freely to all, enabling humans to respond by accepting that grace. The doctrine of sanctification states that God is capable of making humans perfect in love while we are yet alive, and we should all be striving for that.

The problem with Arminianism, though, is that it’s been so widely successful as a theology in the United States that it’s no longer distinctively Methodist. The emphasis within a lot of Arminianism has shifted from free grace to free will, and almost everyone wants to believe in free will in this country. Even a lot of Calvinists or people from Calvinist traditions have become Arminians. Hence, saying that United Methodists are going to be known as the people who believe in free grace and free will Arminianism is like saying Burger King is going to be known as the fast food place that serves burgers. It’s true, but it’s not like there aren’t others making burgers, so it’s not really something that would set them apart.

Which leaves us with sanctification. The problem with trying to make sanctification the theological basis for United Methodist unity is that so few United Methodist actually know what the doctrine is and know that it’s a traditional Methodist doctrine. Of those who do, probably even a smaller number actually believe in the possibility of entire sanctification in this life. I think it’s sad, but nonetheless true, that Methodists have lost touch with the doctrine of sanctification. Given that that’s true, though, it seems like it would be a lot of work to try to reclaim sanctification as the basis of theological unity in the church.

Therefore, I don’t think theology works as the basis for unity in The United Methodist Church. That may make some upset or uneasy, but I don’t think that means there aren’t other possible bases for unity. Agreement on a set list of beliefs is not the basis of unity for families, the Army, knitting groups, or Phish fans, yet there is something which holds each of these groups together. In the upcoming weeks, I’ll continue to look at some of these other possible grounds for Methodist unity.

Benjamin L. Hartley: Mass Incarceration and the UMC

This post is written by Dr. Benjamin L. Hartley, Associate Professor of Christian Mission and Director of United Methodist Studies at Palmer Theological Seminary. You can read more of his writings at his personal blog, "Mission and Methodism."

Twenty years ago I was in a Michigan prison. By the grace of God, I was working in that prison as a substance abuse counselor rather than as an incarcerated person. My work in Michigan followed on the heels of living and working on the west side of Chicago. There too I saw the impact of a rapidly escalating prison population on neighborhoods and families which were losing their fathers, brothers, mothers, and sisters.

That was the mid-1990s which was close to the end of a devastating period – beginning around 1980 – of the sharpest increase in incarceration rates in state prisons across the United States. (The incarceration rate still increased after 2000 but not quite as dramatically.) In 1970 there were 200,000 incarcerated persons in the U.S. Now there are over 2 million. At the one year anniversary of the police shooting of Michael Brown the racist nature of the U.S. criminal justice system is especially sobering. Black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white men.

The prison population forecaster, a creative, interactive graphic published this week (August 11, 2015) by the Urban Institute, shows what policy changes could make criminal justice more just. Dozens of other statistics could be shared here to tell a similar story of lives devastated by a criminal justice system focused on retributive justice instead of restorative justice – about which the UM Social Principles speak eloquently.

Why do I raise this issue in the UM & Global blog? I have two reasons. First, it is important to acknowledge that the United Methodist Church is far from silent in the face of mass incarceration. I think we UMC folk frequently berate ourselves for not doing enough, and in so many ways that is true. But it is also important to express gratitude to God and to one another for the good work we are already doing.

The United Methodist Church is engaged in ministry with incarcerated persons in a wide panoply of ways. Individuals and congregations befriend prisoners, lead services of worship in prisons, and help “returned citizens” after they are released. The UMC’s General Board of Church and Society has a National Coordinator for Criminal Justice Reform named Douglas Walker who organizes UM congregations to become part of an ecumenical network of congregations who strive to be Healing Communities for families and communities affected by mass incarceration. The General Board of Church and Society is also engaged in advocacy to reform the criminal justice “system.” The term “system” is difficult here. It gives an impression of coherence and integrity that is sorely lacking in the way we treat persons who have committed crimes.

I also wanted to write about this for UM & Global because I serve as one of the representatives of the United Methodist Church in the National Council of Churches of Christ which has chosen the theme of mass incarceration as its priority for the next several years. The National Council of Churches of Christ has been the most important ecumenical body in the United States since its founding in 1950, and the United Methodist Church has played an integral role in that organization – and its predecessor – from the beginning. As one of the few (only?) professors of mission at our NCCC gatherings, I see part of my role there as reminding us all of how the missionary movement gave birth to the modern ecumenical movement. To address the injustice of mass incarceration will require ecumenical effort and a revitalized missionary imagination in our churches.

Hebrews 13:3 calls us to “Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them;” John Wesley noted in his commentary on this passage, “Seeing ye are members one of another.” Wesley spent a lot of time with prisoners throughout his life. I have been wondering of late how his conversations with prisoners– especially early in his ministry – influenced his own deep appreciation of God’s grace and the centrality of Christian fellowship for our growth in holiness. I don’t think these conversations were merely incidental.

As followers of Jesus we must be vigilant to never scapegoat the prisoners and “returned citizens” who are or will be our neighbors. We do this in all sorts of subtle ways through, for example, dehumanizing terms like “sexual predator.” No one is beyond the reach of God’s grace and redemption.

It is worth meditating on Holy Scripture’s and Wesley’s admonition to remember that we “are members one of another.” With this Wesleyan advice in mind, let’s begin by praying for those who are imprisoned but who are nonetheless integral to the body of Christ. It has been twenty years since I worked with prisoners on a daily basis. I pray they are all doing better today, and I pray that the Spirit would lead us all to be more faithful in remembering them. We are members one of another.

David Field: Methodist Identity and Ecumenical Commitment - Reflections from a European Context

Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. David N. Field.  Dr. Field is the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.

European Methodists face particular opportunities and challenges; they are minority churches, often small minorities, within contexts dominated by other confessional traditions. The interaction between Methodist Churches and these traditions varies from country to country but the asymmetric relationship raises fundamental issues about Methodist identity and mission. These are intensified in the broader society where Methodism is not only not known but placed in the amorphous category “free churches,” which are perceived be to be fundamentalist and sect like.

In this context Methodists must ask: What does it mean to be a Methodist? Why is it important to be a Methodist? Does Methodism have particular mission in the contemporary world? The answer to these questions can contribute to international discussions about Methodist identity.

A further challenging dimension of this context is the pervasive secularization that is characteristic of the majority European countries. Church membership is rapidly declining, the influence of Christianity on culture and society is rapidly shrinking, and for increasing numbers of people Christianity is irrelevant to their daily life. It can no longer be presupposed that people have a working knowledge of the Christian faith and what is known is often regarded as an irrelevant relic of only historical interest. People live contentedly without God and have no sense of this being a loss. The danger of this situation is that churches fall into the trap of preoccupation with self-preservation rather than taking up the challenge of articulating the gospel in word and life in a way that addresses secularized people.   

Methodism’s minority status pressurizes Methodists to justify their existence in relation to major churches, yet in the face of pervasive secularism such concerns seem irrelevant to the larger task of articulating the relevance of Christianity. Is an emphasis on fostering a Methodist identity a waste of time and resources that could be better spent on ecumenical co-operation in mission? Does the particular identity of the Methodist tradition have any continuing relevance? Is an emphasis on Methodist identity an exercise in self-preservation that is bound to fail in the long run?

These questions demand responses not the least from those who are preparing people for the ordination. A creative response to this challenge needs to re-frame the question of the Methodist identity from a different perspective. The starting point is not our differences from, nor our commonalities with, other churches. The starting point must be the challenge of mission in the context of pervasive secularization. Hence the question becomes: “What are the particular gifts that Methodists bring form our heritage that contribute to equipping all Christians to articulate the gospel in this context?” The question of identity thus becomes a significant contribution to ecumenical commitment and mission.

Historically a central dimension of Methodist self-understanding has been the calling to practice and proclaim “holiness”. However, in a pervasively secular context “holiness” not only lacks resonance but appears bizarre, esoteric and alienating. In the ecumenical context locating holiness as “our” distinguishing characteristic appears arrogant. Yet paradoxically, I propose that it is precisely a recovery and reconceptualization of holiness as central to Methodist identity that offers a potential way forward. This is not the mere reiteration of historical theological affirmations about sanctification as doctrinal distinctive; rather, it is a critical retrieval of the concept from the Wesleyan heritage in order to creatively reconceive and rearticulate it for the present.

Borrowing ideas from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is it possible to develop a “non-religious” interpretation of holiness for a “world come of age” that is a pervasively secular society? For Bonhoeffer, a central aspect of a “non religious” interpretation of theological concepts is that the gospel embodied in praxis has priority over theological formulation. This resonates with the emphasis in Wesley’s writing on Methodist identity that the distinguishing mark of Methodism is not a doctrine, not even a doctrine of holiness, but transformed character and lifestyle.

In Wesley’s understanding persons are transformed by encountering the love of God in Christ that liberates and empowers them to love God and their fellow humans. This transformation affects both inner attitudes and motivations and outward behavior. There is a dynamic relationship between outward behavior and inner attitudes – inner transformation leads to outward transformation and active engagement on behalf of others leads to inner transformation. This dynamic relationship suggests that holiness can be conceptualized as love embodied in praxis.

Wesley often described the outward dimension by the triad of justice, mercy and truth. This triad was particularly interpreted in terms of the relationships with those he described as “the outcasts of men”. Hence in a “non-religious” interpretation, outward holiness is the embodied practice of justice, compassion and integrity on behalf of and in solidarity with the marginalized, the victims and the vulnerable. This embodied practice arises out of and leads to inner transformation by the Spirit of God.

It is this which should be the key identity marker of Methodism. Our particular theological formulations only have significance to the extent that they undergird and interpret this embodied practice. They have no value independent of this.

The understanding of holiness as love embodied in praxis also opens a new approach to ecumenical (and inner Methodist) relationships. In Wesley’s thought, holiness is only possible in the context of interpersonal interaction; as embodied love it only exists as it is concretely expressed in the diversity, conflicts, and complexity of human relationships. It is through this expression that inner attitudes are transformed.

Analogously Methodist churches only embody holiness in dynamic relationships with other churches, not because we agree with each other or we share common practices, but because we disagree from each other and have contradictory practices. It is only as we live with each other and engage in mission together in our diversity and disagreements that we embody love for each other. Holiness as Methodism’s gift to ecumenical relationships is not primarily a theological affirmation but the embodied praxis of love. In this way we manifest our particular identity.

Malaria nets and John Wesley's three rules

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.

On Saturday, the New York Times posted an article entitled "Meant to Keep Malaria Out, Mosquito Nets are Used to Haul Fish In."  This article described instances in which mosquito nets had been used by very poor fishing villages in Africa for the sake of fishing, not preventing malaria.  The article expressed concern that not only were the nets not serving their intended purpose of stopping mosquitos, their use as fishing supplies was having detrimental ecological effects on fish stocks.

The United Methodist Church has been very involved in the anti-malaria campaign and the distribution of mosquito nets through the Imagine No Malaria campaign, and yesterday General Secretary of United Methodist Communications Larry Hollon responded to the New York Times piece with a piece of his own entitled, "Campaign anticipates misuse of bed nets."  In it, Hollen explained that the UMC and its partners had done their due diligence and had put plans in place to avoid the use of mosquito nets for other pieces as described in the New York Times piece.  Donors to Imagine No Malaria can be reassured that their contributions are going to good ends.

This controversy got me thinking about John Wesley's three general rules for Christian living: "do no harm, do good, and stay in love with God."  The anti-malaria campaign was seeking to follow the second rule of doing good, but the New York Times piece essentially challenged that they were violating the first rule of doing no harm.  Yet the situation is more complicated, as the Times piece acknowledged.  For while the misuse of mosquito nets as fishing nets may have done harm to the environment, the alternative may have been the harm of starvation for the poor fishing communities.

The situation reminded me that while Wesley's rules may appear simple, they are often not simple to practice.  We are often caught in the paradox of choosing between doing good and avoiding harm or in the paradox of avoiding one type of harm only to cause another.  It seems at times that there is no escape from violating the first rule.  Perhaps we should not worry about trying to do good so as to avoid doing harm?

I don't think that's the appropriate response, nor the one that John Wesley would encourage us to take.  Instead, I think the answer lies in the third rule: stay in love with God.  If we stay in love with God, we will be filled with God's love and thus be unable to resist sharing that love by doing good to others.  We will thus overcome the temptation to inaction.

But if we stay in love with God, we will also know that God is a God of grace.  We may unintentionally (or even intentionally) violate the rule to do no harm in favor of the rule to do good.  Yet because God forgives us, that gives us the strength and humility to admit where we've gone wrong, do what we can to correct our mistakes, and then keep on going in our attempts to do good.  We may not ever be perfect in the consequences of our efforts, but we can seek the perfection of the love that motivates us in our efforts.

A Historical and Ecumenical Look at Methodist Identity - Glen Messer on Grace Upon Grace: "A Life Changed By Grace"

Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today. This piece is written by
Dr. Glen Alton Messer, II, the Associate Ecumenical Staff Officer of the Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships of the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church. Dr. Messer also teaches Christian History and Methodist Studies and is currently an Adjunct Lecturer at Yale Divinity School. Dr. Messer is commenting on the eighth section of the document, "A Life Changed By Grace."  Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.

The section of Grace Upon Grace entitled, “A Life Changed by Grace,” (Paras. 42-46) focuses upon reformation of our lives by God’s grace experienced in both justification and sanctification. Reclaiming these dual Wesleyan doctrinal emphases the document points to the importance of Methodist identity as a carrier of theological content for mission. It states, “God is calling us to reclaim the roots of our heritage and produce new fruit in our time.” (Para. 44) Indeed, these paragraphs make the claim that it is the goal of our Christian existence to perfect our love and actions through conforming lives to the example of Christ (Para. 46) — hinting at, but never naming, the doctrine of Christian perfection.

These paragraphs make a number of useful statements that demonstrate the United Methodist commitment to action as well as sentiment. Salvation and growth in discipleship (Para. 43) are living witness that drives mission. To be saved in Christ Jesus is to be inspired to respond to God by learning to love as God loves — reaching out to others as God ceaselessly reaches out to us (“prevenient grace,” as we now term Wesley’s “preventing grace”). As God in Christ pursues us, so we are inspired by love to pursue others, to give aid, to seek the salvation and reformation of God’s Creation and all who inhabit it. There could be nothing more Methodist than this.

The text contains a couple of key challenges for those of us looking to it for reflection upon our understanding of mission, though. Namely, it gropes — without finding a firm hold — to be able to articulate the place of United Methodists in terms of identity and it is a bit soft in owning up to the peculiarity of our historic (and present day?) doctrinal emphases upon justification and sanctification.

As has already been noted in a previous post by Doug Tzan, this 1988 document proceeds from an understanding of Methodism that has its origins in England. This is not a mere historiographic claim. It has ecclesiological and theological implications that strongly shape the logically consequent understanding of mission.

Grace Upon Grace came into being only two decades following the creation of The United Methodist Church by the union of 1968. It also followed shortly after the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Methodist Episcopal Church (the first Methodist denomination to exist openly outside of the frame of a European Established — government sponsored — Church). At that time it was understood that Methodism carried within it “DNA strands” drawn from the Evangelical and Pietistic Movements active on the European Continent and in England; but further reflection raises good questions about what is more important to Methodist DNA — the Evangelical and Pietistic elements brought together or the Anglican container in which they were cultured and transformed into Wesleyan Methodism. British Historian, W. R. Ward, contributed important works during the 1990s relating to Methodism’s connections to these traditions that should give us pause to reconsider the roles of the Wesleys and the place of the religious tradition(s) they are credited with having launched.

My own work as ecumenical staff to the Moravian Church (Northern & Southern Provinces) - United Methodist Church Dialogue aimed at entering into a full communion relationship has further underscored for me how closely knit Methodism is into the fabric of the Pietistic Movement of the 18th century and following. It has helped sharpen my own sense that the history (and the identity) of Methodism has deep roots (not mere passing associations) with both Continental and English Pietism. Likewise, Methodism’s origins as one of the many expressions of the Evangelical Movement compel us to refocus our understanding of when we begin to talk about “ecumenism” in relationship to United Methodists and their predecessor denominations.

If we step back from the inherited stories about Methodists as a distinct religious group and instead begin to look at it as one of the expressions of religious communities formed in the contexts of the Pietistic and Evangelical Movements of the 18th century and forward we can also see that Methodism was born as a mission-driven “connexion” (sharing in the zeal found in both of the movements named) and that, at least at the grass roots level, Methodists have been in mission from everywhere to everywhere for all of their history. Institutional policies and historiographic understandings may not have recognized this fact — but this does not mean it has not been real.

As a test of this idea, let us observe that Methodisms in many parts of the world are mutually recognizable — and yet almost always contextually distinct. There has been colonial-style mission among Methodists. But the tradition(s) have been robust in their natural ability to become contextualized. This in defiance of the claims that Methodism is an “English” or an “American” phenomenon.

A common feature of Methodism the world over is that dual doctrinal emphasis discussed at the beginning of this post. And here is the proof of the identity and the purpose to be reclaimed: The emphasis upon justification was the driving force behind the Evangelical Movement. The emphasis upon the Christian life was the driving force behind Pietism. Methodism mixed the two like rocket fuel and oxygen — the spiritual power of love Divine all loves excelling.

There is much promise in rediscovering our identity — and perhaps understanding it better than we ever have before. We are diverse in our United Methodist tradition(s). This is true in the accounting of the churches that have come together in ecumenical union to form our denomination. It is also true in the long history of Methodism as a tradition from everywhere to everywhere — from England, America, Brazil, Korea, Zimbabwe, the Philippines, etc, and back. We are a Christian people born of mission and born to mission.

Methodist Mission and Social Reform - Walter Klaiber on Grace Upon Grace: Mission: Reform

Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United Methodist Church today.  This piece is written by Bishop Walter Klaiber, Retired Bishop of the Germany Episcopal Area.  Bishop Klaiber is commenting on the fourth section of the document, "Mission: Reform" and responding, in part, to Dr. Ben Hartley's earlier comments on that section.  Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.

It is true that for the Methodist Movement social holiness was from the beginning an indispensable dimension of what Wesley called scriptural holiness. Already in the preface to his collection of “Hymns and Sacred Poems” from 1739 John Wesley wrote the famous sentence: “The gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness.” Now, it may well be that for Wesley the word social meant not only public welfare but had a much broader meaning embracing everything that has to do with life in the community. But as Professor Hartley rightly emphasizes: Social reform was not a later addendum to the agenda of Methodism but belongs to its roots from the beginning. That “the poor have good news brought to them” (Mt 11:5; cf. Lk 4:18) meant always not only to preach the Gospel to them, but also to share temporal goods as well as to strive together with them for better conditions.

We all know Methodism did not always live up to this ideal. And telling the stories of mission may also mean telling some stories of short comings and failure. For example, we have to realize that in continental Europe, and especially in Germany, the Methodist movement was for most of its history not aware of this dimension of its mission. Methodism in continental Europe started as a revival movement and happened to become a kind of pietistic free church which was eager to save souls and to lead people to personal holiness in congregations where brothers and sisters lovingly (and sometimes also warily) were watching over one another. I hope I will not be misunderstood: Of course these people cared for one another and for their neighbors; their preaching and the way they lived together attracted poor and simple people, and their new lifestyle had the effect that at least the next generation climbed up the social ladder. But they were not involved in a struggle for social reform and more social justice – as almost none of the churches in Europe were. To support trade unions, for example, was not in the horizon of pastors or of most members of the church. The only real involvement in social work beyond the local church was the creation of hospitals where even poor people could get medical help by the Methodist Deaconess Orders, a type of ministry that started in Germany. The reasons for this are manifold: one of them may be that Methodists or Baptists were denounced as foreign intruders; therefore they felt they should be especially well-aligned to the governing standards of the society in order to get freedom for their religious message.

This has changed – at least when it comes to the theological awareness for the task of a holistic mission. Most people in the United Methodist Church in Germany will know that we have Social Principles and regard as one of the special marks of our church that the grace of God we share aims as at the shalom in society as well at personal salvation. Methodists took part in the peace movement of the eighties of the last century and were leading figures in the movement for justice, peace and integrity of creation. Our local churches are looking for a ministry which is meaningful for people in need: Noon meals for the poor and the lonely which offer not only food but also community and counsel, support for refugees and asylum seekers which not only cares for clothing and other goods, but also helps them to learn the language and to get access to medical treatment and legal counsel and tries to improve the legislation regarding the acceptance and the legal and social situation of these people. There is a renewed awareness of the problem of addiction, and church-related institutions provide medical care for addicted people, and local churches support self-help groups which work on the problem.

But there are still challenges:

1. When it comes to the struggle for social reform and for real change in the society we will have to work ecumenically. For Methodist Churches in Europe this is a must if only because they themselves are so small that they will only be heard when they speak together with other churches. In the secularized societies of the so called West the Christian Churches will only be taken seriously – if at all – when they speak with one voice. But in a time when even the life of the churches seems to be governed by the rules of the market society (what is your USP?) it is difficult to forge stable coalitions. “We [as United Methodists] need a victory”, said a bishop in view of the success of a major social program. No wonder that there was not much talk about ecumenical cooperation.

2. In principle and in theory we are aware of our holistic mission: Evangelism and social work, including lobbying for the poor, belong together. When it comes to the detail on the local level or in our Conferences there is still some debate: What is our main task? Not everybody can do everything, but in small churches or conferences it may even be difficult to tolerate or to accept that some do different things. And in those regions where membership is shrinking, the pressure is great to do those things first which seem to promise a numerical growth. As a bishop I used to say: I would like to have three groups in each church: One who tries to share the message with others, one who cares for people in need, and one who prays for both ministries.

3. Whereas in former times it may have been difficult to be holistic regarding the social dimension of our mission, today it sometimes seems to be difficult and even unacceptable regarding the evangelistic dimension. Should we share our faith e.g. with asylum seekers or refugees who are Muslims, or is it wise to try to integrate people from other Christian traditions into the communion of our congregations? Or are there other ways to share the love of God which we encounter in Christ with people of other religions or traditions without proselytizing them but also not withholding from them what is most precious for us?

Prayer for immigration reform as a means to growing in love

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.

The General Board of Church and Society (along with other American churches) has recently launched a "40 Days of Prayer for Immigration Reform" program.  The program includes weekly themes for congregational prayer each Sunday, along with scripture readings, other readings, fasting, and lobbying activities.  The weekly readings include personal stories from immigrants.  While the first Sunday was, I believe, last Sunday, it's not too late to get involved.

As this blog has pointed out before, immigration is an important global issue for United Methodists in the United States.  The increase in migration around the world is often cited as one aspect of globalization in recent decades.  Immigration determines in part how Americans relate to people from around the world, primarily but by no means exclusively Latin America.

Praying for the issue of immigration reform, especially when we do so after hearing the personal stories of immigrants, has the opportunity to change how we think about and feel toward immigrants.  Praying for not just immigration (as an issue) but immigrants (as people) can help us better recognize their community humanity with us and therefore help us cultivate love for them.  Prayer has the power to transform our hearts, growing us toward perfect love, as God desires for us as part of the process of our sanctification.

Yet if we further cultivate divine love of others in our prayers, we can be led to love not just those from other countries who have come here, but those who have stayed in their home countries as well.  If we can recognize our common humanity with Guatemalan-Americans and Korean-Americans and Nigerian-Americans, then perhaps we can also recognize our community humanity with and divine call to love Guatemalans and Koreans and Nigerians.

If we can start praying for the issue of immigration to the United States and end up praying for the well-being of God's people across the globe, then we will indeed have been transformed through prayer in ways that will make us closer to God and freer to share God's love with the world.

Discussion: Christian Perfection and the Global UMC

Kevin Watson recently posted a piece on his blog Vital Piety about the doctrine of Christian perfection in which he examines a John Wesley quote about the importance of Christian perfection (also known as entire sanctification or holiness) for the early Methodist movement.  Watson asserts, "Wesley believed that there was a particular reason for Methodism. Methodists existed because God had given them a particular corporate calling – to spread the teaching about the possibility of full sanctification."

As Watson notes, there was dispute about the importance of holiness even in Wesley's day, and Christian perfection has fallen by the wayside in much of contemporary United Methodism.  Thus, to say that the doctrine of Christian perfection is the reason for the existence of The United Methodist Church would probably fall more into the realm of normative than descriptive statements.

Moreover, while the doctrine of Christian perfection may provide a reason for Methodists to exist and to exist around the globe, it does not answer Dr. Pieterse's question from a previous blog on this site as to why United Methodists should exist as a global denomination.  Other Methodists share this doctrine; indeed, it has remained a more important doctrine in some other churches.

Share your thoughts: Does the doctrine of Christian perfection still have anything to do with why God is raising up the people called United Methodists throughout the world?