Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the fourth category:
Denominational Factors Related to Group Cohesion
Finally are two factors related not to a crisis itself, but to the group experiencing it: How strong are the senses of denominational identity and a shared set of denominational core values? Diamond writes about national identity being a particularly important factor for nations resolving crises.
6. Denominational identity
Up until 2019, a sense of denominational identity was rather high in The United Methodist Church. For many leaders and active participants in the UMC, it was important not just that they were Christians or that they were in the Wesleyan/Methodist family, but that they were specifically United Methodist. This is shown, for instance, in attachment to the cross and flame logo or denominational touchstones like the hymn “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing” or pride in UMCOR.
There was not necessarily strong agreement as to what constituted the core of that identity, and indeed that has been a matter of significant debate. Nevertheless, most parties did have a sense that a United Methodist identity, however defined, was important to them.
It is this sense of denominational identity that has kept the various parties within the UMC at the table. None were willing to walk away because each had a sense that there would be a real loss associated with no longer being part of this denominational identity.
That has changed for many US American United Methodists since General Conference 2019. Many US Americans have begun to question how important it is to them to be specifically United Methodist and to consider futures in which they are no longer part of the UMC.
This decrease in the perceived importance of denominational identity makes it less likely that the denomination will successfully resolve its crisis as an organizational whole. It increases the possibility that the crisis will be resolved by some leaving the denomination, singly or in groups.
11. Denominational core values
While, as noted above, certain touchstones of United Methodist identity are widely shared – the cross and flame, UMCOR, etc. – there is significant debate over the core of denominational identity. Nowhere is that more true than the area of denominational core values.
Debates over the status of LGBTQ persons in the church have highlighted the differences in what different groups of United Methodists perceive to be the core values of the denomination. Kendall Soulen and others have analyzed the debate between traditionalists and progressives as the consequence of different framings of the situation that emphasize either holiness and obedience or justice and liberation. Mission is a core value for many United Methodists, but that value is understood and practiced differently.
The issue of shared core values becomes even more complicated when one takes into account the international nature of the church. As I have shown for Filipino United Methodists, even when Filipinos share core values with American Traditionalists, Centrists, or Progressives, they way they understand those values and connect them to one another differs from the way US American United Methodists approach these core values.
Thus, shared core values for the denomination as an ideological and international whole may not exist.
Conclusion
This brings us to the end of the twelve factors identified by Jared Diamond as relevant to whether and how nations resolve crises. Assuming these factors have some validity for denominations as well as nations has allowed me to take stock of the UMC’s strengths and weaknesses as it attempts to resolve its current crisis of division over sexuality, declining US membership and giving, and difficult international decision-making.
Diamond does not intend his schema as mathematically predictive, and neither do I for my adaptation of his framework. It is impossible to say that if a nation or denomination has X number of factors in its favor or if it just has factors Y and Z, then it will certainly surmount its crisis. Thus, a review of the crisis-resolution factors in the UMC cannot lead to a definitive prediction of whether or nor the UMC will resolve its current crisis, let alone how.
Nonetheless, it is possible to briefly summarize some findings. While my survey of the twelve factors did identify some assets that the UMC has as it tries to resolve its crisis, the UMC also faces challenges in almost every one of these twelve factors. This should give us pause about the prospects of the UMC successfully resolving its current crisis.
In acknowledging that the UMC may not successfully resolve its current crisis, it is important to keep in mind what the opposite of resolving that crisis means. The opposite of resolving the crisis is not schism or the expulsion of one party. These scenarios resolve the crisis in one fashion or another.
No, the opposite of resolving the crisis is for the crisis to continue. That is the real danger for the UMC.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Monday, November 25, 2019
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
History as basis for United Methodist unity
This is the second 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.
Last week, I began looking at the question of what constitutes the basis of unity for The United Methodist Church. I examined whether theology could serve as a useful basis for unity and concluded it couldn’t. This week, I’d like to examine another answer which serves better than theology but ends up coming up a little short itself; that answer is history.
As a church historian, let me be the first to affirm that denominations arise out of particular historical contexts and that their present shapes are the result of historical processes that have operated on them since their formation. The United Methodist Church has a historical past that includes John and Charles Wesley, Francis Asbury, Philip Otterbein, Jacob Albrecht, the circuit riders, various schisms over race and holiness, James Thoburn, the Central Jurisdiction, commitment to temperance, and a whole host of other characters and movements.
We may be prouder of some of the pieces of our past (John Wesley’s opposition to slavery, perhaps), and we may be less proud of some of them (the racism of creating a segregated Central Jurisdiction). Some of them may resonate with us better (Charles Wesley’s hymns), and some of them may resonate with us less well (who is James Thoburn, anyway?). But to be a United Methodist is to share, in some way, this past or heritage.
There’s a difference, though, between saying denominations are historical creatures and saying history is a sufficient basis for denominational unity. To see why, imagine two high school reunions. At the first, the alum goes and has a great time. She or he enjoys seeing old friends, catching up, and reliving the glory days of their time together. The party goes long into the night.
At the second high school reunion, the alum goes, but doesn’t have a good time. He or she talks to friends from high school, but realizes after exchanging a few stories about the past that he or she no longer has anything in common with these people other than those stories about the past. She or he feels uncomfortable and leaves soon.
That’s the same way history works for denominations. In some cases, it can really make you happy with and proud of your identity as a member of a group. In other cases, it just emphasizes the differences between you and your supposed group-mates, and you leave anyway.
What makes the difference between the two cases? First, you need to identify enough with that past for it to mean something to you. If you didn’t like your high school experience, then you won’t even go to the reunion. If the past doesn’t mean anything to the people in the pews or they don’t know it, then it’s not going to further denominational unity.
The key, though, to both having the past mean something to people and to having it be a source of unity (like in the good high school reunion) is that the past can’t just be the past. It must be connected to the present. Unless we recognize who we were in high school as connected to who we are today, we are likely to find we have nothing in common with people at a reunion. Unless we recognize who we were as a denomination in the past as connected to who we are today, we are likely to find our history to be just boring stories about dead people who lived long ago.
Thus, history in and of itself is insufficient grounds for denominational unity. It doesn’t work to say, “We’re a denomination because we were a denomination in the past.” Inertia is a great force in church life, and so the answer of “we’ve always done it that way in the past” will carry you a certain distance, but it doesn’t ultimately make for vitality or the ability to move forward.
History can, however, be used as a tool to aid in the creation of denominational identity in two ways. First, examining our past can be a good source of ideas when we’re casting around to figure out what exactly it is that constitutes denominational identity. Second, telling ourselves stories about our shared past can reinforce that sense of common identity once we’ve identified what it is.
Yet we must choose that identity in the here and now. It isn’t automatically given to us by history, and the effective telling of history to create denominational unity requires a preexisting notion of common identity.
Thus, history may end up being an effective vehicle for conveying unity. Nevertheless, history must be used intentionally to create unity. Relying on unreflective notions of “how it’s always been” just isn’t good enough.
Last week, I began looking at the question of what constitutes the basis of unity for The United Methodist Church. I examined whether theology could serve as a useful basis for unity and concluded it couldn’t. This week, I’d like to examine another answer which serves better than theology but ends up coming up a little short itself; that answer is history.
As a church historian, let me be the first to affirm that denominations arise out of particular historical contexts and that their present shapes are the result of historical processes that have operated on them since their formation. The United Methodist Church has a historical past that includes John and Charles Wesley, Francis Asbury, Philip Otterbein, Jacob Albrecht, the circuit riders, various schisms over race and holiness, James Thoburn, the Central Jurisdiction, commitment to temperance, and a whole host of other characters and movements.
We may be prouder of some of the pieces of our past (John Wesley’s opposition to slavery, perhaps), and we may be less proud of some of them (the racism of creating a segregated Central Jurisdiction). Some of them may resonate with us better (Charles Wesley’s hymns), and some of them may resonate with us less well (who is James Thoburn, anyway?). But to be a United Methodist is to share, in some way, this past or heritage.
There’s a difference, though, between saying denominations are historical creatures and saying history is a sufficient basis for denominational unity. To see why, imagine two high school reunions. At the first, the alum goes and has a great time. She or he enjoys seeing old friends, catching up, and reliving the glory days of their time together. The party goes long into the night.
At the second high school reunion, the alum goes, but doesn’t have a good time. He or she talks to friends from high school, but realizes after exchanging a few stories about the past that he or she no longer has anything in common with these people other than those stories about the past. She or he feels uncomfortable and leaves soon.
That’s the same way history works for denominations. In some cases, it can really make you happy with and proud of your identity as a member of a group. In other cases, it just emphasizes the differences between you and your supposed group-mates, and you leave anyway.
What makes the difference between the two cases? First, you need to identify enough with that past for it to mean something to you. If you didn’t like your high school experience, then you won’t even go to the reunion. If the past doesn’t mean anything to the people in the pews or they don’t know it, then it’s not going to further denominational unity.
The key, though, to both having the past mean something to people and to having it be a source of unity (like in the good high school reunion) is that the past can’t just be the past. It must be connected to the present. Unless we recognize who we were in high school as connected to who we are today, we are likely to find we have nothing in common with people at a reunion. Unless we recognize who we were as a denomination in the past as connected to who we are today, we are likely to find our history to be just boring stories about dead people who lived long ago.
Thus, history in and of itself is insufficient grounds for denominational unity. It doesn’t work to say, “We’re a denomination because we were a denomination in the past.” Inertia is a great force in church life, and so the answer of “we’ve always done it that way in the past” will carry you a certain distance, but it doesn’t ultimately make for vitality or the ability to move forward.
History can, however, be used as a tool to aid in the creation of denominational identity in two ways. First, examining our past can be a good source of ideas when we’re casting around to figure out what exactly it is that constitutes denominational identity. Second, telling ourselves stories about our shared past can reinforce that sense of common identity once we’ve identified what it is.
Yet we must choose that identity in the here and now. It isn’t automatically given to us by history, and the effective telling of history to create denominational unity requires a preexisting notion of common identity.
Thus, history may end up being an effective vehicle for conveying unity. Nevertheless, history must be used intentionally to create unity. Relying on unreflective notions of “how it’s always been” just isn’t good enough.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Robert Hunt on "Wonder, Love and Praise"
This blog post is one in a series containing responses to the denomination's proposed ecclesiology document, "Wonder, Love and Praise." These responses are written by United Methodist scholars and practitioners around the world. This piece is written by Dr. Robert Hunt, Director of Global Theological Education, Professor of Christian Mission and Interreligious Relations, and Director, Center for Evangelism and Missional Church Studies at Perkins School of Theology.
There are two ways of approaching identity, not least the identity of the Christian Church. One is ontological. What is its essence? How is it rooted in the essential characteristics of the God who called it into being? This is the approach taken by the document of the Faith and Order Committee of the United Methodist Church entitled Wonder, Love and Praise.
I’d like to suggest an alternative approach, which is genealogical: seeking out the identity of the church by inquiry into the process by which it was brought into being.
Such an approach might appear to begin with the calling of Jesus' disciples to their task of continuing his ministry and going into the world to declare the gospel of his death and resurrection. Yet in truth we must begin further back. Jesus, in describing his mission, continually references the prophets of Israel and even Moses. Paul sees the origins of Christian faith in Abraham. And the Jerusalem council looks to God’s covenant with Noah as the way in which to understand a Gentile Church. And of course, there is Hebrews 12. In short, a genealogy of the Christian church should begin with God’s creation of the world through the calling of Israel into being.
Beginning with the Old Testament, and there is no space for a fuller discussion here, has been and will continue to be extraordinarily fruitful for the self-understanding of the Church as it faces the challenge of unity and diversity. This is because among other things we will find in that story two themes: first the demand the Israel be pure, and second the demand that Israel accept and include those beyond its borders who bring with them precisely the danger of impurity. It isn’t a matter of ambiguity. Israel must accomplish two things that in human terms appear contradictory: to remain utterly faithful to God and free of anything that violates God’s law, and to be utterly faithful to God and be continually engaged with the nations who are both the realm of impurity, and the realm of God’s saving action even for Israel. And it is a story in which the demands for purity and inclusion play out quite literally through genealogies, leading up to the mixed genealogy of David and ultimately Jesus.
It is moreover a story that continues through the ministry of Jesus as he and his followers continually address their own insider/outsider status in relation to what was in his time an international Jewish community emerging out of ancient Israel. What it means to be in continuity with Israel yet different from Israel was a question of identity both communities wrestled with as they came to understand themselves in relation to one another.
Yet as important as the story of Israel becoming Judaism is to Christian identity, the self-understanding of the Church as the means by which the ministry of Jesus continues in the world is more encompassing.
To understand the church as the Body of Christ continuing the ministry of Jesus the Christ we must begin with that ministry. This includes not only his preaching and teaching, but his self-declarations (The Son of Man passages for example) his miracles, and his death, resurrection, and ascension. These lay the groundwork for understanding the ministry that Jesus commands the apostles to fulfill, and thus represent both its purpose and the conditions under which the church will evolve as it realizes that purpose. Again, a full exploration of the relevant passages exceeds the bounds of this short essay, but can be reasonably summarized by saying that the mission of Jesus was to both proclaim and enact the nearness of the Reign of God wherever and whenever he was present. Indeed, he can be recognized as the Lord of God’s Reign, the Christ because in his words and deeds he manifests that specific form of Lordship associated with God’s Reign and no other.
Passages in which Jesus then sends his disciple to continue his work (Luke 10) help clarify how the mission of the church is both the same and different from that of the Christ. The disciples are not lords, they are servants, or perhaps better in English stewards, since as servants they have authority from their Lord. (Luke 7:1-9, Luke 9:1, 10:19) We recognize the collective identity of the disciples through the ways in which they imperfectly enact their stewardship of God’s ruling authority. The story is the basis for understanding their imperfect identity with Jesus Christ.
Those passages in which Jesus commands the re-enactment of his death and resurrection, and thus creates the ritual that constitutes the inner life of the fellowship of apostles (Mark 14:12-21) clarify that picture further. While it belongs to Jesus alone to offer his life on the cross, it belongs to the church to remember and re-enact the passion. This reminds us, along with the Pauline accounts of what he received and passed on, that presence of the living Christ within the Body of Christ arises out of faithful obedience to his command, which precedes theological reflection on the relationship of presence to ritual. (I Corinthians 11:23-26)
The post-resurrection commissioning through which Jesus explicitly sends his apostles out into the world gives us a deeper understanding of how the proclamation of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection will become central to enacting the Reign of God. (Matthew 28:16 - 20, Acts 1:8) Their obedience, and failures of obedience, as they live a life in mission then give a distinctive shape to the identity of the apostolic church that emerges both from the apostolic stewardship of the growing body of disciples and their witness to the death and resurrection until his return. (John 21:15-25, Acts 2:15 - 36, I Corinthians 11:26, Romans 8:15-027)
Eventually, if we trace the genealogy of the Church through the various churches as they appear in the New Testament, and the emerging theological expressions of their self-understanding (I John 3 for example, but in some sense the entire New Testament corpus taken as a whole), we begin to get a full sense of what it means to be church. It is rooted in the command of Christ, the enacted fidelity of the apostolic founders of the apostolic church, and the experience in the life of a church of the presence of the resurrected Christ as it engages in faithfully continuing that mission.
Each of these the two approaches I have mentioned, ontological and genealogical, has its merits. Each has its place in the ongoing self-discovery by the Church of its identity. But I would argue that in our time, with the more general cultural ways of understanding identity focusing on narrative, a genealogical approach will be more fruitful than an ontological approach. It will be more accessible as well to those who possess only, or primarily the scripture read inductively as a resource.
Put more simply, if we are learning what it means to faithfully follow the command of Jesus Christ together it may become easier for us to go to church together.
There are two ways of approaching identity, not least the identity of the Christian Church. One is ontological. What is its essence? How is it rooted in the essential characteristics of the God who called it into being? This is the approach taken by the document of the Faith and Order Committee of the United Methodist Church entitled Wonder, Love and Praise.
I’d like to suggest an alternative approach, which is genealogical: seeking out the identity of the church by inquiry into the process by which it was brought into being.
Such an approach might appear to begin with the calling of Jesus' disciples to their task of continuing his ministry and going into the world to declare the gospel of his death and resurrection. Yet in truth we must begin further back. Jesus, in describing his mission, continually references the prophets of Israel and even Moses. Paul sees the origins of Christian faith in Abraham. And the Jerusalem council looks to God’s covenant with Noah as the way in which to understand a Gentile Church. And of course, there is Hebrews 12. In short, a genealogy of the Christian church should begin with God’s creation of the world through the calling of Israel into being.
Beginning with the Old Testament, and there is no space for a fuller discussion here, has been and will continue to be extraordinarily fruitful for the self-understanding of the Church as it faces the challenge of unity and diversity. This is because among other things we will find in that story two themes: first the demand the Israel be pure, and second the demand that Israel accept and include those beyond its borders who bring with them precisely the danger of impurity. It isn’t a matter of ambiguity. Israel must accomplish two things that in human terms appear contradictory: to remain utterly faithful to God and free of anything that violates God’s law, and to be utterly faithful to God and be continually engaged with the nations who are both the realm of impurity, and the realm of God’s saving action even for Israel. And it is a story in which the demands for purity and inclusion play out quite literally through genealogies, leading up to the mixed genealogy of David and ultimately Jesus.
It is moreover a story that continues through the ministry of Jesus as he and his followers continually address their own insider/outsider status in relation to what was in his time an international Jewish community emerging out of ancient Israel. What it means to be in continuity with Israel yet different from Israel was a question of identity both communities wrestled with as they came to understand themselves in relation to one another.
Yet as important as the story of Israel becoming Judaism is to Christian identity, the self-understanding of the Church as the means by which the ministry of Jesus continues in the world is more encompassing.
To understand the church as the Body of Christ continuing the ministry of Jesus the Christ we must begin with that ministry. This includes not only his preaching and teaching, but his self-declarations (The Son of Man passages for example) his miracles, and his death, resurrection, and ascension. These lay the groundwork for understanding the ministry that Jesus commands the apostles to fulfill, and thus represent both its purpose and the conditions under which the church will evolve as it realizes that purpose. Again, a full exploration of the relevant passages exceeds the bounds of this short essay, but can be reasonably summarized by saying that the mission of Jesus was to both proclaim and enact the nearness of the Reign of God wherever and whenever he was present. Indeed, he can be recognized as the Lord of God’s Reign, the Christ because in his words and deeds he manifests that specific form of Lordship associated with God’s Reign and no other.
Passages in which Jesus then sends his disciple to continue his work (Luke 10) help clarify how the mission of the church is both the same and different from that of the Christ. The disciples are not lords, they are servants, or perhaps better in English stewards, since as servants they have authority from their Lord. (Luke 7:1-9, Luke 9:1, 10:19) We recognize the collective identity of the disciples through the ways in which they imperfectly enact their stewardship of God’s ruling authority. The story is the basis for understanding their imperfect identity with Jesus Christ.
Those passages in which Jesus commands the re-enactment of his death and resurrection, and thus creates the ritual that constitutes the inner life of the fellowship of apostles (Mark 14:12-21) clarify that picture further. While it belongs to Jesus alone to offer his life on the cross, it belongs to the church to remember and re-enact the passion. This reminds us, along with the Pauline accounts of what he received and passed on, that presence of the living Christ within the Body of Christ arises out of faithful obedience to his command, which precedes theological reflection on the relationship of presence to ritual. (I Corinthians 11:23-26)
The post-resurrection commissioning through which Jesus explicitly sends his apostles out into the world gives us a deeper understanding of how the proclamation of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection will become central to enacting the Reign of God. (Matthew 28:16 - 20, Acts 1:8) Their obedience, and failures of obedience, as they live a life in mission then give a distinctive shape to the identity of the apostolic church that emerges both from the apostolic stewardship of the growing body of disciples and their witness to the death and resurrection until his return. (John 21:15-25, Acts 2:15 - 36, I Corinthians 11:26, Romans 8:15-027)
Eventually, if we trace the genealogy of the Church through the various churches as they appear in the New Testament, and the emerging theological expressions of their self-understanding (I John 3 for example, but in some sense the entire New Testament corpus taken as a whole), we begin to get a full sense of what it means to be church. It is rooted in the command of Christ, the enacted fidelity of the apostolic founders of the apostolic church, and the experience in the life of a church of the presence of the resurrected Christ as it engages in faithfully continuing that mission.
Each of these the two approaches I have mentioned, ontological and genealogical, has its merits. Each has its place in the ongoing self-discovery by the Church of its identity. But I would argue that in our time, with the more general cultural ways of understanding identity focusing on narrative, a genealogical approach will be more fruitful than an ontological approach. It will be more accessible as well to those who possess only, or primarily the scripture read inductively as a resource.
Put more simply, if we are learning what it means to faithfully follow the command of Jesus Christ together it may become easier for us to go to church together.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Michael Nausner: The Need of a New Cultural Imagination in Times of Migration
Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. Michael Nausner, Professor of Theology, Prorektor, and Dean of International Affairs at the Reutlingen School of Theology.
Changing Conditions
We live in times of global migration. Migration of course has always been a basic human condition, but the visibility of migrating and fleeing people has increased dramatically since the summer of 2015 in Germany and in many other places in Europe. By the end of the year roughly a million refugees had made their way into Germany alone. I interpret this situation not so much as a sudden crisis that has erupted due to a war, but as an expression of years, decades, and centuries of colonial rule, unjust economic relations, and cultural imperialism.
Whatever our analysis of the reasons of this sudden presence of many refugees may be, we have now reached a stage in which not only the media is full of reports and stories about refugees all over Europe, but we are encountering them on a daily basis on the streets, in the supermarkets, and in public buildings. This means that we are now experiencing with new intensity the inequalities in our global community that have been a reality for a long time.
My hope is that this new visibility eventually turns into a realization that a change of lifestyle in the global west is needed, and into an awareness that we more than ever live in a global and planetary community in which we are mutually dependent of each other. At certain instances such a change of mindset can be noticed already, not least in Methodist congregations in Austria and Germany. Also students and faculty at Reutlingen School of Theology – a United Methodist related institution – are actively involved in having table fellowship with and teaching German to refugees from Eritrea and Syria. Regular eye contact is an effective medicine against stereotypical imagination of the others.
As time is passing I also notice in media and in everyday life an increasing anxiety and aggressiveness aimed at refugees. The horrors at the borders of Macedonia are only one symptom of such anxiety. They are signs of toughening attitudes that win out over human dignity and human rights. But crimes against refugees exceed the crimes committed by refugees both in terms of numbers and severity. Nevertheless the terminology used in the media to describe such large numbers of human beings on the move has been increasingly inflammatory. Downfall of the occident is just one of these allegedly descriptive terms. The result in the imagination of the general public often is a generalization of “the refugees” and what they are about as well as a tendency toward polarizing asylum seekers and the sedentary population, or even worse: asylum seekers and disadvantaged citizens as necessarily in competition with each other.
Under such conditions I believe that the Christian community is called to contribute to a re-imagination of cultural identity. And the global Methodist connection can play a pivotal role in such a re-imagination. Standing in the Jewish-Christian tradition, it has decisive resources to offer in situations of quickly changing cultural conditions. It can help in the struggle for new narratives in order to develop new strategies of encountering our new “others” with dignity.
The Need of New Narratives
Europe in the last decade or so has developed a very worrisome re-nationalization, in part due to the steady influx of refugees (both inner- and outer-European) and the increasing number of asylum seekers. Old stereotypes about “pure heritage” and the possibility (and alleged necessity) of clear cut distinction lines between cultural spheres are en vogue again. The symbolism we surround ourselves with in the European countries (and in a kind of mutual mirror effect in neighboring countries as well) oftentimes is one of old dreams of superiority. Such symbolism triggers narratives in Europe that are detrimental to a constructive view of current social and cultural conditions.
The warrior on the horse is a case in point. Especially since the sudden rise of Muslim refugees coming to the EU in late 2015 the message of the old visual representations becomes problematic. When a new Europe tries to emerge, falling back on old imaginations is counterproductive. In times of rising tensions between Turkey and the EU the prominence of equestrian statues such as the one of pasha Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople in 1453, and king Ian Sobieski III, the “liberator of Europe” from the Turks in 1683, becomes increasingly problematic. They mirror each other in terms of exclusive territorial and cultural claims in times when the cultural realms are as intimately intertwined as never before.
The constructed nature of such imaginations is easily forgotten when conflicts arise. Do we not risk these days to fall back into the simplifying narratives of the past in which one cultural sphere militantly opposes another one?
Instead a theologically rooted conviction that belonging to different cultures/worlds is part of what it means to be human may be one of the ways in which Methodists around the world could contribute to a more constructive view of the coexistence between human beings on the move and human beings in sheltered conditions. After all a rapidly increasing number of people know themselves to belong to different worlds. But do we have the imagination; do we have good narratives to accommodate such double or multiple belonging?
Belonging to Different Worlds
A theological view of the human being and of human community shows a certain analogy to cultural multiple belonging in as much as Christians through the ages have understood themselves not only to belong to the societal community of everyday life but simultaneously also to a spiritual community that exceeds tangible social connections. There is in other words a certain metaphorical doubleness of Christian existence. Christians are not only members of a certain social group, but always also members of the household of God. Christians are not only citizens of a certain nation, but always also citizens of God’s kingdom. A rethinking of Christian identity as a double identity in the deepest existential sense may help toward a re-imagination of our migratory situation, and it may facilitate new forms of participation with migrants who painfully experience a certain doubleness on a daily basis.
The Second Century Letter to Diognetus is an early Christian document describing such existential double belonging of Christians in very concrete terms: “They live in their own countries, but only as aliens. They have a share in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. […] They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.”
The tension between being citizen and foreigner simultaneously – metaphorically speaking – needs to be maintained in the life of Christians. I believe a rethinking of such theological understanding of belonging to two worlds can stir our imagination in positive ways in a social situation in which migrants are denied a double belonging.
Changing Conditions
We live in times of global migration. Migration of course has always been a basic human condition, but the visibility of migrating and fleeing people has increased dramatically since the summer of 2015 in Germany and in many other places in Europe. By the end of the year roughly a million refugees had made their way into Germany alone. I interpret this situation not so much as a sudden crisis that has erupted due to a war, but as an expression of years, decades, and centuries of colonial rule, unjust economic relations, and cultural imperialism.
Whatever our analysis of the reasons of this sudden presence of many refugees may be, we have now reached a stage in which not only the media is full of reports and stories about refugees all over Europe, but we are encountering them on a daily basis on the streets, in the supermarkets, and in public buildings. This means that we are now experiencing with new intensity the inequalities in our global community that have been a reality for a long time.
My hope is that this new visibility eventually turns into a realization that a change of lifestyle in the global west is needed, and into an awareness that we more than ever live in a global and planetary community in which we are mutually dependent of each other. At certain instances such a change of mindset can be noticed already, not least in Methodist congregations in Austria and Germany. Also students and faculty at Reutlingen School of Theology – a United Methodist related institution – are actively involved in having table fellowship with and teaching German to refugees from Eritrea and Syria. Regular eye contact is an effective medicine against stereotypical imagination of the others.
As time is passing I also notice in media and in everyday life an increasing anxiety and aggressiveness aimed at refugees. The horrors at the borders of Macedonia are only one symptom of such anxiety. They are signs of toughening attitudes that win out over human dignity and human rights. But crimes against refugees exceed the crimes committed by refugees both in terms of numbers and severity. Nevertheless the terminology used in the media to describe such large numbers of human beings on the move has been increasingly inflammatory. Downfall of the occident is just one of these allegedly descriptive terms. The result in the imagination of the general public often is a generalization of “the refugees” and what they are about as well as a tendency toward polarizing asylum seekers and the sedentary population, or even worse: asylum seekers and disadvantaged citizens as necessarily in competition with each other.
Under such conditions I believe that the Christian community is called to contribute to a re-imagination of cultural identity. And the global Methodist connection can play a pivotal role in such a re-imagination. Standing in the Jewish-Christian tradition, it has decisive resources to offer in situations of quickly changing cultural conditions. It can help in the struggle for new narratives in order to develop new strategies of encountering our new “others” with dignity.
The Need of New Narratives
Europe in the last decade or so has developed a very worrisome re-nationalization, in part due to the steady influx of refugees (both inner- and outer-European) and the increasing number of asylum seekers. Old stereotypes about “pure heritage” and the possibility (and alleged necessity) of clear cut distinction lines between cultural spheres are en vogue again. The symbolism we surround ourselves with in the European countries (and in a kind of mutual mirror effect in neighboring countries as well) oftentimes is one of old dreams of superiority. Such symbolism triggers narratives in Europe that are detrimental to a constructive view of current social and cultural conditions.
The warrior on the horse is a case in point. Especially since the sudden rise of Muslim refugees coming to the EU in late 2015 the message of the old visual representations becomes problematic. When a new Europe tries to emerge, falling back on old imaginations is counterproductive. In times of rising tensions between Turkey and the EU the prominence of equestrian statues such as the one of pasha Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople in 1453, and king Ian Sobieski III, the “liberator of Europe” from the Turks in 1683, becomes increasingly problematic. They mirror each other in terms of exclusive territorial and cultural claims in times when the cultural realms are as intimately intertwined as never before.
The constructed nature of such imaginations is easily forgotten when conflicts arise. Do we not risk these days to fall back into the simplifying narratives of the past in which one cultural sphere militantly opposes another one?
Instead a theologically rooted conviction that belonging to different cultures/worlds is part of what it means to be human may be one of the ways in which Methodists around the world could contribute to a more constructive view of the coexistence between human beings on the move and human beings in sheltered conditions. After all a rapidly increasing number of people know themselves to belong to different worlds. But do we have the imagination; do we have good narratives to accommodate such double or multiple belonging?
Belonging to Different Worlds
A theological view of the human being and of human community shows a certain analogy to cultural multiple belonging in as much as Christians through the ages have understood themselves not only to belong to the societal community of everyday life but simultaneously also to a spiritual community that exceeds tangible social connections. There is in other words a certain metaphorical doubleness of Christian existence. Christians are not only members of a certain social group, but always also members of the household of God. Christians are not only citizens of a certain nation, but always also citizens of God’s kingdom. A rethinking of Christian identity as a double identity in the deepest existential sense may help toward a re-imagination of our migratory situation, and it may facilitate new forms of participation with migrants who painfully experience a certain doubleness on a daily basis.
The Second Century Letter to Diognetus is an early Christian document describing such existential double belonging of Christians in very concrete terms: “They live in their own countries, but only as aliens. They have a share in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. […] They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.”
The tension between being citizen and foreigner simultaneously – metaphorically speaking – needs to be maintained in the life of Christians. I believe a rethinking of such theological understanding of belonging to two worlds can stir our imagination in positive ways in a social situation in which migrants are denied a double belonging.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Arun Jones: How Pentecostals can be a global church
This blog post is the second in a two-part series by Arun Jones, Dan and Lillian Hankey Associate Professor of World Evangelism at Candler School of Theology. In these two pieces, Dr. Jones examines how other Christian traditions
function as global churches for the sake of making comparisons with The United Methodist Church.
Several months ago I offered some suggestions about how Roman Catholicism is able to hold together as a global Christian body in today’s world, and said that the other Christian tradition (perhaps “stream” is a better word) that accomplishes this well is Pentecostalism. As in the case of Roman Catholicism, my observations do not come from an in-depth study of Pentecostals, but from personal experiences in various parts of Asia, Africa and North America.
To be clear, I do not think Catholics and Pentecostals understand “church” in the same way (they have very different ecclesiologies). The contrast between Catholicism and Pentecostalism is instructive, and shows us that there is no one sure way to be a global church. Paradoxically however, I think that often their different ways of being “church” accomplish similar ends when it comes to being global.
First of all, what is it that unites Pentecostals? I would venture to say that whereas the Roman Catholic Church is held together by an organization and regularized liturgies, Pentecostalism is held together by personal relationships. Certainly there are important international Pentecostal denominational bodies, such as the Assemblies of God, but personal relationships are the real glue that binds together Pentecostals worldwide. Networking is what makes for the global nature of Pentecostalism. So Pentecostals who are part of a world-wide connections get along with each other, and are generally of the same theological/ecclesial disposition. If things don’t work out on a personal level, they leave the network and join/form another one. Roman Catholicism, held together by organization and liturgy, can embrace people who really don’t agree (or at times even like!) each other.
Secondly, both Catholics and Pentecostals have a counterweight to the authority of Scripture, and this counterweight can provide for much needed flexibility. For Catholics, it is Christian tradition; for Pentecostals, it is the work of the Holy Spirit who can lead us into new and uncharted territory (as the scriptures attest). So Pentecostals can improvise as they form new global connective bonds. This is not to say that Scripture is unimportant for Pentecostals: quite the opposite is true. Yet Scripture always needs to be interpreted, and Pentecostals can quite rapidly give fresh interpretations of Scripture, based on their understanding of what the Holy Spirit is calling them to do in new situations.
Thirdly, I have been surprised at the amount of English used in Pentecostal services (both in the singing and speaking) I have attended in non-English speaking parts of the world. I think that many (certainly not all) Pentecostals who are part of thriving global networks do not simply use English for convenience sake, but the language is a sign of connection to American evangelical Christianity. In other words, contemporary American evangelicalism is a mythic vision of church that helps to bind together Pentecostals around the world. This binding occurs first at the level of ideas (“that vision is what we aspire to”) and then at personal and material levels (“let us meet others who aspire to that vision, let us imitate the American evangelical lifestyle in some way”). The worldwide popularity of the prosperity gospel is, I believe, another manifestation of the connection that the mythic vision of American evangelicalism provides. It seems to me that this mythic vision functions like the idea of “Rome” for Roman Catholics – the vast majority of whom have never been to that city, but revere it all the same.
Finally, Pentecostalism takes seriously the claim that spiritual forces are not merely existing but are active all around us, and within us. This give Pentecostals a theological language and certain religious practices that are simultaneously easily understood and shared around the world, but also are open to thoroughly local interpretation. In ways that are analogous to Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism has developed language and gestures that are common and shared, but can mean very different things in different places and cultures.
For at least these four reasons, it seems to me, Pentecostals are at the forefront of creating worldwide Christianity, albeit through a multiplicity of organizations and fellowships. Pentecostalism provides a radically different alternative to Roman Catholicism to be a global church. (The Catholic charismatic movement, interestingly, draws on both traditions.) However, the different alternatives respond in their own way to some common requirements, which I have hinted at above, for a truly global Christianity.
Several months ago I offered some suggestions about how Roman Catholicism is able to hold together as a global Christian body in today’s world, and said that the other Christian tradition (perhaps “stream” is a better word) that accomplishes this well is Pentecostalism. As in the case of Roman Catholicism, my observations do not come from an in-depth study of Pentecostals, but from personal experiences in various parts of Asia, Africa and North America.
To be clear, I do not think Catholics and Pentecostals understand “church” in the same way (they have very different ecclesiologies). The contrast between Catholicism and Pentecostalism is instructive, and shows us that there is no one sure way to be a global church. Paradoxically however, I think that often their different ways of being “church” accomplish similar ends when it comes to being global.
First of all, what is it that unites Pentecostals? I would venture to say that whereas the Roman Catholic Church is held together by an organization and regularized liturgies, Pentecostalism is held together by personal relationships. Certainly there are important international Pentecostal denominational bodies, such as the Assemblies of God, but personal relationships are the real glue that binds together Pentecostals worldwide. Networking is what makes for the global nature of Pentecostalism. So Pentecostals who are part of a world-wide connections get along with each other, and are generally of the same theological/ecclesial disposition. If things don’t work out on a personal level, they leave the network and join/form another one. Roman Catholicism, held together by organization and liturgy, can embrace people who really don’t agree (or at times even like!) each other.
Secondly, both Catholics and Pentecostals have a counterweight to the authority of Scripture, and this counterweight can provide for much needed flexibility. For Catholics, it is Christian tradition; for Pentecostals, it is the work of the Holy Spirit who can lead us into new and uncharted territory (as the scriptures attest). So Pentecostals can improvise as they form new global connective bonds. This is not to say that Scripture is unimportant for Pentecostals: quite the opposite is true. Yet Scripture always needs to be interpreted, and Pentecostals can quite rapidly give fresh interpretations of Scripture, based on their understanding of what the Holy Spirit is calling them to do in new situations.
Thirdly, I have been surprised at the amount of English used in Pentecostal services (both in the singing and speaking) I have attended in non-English speaking parts of the world. I think that many (certainly not all) Pentecostals who are part of thriving global networks do not simply use English for convenience sake, but the language is a sign of connection to American evangelical Christianity. In other words, contemporary American evangelicalism is a mythic vision of church that helps to bind together Pentecostals around the world. This binding occurs first at the level of ideas (“that vision is what we aspire to”) and then at personal and material levels (“let us meet others who aspire to that vision, let us imitate the American evangelical lifestyle in some way”). The worldwide popularity of the prosperity gospel is, I believe, another manifestation of the connection that the mythic vision of American evangelicalism provides. It seems to me that this mythic vision functions like the idea of “Rome” for Roman Catholics – the vast majority of whom have never been to that city, but revere it all the same.
Finally, Pentecostalism takes seriously the claim that spiritual forces are not merely existing but are active all around us, and within us. This give Pentecostals a theological language and certain religious practices that are simultaneously easily understood and shared around the world, but also are open to thoroughly local interpretation. In ways that are analogous to Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism has developed language and gestures that are common and shared, but can mean very different things in different places and cultures.
For at least these four reasons, it seems to me, Pentecostals are at the forefront of creating worldwide Christianity, albeit through a multiplicity of organizations and fellowships. Pentecostalism provides a radically different alternative to Roman Catholicism to be a global church. (The Catholic charismatic movement, interestingly, draws on both traditions.) However, the different alternatives respond in their own way to some common requirements, which I have hinted at above, for a truly global Christianity.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
What United Methodist content would you put in humanity's digital library?
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.
United Methodist Communications recently announced its collaboration with a company called Outernet. Outernet has the ambitious goal of connecting every person in the world to freely-accessible content via satellite.
The collection of content that Outernet is assembling is being referred to as "humanity's public library." The agreement between Outernet and United Methodist Communications is essentially that UM Communications will contribute some content to this global digital library. UM Communications is the first faith-based organization to agree to do so.
What exactly that content will be has yet to be announced. Outernet began the selection process this last weekend at a conference in Uganda in conjunction with receiving input electronically from all over the world. Presumably UM Communications will have some say in recommending what they think would be appropriate content that they can provide.
This raises the question, though, of what United Methodist content should belong in "humanity's public library." What United Methodist documents, text, and pictures are important enough and demonstrate United Methodism's unique contribution to humanity that they should be included in this collection?
I think this is a useful question for United Methodists to reflect on as part of discerning not only what it means to be a global church, but what it means to be a church that is part of a much larger global community. The United Methodist Church's 12 million members is a tiny fraction of all of humanity. We would like to think that we have something to offer to the rest of humanity, but we should be humble and realistic in discerning what that is.
So, readers, what do you think? Share your ideas for what United Methodist content should belong in humanity's public library in the content section below.
United Methodist Communications recently announced its collaboration with a company called Outernet. Outernet has the ambitious goal of connecting every person in the world to freely-accessible content via satellite.
The collection of content that Outernet is assembling is being referred to as "humanity's public library." The agreement between Outernet and United Methodist Communications is essentially that UM Communications will contribute some content to this global digital library. UM Communications is the first faith-based organization to agree to do so.
What exactly that content will be has yet to be announced. Outernet began the selection process this last weekend at a conference in Uganda in conjunction with receiving input electronically from all over the world. Presumably UM Communications will have some say in recommending what they think would be appropriate content that they can provide.
This raises the question, though, of what United Methodist content should belong in "humanity's public library." What United Methodist documents, text, and pictures are important enough and demonstrate United Methodism's unique contribution to humanity that they should be included in this collection?
I think this is a useful question for United Methodists to reflect on as part of discerning not only what it means to be a global church, but what it means to be a church that is part of a much larger global community. The United Methodist Church's 12 million members is a tiny fraction of all of humanity. We would like to think that we have something to offer to the rest of humanity, but we should be humble and realistic in discerning what that is.
So, readers, what do you think? Share your ideas for what United Methodist content should belong in humanity's public library in the content section below.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Arun Jones: How the Catholics can be a global church
This blog post is the first in a two-part series by Arun Jones, Dan and Lillian Hankey Associate Professor of World Evangelism at Candler School of Theology. In these two pieces, Dr. Jones examines how other Christian traditions function as global churches for the sake of making comparisons with The United Methodist Church.
It seems to me that there are two Christian traditions that are successfully pulling off the feat of being truly global in today’s world. These are Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism. I think they are successful for very different reasons – their mutual antagonism in many places speaks to that difference! Let me reflect on how the Catholics can be global.
My experience of Roman Catholicism is as much a lived experience as an academic one. While my courses in church history and in Roman Catholic missiology have provided me with my academic knowledge, living with Roman Catholics (including close family members) in India, the Philippines and the U.S.A. is really the source of these reflections on global Catholicism. As I moved from one country to another in my young adulthood, I was struck at how different Catholicism is in each context: how the self-understanding of what it means to be Catholic changed from country to country. Despite my disagreements with certain Catholic doctrine, I have wondered in amazement, “How is this possible?”
Roman Catholics are bound together by a common liturgy (for the most part – however, there are at least 3 different Roman Catholic rites in India alone) and a common set of doctrines and laws. However, Catholicism allows for flexibility in the following ways.
It allows for multiple readings of common practices and texts. By “reading” I mean something close to “interpretation.” The impact of words, of teachings, of gestures is different in different cultural, national and linguistic contexts. And Roman Catholicism, on the whole, is fine with that. I think most of us Protestants (and the press) get so caught up with the few internal fights that Catholics have about proper interpretation of doctrine and practice that we forget the many, many ways in which our sisters and brothers are happily “reading” their faith differently.
Secondly, Roman Catholicism allows for multiple practices. There are devotions, saints, liturgies, pilgrimages, and other practices in different contexts that the Catholics in those contexts understand to be absolutely vital to their faith, and which are completely irrelevant to Catholics outside the context. I was struck by this the first time I read about the devotion to the black Nazarene in Manila, the Philippines, and how I had heard of nothing like it in India. Yet that devotion is vital to the faith of millions of Filipino Catholics.
Thirdly, Catholicism allows for multiple Catholic identities. A few years ago I was having a pleasant conversation with some Catholic priests in New Delhi, and I asked them about the discussion on priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church in India. This particular group of priests looked at me like I was out of my mind – for them, at least, there was no discussion! I then realized how the Indian religious context, which has a very strong tradition of holy men and holy women who are celibate ascetics, could very well make celibacy a prize and not a burden for priests and nuns. Similarly the various branches of the Orthodox tradition in India take great pride in the fact that their bishops must be celibate. In the Philippines, on the other hand, I found lay people who felt sorry for priests because they could not marry, and even excused priests who were known to have a “family” somewhere. For Filipino priests and nuns, Catholic identity lies elsewhere. And the same goes for laity – to be an American Catholic is quite a unique experience in worldwide Catholicism in some ways. I have come to the conclusion that in the U.S.A., Roman Catholicism is paradoxically the largest denomination and yet thrives on an identity that sees itself as a minority Christian tradition.
My point here is not to minimize the problems of the Roman Catholic Church – we all have problems, and will have them until Christ returns in glory – but to point out how the Roman Catholic Church in some ways handles the issue of unity in diversity. We Protestants are probably too logocentric, insisting on “correct” readings first of Scripture and subsequently of doctrine and subsequently of practice, to deal with diversity the way our Catholic sisters and brothers do (and the diversity I have pointed out is mostly a lay initiative). So we United Methodists are floating ideas of having different “Disciplines” for different parts of the world, instead of giving flexibility in “reading” the same Discipline. But as the difficulties of the worldwide nature of Protestantism are making clear, I don’t think we have come up with a good alternative to the Roman Catholic way of being catholic. And maybe reflecting on the Roman Catholic experience can help us to start thinking differently about what worldwide United Methodism can and actually should mean.
It seems to me that there are two Christian traditions that are successfully pulling off the feat of being truly global in today’s world. These are Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism. I think they are successful for very different reasons – their mutual antagonism in many places speaks to that difference! Let me reflect on how the Catholics can be global.
My experience of Roman Catholicism is as much a lived experience as an academic one. While my courses in church history and in Roman Catholic missiology have provided me with my academic knowledge, living with Roman Catholics (including close family members) in India, the Philippines and the U.S.A. is really the source of these reflections on global Catholicism. As I moved from one country to another in my young adulthood, I was struck at how different Catholicism is in each context: how the self-understanding of what it means to be Catholic changed from country to country. Despite my disagreements with certain Catholic doctrine, I have wondered in amazement, “How is this possible?”
Roman Catholics are bound together by a common liturgy (for the most part – however, there are at least 3 different Roman Catholic rites in India alone) and a common set of doctrines and laws. However, Catholicism allows for flexibility in the following ways.
It allows for multiple readings of common practices and texts. By “reading” I mean something close to “interpretation.” The impact of words, of teachings, of gestures is different in different cultural, national and linguistic contexts. And Roman Catholicism, on the whole, is fine with that. I think most of us Protestants (and the press) get so caught up with the few internal fights that Catholics have about proper interpretation of doctrine and practice that we forget the many, many ways in which our sisters and brothers are happily “reading” their faith differently.
Secondly, Roman Catholicism allows for multiple practices. There are devotions, saints, liturgies, pilgrimages, and other practices in different contexts that the Catholics in those contexts understand to be absolutely vital to their faith, and which are completely irrelevant to Catholics outside the context. I was struck by this the first time I read about the devotion to the black Nazarene in Manila, the Philippines, and how I had heard of nothing like it in India. Yet that devotion is vital to the faith of millions of Filipino Catholics.
Thirdly, Catholicism allows for multiple Catholic identities. A few years ago I was having a pleasant conversation with some Catholic priests in New Delhi, and I asked them about the discussion on priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church in India. This particular group of priests looked at me like I was out of my mind – for them, at least, there was no discussion! I then realized how the Indian religious context, which has a very strong tradition of holy men and holy women who are celibate ascetics, could very well make celibacy a prize and not a burden for priests and nuns. Similarly the various branches of the Orthodox tradition in India take great pride in the fact that their bishops must be celibate. In the Philippines, on the other hand, I found lay people who felt sorry for priests because they could not marry, and even excused priests who were known to have a “family” somewhere. For Filipino priests and nuns, Catholic identity lies elsewhere. And the same goes for laity – to be an American Catholic is quite a unique experience in worldwide Catholicism in some ways. I have come to the conclusion that in the U.S.A., Roman Catholicism is paradoxically the largest denomination and yet thrives on an identity that sees itself as a minority Christian tradition.
My point here is not to minimize the problems of the Roman Catholic Church – we all have problems, and will have them until Christ returns in glory – but to point out how the Roman Catholic Church in some ways handles the issue of unity in diversity. We Protestants are probably too logocentric, insisting on “correct” readings first of Scripture and subsequently of doctrine and subsequently of practice, to deal with diversity the way our Catholic sisters and brothers do (and the diversity I have pointed out is mostly a lay initiative). So we United Methodists are floating ideas of having different “Disciplines” for different parts of the world, instead of giving flexibility in “reading” the same Discipline. But as the difficulties of the worldwide nature of Protestantism are making clear, I don’t think we have come up with a good alternative to the Roman Catholic way of being catholic. And maybe reflecting on the Roman Catholic experience can help us to start thinking differently about what worldwide United Methodism can and actually should mean.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
David N. Field: The world is coming to our parish
Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. David N. Field. Dr. Field is the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.
I am a migrant and the descendant of migrants - a South African living in Europe. The majority of my ancestors left Europe to make a new life on the Southern tip of Africa; they fled wars, political uncertainty, poverty, and persecution for their religion. A few were shipwrecked off the coast of the Cape. At least one was fleeing from the law. Another was brought as a slave.
Yet until recently this migrant identity has not been part of my theological reflection. Being involved in planning and teaching a course dealing with the church and migration stimulated me to begin to reflect on the theological challenge posed by the movement of people across the world as an integral and pervasive feature of globalization. The recent sinking of a ship drowning over 800 refugees in the Mediterranean, the outbreak of xenophobic violence in South Africa, and reports of refugee boats being turned away from Malaysia and Indonesia have sharpened this challenge for me.
To rephrase Wesley’s famous quote from a European perspective: “The world is coming to our parish.” What does this mean for the church? In a recent Blog Michael Nausner discussed some aspects of this challenge. I plan to continue the discussion in a few blogs reflecting theologically on different aspects of this challenge.
The presence of “the world in our parish” provides an often ignored but profoundly radical challenge to the way we think about what it means to be the church. It is radical because it confronts us with a long forgotten understanding of the identity of the church that is ironically hidden in the word “parish”. In contemporary English parish refers to a small bounded local area. The related word “parochial” refers to being focused on a local area to the exclusion of the broader world.
The irony is that the word parish comes from the Greek word parokia which means a stranger or a sojourner. It was a word used by the early church to describe itself (see I Peter 2:11) as communities of foreigners who were never fully at home in the societies in which they lived. They were strangers because they owed an ultimate loyalty to the One who was rejected by the religious and political establishment and then tortured and executed as an enemy of the empire.
The presence of the world in our parish is a call to remind us that our primary identity and loyalty can never be defined by citizenship of a particular nation state. The church can never be “at home” in any country or socio-political system, for we are citizens of the dominion of the Crucified One. The church is always to be a restless community of foreigners looking for and embodying in a partial way the coming dominion of the Jesus. It is from this identity that we should address the ethical challenge posed by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (a topic for a later blog).
The presence of the world in our parish reminds us that the community of the Crucified transcends national and geographic. Significant numbers of the migrants coming to Europe and North America are Christians – many are Methodists; in fact, many are United Methodists. To be a Christian, to be a Methodist, to be a United Methodist, is to be part of an international community of communities. We are part of the “catholic” church, in the words of the Apostles creed, or to use a more contemporary word, “ecumenical” church; that is, the church that is present across the whole inhabited world.
The presence is a summons to break out of a “parochial” mindset (in its contemporary English meaning) and discovers our spiritual siblings in other countries and continents, people who live in such situations of need that they engage in long, potentially deadly journeys in search of a new life. Many of us are ignorant of the lives of these fellow members of the church – these strangers who come and those strangers who die on the way.
It is a particular challenge to the UMC as a church that affirms its identity as an international or even global church. To be an international or global church is not merely about participating in mission trips, nor about sending finances and resources to people in need, nor about the logistic and theological complications of having people from other countries at General Conference; it is about the challenge to recognize these people as our spiritual siblings, fellow members of the body of Christ whose lives, sufferings and joys ought to be part of our primary concern. The question is how can we embody this in the structures of the UMC, in the lives of our local congregations, and in the programs of our General Boards, agencies and other institutions, not as an extra concern, but as integral to our identity?
I am a migrant and the descendant of migrants - a South African living in Europe. The majority of my ancestors left Europe to make a new life on the Southern tip of Africa; they fled wars, political uncertainty, poverty, and persecution for their religion. A few were shipwrecked off the coast of the Cape. At least one was fleeing from the law. Another was brought as a slave.
Yet until recently this migrant identity has not been part of my theological reflection. Being involved in planning and teaching a course dealing with the church and migration stimulated me to begin to reflect on the theological challenge posed by the movement of people across the world as an integral and pervasive feature of globalization. The recent sinking of a ship drowning over 800 refugees in the Mediterranean, the outbreak of xenophobic violence in South Africa, and reports of refugee boats being turned away from Malaysia and Indonesia have sharpened this challenge for me.
To rephrase Wesley’s famous quote from a European perspective: “The world is coming to our parish.” What does this mean for the church? In a recent Blog Michael Nausner discussed some aspects of this challenge. I plan to continue the discussion in a few blogs reflecting theologically on different aspects of this challenge.
The presence of “the world in our parish” provides an often ignored but profoundly radical challenge to the way we think about what it means to be the church. It is radical because it confronts us with a long forgotten understanding of the identity of the church that is ironically hidden in the word “parish”. In contemporary English parish refers to a small bounded local area. The related word “parochial” refers to being focused on a local area to the exclusion of the broader world.
The irony is that the word parish comes from the Greek word parokia which means a stranger or a sojourner. It was a word used by the early church to describe itself (see I Peter 2:11) as communities of foreigners who were never fully at home in the societies in which they lived. They were strangers because they owed an ultimate loyalty to the One who was rejected by the religious and political establishment and then tortured and executed as an enemy of the empire.
The presence of the world in our parish is a call to remind us that our primary identity and loyalty can never be defined by citizenship of a particular nation state. The church can never be “at home” in any country or socio-political system, for we are citizens of the dominion of the Crucified One. The church is always to be a restless community of foreigners looking for and embodying in a partial way the coming dominion of the Jesus. It is from this identity that we should address the ethical challenge posed by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (a topic for a later blog).
The presence of the world in our parish reminds us that the community of the Crucified transcends national and geographic. Significant numbers of the migrants coming to Europe and North America are Christians – many are Methodists; in fact, many are United Methodists. To be a Christian, to be a Methodist, to be a United Methodist, is to be part of an international community of communities. We are part of the “catholic” church, in the words of the Apostles creed, or to use a more contemporary word, “ecumenical” church; that is, the church that is present across the whole inhabited world.
The presence is a summons to break out of a “parochial” mindset (in its contemporary English meaning) and discovers our spiritual siblings in other countries and continents, people who live in such situations of need that they engage in long, potentially deadly journeys in search of a new life. Many of us are ignorant of the lives of these fellow members of the church – these strangers who come and those strangers who die on the way.
It is a particular challenge to the UMC as a church that affirms its identity as an international or even global church. To be an international or global church is not merely about participating in mission trips, nor about sending finances and resources to people in need, nor about the logistic and theological complications of having people from other countries at General Conference; it is about the challenge to recognize these people as our spiritual siblings, fellow members of the body of Christ whose lives, sufferings and joys ought to be part of our primary concern. The question is how can we embody this in the structures of the UMC, in the lives of our local congregations, and in the programs of our General Boards, agencies and other institutions, not as an extra concern, but as integral to our identity?
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Lent Quiz: When is Easter? Thoughts on being a distinctive Christian minority
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 folks over at umc.org have been doing a Lent Quiz series of questions related to the symbols and traditions of Lent and Easter. Today, we at UM & Global have the ultimate Lent Quiz question:
Lent Quiz: When is Easter?
A. April 5
B. April 12
C. It depends on who you're asking.
D. Whenever it is, it can't come soon enough.
How many of you looked at a calendar and answered A? The correct answer is actually C. Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East) have different methods for calculating Easter (for complicated historical and astronomical reasons I won't go into). Easter is April 5 in the West, but it's April 12 in the East.
I was reminded of this fact recently when a friend mentioned his plans to go to an upcoming festival after Easter services as a celebration. He invited me to join him, and I said I'd consider it. I checked when the festival was, and it was on April 12. I'd been expecting it to be on the 5th. My friend is Eastern Orthodox. It was Easter Sunday for him, but not for me.
In the United States, this difference sets the Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christian traditions apart from the majority, but for the most part, it doesn't cause much more in problems than occasional confusion over scheduling social events with non-Orthodox friends.
In Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, it's the Methodists that stand out for their celebration of Easter, not the Orthodox. David Field wrote an excellent piece about Methodist distinctiveness in Europe earlier this week. Ritual observation was not part of the distinctiveness he talked about, but in parts of Europe, that is part of what makes Methodism stand out.
Yet people don't choose to go to a church because of when it celebrates Easter. This is not an attractional distinctive, and at times it may even make Methodism seem unusual in a bad way.
The challenge for Methodism in Eastern Europe (and in other areas of the world) is how to be distinctive in a positive way, a way that adds to the proclamation of the gospel in that context. That's not an easy task, in Eastern Europe, in the US, or elsewhere, but it is a task we are called to take up.
The folks over at umc.org have been doing a Lent Quiz series of questions related to the symbols and traditions of Lent and Easter. Today, we at UM & Global have the ultimate Lent Quiz question:
Lent Quiz: When is Easter?
A. April 5
B. April 12
C. It depends on who you're asking.
D. Whenever it is, it can't come soon enough.
How many of you looked at a calendar and answered A? The correct answer is actually C. Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East) have different methods for calculating Easter (for complicated historical and astronomical reasons I won't go into). Easter is April 5 in the West, but it's April 12 in the East.
I was reminded of this fact recently when a friend mentioned his plans to go to an upcoming festival after Easter services as a celebration. He invited me to join him, and I said I'd consider it. I checked when the festival was, and it was on April 12. I'd been expecting it to be on the 5th. My friend is Eastern Orthodox. It was Easter Sunday for him, but not for me.
In the United States, this difference sets the Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christian traditions apart from the majority, but for the most part, it doesn't cause much more in problems than occasional confusion over scheduling social events with non-Orthodox friends.
In Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, it's the Methodists that stand out for their celebration of Easter, not the Orthodox. David Field wrote an excellent piece about Methodist distinctiveness in Europe earlier this week. Ritual observation was not part of the distinctiveness he talked about, but in parts of Europe, that is part of what makes Methodism stand out.
Yet people don't choose to go to a church because of when it celebrates Easter. This is not an attractional distinctive, and at times it may even make Methodism seem unusual in a bad way.
The challenge for Methodism in Eastern Europe (and in other areas of the world) is how to be distinctive in a positive way, a way that adds to the proclamation of the gospel in that context. That's not an easy task, in Eastern Europe, in the US, or elsewhere, but it is a task we are called to take up.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Claiming Expanded - Bishop Linda Lee 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
Bishop Linda Lee, Bishop-in-Residence at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. Bishop Lee is responding to Dr. Glen Messer's comments 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 importance of reclaiming both our theological and our ecclesiastic roots was described in Messer’s commentary on “A Life Changed by Grace,” (Paras. 42-46 of Grace Upon Grace). He discusses the importance of both these aspects of our United Methodist roots in the formation our Christian identity. As United Methodists we are changed by the grace of God’s forgiveness (justification) and given new life through the process and practice of sanctification. Reclaiming both our Evangelical and our Pietistic religious roots offers the perfect mixture for the Divine love of God to be expressed through our mission, both within our denomination and ecumenically. This theological and historical reflection assists us to reclaim both the inward practices of personal piety and the outward response of social holiness and action. John Wesley and our predecessor movements provide United Methodists with a sacred blend of the inner and outer expression of our faith as a response to God’s grace. Messer says it beautifully:
“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.”
As we consider these aspects of how United Methodist identity has been shaped, it seems good, in this 21st Century global world we live in, to also be intentional about claiming, celebrating and expanding and incorporating the diverse cultural and racial roots of our DNA as well. Silently and sometimes unnoticed, since its inception, Methodism has been shaped by the theological and evangelical witness of people of color who bring fresh understandings of God’s movement in our midst. Understandings of forgiveness and new life from the perspective of those who have been the mission field, open new possibilities for what it means to be changed by God, and even of to whom it is we are to be in mission. God has given us to one another and we long for that human confirmation described by Martin Buber in I and Thou:
“{Hu}Man wishes to be confirmed in his{her} being by {hu}man and wishes to have a presence in the being of the other…. Secretly and bashfully {s}he watches for a YES which allows him{her} to be and which can come to him{her} only from one human person to another.”
Through this authentic human encounter we become open to the work of God within us that compels us to live out our identity as those who have been changed by God and by one another. Our mission requires us to reach out to the world.
Our world is shifting. Our identity as United Methodists is shifting. Our mission and mission fields are shifting. The needs in the communities and cities, towns and villages where our congregations are located or are near, make it a day to make the shift into the living out of Christ’s perfection in love not quite mentioned in this section of “Grace Upon Grace” as Messer notes. Claiming the base of our heritage historically, ecclesiastically and culturally can give us the kind of foundation needed to be in mission in the 21st century with the personal piety and social holiness which are the roots of our Wesleyan legacy. Our mission will indeed ‘bear new fruit in our time,’ and perhaps even yet see John Wesley’s dream realized:
“I continue to dream and pray about a revival of holiness in our day that moves forth in mission and creates authentic community in which each person can be unleashed through the empowerment of the Spirit to fulfill God’s creational intentions.” (How to Pray: The Best of John Wesley on Prayer)
To reclaim our roots and to claim the fullness of our historical, ecclesiastical and cultural diversity is another way to experience and to share the ‘grace upon grace’ that continues to be poured out through Jesus Christ.
Bishop Linda Lee, Bishop-in-Residence at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. Bishop Lee is responding to Dr. Glen Messer's comments 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 importance of reclaiming both our theological and our ecclesiastic roots was described in Messer’s commentary on “A Life Changed by Grace,” (Paras. 42-46 of Grace Upon Grace). He discusses the importance of both these aspects of our United Methodist roots in the formation our Christian identity. As United Methodists we are changed by the grace of God’s forgiveness (justification) and given new life through the process and practice of sanctification. Reclaiming both our Evangelical and our Pietistic religious roots offers the perfect mixture for the Divine love of God to be expressed through our mission, both within our denomination and ecumenically. This theological and historical reflection assists us to reclaim both the inward practices of personal piety and the outward response of social holiness and action. John Wesley and our predecessor movements provide United Methodists with a sacred blend of the inner and outer expression of our faith as a response to God’s grace. Messer says it beautifully:
“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.”
As we consider these aspects of how United Methodist identity has been shaped, it seems good, in this 21st Century global world we live in, to also be intentional about claiming, celebrating and expanding and incorporating the diverse cultural and racial roots of our DNA as well. Silently and sometimes unnoticed, since its inception, Methodism has been shaped by the theological and evangelical witness of people of color who bring fresh understandings of God’s movement in our midst. Understandings of forgiveness and new life from the perspective of those who have been the mission field, open new possibilities for what it means to be changed by God, and even of to whom it is we are to be in mission. God has given us to one another and we long for that human confirmation described by Martin Buber in I and Thou:
“{Hu}Man wishes to be confirmed in his{her} being by {hu}man and wishes to have a presence in the being of the other…. Secretly and bashfully {s}he watches for a YES which allows him{her} to be and which can come to him{her} only from one human person to another.”
Through this authentic human encounter we become open to the work of God within us that compels us to live out our identity as those who have been changed by God and by one another. Our mission requires us to reach out to the world.
Our world is shifting. Our identity as United Methodists is shifting. Our mission and mission fields are shifting. The needs in the communities and cities, towns and villages where our congregations are located or are near, make it a day to make the shift into the living out of Christ’s perfection in love not quite mentioned in this section of “Grace Upon Grace” as Messer notes. Claiming the base of our heritage historically, ecclesiastically and culturally can give us the kind of foundation needed to be in mission in the 21st century with the personal piety and social holiness which are the roots of our Wesleyan legacy. Our mission will indeed ‘bear new fruit in our time,’ and perhaps even yet see John Wesley’s dream realized:
“I continue to dream and pray about a revival of holiness in our day that moves forth in mission and creates authentic community in which each person can be unleashed through the empowerment of the Spirit to fulfill God’s creational intentions.” (How to Pray: The Best of John Wesley on Prayer)
To reclaim our roots and to claim the fullness of our historical, ecclesiastical and cultural diversity is another way to experience and to share the ‘grace upon grace’ that continues to be poured out through Jesus Christ.
Friday, May 16, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
United Methodist unity and the WCC assembly
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.
In case you've missed it, the World Council of Churches (WCC) is meeting last week and this week in Busan, Korea. The meeting, billed as the most diverse assemblage of Christians ever, involves 1,000 delegates from 345 member denominations all around the world. There are ten United Methodist delegates including six from the US, two from Africa, one from the Philippines, and one from Europe. UMC Communications has been writing a series of articles about the assembly, including the following: "WCC assembly hopes to break barriers in divided Korea," "WCC 10th Assembly opens in Busan, Korea," and "WCC assembly includes 21 ecumenical conversations."
The WCC assembly is an important event in world Christianity, but it also highlights one of the difficulties in the conversation about global Methodism. United Methodism's internal conversation about global UMC connections does not happen in a vacuum. Rather, it is occurring simultaneously with United Methodist participation in an external conversation about global Christian connections. It can prove a difficult balancing act to attempt internal self-definition and strategy setting within a larger system that's in flux at the same time.
Yet such juggling of internal and external debates about communal identities are an extremely common feature of human group life. In particular, minority groups must often handle internal debates about identity while simultaneously navigating the challenges of existing as a minority within a larger society. Such balancing of internal and external concerns about group identity and activity can impose some serious burdens on a minority group, especially if that group is oppressed in some way. Yet, that's not really the case with United Methodism - we are certainly not oppressed within the global Christian community, nor are we within most national communities where United Methodism exists.
Indeed, it may be possible that the two discussions (the internal and the external) about global identity and connection in which United Methodists are participating may be able to inform one another in helpful ways. It may be difficult for United Methodism to finesse the intricacies of global interdenominational cooperation when there are a diversity of understandings of what it means to be United Methodists or how that cooperation should proceed. Yet, conversations about the nature of global Christian unity may be a fertile source of ideas about the nature of global United Methodist unity.
I'm sure there will be a variety of views within United Methodism about the takeaway moments of the WCC gathering and what they mean for the UMC. Hopefully, though, some of what United Methodists will take away from the WCC will be what it means to seek for Christian unity, even in the midst of our disagreements, differences, and diversity, and thus what it can mean to seek for Methodist unity as well.
In case you've missed it, the World Council of Churches (WCC) is meeting last week and this week in Busan, Korea. The meeting, billed as the most diverse assemblage of Christians ever, involves 1,000 delegates from 345 member denominations all around the world. There are ten United Methodist delegates including six from the US, two from Africa, one from the Philippines, and one from Europe. UMC Communications has been writing a series of articles about the assembly, including the following: "WCC assembly hopes to break barriers in divided Korea," "WCC 10th Assembly opens in Busan, Korea," and "WCC assembly includes 21 ecumenical conversations."
The WCC assembly is an important event in world Christianity, but it also highlights one of the difficulties in the conversation about global Methodism. United Methodism's internal conversation about global UMC connections does not happen in a vacuum. Rather, it is occurring simultaneously with United Methodist participation in an external conversation about global Christian connections. It can prove a difficult balancing act to attempt internal self-definition and strategy setting within a larger system that's in flux at the same time.
Yet such juggling of internal and external debates about communal identities are an extremely common feature of human group life. In particular, minority groups must often handle internal debates about identity while simultaneously navigating the challenges of existing as a minority within a larger society. Such balancing of internal and external concerns about group identity and activity can impose some serious burdens on a minority group, especially if that group is oppressed in some way. Yet, that's not really the case with United Methodism - we are certainly not oppressed within the global Christian community, nor are we within most national communities where United Methodism exists.
Indeed, it may be possible that the two discussions (the internal and the external) about global identity and connection in which United Methodists are participating may be able to inform one another in helpful ways. It may be difficult for United Methodism to finesse the intricacies of global interdenominational cooperation when there are a diversity of understandings of what it means to be United Methodists or how that cooperation should proceed. Yet, conversations about the nature of global Christian unity may be a fertile source of ideas about the nature of global United Methodist unity.
I'm sure there will be a variety of views within United Methodism about the takeaway moments of the WCC gathering and what they mean for the UMC. Hopefully, though, some of what United Methodists will take away from the WCC will be what it means to seek for Christian unity, even in the midst of our disagreements, differences, and diversity, and thus what it can mean to seek for Methodist unity as well.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Arun Jones: The importance of United Methodist identity in a global church
Today's post is by guest blogger Arun W. Jones, Dan and Lillian Hankey Associate Professor of World Evangelism at Candler School of Theology.
There are two things I would like to say about the importance of United Methodist identity in a global church. Both of them are pretty obvious, I think, but still worth saying. And perhaps some people will disagree with me, which would make for a great conversation!
My
teacher and mentor, Andrew Walls, used to say that all of us speak one or more
languages, but none of us speaks language in general. We speak particular languages – Hindustani,
Luganda, Portuguese, English. It seems
to me that his observation can be used to think of the term “Christian.” For those of us who take our Christian
identity with some degree of seriousness, we are not Christian in general. Rather, we have been shaped and formed by one
or more Christian traditions. We are
even shaped by the traditions that we are trying to get away from by entering
another one: United Methodists who are
former Southern Baptists, or former Roman Catholics, think about their faith in
ways that are somewhat different than someone who is a “cradle to grave” United
Methodist. United Methodists have a
past, present and future that shapes us, and it is important for us to know in
what ways we are shaped. Like the
polyglot, we may have other Christian identities along with our United
Methodist one, but it is important to know each one of them, if we are going to
understand who we are.
But why
is it important to understand our identity (even when we disagree with our
denomination) in a global church? It is
because when we know our own identity well, we can interact with other
Christians (with other identities) all around the world with greater love,
charity and respect. We can allow the
other Christian to be the “other,” rather than assuming that she or he needs to
be like me because, after all, we are both “Christian.” I have very good friends who are Roman
Catholic (and of course there are varieties of Catholics!). I disagree with their tradition on any number
of things. Nevertheless, by keeping in
mind that I have been shaped and formed by the Methodist tradition, I can
interact with a Roman Catholic as a sister in Christ without expecting her to
be just like me, or to be just like the people I go to church with Sunday after
Sunday. I can give her the space to be a
Christian as she understands it, without necessarily agreeing with her on
crucial issues, yet still dealing with her as someone who deserves my Christian
concern and love. This is the first
thing I want to say about the importance of United Methodist (or any other)
identity in a global church: it helps us
interact graciously with Christians of other traditions.
The
second thing I want to say is that all of us have multiple identities that we
carry around, or that we utilize. I am a
son, a husband, a brother, a father, a teacher, a junior colleague, a senior
colleague, a fellow church member, a neighbor, a stranger – the list goes on
and on and on. In different contexts,
different identities are prominent. As I
am passing through passport control at an airport overseas, the immigration
officer does not care whether I’m a United Methodist or not. All he cares about is whether my papers and
documents are in order. And I prefer
things to be that way.
My point
is that while United Methodist identity is important in a global church, in
certain contexts that might not be the most important or relevant
identity. Sometimes the fact that I am a
Christian – of whatever tradition – is more important than the particular
tradition itself. Growing up in North
India, where Christians form maybe 2% of the population, in almost all public
contexts our particular type of Christianity did not matter – what mattered was
that we were fellow believers of a small, minority religious group. If Christians were attacked, we did not care
what kind of Christians they were – all that concerned us was that someone in
our religious community was facing danger.
It was only when Christians gathered together by ourselves that we
talked about our particular traditions.
Then, indeed, we recognized the differences between Orthodox, Roman
Catholic, Pentecostal and mainline Protestant traditions. This did not break the unity of our
fellowship – it simply qualified and informed that unity.
Our
identity as United Methodists is important in a global church, but there are
times when it is not the most important identity for us. Perhaps the story of Mary and Martha in Luke
chapter 10 can help us in this respect.
Martha was caught up in her identity as hostess – which of course was
very important. But in this instance, it
was not the most important. In this
particular case, Mary had chosen “the better part,” her identity as a disciple
of Jesus, who said to the poor flustered Martha, “it will not be taken from
her.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)