The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Coalition-Building as a Way Forward

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

My past two posts have explained how The United Methodist Church is an increasingly complex system beset by a wicked problem and how, given those conditions, leadership is an attractive approach to addressing the problems of the denomination. Leadership alone, however, is a flawed solution given the complexity of the system and the limitations of knowledge and power possessed by a single individual within the system, even if that person is a leader within the system.

As this post will explain, though, while leadership may be a flawed solution, that does not leave us without hope. An approach focused on coalition-building, collaboration, and communication can be effective in effecting change in complex systems. Moreover, when leadership is oriented towards contributing to such an approach along with larger groups (rather than towards the top-down exercise of power by an individual), coalition-building, collaboration, and communication can strengthen and enhance the exercise of leadership.

All of this has implications for The United Methodist Church as it moves towards the next stage of service to which God is calling it.

Coalitions, collaboration, and communication
The problem with a leadership-focused approach to the wicked problems of complex systems is that the complexity of the systems exceeds the ability of any one individual to understand how the system works and the ability of any one individual to control the system. The solution to this limitation is to locate understanding and control of the system not with any one individual but with coalitions of individuals and groups working together to address the problems of the system.

Having more individuals committed to finding solutions means more collective knowledge of the system, both of its individual parts and of how those parts interact with one another. It also means a greater ability to influence the system via more pressure points. This greater collective knowledge and greater influence means a greater ability to effectively address the problems of the system and therefore a greater chance of success in doing so.

Collective action does not just happen, though. It must be organized through the slow, labor-intensive work of coalition building. Coalition building involves getting groups to agree to work together on a common problem or towards a common goal. Coalition members do not need to agree on all issues. Indeed, successful coalitions will likely include members who disagree, perhaps quite passionately, on issues other than the central motivating issue of the coalition.

Thus, three central tasks in building coalitions are identifying a salient issue that is shared among different groups, facilitating trust building among groups that will disagree on some issues, and persuading groups to commit to work together on shared interests despite their disagreements elsewhere.

The success of such work requires participants in the coalition to be able to hold tensions, accept imperfection, and even to forgive one another. It also requires a collective sense of responsibility for the problems of the system. Blame works against fostering such a collective sense of responsibility, since it assigns responsibility for the problems of the system outside those casting blame and is thus an excuse for not acting oneself.

Once a coalition has begun to form, it proceeds by collaborative action. Collaborative action is action taken by different players and often in different forms towards a common goal. Collaborative action does not mean that all coalition members do the same thing. Indeed, the most effective coalitions employ a diversity of strategies to realize their goals, which allows a diversity of participants to contribute their skills and energy in a diversity of ways. While coordination is necessary, conformity is a sign of the weakness of a coalition, not its strength.

Throughout the whole process, communication is an essential. Communication is necessary to bring coalition members together. It is necessary to identify the salient issues and goals of the coalition. It is necessary to build trust among members. It is necessary to coordinate the disparate actions of members. It is necessary to measure progress towards goals. Communication is the one thing absolutely necessary for successful coalitions.

Like collaborative action, communication involves contributions by many people. The more that information sharing can happen through a network rather than through a hub-and-spoke model of central gatekeeping, the more easily information can be shared throughout a coalition and therefore the more effective the coalition will be.

Those convening, promoting, coordinating, and communicating coalitions need not be formally recognized leaders within the system. It is possible to leverage personal connections, charisma, or other resources to engage disparate groups to come together around a common issue. Formal leadership does not disqualify one from doing such work, but neither does it automatically compel one to engage in such work. Thus, an approach that is based around coalitions, collaboration, and communication is not necessarily one based on leadership.

Yet, leaders can use the power and information at their disposal to contribute to coalitions. This requires leaders to acknowledge their own limitations and prioritize common objectives over personal status or control. Even when formal leaders participate in coalitions, the primary responsibility for progress must remain with the coalition as a whole, not with any leader or leaders associated with the coalition.

The Reform and Renewal Coalition
Arguably one of the most effective political forces within The United Methodist Church since its inception has been the Reform and Renewal Coalition. It is not a coincidence that this has been a coalition, not the work of a single organization, a single leader, or even a handful of leaders.

Instead, the Reform and Renewal Coalition has brought together multiple Traditionalist organizations and individuals with overlapping but distinct foci, but all aligned together around issues of Traditionalist understandings of marriage and theology. These groups and their members have worked separately but in coordination towards agreed upon goals. A variety of means of communication including publications, personal networks, and conferences and meetings have allowed communication to flow throughout a Traditionalist network, thereby facilitating the work of the coalition.

There have been prominent figures associated with the Reform and Renewal Coalition, but the Coalition has had no one single leader. Some bishops have been supportive, but most of the identified leaders are not people with significant formal positions of power within the regular structures of the denomination. Instead, the Reform and Renewal Coalition has operated through coalition-building, collaboration, and communication.

While Progressives and Centrists are likely to see the Reform and Renewal Coalition as contributing to rather than solving the problems of the denomination, that should not detract from recognizing the coalition’s success on its own terms.

Traditionalists have been less well coordinated recently, mostly because of differing ideas about what they should do next in the wake of General Conference 2019 and the launch of the Global Methodist Church. These varying opinions have deprived the coalition of its focus and its coordination and therefore its effectiveness. But these challenges are just further proof of the importance of well-functioning coalitions for success – policy success comes not from one’s ideology but from one’s organization.

Implications for the future UMC
With the exit of many Traditionalist congregations and individuals from the UMC, the splintering of Traditionalist plans, and the shuttering of some of its components (such as the Confessing Movement), it is clear the Reform and Renewal Coalition will no longer continue to dominate United Methodist polity debates in the same way they have historically. What is not yet clear, though, is whether a new coalition will emerge among those who choose to stay UMC that will set the direction for United Methodism for the next several decades.

Whether or not such a coalition emerges will likely depend on whether groups and leaders from disparate parts of the denomination can come together around concrete policy goals. Although the goals of the Reform and Renewal Coalition were primarily related to sexuality, the goals of a future coalition need not be. Other issues such as decolonizing the church, regionalization and contextualization, evangelism, or something else could prove galvanizing for a new coalition. Whether or not an effective coalition emerges depends on many things, but it starts with the identification of a salient issue.

To bring this argument back to its beginning, the recently elected bishops will certainly make an impact on The United Methodist Church, especially in the episcopal areas they serve. But they will have little ability to set the future direction of the denomination on their own. Instead, what will be more significant than any of the recently held elections is what sorts of coalitions emerge to direct The United Methodist Church into the next stage of its life.

Bishops may contribute to such coalitions, but it will take a broad sense of responsibility for the future of the denomination, a commonly agreed-upon set of issues or goals, a willingness to work together among disparate groups, some of whom will disagree on some issues, and extensive communication among a network of partners to really set the direction for the future of the denomination.

The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Unrealistic Expectations

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

In my last post, I argued that The United Methodist Church is a complex system (more so than when it was created) facing a wicked problem. I indicated that this fact has implications for the role of leadership in the UMC, in particular that of bishops. In this post, I will argue that the nature of complex systems make leadership an attractive but ultimately flawed solution to the wicked problems that beset complex systems.

Leadership as an Attractive Solution
By their very nature, complex systems are difficult to control (since inputs do not lead straightforwardly to outputs), and wicked problems are difficult to solve. Furthermore, since complex systems include many actors, most of them will have very little influence over the system as a whole, making it even more difficult for most people to get the results they want from the system. Therefore, many people feel powerless in the face of complex systems, for instance, the global economy, big businesses, or government bureaucracies.

In such a situation, selecting the right leader for the system becomes seen by many as an attractive solution to the problems plaguing the complex system.

Selecting the right leader seemingly simplifies the complex system and its complex problems, and this is its main attraction. We just need to find the right person, and they will solve the problems of the system, goes the thinking.

Rather than needing to understand the complex system itself (which is often beyond the ability of even experts, let alone regular individuals), it is only necessary to understand the (usually limited) choices for leadership candidates. Rather than needing to figure out how to exert influence on the system (which is difficult for well-organized coalitions, let alone individuals), it is only necessary to use one’s power to vote for a leader.

All the better, this line of reasoning often goes, if the leader selected is somewhat antithetical to the system, if they promise to “shake things up,” create “disruption,” or “smash things.” And in order to do that destructive work, the leader should be given as much power as possible. The system is obviously not producing what it should, so doesn’t it need to be shaken up by a strong leader?

This leadership-focused solution to systemic problems also fits with cultural emphases from various cultures, whether it is Americans’ cult of personality or Africans’ tradition of “big man” leadership. The notion of a leader as a hero or savior is deeply rooted within many cultural traditions.

The wave of rising authoritarianism that has swept the globe over the past decade is an expression of how leadership is an attractive solution to complex problems. In many different cultural and political settings, people have elected leaders who have billed themselves as strongmen (and the gendered term is intentional) capable of bending the system to give their voters what they want.

Whether or not United Methodists support such political authoritarian figures (and probably some but not most do), the temptation to look to leaders as rescuers from the morass of wicked problems that bogs down the complex system of The United Methodist Church is still there.

Leadership as a Flawed Solution
But while leadership may be an attractive solution to the wicked problems of complex systems, it is also a flawed solution. Of course, one could point to the moral, ethical, and democratic failings frequently exhibited by authoritarian leaders, but even setting those significant concerns aside, there are real reasons why leadership alone is not a good way to address the problems of complex solutions.

First, while participants in a complex system may be eager to shift responsibility for problem solving onto a leader because of their own limited knowledge of and influence over that system, they often significantly overestimate leaders’ knowledge of and influence over the system.

Complex systems are difficult for leaders to understand, too, even given their additional vantage over and information about the system. Indeed, it is hard for any one person to really have a feel for all parts of a system and how they interact. Leadership in a complex system requires knowledge of many disparate areas of policy and procedure. Moreover, leaders are subject to the same limitations of wisdom, knowledge, and judgment as anyone else. And when leaders are sometimes chosen because they are from outside the system or its current elite, this can limit their understanding of the system even further.

Moreover, because complex systems are characterized by nonlinear relationships and by many different actors with many different motivations, complex systems are difficult to control, even for leaders. There are many opportunities for unintended consequences or for people to resist and obstruct what a leader wants to accomplish. While it many be easy for leaders to exert control over central elements of a complex system, that does not mean that directives will flow completely and easily to all components of a system, especially those farther from the centers of power.

These observations are true of bishops in the UMC just as much as other leaders of complex systems. There are many different areas of responsibility for bishops, and it is difficult to be an expert in all of them. Bishops are often limited in their knowledge of what is happening outside of their episcopal area or jurisdiction. Their powers are geographically and constitutionally limited. District superintendents, pastors, congregations, and agencies all have independent decision-making authority. Bishops can influence, but they cannot completely dictate. Even in Africa where bishops are held in higher regard, they are not complete dictators, and things can and do happen outside bishops’ control.

There are also limitations in the relationship between leaders and followers. The many-faceted nature of issues in complex systems means that for any given leader and any given follower, there will almost always be points of disagreement between them. While in some instances, followers adjust their views to reflect those of their leaders, in other instances, followers are left to decide how to relate to leaders whose work they very much support in some instances and very much oppose in others.

Furthermore, conditions including polarization, distrust, and anger at institutions can make people even less willing to follow leaders. If some group of followers sees a leader as “not my leader,” then they will work to oppose or undermine the work of that leader, further limiting the leader’s power. Even if loyal followers expect leaders to quickly deliver results on all issues, leaders can quickly go from heroes to villains if they fail to perform to what may be unrealistically high standards.

A Methodist Example
To see the attraction and the failure of leadership as a solution to the problems of complex systems, look at The United Methodist Church’s experience with the Commission on a Way Forward. The commission was formed after General Conference delegates, unable to solve the wicked problem of The United Methodist Church themselves, took the unprecedented action of asking the bishops to step in and intervene.

However, the bishops’ ability to do so was quite limited. They were able to convene a group to make recommendations to General Conference, but the bishops themselves were neither able to propose solutions nor able to adopt solutions proposed by others. The size of the group was even limited by financial calculations by GCFA beyond the bishops’ control. Moreover, no bishop has a complete understanding of the entire United Methodist Church and could not know in advance how the work of the Commission on a Way Forward would be received or what unexpected reactions or counteractions it would provoke.

Then, once the commission was formed, it became the target of criticism over a host of issues ranging from its composition to how its work was conducted. Such criticism reflected some genuine concerns, but it also reflected the polarization and lack of trust in the denomination. The commission produced a recommendation, which the bishops then revised, and then the recommendations from the commission and the bishops were rejected by General Conference in a decision that exacerbated rather than solved the wicked problem of the denomination.

In the case of the Commission on a Way Forward, appealing to leadership patently failed as a means to address the wicked problem of the complex system of The United Methodist Church. But I don’t think that was because the bishops made mistakes along the way. They may have made mistakes and thereby worsened the chances of the commission succeeding, but the basic problem was with the nature of the system and the limitations of a leadership-focused solution to its problems.

Fortunately, there are other potential solutions to the problems that beset complex systems. In my next post, I will look at communication and collaboration as potential solutions, ones that can improve the quality of leadership in addition to addressing problems.

The Contemporary Challenges of Leadership: Complex Systems

Over the past month, The United Methodist Church has been focused on episcopal elections in the United States, Europe, and the Philippines. United Methodists have faithfully prayed and strategically maneuvered to elect bishops that they hope will lead them into a bright new future for the denomination.

To be sure, episcopal leadership does matter, and new bishops will indeed make a difference for events in the denomination over the next several years.

Yet it is important not to underestimate the challenges that bishops face in exerting effective leadership. These challenges originate not from any shortcomings in bishops individually or collectively but rather from the nature of The United Methodist Church as a complex system and the limits of leadership as a strategy for addressing wicked problems that beset such complex systems.

I will examine these challenges in this and two following articles. In this article, I will describe the nature of The United Methodist Church as a complex system. In the next article, I will explain why leadership is an attractive but usually unsuccessful solution to complex problems. In a third article, I will suggest that communication and collaboration is usually a more effective solution than one focused exclusively on leadership and a strategy that can lead to more effective leadership.

Complex systems
There are many ways to define complex systems, which are an area of research in several academic fields, but one commonly agreed-upon feature is “nonlinearity”: complex systems are not characterized by simple cause-and-effect relationships.

Instead, chaotic, surprising, or unintended consequences are a frequent feature, and effects are usually the result of multiple causes, which in even slightly different combinations may produce wildly different effects. Sometimes, such surprising results occur because seemingly distant (physically or otherwise) components are connected, so action in one place produces effects in another place far removed, thus obscuring lines of cause and effect.

Complex systems are also defined by their “complexity,” that is, they involve many different components interacting with each other in multiple different ways. Cities are a common example of complex systems, so for example, a city’s manufacturing industry and its government may interact on issues of taxation, regulation, business incentives, employment, campaigning, and more. All of these are different matters or issues around which the two sets of actors can interact.

System complexity is also a consequence of different actors within the system having different (and sometimes competing) interests. Thus, the various actors in the system don’t all pull in the same direction but instead sometimes work collaboratively and sometimes work at cross purposes with one another. Moreover, collaboration or antagonism may be determined by the matter or issue at hand.

Finally, different actors within the system all have limited influence over it. Usually, this is because decision-making is widely distributed, so all actors have agency to pursue their own interests, which as noted, will diverge from others at points. Especially in the era of modernity, many processes of life are automated or rule-bound, so individual actors have limited influence over those processes, thus further reducing their influence over complex systems as a whole.

In complex systems, problems are often wicked problems; that is, they are difficult to define and difficult solve, with no single, clear solution. Because of the diversity of interests, there are different ways to frame or understand a problem, even if there is common agreement that something in the system is not right. Because of unclear cause-and-effect relationships and unintended consequences, it is very difficult to intervene in complex systems to effectively address problems, even if a common definition of a problem exists. Wicked problems can often only be mitigated rather than solved.

The UMC as a complex system
The United Methodist Church has become an increasingly complex system over the past 50+ years for several reasons.

There are approximately the same number of actors within the system as when it was created (~12 million members in 1968; ~12.5 million members now). However, their distribution and the ways they interact have changed.

In 1968, the overwhelming majority of members were in the United States. Now, only half are in the United States, a quarter are in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and another quarter are in a myriad of other countries. This increases not only cultural and linguistic diversity but also the chances that one component within the system will act without knowledge of another component, multiplying the possibilities for unintended consequences.

Moreover, the ways in which those members interact have changed. There are more ways for actors to relate to one another – not only through official church conferencing, but also through caucuses, coalitions, independent events and networking, church-to-church (or church-to-conference) partnerships, etc. Most of these new forms of interaction are outside of the official structures of the denomination (and therefore not controlled by them).

The number and intensity of divergent interests within the system has increased. Certainly, the increased geographic and cultural diversity just noted has resulted in more divergent interests. But such heightened divergence is evident within the United States as well. When the UMC was launched in 1968, the Traditionalist movement had just begun to form two years earlier. Now, Traditionalist, Progressive, and Centrist are well-established and often antagonistic competing interests in the denomination.

The limits on individual actors have also increased over the course of the denomination’s lifetime. Even with some unfilled US episcopal areas, the number of current active bishops (59) is nearly 50% more than when the denomination was formed in 1968 (41 bishops), one indication of widely distributed decision making. The Book of Discipline has increased by 50% as well, an indication of the increasingly rule-bound nature of many processes in the denomination.

Given the increasing complexity of the United Methodist system, it is perhaps no surprise then that the UMC has a wicked problem. Bob Phillips has written about the UMC and its wicked problem in Methodist Review. One need not accept his Traditionalist solution of denominational division to learn from his application of this term to the UMC. While different groups within the church would frame the problem within the UMC very differently, almost everyone would agree that there is some sort of problem besetting the denomination.

And if there is a problem, then there is a need for a solution. The next post in this series will look at why leadership is an attractive but usually flawed solution to the wicked problems of a complex system.

Recommended Viewing: Christ Above All Podcasts on Liberian UMC

Over the past two years, members of the Liberian United Methodist diaspora in the United States and United Methodists in Liberia have been collaborating on a series of podcasts/webinars featuring United Methodist (and other Christian) leaders in Liberia. These video podcasts, which each run about two hours long, provide an in-depth window into life in the Liberian Annual Conference of the UMC.

While there is great value in the sort of cross-cultural conversations between Americans and Africans as featured in this blog's previous post, the Christ Above All podcasts are an excellent opportunity to hear a variety of African United Methodists (at least from Liberia) speak on their own terms about the topics that matter most to them.

Videos for the webinars are on the personal Facebook page of Goumah Conde, one of the hosts. The organizers, including Ms. Conde, Samuel Barbay Gaye, Jr., and Thomas Teah Swen reflect on the highlights of the show here. Full episodes thus far include the following:

Bishop Arthur F. Kulah on the 30th anniversary of Africa University

Ne-Suah Beyan-Livingstone, Founder and Executive Directive Director of REACH, a program supporting at-risk youths in Liberia

A roundtable on the Zogos crisis of at-risk youths in Liberia

A conversation among former members of the LAC/UMC United Methodist Youth and Young Adult Gathering

Caleb S. G. Dormah, Head Pastor of Metro Harvest-The Church Without Walls, talking about ministry beyond the walls of the church

Mrs. Yei R. Wuor, former principal of J.J. Roberts United Methodist School

Rev. Dr. Levi C. Williams II, historian of Liberian United Methodism

Leaders from the Youth and Young Adult Ministries of the Liberia Annual Conference, of the United Methodist Church

Rev. Dr. Pianapue Early on the church and African culture

Nana Kpaan-Allison on women in church leadership

Rev. Jerry Kulah on whether the church should split over human sexuality

Rev. John N. Punni on his ministry as a pastor, district superintendent, and assistant to Bishop Kulah

A panel including Rev. Margaret Kartwe on whether the church should split over human sexuality

Bishop Arthur F. Kulah, retired bishop of the Liberia Annual Conference, on his life and leadership

Rev. Dr. Julius J. S. Nelson, Jr. and Dr. Muriel Nelson on their ministry

Recommended Readings: Methodist Women Leaders in Africa

United Methodists are justly proud of Bishop Joaquina Nhanala, the first African woman bishop in the UMC. In addition to breaking that gender barrier, Bishop Nhanala has been a skilled leader for the Mozambique Episcopal Area.

But she's not the only Methodist woman to take the reins of leadership in Africa. Looking beyond the UMC, there are at least two other Methodist denominations in Africa that have women as their top leaders: the Methodist Church of Southern Africa and the Methodist Church of Togo.

The Rev. Purity Malinga was elected last year as the 100th Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, the first woman to hold that position. With nearly 2 million members, the MCSA is one of the largest Methodist denominations in Africa. It is also one of the oldest. At the same time as Bishop Malinga was elected, three other women were elected as regional bishops, meaning that 1/4 of the church's 12 districts are now led by women. Dr. Dion Forster has written this article about Bishop Malinga's election, the history behind it, and what it means for the MCSA.

The Methodist Church of Togo (Eglise Methodist du Togo) is a much smaller - about 40,000 members - and younger - independent since 1999 - church, but it too is currently led by a woman. In fact, it's led by two women. Rev. Grace Lawson is President, the highest-ranking clergy in the church, and as General Secretary, Rev. Angele is responsible for leading the work of the church. This partnership visit report by Dr Bunmi Olayisade, Africa Partnership Coordinator for the Methodist Church in Britain shares more about the ministry of these two women.

With episcopal elections coming up for United Methodists in Africa later this year, the question now stands: Will African United Methodists elect more women as episcopal leaders, as their fellow Methodists across the continent have?

Jacqueline Ngoy Mwayuma - African Women and Mission, Part III

Today’s post contains remarks prepared by Rev. Jacqueline Ngoy Mwayuma for the panel “African Women and Mission” at the Methodist Mission Bicentennial Conference. Rev. Mwayuma is administrative assistant to Bishop Mande Muyombo of the North Katanga Episcopal Area. Rev. Mwayuma’s remarks are translated from French.

The Role of African Women in Mission, Today and Tomorrow
Women are the strength and vitality of the churches of Africa by their great number, their drive and their constant availability. They are the bold energy of God, indispensable today as they have never been, capable of provoking a change. They are everywhere and interconnected.

They keep the flame of faith awake, especially in the most remote areas. They transmit the faith to children, who are the face of the future generation of the church of tomorrow.

Despite the zeal of the male missionaries, their efforts do not produce sufficient fruit if they are not helped by women.

For example, consider M. Louis and Madame Deschact and Marc Nelis and his wife, missionaries among the teachers at the United Methodist station of Mulungwishi. They cannot fulfill this ministry themselves. Only women can freely approach pagan women, maintain with them loving relationships, heal their evils, touch their hearts.

It is thus that the doors open wide before women, not only those of preaching but also those of female education, pastoral coordination, the ministry of evangelization, medical work, as well as the exercise of the hospitality.

Africa is a continent characterized by wars, violence, discrimination and poverty. Several African women have decided to lead a fight for a better life through an evangelistic and pastoral ministry. Consider these cases:

- Reverend Joaquina F. Nhanala, first woman United Methodist Bishop on the African continent, serving in Mozambique;

- Reverend Kabamba Kiboko, first woman pastor in the South Congo Annual Conference. Currently head pastor of Forest Chapel United Methodist Church in the city of Cincinnati, OH;

- Reverend Jacqueline Ngoy Mwayuma, first woman Assistant to the Bishop in the North Katanga Episcopal Area in the Democratic Republic of Congo;

- The Reverend Mutombo Kimba, first female Methodist pastor in the North Katanga Episcopal Area, subsequently working in the South Congo region and Zambia;

- Ms. Leymah Gbowee, a Methodist woman from Liberia who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her role in the management of a women's peace movement;

- Mother Odette Kalangwa and Ngoie Mutwale, missionary women from northern Katanga and Tanzania.

Nowadays women have a strong influence, especially in social work, education, technical training, etc.

The future of the mission of The United Methodist Church in Africa is to increase evangelization in difficult to reach areas. We must use all the means available to achieve our objectives, with a single goal of strengthening and extending the trust of the mission. This is based on the church's main mission, which is to put faith into action by making all nations disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the whole world.

With God's help, I wish that all mission activities continue, for Jesus said in the Gospel according to John (10:10b) that he came to give a life in abundance. It would be better that the people who will be brought to Jesus enjoy this life in the church of God. The church must open its buildings and systems to persons with disabilities, orphans, widows and widowers, must welcome those who have mental and psychological difficulties and work in a way that integrates each person.

And then the church is called to reflect the love of one’s neighbor by reassuring them of their basic needs such as food, clothing, housing, education, health care etc.

Jesus himself was the example. Wherever he went proclaiming the word of God, he was not indifferent to the sick, nor to the hungry (Luke 7:21), nor to the suffering. In the Gospel according to Matthew (15:31), the crowd was in awe to see that the mute spoke, that the crippled were healed, that the lame walked, that the blind saw. All glorified the God of Israel.
As a church, all these activities should not be separated. They must evolve simultaneously.

Since it is the primary activity, evangelism must be the main purpose of a church for the transformation of the world, bringing lost souls to Christ (Matthew 28:19).

The Church must support all activities without regarding one as more important than the other.

The Church must ensure active participation in all activities, according to the organization, in order to contribute to its development.

The Church must expand the ministry of compassion to needy people, because faith and social work go together hand in hand. This leads us to say that the relationship between these activities must be regarded as an equal one.

To do so, it is appropriate to give the woman all the necessary training so that she is able to regain her dignity and improve her condition of life in the church. Education is necessary because it allows her to play her full part and ensures greater integration into the structure of the Church in the decision-making process.

We affirm that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). All human beings are endowed with an equal degree of the same dignity. In the Lord, the woman is no different than the man, and the man is no different than the woman.

For just as the woman was taken out of the man, so is the man born by the woman, and all come from God (1 Corinthians 11:11-12). What is important is to encourage African women to bring their stone to the building of the church, that they are not only necessary in the field of the family, that they have ecclesial positions like men because of the educational and transformative power of this equality for a church of tomorrow.

Women’s potential must be taken into account by entrusting them with responsibilities in the ministry of evangelism because they are very present and very engaged in the daily life of the communities. Without the contribution of women, the Africa of tomorrow will not succeed in its evangelizing mission.

Comparative Global Wesleyan Polity - Concluding Thoughts, Part II

This is the sixth in an occasional series of articles comparing the different ways in which Methodist/Wesleyan denominations historically related to The United Methodist Church structure themselves as global bodies. 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.

This series of blogs has looked at four denominations and compared them to The United Methodist Church and each other: the African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Wesleyan Church, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of the Nazarene. The previous post in the series shared some concluding thoughts about what it means to be a global Methodist/Wesleyan denomination. This post will share additional concluding thoughts. These thoughts, however, will not be about being a global church; instead, they will examine church size.

The previous post noted that both in the early twentieth century and in the 1960s and 70s, United Methodists and their predecessors focused on merger rather than crafting international polities. These decisions to pursue merger have had implications not only for the global nature of the church but also organizational consequences that have affected the church regardless of location.

This post is not meant to be a critique of the ecumenical spirit that was a part of previous Methodist mergers. Ecumenism is both authentically Methodist and an important part of the Christian witness to the catholicity of the church.

Nevertheless, other scholars have suggested that ecumenical motives were not the only ones at play in past Methodist mergers. There was also a desire to build a bigger and hence more influential church. This desire for influence was a desire for cultural and political power in the United States and thus US-focused. The consequences of such a desire for size and influence have affected the UMC, and not entirely in positive was.

In fact, comparisons with other Methodist/Wesleyan bodies show two negative aspects to United Methodist’s historic choices for size and influence:

1. The UMC is not only bigger than other denominations; it has more loci of power.

The UMC is relatively top-heavy in its leadership. The number of bishops or general superintendents in other denominations varied, but it ranged from 6 to 20. In comparison, the UMC has 66 bishops. Most of these people are faithful, Spirit-filled people; that’s not the point. The point is just that there are more of them.

This plethora of bishops is a consequence not only of denominational size but also of choices made. First, it is a consequence of the system of missionary bishops that the MEC created but then never fully thought through, in part because of the impending 1939 merger. It is also a consequence of the 1939 merger and the desire of both the Southern and Northern churches to not be led by each other’s bishops.

As a consequence of both choices, the UMC has moved toward a de facto diocesan system of bishops instead of some sort of itinerant general superintendency. This shift has meant more bishops and more administrative functions associated with bishops in each episcopal area.

The United Methodist Church also has more boards and agencies than its sibling denominations, and the boards and agencies have greater autonomy than in other denominations, many of which have a single board model. This is not a criticism of our bishops or our boards and agencies; they all do good and faithful work. Again, the point is that there are more of them.

Here again, size is a factor, but so are historical choices. The UMC has more boards and agencies with greater independence because it often pioneered their creation. Especially the Methodist Episcopal Church had the size and resources to invent a lot of the components of what became the standard template for modern church bureaucracy. That is an accomplishment.

I do not think that The United Methodist Church should undo the accomplishments of its predecessors by eliminating boards and agencies in some sort of purge fueled by anti-bureaucracy ideology. All of our sibling denominations have boards and agencies to help them carry out their ministries. Boards and agencies are an important part of how denominations work together.

What is important, however, is the ways in which boards and agencies communicate and coordinate with each other. There have been significant efforts over the last decade here, and more efforts are on-going. The boards and agencies are significantly less siloed than they once were.

Neither bishops nor boards are bad in and of themselves. Having so many of them, though, means that there are multiple and sometimes conflicting sources of power in the denomination. While this arrangement can ensure a level of democratization, it also relates to my second point:

2. Smaller denominations are more focused in their mission.

Reading through the books of discipline for all four comparative denominations, I got a sense for what ethos united them as a denomination beyond their bureaucratic structures. I’m not sure the same can be said for the UMC.

In part, that’s because the UMC has always been a diverse tradition. In part, that’s because of the large number of leaders and agencies we have. But more than anything, I think it’s a function of size. The UMC and its predecessors have repeatedly favored numeric growth over focused mission, whether that was through pursuit of church mergers or relaxing standards on class meeting attendance. Thus, we’ve had a lot of members with a lot of different ideas about how to be Methodist.

There have been positive aspects to choosing size (ecumenicity, inclusivity, etc.), but there have also been costs. Indeed, the costs have become especially evident as United Methodism has found itself wondering what it means to be United Methodist, where the church should focus, and how (or whether) the church can move in the same direction, questions highlighted by long-running American membership decline and long-running debates about homosexuality.

I am not arguing here that the UMC should break up into smaller denominations for the sake of mission. While that is a possibility, and there would be some benefits, there are certainly costs involved in that choice, too, and I do not suggest that those costs are better.

Instead, I think that the present moment represents an opportunity for the UMC to ask how to (re-)structure itself in a way that will not emphasize preserving the most cultural power and largest group of members possible but instead emphasize enabling its members to pursue the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world in ways that are contextually relevant and recognizes the equality of different units of the church to determine for themselves what those ways are. This is a tall order, but if the UMC wants to continue to be a global denomination, a sense of shared mission is essential.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading: Philippines Quadrennial Plan

United Methodists may be familiar with the plans and priorities of their annual conference or perhaps an agency or two that they may be particularly invested in. But how can United Methodists find out what it really is that their religious compatriots around the world really care about and where they are focusing their efforts?

Here is an opportunity to do just that for the Philippines. The Philippines Central Conference has made its 2017-2020 Quadrennial Plan available through Google Docs.

While few may want to read the entire 54-page program spreadsheet, this document offers good insight into the priorities of fellow United Methodists around the world. The document details efforts that the Philippines Central Conference will make over the next four years in the following categories: develop[ing] vital congregations; developing principled Christian leaders; certified coaches; financial support to UMC theology students; happy, health, holy clergy and deaconesses, financial independence; performance evaluation system; ministry with the poor; stamp out killer diseases; caring for the environment; preparedness for catastrophes; and respect for human rights.

Cultural captivity in the American UMC, part 1

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.

A few weeks ago, Robert Hunt wrote a series of blog posts (post 1, post 2, and post 3) about The United Methodist Church’s difficulties in taking culture into consideration in our conversations about what it means to be a global church. Dr. Hunt, focusing in particular on how decision-making processes are embedded in culture, wrote, “The whole UMC is set up in decision making structures that are distinctly Anglo-American in culture. … These structures are significantly different from those of ethnic minorities within the US, and even more so United Methodists outside the U.S.”

While Dr. Hunt details this argument for United Methodists outside the US, I’d like to pursue just a couple of examples of how this argument plays out within the US, with special reference to leadership rather than decision-making.

Itineracy is a deeply-held value in the UMC, despite a long-term trend toward longer pastorates and notable exceptions at big-steeple church. Yet Anthony J. Shipley notes that frequent changes of pastoral leadership do not fit well with prevailing African-American expectations of church leadership. He writes, “Wherever you see a strong African-American church in an urban center, you will see a pastor who has been there a long time. The way we do business in The UMC, moving pastors every few years, you cannot possibly build a strong church.”[1] The examples of strong African-American churches Shipley provides have all benefitted from longer-than-average pastoral stays.

In another example, Justo Gonzalez has written about the challenges associated with providing theological education to rising Hispanic pastoral leaders in the UMC. Because the percentage of Hispanics with college degrees is lower than it is for other groups and because many Hispanics lack the financial resources and time to complete a three-year M.Div. degree, this pre-requisite for fully ordained ministry in the UMC may be out of reach. Gonzalez states bluntly that “we must acknowledge the cultural captivity of much of our institutional and ecclesiastical life, which prevents us from recruiting and making way for the growing minorities that will soon be the majority of the church.”[2]

The two examples cited address pastoral leadership, but one could make similar arguments related to lay leadership, decision-making, finances, and other areas of organizational life, as well as the much more obvious realm of cultural differences surrounding worship. The examples have been framed in terms of cultural differences related to race/ethnicity, but there are also cultural differences related to socioeconomic class (both Shipley and Gonzalez have strong words on this point, too) or even generation that are also relevant to the church.

The upshot of this difficulty of the UMC in responding to culture is not just the possibility for cultural misunderstandings and conflicts that exists in the global UMC but a real limit to the UMC’s reach in the US. Despite the presence of some very faithful members and leaders of color, we are overwhelmingly a white, middle-class church in a country that is less and less either.

Robert P. Jones’ recent book The End of White, Christian America is surely hyperbolic in its title, but it makes an important point: Christianity is declining among white Americans, and the growth segments for Christianity in America are among non-whites. As this blog has previous reported, the UMC is one of the whitest denominations in the US.

The Pew Forum and others have thoroughly documented the decrease of the middle-class in the US, as more people move either up or down the economic ladder. As this blog has previously reported, the decline in the American middle class parallels the decrease in American UMC membership.

Hence, if the UMC is not able to acknowledge, account for, and adapt to cultural differences domestically as well as globally, we can expect our decline in the US to continue no matter what position we take on sexuality, no matter what revitalization plan we put into place, no matter what sort of restructuring we undertake.

---

[1] Anthony J. Shipley, “The Future of African Americans and Mission” in Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, ed. Charles E. Cole (New York: General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church, 2004), 185.

[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, The History of Theological Education. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2015), 139.

Recommended Readings from Africa University

It's been quite an eventful last couple of months at Africa University, the oldest United Methodist-affiliated institution of higher education in Africa.  In case you missed any of these stories, here' s a rundown of some of the good things that have been happening at Africa U:

In February, Africa University hosted a summit on Methodist evangelism in an African context.  This summit was an important step in developing distinctive and culturally approaches to Methodist evangelism for African branches of the UMC.  You can read stories about it from Africa University's website and from the General Board of Global Ministry's website.

Then, on March 21st, Africa University inaugurated its new vice-chancellor, the chief executive officer of the university.  Dr. Munashe Furusa was elected nearly a year ago, but this was his formal installation.  Both Africa University and the United Methodist News Service covered the inauguration, which was attended by United Methodist leaders from around the world.  As the United Methodist New Service further reported, while Dr. Furusa's inauguration is an exciting event, he will face a variety of challenges to the university's educational offerings, physical plant, and finances.

Africa University will be aided in facing these challenges by two significant gifts to the university.  Both the Foundation for Evangelism and the Indiana Conference have committed to endowing new faculty chairs at the university.  The Foundation for Evangelism is raising money to endow the John Wesley Kurewa Chair, an E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism.  The Indiana Conference is raising money to endow a chair in agricultural and natural resources.  Both gifts will provide for long-term support of the university's educational mission.

All of these stories make it an exciting time at Africa University.  While the institution faces some challenges, as do all institutions, the new leadership, new programs, and new gifts should mean that Africa University continues to be a beacon of uplift for the entire continent.

Indigenous leadership for UMC youth

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.

Last week, I wrote a piece about an upcoming leadership development trip to England for American United Methodists.  I indicated that there may be good things for United Methodists to learn about leadership and discipleship by putting people from different cultural and national traditions into conversation with each other.

Over the weekend, the UM Reporter published an article about the upcoming 2013 Young Africa Leaders Summit.  This summit occurred in May and is the first of four such annual summits.  Its purpose is to help young African leaders in The United Methodist Church learn principles of leadership indigenous to the cultural of the Nilotic sub-Saharan African people.

The summits in Africa are just the first of leadership summits for young United Methodists around the globe.  The Philippines will be hosting a summit in October, and plans are in the works for similar summits in Europe and the United States as well.

While this is not yet the cross-continental leadership work I suggested in my piece last week, I think such youth leadership summits are an excellent step for United Methodists for several reasons.  First, while they're not yet global, they are international, and that feature will help participants to think about their national traditions and problems through new lenses, as I'd hoped for last week.  Second, the conferences seem designed to demonstrate to youth that there's more than one way (i.e., the white, Western way) to think about leadership.  Third, going along with that, the conferences are dedicated to developing previously ignored indigenous traditions of leadership.

All of this exploration of various understandings of leadership can only be good for the UMC, for when the church calls out to its members for leadership, voices from all of God's people will be better prepared to answer that call with the unique wisdom with which God has gifted them.

Learning Wesleyan Leadership in England

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

The General Board of Discipleship (GBOD) is sponsoring a "Wesleyan Pilgrimage" to England next July.  The 10-day trip promises to focus on "An Immersion in Wesleyan Leadership."  The trip will visit sites associated with John and Charles Wesley and the origins of the Methodist movement in an attempt to learn principles of leadership that the Wesleys employed.

This trip follows up from a similar trip that six young-adult UMC clergy from the United States took in 2012.  A video released by GBOD chronicles that trip.  In the video, an explicit connection is made between the purpose for learning through the trip and the membership decline of the UMC in the United States.  The participants talk about the pressure as young adult pastors to turn around the denomination and how the trip renewed and encouraged them in their ministry.

The strategy of looking back to one's roots to solve present problems is age old.  Thus, an approach that tries to solve the membership woes of the contemporary UMC in the United States is not surprising.  Another frequent approach to try to solve the membership problems of the church in the United States is to look at branches of the UMC elsewhere around the world where numbers are increasing, deduce lessons from those countries, and then try to apply them to the United States.  Both approaches have their pitfalls but can help Americans to think outside their own cultural matrices.

What struck me as I was watching the video is how infrequently we try to combine these two strategies.  The six clergypersons on the trip were all serving in the United States (though one was originally from Kenya).  They were asking our British heritage questions about their American context and then trying to hear the answers from their American perspectives.  But what would it look like if Americans, Africans, Europeans, and Asians were to go on a pilgrimage to the birthplace of Methodism to learn together?  How might the answers that John Wesley provides to the problems of the church in the United States sound different when given from a Zimbabwean perspective?  Or what might the Oxford Club have to say to Russian Methodists through Filipino voices?  Looking to our past and looking to our sisters and brothers around the world for advice about the problems we face are sound strategies.  We should remember that they can be combined and, indeed, may be richer when they are.