Secularization and the Collapse of Empire

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.

Within the sociology of religion, the secularization thesis states that religion becomes a less significant part of societies and individual lives as history progresses. The evolution of religion in Europe in the past century has been the main evidence cited in support of this theory, though recent declines in religious belief and identity in the United States have injected new life into this debate.

A variety of causal mechanisms are suggested as the driving force(s) behind secularization. These include modernity broadly, the rise of science and de-mythologizing of people's worldviews, urbanization, religious and social pluralization, the rise of market capitalism, an increase in individualism, and others. I will not rehearse the details of this debate here.

But as I've been thinking about the relationship between religion and power recently, another possibility has occurred to me: What if the process of secularization in Europe and the United States was actually related to the collapse of empire?

In this version of the theory, a decrease in collective and individual religiosity within a society is connected to a decreased sense of national power and efficacy brought on, at least in these recent cases, by the collapse of formal or informal imperial systems. In Europe and North America, there has been a lengthy and tight relationship between Christianity and government. When European empires expanded, Christianity traveled with them, though it was admittedly a complicated relationship. Given that sustained history of connection, we should not be surprised, then, if a decline in imperial power should have implications for the religion which for so long had been connected to it.

This explanation would make sense of the timing of secularization in most of Europe (1950s and 1960s) and its later onset in the United States (2000s and 2010s), despite similar levels of modernization on other scales. It would also explain the greater resilience of religion in Eastern Europe (which had lower participation in the age of imperialism) than in Western Europe, though there are certainly individual outliers, such as the Czech Republic.

Moreover, this explanation might account for the different trajectories in the United States between mainline Protestants and Catholics, on the one hand, and evangelical Protestants, on the other, given that mainline Protestants and Catholics were impacted by post-colonial critiques much earlier than evangelical Protestants, who were forced to reckon with the United States' changed role in the world more significantly only after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It also could explain differences between white and non-white religiosity. The religiosity of white Americans, who have been the primary beneficiaries of American empire, has declined faster than that of people of color, who have been farther from the seats of American imperial power.

This explanation also fits with general impressions I have about the difficulty that American Methodism has with providing a theological accounting of failure of any type and the difficulties that British Methodism has faced in providing an accounting for Britain's changed role in the world since the 1960s. In both cases, a loss of confidence seems to be both cause and effect of membership decline.

This thesis (and secularization theory in general) may well be incorrect. I have not done extensive research to substantiate it. But if there is at least a kernal of truth in it, it has several implications for the fields of missiology and World Christianity.

First, the amount of research that missiologists have done on the relationship between Christianity and empire makes them well-prepared to investigate this connection. While most of this research has looked at the relationships as they have played out in imperial territories, there is more of this story to be written about the relationship between Christianity and imperial power in imperial metropoles, and mission historians could easily be the ones to write it.

Second, if secularization is caused by the relationship between Christianity and secular power and declines in that secular power, rather than modernization or other factors, that would give scholars of World Christianity curious or concerned about the future of Christianity outside of Europe and North America a new set of indicators to pay attention to.

Rather than wondering whether economic development will undercut religious belief, this thesis would lead scholars to pay more attention to the relationship between Christian groups and local political power and the power trajectories of nations. In many cases where Christianity is far from political power, there should be little concern about secularization. Furthermore, even when Christianity is proximate to political power, but that power is not waning, Christianity should (at least for the time being) be unaffected.

Finally, such a connection would give missiologists another consideration in setting evangelistic strategy as it relates to proximity to secular power. The proper relationship between Christianity and societal elites has been a debate for hundreds of years within mission circles, with pros and cons enumerated on both sides. This thesis would, however, suggest that those "who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Robert K. Greenleaf, Intersectionality, and the UMC in 2020

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.

Before my current work with Global Ministries, I served as Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College in Ripon, WI. In the Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership part of my job, I was tasked with promoting practices associated with the philosophy of servant leadership as set forth by Robert K. Greenleaf.

Greenleaf was an idiosyncratic thinker, and there are portions of his writings that clearly reflect his mid-twentieth century US context. Yet, there are portions of his thinking that have enduring value, and servant leadership is one of the main paradigms within the contemporary field of servant leadership.

The term "servant" leadership has been critiqued by women and people of color as potentially reinforcing traditional serving and servile roles for those parts of the population. While those concerns are legitimate, I believe servant leadership can function as a significant critique of white men and others who have traditionally held power (and others who currently hold it). The paradigm of servant leadership does this through its insistence that leaders consider first the impact of their actions on others, not how they can benefit themselves through their positions.

In this way, the model of servant leadership follows the example of Jesus' relationship to power, especially as set forward in Philippians 2:4-8:

4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8   he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.

Greenleaf, in his 1970 essay, The Servant as Leader, laid out this test of servant leadership: “The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"

These two questions - How will others benefit from your leadership? What is the impact of your leadership on the least privileged or most oppressed? - are questions we should ask all our leaders.

Yet there is a complication in the second question, one that is highlighted in the concept of intersectionality. There are multiple forms or dimensions of privilege. Wealth, education, gender, race, sexual orientation, age, nationality, tribe, religion, formal position, and a host of other factors can confer advantages to individuals and groups. Thus, the process of determining who is the "least privileged in society" is not a straight-forward one.

This is particularly true when one takes a global denomination such as The United Methodist Church as one's society. There are multiple groups within such a large and heterogeneous body that enjoy privileges denied to others, and conversely, there are many groups that are discriminated against or oppressed relative to others.

Much of the current discourse within United Methodism has focused on the oppression of LGBTQ persons, who are denied marriage and ordination relative to straight, cis-gendered persons. This is certainly a legitimate application of Greenleaf's test: How can our actions as a denomination benefit, or at least not further deprive, LGBTQ persons?

Yet, there are other oppressed groups in the church as well. A pregnant woman in Mozambique who must walk 15 miles to a hospital is also disadvantaged relative to Westerners who have (in general) much more abundant access to healthcare. An undocumented immigrant in the United States is marginalized relative to US citizens and does not have the same legal protections that they do. Indigenous peoples, whether in the Philippines, United States, Norway, or elsewhere, face social and sometimes legal stigmas not encountered by majority society. The applications of Greenleaf's second test are multiple because of the intersectional nature of privilege and oppression.

There are several unhelpful ways to respond to this complexity of power and privilege. One is to try to assert that the oppression of other groups does not matter relative to the oppression of one's own. Another is to assert that, since it is impossible to benefit all oppressed groups, the system should be left as it is, with its current set of privileges preserved.

The most helpful path of leadership in the face of these various moral claims, and probably the most difficult, is for leaders to listen to as many groups as possible and consider the impacts of their actions on as many groups as possible, in the process resisting simple or quick answers.

This is my wish for the UMC in 2020, especially as we head toward General Conference 2020: that those who are exerting leadership and making decisions as delegates, as denominational officials, and as caucus leaders behind the scenes might embrace Greenleaf's test in all its complexity.

I pray that they may consider not just how the plans and proposal they promote will benefit themselves and their constituencies, but that they may consider the impacts on the "least privileged" in whatever form they might present themselves: the transgender person in Norway, the malarial mother in the Congo, the immigrant congregation in the US, the war refugee in Germany, the potentially suicidal lesbian teen in the US, the future generations of the church everywhere who are not yet included in its decision-making.

Each of these groups has a moral claim on the leadership that our delegates, bishops, and others will exert throughout the coming year. There are no easy answers for how to handle these at times competing moral claims. But the answers we do arrive at will be better if we accept this moral challenge and recognize the complexity that lies therein.

Bishops' Salaries and African UMC Economics

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.

As indicated in a previous post, one way in which United Methodists in the United States subsidize the ministry of United Methodists in the central conferences is through the Episcopal Fund, one of the seven general church apportionment funds.

Episcopal areas in the central conferences do contribute to the Episcopal Fund (central conference apportionments make up 2.81% of the Episcopal Fund), but the amount they receive from that fund exceeds what they put in, thus generating a subsidy.

GCFA has reported that the cost for a central conference bishop on average is $930,000 for the current quadrennium, or about $232,500 per year. This total for episcopal expenses includes salary, housing allowance, office allowance, and travel.

In 2018, the UMC spent $1,016,903 in Africa, $234,670 in the Philippines, and approximately $373,832 in Europe on episcopal salaries. Subtracting salary from the total expense leaves about $150,000 per bishop for benefits, housing, office, and travel expenses. Benefits might account for $30,000 (40% of average salary). Presumably less than $20,000 (the American limit) is for housing. No more than $10,000 is for office expenses. That leaves up to $100,000 per year in travel expenses per central conference bishop. While this may seem high, note the large expenses in flying bishops from remote locations in the central conferences to the Unites States for frequent meetings.

Taken all together, the UMC as a whole is spending about $4,650,000 per year on central conference bishops. By contrast, all central conferences together gave $621,241 in 2018 to the episcopal fund. Thus, central conferences received about 7 ½ times what they spend on episcopal compensation.

Even more important is the disparity between episcopal compensation and the average income of people in many of the central conference countries. In the United States, a bishop’s salary is 2.7 times the average income for a resident of the US. In Germany, it’s only 1.7 times as large, and in Russia, it’s only 2.3 times. But in the Philippines, a bishop’s salary is 9.4 times the average income.

And in Africa, the gap is even larger. It’s 13.3 times as large as the average salary in Nigeria, 34 times in Zimbabwe, 55.9 times in Liberia, and a whopping 111.7 times in the DRC. And that’s not including benefits, housing and office payments, or travel expenses. All told, episcopal compensation in Africa is dozens if not hundreds of times what an average United Methodist might make in a year.

While I have great respect for the difficult and challenging work done by the central conference bishops and the deep faithfulness of the individuals in the role, there are some structural consequences of these US subsidies of central conference episcopal salaries that are vastly out of scale with average income in African countries. Again, these are structural consequences to a structural issue that has been around longer than any of the individuals currently serving as bishops. This is about the system we as global United Methodists have collectively built, not any of the individuals serving as bishops in that system.

Moreover, it’s important to point out the colonialist roots of this system, wherein bishops were initially US Americans, and it was seen as acceptable to pay them many times what those among whom they served earned. Upon the election of leaders from the central conferences as bishops, the reasonable argument was made that they deserved to be paid in line with their American predecessors, not at a fraction of that rate.

Be that as it may, this system has several consequences. First and foremost, it dramatically increases bishops’ roles as patrons, therefore increasing both bishops’ power and the demands placed on them. African bishops may receive a lot of money, but they don’t just keep all this money for themselves. In line with traditional leadership models, bishops function as patrons who distribute resources, including their own money, for the benefit of those they lead. African bishops being paid more also means that the United Methodists they serve expect more from them as patrons, since they are aware of the resources that bishops control, not just through approval and channeling of project funding, but from their own salaries.

However, because the funds that African bishops distribute through patronage come from outside the communities served, rather than being redistributed among those communities as in traditional times, this reduces the accountability of bishops. If bishops hold all of the financial cards in a relationship, there are fewer who can (or are willing to) afford (literally) to challenge the bishops.

This can make episcopal elections hotly contested, as they are not just for positions of spiritual leadership but for positions of significant economic influence that can be used in a manner seen fit by the office holder with little pushback from others. I am not saying that bishops use this situation for their own benefit; again, they are often called upon to use their own resources for the church. I am saying this situation gives bishops a tremendous amount of power, making election as a bishop a very valuable prize.

The value of the prize of being bishop and the extent of the power that bishops wield within the official system paradoxically also increases the incentive for those not elected as bishop to try to cultivate alternative, non-official sources of funding to develop their own power base, since there is little recourse to power left to them through official channels after losing an episcopal election.

It is thus significant, for instance, that the three Africans on the WCA council (Jerry Kulah, Kimba Evariste, and Forbes Matonga) all previously ran unsuccessfully for bishop. WCA funding, connections, and prestige are a way to challenge the authority of the bishops in ways that are not possible through the official channels of the church. Indeed, it is fair to say that the way the UMC has administratively and financially structured the office of bishop in Africa has produced a perverse incentive for other African leaders to affiliate with the WCA to try to build their own spheres of influence.

To the extent that African episcopal salaries are ethical or administrative problem in need of a solution, the solution is not as simple as just giving all African bishops a significant pay cut. There are real issues of procedural fairness to those serving as bishop that should make us reconsider such a drastic approach.

But the UMC could stand to reflect more on how it has structured financial relationships not only between the United States and the central conferences, but within the central conferences themselves, and the complicity of US United Methodists in those systems. And, as The United Methodist Church lurches towards whatever future awaits it, there is no time like the present to rethink how money shapes the denomination, the consequences of that shaping, and the alternative that may exist

Polity as basis for United Methodist unity

This is the third 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.

This week’s contender for possible source of unity for The United Methodist Church is polity. Polity means the rules and structures that define the formal organization of the church. It includes things like membership vows, definitions of ordained ministry (and the rules for becoming and remaining an ordained minister), General Conference, the general boards and agencies and their relations to other parts of the church, annual conferences, ministerial pension funds, property ownership and oversight, staff-parish relations committee, and a whole host of other organizational apparatuses.

On a first glance, polity is certainly part of what constitutes the unity of The United Methodist Church. Historian Richard Heitzenrater (and others) argues that what it truly meant to be Methodist in the early days was to be in connection (or connexion, as the British would spell it) with John Wesley. Similarly, to be United Methodist nowadays means to be a member, minister, or ministry of The United Methodist Church, a formal organization with its own set of laws and regulations governing how the church functions.

People can play with the boundaries of those laws or disobey those laws at times, but one isn’t United Methodist unless one buys into the organization to a certain extent. If a church completely disregards the Book of Discipline, never sends delegates to an Annual Conference, doesn’t pay apportionments, and is in no way linked to the church hierarchy, it’s not United Methodist; it’s an independent, non-denominational church.

Hence, polity is definitely part of what unites United Methodists. In fact, polity is such an important uniting force that it also highlights the forces for disunity. Methodists can argue with Presbyterians and feel that, as fellow Christians or even fellow Protestants, they have a stake in keeping those arguments going and not just walking out. But, at the end of the day, there’s always the option that, if the argument gets too much to deal with, Methodists (or Presbyterians) can take their ball (or, rather, their pension fund) and go home. Yes, that might be a defeat of Christian unity, but it’s not going to cause massive administrative problems in local churches.

United Methodists cannot, however, when arguing with each other, just take their pension fund and go home because it’s the same pension fund! Because polity governs things like money and power but is also something that unites denominations in a fairly robust way, disagreements over other issues quickly get translated into disagreements over polity, and these disagreements matter because they affect things like who gets to be a minister, which ministries get money, and who can become a member of a church. It affects the day-to-day operations of churches in real, tangible ways. Sometimes polity is strong enough to survive these types of conflicts, and churches work through their differences; sometimes it’s not, and churches split.

This tendency for conflicts from other areas of the church to become conflicts about polity means, however, that polity cannot be the sole source of denominational unity. If all we have in common is common pools of money and common structures of power, then all we will do is fight about money and power. There’s already a good deal of that going on in the church (see the comment from a couple of posts ago about people fighting like weasels at General Conference), and we don’t need more of it. Fighting about things like money and power means that the church is focused internally on itself and not focused externally, and that it is focused on earthly things and not heavenly things.

When the church is not focused externally, then it can’t be in mission and ministry to the world, which is a good portion of the church’s reason for existence. When the church is stuck thinking solely about earthly and not heavenly things, then it can’t be an effective worshiping community, which is most of the rest of the church’s reason for existence. And if the church isn’t in mission and isn’t a worshiping community, then it has effectively stopped to be the church, no matter what the name on the incorporation papers say.

Therefore, to do ministry together and to worship communally, which are the reasons for the church’s existence, there must be something more holding the church together than just polity. In the next two weeks, I’ll look at some ideas as to what else might provide that basis of unity.

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.

The Middle and the Margins in Methodism

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.

American United Methodists seem to have generally come to accept that the proposal of the Commission on a Way Forward will include some sort of “loosening” of the connection that involves separate structures for different groups of American United Methodists under a common umbrella. This being seen as fait accompli, the debate among American United Methodists has shifted to one between conservative incompatibilists (i.e., those opposed to gay marriage and ordination and are unwilling to live in the same structure as those in favor) and compatibilists (i.e., those of whatever opinion on homosexuality who are willing to live in the same structure with those of different opinions).

This debate has progressed along two main lines – one structural and one rhetorical.

The structural question is whether the US should be split into two or three sub-denominations. Many conservative incompatibilists would like the denomination to split into two – a “progressive” denomination for those unwilling to live with the current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to be small, and an “orthodox” denomination that continues current Book of Discipline restrictions, which is expected to contain the majority of the current US church. Conservative compatibilists assume that they would be positioned to control this orthodox-majority church.

Many compatibilists, however, would like the US church to split into three – an “orthodox” denomination for those seeking hardline prohibitions against homosexuality, a “progressive” denomination for those seeking immediate full inclusion of gays and lesbians, and the rest of the denomination, presumed to be the majority, which would tolerate a diversity of opinions, perhaps through some sort of local option. Compatibilists assume both orthodox and progressive churches would be small and they would be positioned to control the tolerant majority church. Thus, the fight between conservative incompatibilists and moderate compatibilists is over who will have control over the majority of the US church.

Along with this basic fight for control through structural arrangements has been a rhetorical fight over which group is the “middle” in United Methodism. American moderate compatibilists claim that, by willing to engage people of all opinions, they are in the middle of American Methodist views on sexuality. American conservative incompatibilists claim that they actually are a majority of American Methodists and, if not, they are certainly in the middle of United Methodist views on homosexuality globally.

Thus, this debate is, at heart, a debate about being in the center and therefore having the power to determine the rules for those on the periphery. Moreover, it is clear that for both sides of the debate, United Methodists in the central conferences and progressive American United Methodists are not at the center and therefore should not have the power to determine the rules for the rest of the denomination or even, in some cases, themselves.* Thus, center/periphery functions as both a geographic and a theological distinction.

There are, however, two good, theological reasons to question both sides’ framing of this debate and their objectives within it.

First, one may take issue with the central objective of being at the center and wielding power. Jesus cautions, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” This is not an invitation to seek the center. Paul adds, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” because we follow “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” Seeking the center is not seeking to be like the crucified Christ.

This rush to the center and avoidance of the margins also goes against the best in contemporary theological reflection on mission. The margins are often where we best encounter God and where God does some of God’s best work. As Together Towards Life states, “We affirm that marginalized people are agents of mission and exercise a prophetic role which emphasizes that fullness of life is for all. The marginalized in society are the main partners in God’s mission.” Seeking the center can take us away from participating in God’s mission.

Second, one may take issue with how the wielding of power is conceived. In Mark 10, Jesus says, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” For Jesus, being a ruler, being great, being at the center, is not about “lording it over” those at the margins; it’s about serving them.

Cast in secular political terms, several commentators have expressed sentiments to the effect that the true moral test of a democracy is how it treats its minorities. The United Methodist Church is a democracy and moreover one that is not set up well to impose the will of the majority upon a substantial minority; hence the large amount of local disregard for General Conference directives.

This is not to say a church can’t set boundaries to its teaching or membership, but does mean that those who would see themselves at the center, whether conservative or moderate on issues of sexuality, should ask themselves what they are willing to do to support the mission, ministry, and spiritual development of those at the margins, whether that’s Filipinos, racial minorities in the US, Africans, American progressives, or Europeans. Last weekend's events in Charlottesville dramatically demonstrate how threatened those at the margins can be from systems of sin and oppression. How can those in the Methodist middle, as John Wesley would say, first do no harm to minority groups and second do good to minority groups’ ministries so that all may stay (and grow) in love with God?

Both sides in the current UMC debate accuse each other of accommodating to the world while proudly proclaiming the counter-cultural witness of their own side. More than anything, the world seeks power and privilege. True Christian witness that goes against the ways of the world seeks humility and gives power away.

*Conservative American incompatibilists say that Africans should be allowed to determine the rules on the issue of homosexuality, where they agree with conservative Americans, but by and large conservative American United Methodists do not argue that we should follow Africans’ lead in other regards, expect perhaps an emphasis on revivalism, which is already a value for conservative Americans and thus not something that they support because they were led to it by Africans. American compatibilists largely do not talk about non-American United Methodists.

Darryl Stephens: On What Really Divides Us: A Response to Philip Wingeier-Rayo

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference. He is author of Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness (University of Tennessee Press).

In a recent post, my colleague Philip Wingeier-Rayo wrote about mission to the religiously unaffiliated in the US. He and I are in agreement on many points, not least the importance of faithfully inculturating the gospel so as to reach the nones and dones. However, one aspect of his analysis deserves further consideration: the roots of “our greatest divide.”

Wingeier-Rayo wrote: “I believe that our greatest divide is that certain sectors give more primacy to Scripture and tradition, while other sectors place more authority with experience and reason. These tendencies might be representative of the values of Boomers and Millennials, which generally live within modernist (belief in the Truth) vs. post-modernist (truth is relative) views toward authority.”

Yet, these binary distinctions do not hold up to closer scrutiny. While there exist clear generational patterns regarding attitudes toward homosexuality (see Pew study released June 26, 2017), I believe the roots of the divide are neither primarily generational, postmodernist, nor dependent on privileging one or more aspects of the Wesleyan quadrilateral. It is true that folks differ in how they weigh the different theological sources of wisdom. It is also true that some people might be described as modernist and others post-modernist. However, it is not at all clear that these persons are easily correlated and grouped into identifiable sectors, particularly as an explanation of differing views on the issue of homosexuality, the most visible manifestation of the divide in the church today.

If we want to understand what divides, we need to examine power and authority—not the authority of various sources of wisdom but the authority of those persons wielding these sources and how they choose to exercise their social and institutional power.

Reason. A century ago, Protestants in the US were sharply divided over science as a form of human reason. Modernists embraced historical criticism of the Bible and Darwin’s theory of evolution over and against Christians who embraced creationism as an alternative to science. Nevertheless, there were points of agreement. White Christians of both perspectives leveraged their power, either citing the curse of Ham (Gen 9:22-27) or the new “science” of Darwinian-inspired eugenics, to justify the racial superiority of whites. When the interests of white males in these opposing camps overlapped, the result was a powerful system of social and legal oppression of non-whites in Methodism and society. General Conference repented for past racism in 2000 and for past support of eugenics in 2008.

Contrasting modernist versus postmodernist perspectives does not illuminate any consistent pattern in the selective embrace of scientific reason by Methodists since the 1920s Scopes Monkey Trial. For example, the UMC’s stance on homosexuality, legislated into the Social Principles in 1972, seems immune to advances in scientific knowledge about sexuality and gender. Today, scientific evidence indicates that sexual orientation is naturally occurring (like left-handedness) and is not a choice.

Yet, few United Methodists supporting the current language of the Discipline on homosexuality are anti-Darwinian creationists. Rejection of scientific truths is not a consistent indicator among these United Methodists who otherwise have no trouble “believing” in everyday technologies dependent upon the scientific breakthroughs of the past century (nuclear power, GPS, semiconductors, etc.). It’s not a matter of giving reason primacy or not; it’s rather a matter of how particular rationales are leveraged to support the material interests of those with power. An appeal to other parts of the quadrilateral provides no more clarity about the divide.

Experience. Likewise, it’s not a matter of whether to give experience primacy. Rather, it’s what kind of experience counts as authoritative. For evangelical Christians, experience is privileged over all other sources of theological insight. The quintessential religious experience among evangelicals is being saved through a personal relationship with Christ. Without this experience, one cannot be saved (and consequently, cannot discern God’s will or what is morally right). For charismatics, the ongoing experiences of God’s grace through actions of the Holy Spirit are primary. For many progressives, the experience of God’s grace through the charism of radically inclusive love of all persons (regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity) defines how they understand their faith. Christians across the theological spectrum privilege experience in different ways.

Tradition. Which aspect of tradition counts as a source of wisdom? As I have argued in Methodist Morals, public engagement in the moral questions of the day is a predominant aspect of Methodist tradition. This tradition of social witness is dynamic and responsive, requiring the church to function as a community of moral deliberation as it discerns how to be faithful in the world. United Methodists supporting full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church are faithful to this tradition. Conversely, an insistence on a “literal” interpretation of the Bible as the only faithful reading is a distinctly modern phenomenon, upending a centuries-long tradition of much more varied approaches to scripture, including ways in which the Bible interprets itself.

Scripture. Privileging Scripture as a source of wisdom is no less complicated. It’s not a matter of whether to give Scripture primacy. Rather, it's a matter of how one engages Scripture and on which issues. By what scriptural account did Methodists promote Prohibition of alcohol, that defining moral crusade of the last century? By what scriptural account did Methodists cease to consider remarriage after divorce a moral issue and focus, rather, on homosexual marriage? By what scriptural account do Methodists choose to welcome the immigrant, speak out for war, support international cooperation, or embrace US exceptionalism? Scripture has been used and abused to support a wide variety of moral crusades in Methodism.

Power and authority. There is a pattern among these divisive issues, but the distinction is not between one unchanging Truth and an evolving or relativistic understanding of truth. Nor is the distinction between the primacy of one or more sources (Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason) by various interpreters. Rather, the roots of division reside in human power and authority. To understand “our greatest divide,” we must ask: What existing forms of authority are threatened? Who stands to lose power? Who stands to gain power? What ideologies and which material interests are being threatened?

In a patriarchal, racialized, economically stratified church and society, it is not difficult to imagine whose authority and power might be threatened when Methodists and others decide to discern anew what the Lord requires. The attempt to control our own destinies and to wield control over others rather than to trust in God and to love one another—these tendencies feed what really divides us as United Methodists.

Wesleyan theology and power in mission relationships

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.

As this week's recommended reading indicates, how we think about power matters for how we think about (and practice) mission. I would like to further contend that how we think about the process of redemption has implications for how we think about power. Moreover, a proper Wesleyan understanding of the process of redemption should facilitate a proper understanding of power in mission relationships.

I want to get into this connection between Wesleyan theology and power in mission by contrasting Wesleyan and Reformed theological anthropologies (theological views of human nature) and soteriologies (theologies of salvation). Such theological arguments among Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, and Wesleyans constitute a significant arena of classical, European theology, but one which is not frequently connection to missiology.

I do not mean to imply by this post that missionaries from the Reformed tradition are predestined to misunderstand power in mission relationships. Obviously, there are many fine missionaries and mission theologians from Reformed perspectives that understand the complexities of power in mission far better than most Methodists.

I only mean to suggest that Methodists should be aided in thinking properly about the role of power in mission by reflecting well on their Wesleyan theological heritage. For Methodists to misunderstand power is not only a failure of proper missiology; it's a failure of proper Wesleyan theological anthropology and soteriology.

In the standard Reformed position, human beings experience "total depravity" - that is, all of the good in human nature has become effaced and human beings are nothing but sinful and evil. True Christians are saved from this condition by "unconditional election" - God's choice without any form of participation by those being saved. Indeed, humans are completely unable to be part of the process of salvation in any way since whatever was good in them has been completely destroyed by sin.

In contrast, John Wesley understand that sin had corrupted human nature but that humans still retained something of the "imago Dei," the image of God, in them. Humans' spiritual and moral capacities are turned away from God, but humans still had such capacities. Salvation comes, then, when God restores these capacities by imparting grace. God's prevenient grace revives these capacities to the point where humans are enabled to respond to God's grace. While it's important not to make humans responsible for their own salvation, humans nonetheless have more than a merely passive role to play in their salvation according to the Wesleyan model.

With this understanding in mind, we can turn to missiology. Just as God sends God's self (Jesus) into the fallen world to redeem it, so God sends the church forward in that same world to participate in God's act of redemption. Thus, Christians can be excused for modeling their understandings of how the church should be in mission on how they understand God to save humanity. It is easy, if not entirely correct, for Christians to see themselves as playing a role analogous to God and the world as playing a role analogous to the Christian.

A poor understanding of mission power relations sees Westerns/white people/the rich/the middle class/etc. as the active agents in mission and non-Westerns/non-white people/the poor/etc. are merely passive recipients of the mission activity of privileged Christians. The privileged do; the spiritually and materially underprivileged receive.

Yet if the mission relationship mirrors in any way the relationship between God and Christians, then this is a wrong understanding of mission according to Wesleyan theology. Humans are not just passive objects in their salvation. They have capabilities, and God's goal is to restore and revive those capabilities. Thus, Wesleyan missionaries should at a minimum seek to discover and develop the capabilities of those they serve in mission.

Ideally, Wesleyan missionaries should go beyond this minimum to seek partnership and mutuality with those with whom they are in mission, recognizing that they are not God but rather partners with others in obedience to God. Such an understanding would fully reflect the imago Dei in all and God's prevenient grace at work everywhere.

Nevertheless, a more fundamental case can be made that any form of missiology that does not recognize the agency of recipients of mission cannot claim to be truly Wesleyan.

Recommended Reading: Irish Methodist World Development on Power

Tim Dunwoody, World Mission and Development Officer of the Methodist Church in Ireland's Methodist World Development and Relief agency, wrote this blog post about how power affects the work of mission and development. Mr. Dunwoody's very accessible piece explains the concept of the "white savior narrative," examines the different ways power can be deployed in development work, and recommends the model of partnership as a configuration of power that moves away from the white savior narrative. Dunwoody's piece as a nicely written overview of important issues in missiology today and is appropriate for a general lay audience.