Today's post is the latest in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist mission professors and practitioners are re-examining this theological
statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United
Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Bishop Walter Klaiber, Retired Bishop of the Germany Episcopal Area. Bishop Klaiber is commenting on the
fourth section of the document, "Mission: Reform" and responding, in part, to Dr. Ben Hartley's earlier comments on that section. Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
It is true that for the Methodist Movement social holiness was from the beginning an indispensable dimension of what Wesley called scriptural holiness. Already in the preface to his collection of “Hymns and Sacred Poems” from 1739 John Wesley wrote the famous sentence: “The gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness.” Now, it may well be that for Wesley the word social meant not only public welfare but had a much broader meaning embracing everything that has to do with life in the community. But as Professor Hartley rightly emphasizes: Social reform was not a later addendum to the agenda of Methodism but belongs to its roots from the beginning. That “the poor have good news brought to them” (Mt 11:5; cf. Lk 4:18) meant always not only to preach the Gospel to them, but also to share temporal goods as well as to strive together with them for better conditions.
We all know Methodism did not always live up to this ideal. And telling the stories of mission may also mean telling some stories of short comings and failure. For example, we have to realize that in continental Europe, and especially in Germany, the Methodist movement was for most of its history not aware of this dimension of its mission. Methodism in continental Europe started as a revival movement and happened to become a kind of pietistic free church which was eager to save souls and to lead people to personal holiness in congregations where brothers and sisters lovingly (and sometimes also warily) were watching over one another. I hope I will not be misunderstood: Of course these people cared for one another and for their neighbors; their preaching and the way they lived together attracted poor and simple people, and their new lifestyle had the effect that at least the next generation climbed up the social ladder. But they were not involved in a struggle for social reform and more social justice – as almost none of the churches in Europe were. To support trade unions, for example, was not in the horizon of pastors or of most members of the church. The only real involvement in social work beyond the local church was the creation of hospitals where even poor people could get medical help by the Methodist Deaconess Orders, a type of ministry that started in Germany. The
reasons for this are manifold: one of them may be that Methodists or Baptists were denounced as foreign intruders; therefore they felt they should be especially well-aligned to the governing standards of the society in order to get freedom for their religious message.
This has changed – at least when it comes to the theological awareness for the task of a holistic mission. Most people in the United Methodist Church in Germany will know that we have Social Principles and regard as one of the special marks of our church that the grace of God we share aims as at the shalom in society as well at personal salvation. Methodists took part in the peace movement of the eighties of the last century and were leading figures in the movement for justice, peace and integrity of creation. Our local churches are looking for a ministry which is meaningful for people in need: Noon meals for the poor and the lonely which offer not only food but also community and counsel, support for refugees and asylum seekers which not only cares for clothing and other goods, but also helps them to learn the language and to get access to medical treatment and legal counsel and tries to improve the legislation regarding the acceptance and the legal and social situation of these people. There is a renewed awareness of the problem of addiction, and church-related institutions provide medical care for addicted people, and local churches support self-help groups which work on the problem.
But there are still challenges:
1. When it comes to the struggle for social reform and for real change in the society we will have to work ecumenically. For Methodist Churches in Europe this is a must if only because they themselves are so small that they will only be heard when they speak together with other churches. In the secularized societies of the so called West the Christian Churches will only be taken
seriously – if at all – when they speak with one voice. But in a time when even the life of the churches seems to be governed by the rules of the market society (what is your USP?) it is difficult to forge stable coalitions. “We [as United Methodists] need a victory”, said a bishop in view of the success of a major social program. No wonder that there was not much talk about ecumenical cooperation.
2. In principle and in theory we are aware of our holistic mission: Evangelism and social work, including lobbying for the poor, belong together. When it comes to the detail on the local level or in our Conferences there is still some debate: What is our main task? Not everybody can do everything, but in small churches or conferences it may even be difficult to tolerate or to accept that some do different things. And in those regions where membership is shrinking, the pressure is great to do those things first which seem to promise a numerical growth. As a bishop I used to say: I would like to have three groups in each
church: One who tries to share the message with others, one who cares for people in need, and one who prays for both ministries.
3. Whereas in former times it may have been difficult to be holistic regarding the social dimension of our mission, today it sometimes seems to be difficult and even unacceptable regarding the evangelistic dimension. Should we share our faith e.g. with asylum seekers or refugees who are Muslims, or is it wise to try to integrate people from other Christian traditions into the communion of our congregations? Or are there other ways to share the love of God which we encounter in Christ with people of other religions or traditions without proselytizing them but also not withholding from them what is most precious for us?
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Ben Hartley on Grace Upon Grace: Mission: Reform
Today's post is the seventh in a series of posts that are re-examining the mission document of The United Methodist Church, Grace Upon Grace (Nashville: Graded Press, 1990). Various United Methodist professors of
mission will contribute to a re-examination of this theological
statement and how it can inform our corporate life in The United
Methodist Church today. This piece is written by Dr. Benjamin L. Hartley, Associate Professor of Christian Mission and Director of United Methodist Studies at Palmer Theological Seminary. Dr. Hartley is commenting on the
fourth section of the document, "Mission: Reform." Use the "Grace Upon Grace" tag to identify other posts in this series.
In paragraphs 18-24 Grace upon Grace continues to recount “our missional heritage” by drawing attention to previous Methodist reform movements which attacked the problems of slavery, unjust labor practices, alcohol abuse, poverty, and economic injustice. A very similar litany of past Methodist involvement in addressing these problems could certainly still be given today – twenty-five years after the writing of Grace upon Grace. It may be helpful, however, to reflect a bit about how one might tell this nineteenth century story of mission as social reform differently today. Our perspective on historical events is always shifting.
I was struck first by the way Methodism’s holistic ministry of biblical justice and evangelism was described in paragraph 18: “The revival movement which began with an emphasis on personal regeneration extended into social reform.” Historically, this description certainly suggests a shift in emphasis. But does it downplay the extent to which social reform was integral to Methodist mission from the start? Wesley’s anti-slavery writings and his “Thoughts on the Present Scarcity of Provisions” are just two examples to which one may point to highlight such holism. Theologically, I am also critical of portraying the 19th century Methodist reform efforts as mere “extensions” as if they were a kind of second step beyond a focus on personal regeneration. For most nineteenth century Methodists mission as social reform was seen as part and parcel of their view of sanctification. (Grace upon Grace does a nice job of highlighting the importance of this doctrine in paragraphs 9 and 43.) Frances Willard, John R. Mott, E. Stanley Jones and many unsung heroes in the anti-slavery and organized labor movements were driven to do their work at least in part because of their life-transforming experiences of sanctifying grace. They sought to bring into reality an evangelical synergism of what E. Stanley Jones called “Christlikeness universalized.”
It is important today to tell these stories of mission as reform in such a way that they do not get reduced to mere do-gooder activism or as Methodism’s “extension” beyond personal regeneration, or as an adoption of Social Gospel ideas which were imported to Methodism from other theological movements. It was frequently these things as well, but for many 19th century Methodists, their work in mission as social reform was powered by a profound conviction about holiness. God’s sanctifying grace propelled them to the streets as well as to the far side of the sea. This is easy to forget at a time when teaching about holiness is at best unfashionable in many UMC congregations in North America. We will need to find new language to express this hallmark of the Methodist movement in such a way that it captures our imaginations, but it ought not be given up. A few weeks ago I was asked to attend a meeting of the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium by the UMC’s Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships. This gathering of about a dozen denominational leaders who identify with the Wesleyan holiness tradition was a reminder to me of what many United Methodists could gain from some ecumenical relationship-building at a local level. Our closest Wesleyan cousins share in our history of social reform and in our teaching about sanctification.
When we are telling these stories of mission as reform, it is also important to point out that they are ongoing stories. Paragraphs 18-23 in Grace upon Grace are a reminder that the scourge of human slavery is not only a historical victory for Methodists but remains a challenge for the contemporary church. The problem of human trafficking is gaining a great deal of traction among Christians in North America at the moment. This is surely a hopeful sign. I fear, however, that other related problems are being somewhat ignored in the face of this important movement to end human trafficking today.
The problems of poverty and food insecurity in the U.S. and around the world are as significant now just as they were when Wesley penned his essay, “Thoughts on the Scarcity of Provisions,” in 1773. New challenges of climate change, access to clean water, sanitation, and future food price increases require continued commitment of Methodists around the world for years to come. We also need to celebrate and be thankful for the success stories of poverty reduction in many countries throughout the world. While much work remains to be done I think it is important that Christians acknowledge the good news of reduced poverty rates in many countries. There are personal stories behind these positive statistics. I recently found the Bread for the World 2013 Hunger Report to be rather encouraging reading in this regard.
Finally, Grace upon Grace describes “social transformation” in the early 20th century as a “new frontier in mission.” Methodists like to speak of new frontiers even when they are not really new. Still, the size of the task, the complexity of the problem, and the energy and hopefulness to address it doubtless made Methodist workers in social reform feel like they were on a new frontier to which God had called them. When we tell the old story of Methodists’ mission as social reform we also must find new ways of telling that story so that it too feels like a new frontier of self-understanding.
In paragraphs 18-24 Grace upon Grace continues to recount “our missional heritage” by drawing attention to previous Methodist reform movements which attacked the problems of slavery, unjust labor practices, alcohol abuse, poverty, and economic injustice. A very similar litany of past Methodist involvement in addressing these problems could certainly still be given today – twenty-five years after the writing of Grace upon Grace. It may be helpful, however, to reflect a bit about how one might tell this nineteenth century story of mission as social reform differently today. Our perspective on historical events is always shifting.
I was struck first by the way Methodism’s holistic ministry of biblical justice and evangelism was described in paragraph 18: “The revival movement which began with an emphasis on personal regeneration extended into social reform.” Historically, this description certainly suggests a shift in emphasis. But does it downplay the extent to which social reform was integral to Methodist mission from the start? Wesley’s anti-slavery writings and his “Thoughts on the Present Scarcity of Provisions” are just two examples to which one may point to highlight such holism. Theologically, I am also critical of portraying the 19th century Methodist reform efforts as mere “extensions” as if they were a kind of second step beyond a focus on personal regeneration. For most nineteenth century Methodists mission as social reform was seen as part and parcel of their view of sanctification. (Grace upon Grace does a nice job of highlighting the importance of this doctrine in paragraphs 9 and 43.) Frances Willard, John R. Mott, E. Stanley Jones and many unsung heroes in the anti-slavery and organized labor movements were driven to do their work at least in part because of their life-transforming experiences of sanctifying grace. They sought to bring into reality an evangelical synergism of what E. Stanley Jones called “Christlikeness universalized.”
It is important today to tell these stories of mission as reform in such a way that they do not get reduced to mere do-gooder activism or as Methodism’s “extension” beyond personal regeneration, or as an adoption of Social Gospel ideas which were imported to Methodism from other theological movements. It was frequently these things as well, but for many 19th century Methodists, their work in mission as social reform was powered by a profound conviction about holiness. God’s sanctifying grace propelled them to the streets as well as to the far side of the sea. This is easy to forget at a time when teaching about holiness is at best unfashionable in many UMC congregations in North America. We will need to find new language to express this hallmark of the Methodist movement in such a way that it captures our imaginations, but it ought not be given up. A few weeks ago I was asked to attend a meeting of the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium by the UMC’s Office of Christian Unity and Interreligious Relationships. This gathering of about a dozen denominational leaders who identify with the Wesleyan holiness tradition was a reminder to me of what many United Methodists could gain from some ecumenical relationship-building at a local level. Our closest Wesleyan cousins share in our history of social reform and in our teaching about sanctification.
When we are telling these stories of mission as reform, it is also important to point out that they are ongoing stories. Paragraphs 18-23 in Grace upon Grace are a reminder that the scourge of human slavery is not only a historical victory for Methodists but remains a challenge for the contemporary church. The problem of human trafficking is gaining a great deal of traction among Christians in North America at the moment. This is surely a hopeful sign. I fear, however, that other related problems are being somewhat ignored in the face of this important movement to end human trafficking today.
The problems of poverty and food insecurity in the U.S. and around the world are as significant now just as they were when Wesley penned his essay, “Thoughts on the Scarcity of Provisions,” in 1773. New challenges of climate change, access to clean water, sanitation, and future food price increases require continued commitment of Methodists around the world for years to come. We also need to celebrate and be thankful for the success stories of poverty reduction in many countries throughout the world. While much work remains to be done I think it is important that Christians acknowledge the good news of reduced poverty rates in many countries. There are personal stories behind these positive statistics. I recently found the Bread for the World 2013 Hunger Report to be rather encouraging reading in this regard.
Finally, Grace upon Grace describes “social transformation” in the early 20th century as a “new frontier in mission.” Methodists like to speak of new frontiers even when they are not really new. Still, the size of the task, the complexity of the problem, and the energy and hopefulness to address it doubtless made Methodist workers in social reform feel like they were on a new frontier to which God had called them. When we tell the old story of Methodists’ mission as social reform we also must find new ways of telling that story so that it too feels like a new frontier of self-understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)