Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. Robert A. Hunt. Rev. Dr. Hunt is Director of Global Theological Education and Director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of Theology. This post was originally published on Hunt's blog, The Crossroads of Christianity and Culture, and is republished here with permission.
Polity will never give you unity.
The current United Methodist polity is in crisis, the result of a failure to adopt to emerging global realities. The General Conference is once again delayed, congregations are departing, and denominational finances continue to fall. Most importantly, in the very practical matters of institutional maintenance we face unprecedented hurtles: http://www.umglobal.org/2022/03/what-now-episcopal-elections.html.
Methodism was born on the cusp of the creation of the current international order. As it grew beyond England and the United States, its polities reflected that order, with an organization based on both emerging national boundaries and the essentially colonial nature of the new order. The structures of the American Methodist church were fundamentally colonial, with ecclesial colonies (mission annual conferences within larger mission central conferences) managed by American bishops, run by American missionaries, and reporting to the General Conference funded and dominated by the United States.
The long end of the colonial era offered American Methodists two choices for continuing as a world wide organization. The first would be to develop into a kind of commonwealth of autonomous national Methodist churches related by a common heritage, pledged to mutual support, and engaged when possible in common missions. Such a structure fit well into a decolonizing world, even if it would have its own difficulties related to financing the newly autonomous national churches.
All of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia followed this pattern, and annual conferences became autonomous affiliated national Methodist churches. These churches have thrived, formed their own associations and cooperative ministries, and generally enjoyed the fruit of independence while remaining affiliated with the Methodist and then United Methodist Church.
However, the American Methodist church didn't require or encourage autonomy, and some Methodist central conferences chose to remain part of the Methodist Church and its successor, the UMC. They would elect their own bishops and appoint their own clergy, but remain dependent for both their polity and their funding on the UMC structures, with only minor changes possible. Churches in the Philippines, Europe, and Africa went this route.
There were reasons. In the European social setting, isolation from an international church polity invited being dismissed as a mere sect. You needed to be historical and international to be taken seriously. In the Philippines, long ties to the US of many types, not least a common language (English) for those with a tertiary education and patterns of migration, made staying part of the UMC seem a natural choice.
(The entire story of the complex formation of the central conferences can be found at: https://www.umc.org/en/content/central-conferences)
Yet these central conferences (with the possible exception of the Philippines) possessed neither national nor cultural integrity. They were international without having ever been national; multi-cultural without ever having had a culture of their own. And in Africa they were intermixed with autonomous Methodist churches out of a British Methodist tradition.
Most importantly, as the report on episcopal elections above makes clear, they remained financially dependent on US funding for every aspect of not just ministry, but organization. United Methodist business would always be international business and conducted at the same great expense and uncertainty as international business. The COVID pandemic has made this clear.
As Europe rebounded after WWII, European Methodists were largely able to fund themselves. Exceptions in Eastern Europe remained, but stronger Western European economies and the formation of the EU made the European central conferences a more organic expression of unity than in Africa. It also gave them far greater autonomy vis-a-vis the United States.
Africa -- Here we see the real fallout of the failure to create autonomous national Methodist churches. It is almost perfectly characterized by this map. https://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/who-we-are/documents/africa-central-conferences-map-revised.pdf Only the Congo Central Conference possesses national integrity, and that spread over a geographical and cultural area 1/3rd the size of the continental United States. While French is the language of government, there are four other national languages and 400 spoken.
The other African central conferences are each a multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-cultural hodgepodge lacking geographical integrity or a common history. What unites them is the fiat of organizational convenience, funding by American Methodists, and the rubric of a global United Methodist Church. These central conference structures possess no organic relationship to their pastors, congregations, and people.
Small wonder then, that with the combined crisis of division within the UMC and the COVID pandemic they are becoming organizationally dysfunctional. And look what happens when they don't function! An American bishop has to be brought in to supervise (in name at least) peoples and congregations he scarcely knows. Colonialism redux.
The idea of a global UMC was misconstrued, based on the false understanding that polity creates unity.
Polity will never give you unity.
As we see even within the US, a common Discipline binds no hearts together and works only so long, and no longer, as it provides political and financial benefit to those who embrace it. When the money and power are gone, and even before, those who can leave, will.
As the UMC now unravels, we are beginning to see what really makes for unity: long established relationships of cooperation and mutual love that manage to transcend and make room for theological disagreement. The unity of the Methodist movement will depend on these, not an outdated and untenable polity held together by American dollars.
Instead of clinging to an unworkable "global" structure we should instead work, at whatever institutional level we are able, to establish real patterns of co-working and cooperation among those of the Methodist tradition.
The General Conference will face the hard task of restructuring the UMC in a way that is financially and organizationally tenable. The recent Christmas Covenant plan offered by the central conferences is certainly a good start, particularly since it comes from those most affected by disunity, most in need of better solutions, and most desirous to build real partnership across differences.
But while we wait for the General Conference, we do not need to wait to build Methodist unity. That must be rebuilt from the bottom up, seeking joint projects and more intimate institutional relationships than can be either managed or even supported by General Conference agencies.
In theological education, where I have been involved for 40 years in both autonomous national Methodist churches and the central conferences, the need is clear. Instead of ad-hoc admission of "foreign students," US seminaries should seek direct partnerships with leaders of United Methodist seminaries in the central conferences to both strengthen those local seminaries and craft the kinds of degree programs and admission standards that best serve particular churches and regions.
The era of a "global" UMC is ending. Let us pray that an era of genuine Methodist unity will begin.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label unity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unity. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2022
Saturday, July 17, 2021
Recommended Reading: Ted Campbell on the Un-Tying of The United Methodist Church
Ted A. Campbell has written a three-part piece on "The Un-Tying of the United Methodist Church" (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) at Firebrand Magazine. Despite Firebrand's association with Traditionalists, Campbell, who does not identify as a Traditionalist, tries for an even-handed approach to the subject. He writes as a historian, seeking to avoid "multiple misleading narratives about the present situation of The United
Methodist Church, narratives used all too handily to justify diverging
trajectories in the church." For that reason, Campbell does not touch directly on debates over sexuality until the third piece. Before getting there, Campbell touches on several topics of interest to this blog including demographics, money, and organizational structure. The pieces conclude with a prayerful and sincere meditation on the current state of the denomination. The pieces are well worth a read.
Friday, March 19, 2021
Recommended Readings: Unity and Schism in the Philippines
US Americans are familiar with some of the jockeying in the United States around which churches and annual conferences will leave The United Methodist Church to join the new Global Methodist Church when that body forms. More opaque to United Methodists in the United States is the sorts of politicking that is going on around the same topic elsewhere in the work. The Philippines, however, has given a couple of recent glances.
The District Superintendent of the Metro Santiago District of the Northeast Philippines Annual Conference, part of the Baguio Episcopal Area led by Bishop Pete Torio, made a speech at the recent Northeast Philippines Annual Conference meeting in which he declared the intention of his district to secede from the UMC, organize themselves, and then join the new Traditionalist denomination. That move has been contested, but it is likely there are other similar groups in the Philippines making such plans.
Alternatively, the cabinet of the Manila Episcopal Area released a Statement of Unity on March 11th. The statement mentioned "confusions and threats happening both in the local and international panorama of discussions on the issue of separation and disaffiliation" and called out "any premature expressions of separation and disaffiliation." While they may or may not have had the Metro Santiago District specifically in mind, it is clear that they are responding to similar situations.
Of course, it remains to be seen what the ultimate outcome of the possibility of denominational division will be, in the Philippines and elsewhere. But it is clear that while the push for division has originated within the United States, it is now an international debate.
The District Superintendent of the Metro Santiago District of the Northeast Philippines Annual Conference, part of the Baguio Episcopal Area led by Bishop Pete Torio, made a speech at the recent Northeast Philippines Annual Conference meeting in which he declared the intention of his district to secede from the UMC, organize themselves, and then join the new Traditionalist denomination. That move has been contested, but it is likely there are other similar groups in the Philippines making such plans.
Alternatively, the cabinet of the Manila Episcopal Area released a Statement of Unity on March 11th. The statement mentioned "confusions and threats happening both in the local and international panorama of discussions on the issue of separation and disaffiliation" and called out "any premature expressions of separation and disaffiliation." While they may or may not have had the Metro Santiago District specifically in mind, it is clear that they are responding to similar situations.
Of course, it remains to be seen what the ultimate outcome of the possibility of denominational division will be, in the Philippines and elsewhere. But it is clear that while the push for division has originated within the United States, it is now an international debate.
Friday, February 26, 2021
Recommended Reading: Out of Chaos: Creation Statement
Last Friday, the "Out of Chaos: Creation" group released a new "vision map," a statement outlining a vision for the future of The United Methodist Church. This vision emerges not only from the ideas of the steering group members, but from feedback submitted by United Methodists around the world through surveys and two webinars. The statement situates itself within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It presents a series of affirmations about who the UMC is/should be, a set of "table manners" that should characterize United Methodists' interactions with one another, and five areas for action.
Major emphases of the statement include a call for continued unity, combined with a call for the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the church and a call for reform of neo-colonialist structures within The United Methodist Church. In its call for continued unity with greater regionalization, it shares something with the Christmas Covenant's recent press release or the Statement of Church Unity from the Africa Voice of Unity, though both of these statements do not call for full inclusion. (The Africa Voice of Unity statement is explicit about this point.) In this regard, the European bishops' "Our Commitment" statement, which was released yesterday, is perhaps closer in spirit, though the Out of Chaos: Creation statement is stronger on the point of LGBTQIA+ inclusion.
Like the Africa Voices of Unity statement, the Out of Choas: Creation statement explicitly condemns racism. The Out of Chaos: Creation statement is also concerned with ecclesiology and how members of the church relate to each other, including through the process of Christian conferencing. These foci also distinguish the Out of Chaos: Creation statement from other recent statements in the church.
For further information about the statement, see this UMNS article and this EmK article.
Major emphases of the statement include a call for continued unity, combined with a call for the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the church and a call for reform of neo-colonialist structures within The United Methodist Church. In its call for continued unity with greater regionalization, it shares something with the Christmas Covenant's recent press release or the Statement of Church Unity from the Africa Voice of Unity, though both of these statements do not call for full inclusion. (The Africa Voice of Unity statement is explicit about this point.) In this regard, the European bishops' "Our Commitment" statement, which was released yesterday, is perhaps closer in spirit, though the Out of Chaos: Creation statement is stronger on the point of LGBTQIA+ inclusion.
Like the Africa Voices of Unity statement, the Out of Choas: Creation statement explicitly condemns racism. The Out of Chaos: Creation statement is also concerned with ecclesiology and how members of the church relate to each other, including through the process of Christian conferencing. These foci also distinguish the Out of Chaos: Creation statement from other recent statements in the church.
For further information about the statement, see this UMNS article and this EmK article.
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
UM & Global Collections: Missional Ecclesiology and Church Unity
The previous UM & Global collection looks at the issue of ecclesiology through the lens of two documents developed by the Committee on Faith and Order to help define the UMC's theology of church: "Wonder, Love and Praise" and "Sent in Love." Many of the essays in that collection highlighted the missional nature of Methodist ecclesiology.
In follow-up, the two latest collections continue to examine issues of ecclesiology, especially missional ecclesiology. A collection on missional ecclesiology with contributions by David W. Scott and Hendrik R. Pieterse looks at the relationship between mission and our theological understandings of the church. A second collection of essays by David W. Scott considers various sources for denominational unity, exploring in particular the connection between personal relationships and unity.
As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students.
In follow-up, the two latest collections continue to examine issues of ecclesiology, especially missional ecclesiology. A collection on missional ecclesiology with contributions by David W. Scott and Hendrik R. Pieterse looks at the relationship between mission and our theological understandings of the church. A second collection of essays by David W. Scott considers various sources for denominational unity, exploring in particular the connection between personal relationships and unity.
As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students.
Monday, February 17, 2020
Igmedio Domingo: Philippine Central Conference Perspective on the Future of The United Methodist Church
Today’s post is by Rev. Igmedio Domingo, District Superintendent of the Southwest Metro Manila District in the Manila Episcopal Area and a signer of the Christmas Covenant. The post contains remarks made by Rev. Domingo at the Pre-General Conference Briefing. They are republished here with his permission.
I am honored and privileged to represent the Philippines Central Conference in this post. We seek to assert our rights within our Connection, and our desire to be included as an equal part of the global United Methodist Church - not just seen and treated as a subordinate member of our faith community.
OUR VISION FOR THE UMC IN PHILIPPINES
Our vision AS A CHURCH in the Philippines is strongly founded and deeply anchored in the visionary prayer of Jesus “THAT THEY MAY BE ALL ONE” (John 17). We are one in mission, ministries, and service to all people, especially the marginalized and excluded, who are in need of God’s compassionate love. Our vision of “unity in mission” is grounded in our unique Filipino cultural and political context wherein we continue to struggle against colonial influences. It is in our work to share the gospel of love that binds us. Our polity needs to reflect this vision.
We envision a Philippines Central Conference where human dignity, human rights, and the integrity of all people are upheld. We envision a United Methodist Church that respects and honors all, regardless of their race and ethnicity, political views, class, location, age, gender and gender identity, and sexual orientation. I believe that being Wesleyan means that we extend grace and love to all. We need to work for a church that promotes the highest standard of equality, justice, and fairness. There is too much arrogance, division, violence, and hate in our society and unfortunately, even in our church. Our division has brought so much agony, frustration, and pain in the body of Christ. Thus, our witness and mission to make disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world have suffered.
WE ARE ONE IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR UNITY
Extrajudicial killings, the murder of innocent lives, political and economic oppression, and even the murder of church people fighting for justice are the historical elements that continue to inspire us in the Philippines to raise our voices in this season before General Conference, that WE ARE STRONGLY UNITED, WE ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN MISSION and STRONGLY COMMITTED IN SERVICE.
As a central conference, we have a distinct missional context. We have a diverse culture with many languages. We minister in a country of 1,641 islands. We have three episcopal areas: Baguio (Ilocano region), Manila (Tagalog region), and Davao (Visayan region). We have differences in culture, location, language, and theological leanings, but we are united in being United Methodists. Our voice as a central conference has to be heard and our context understood and respected. Central conference perspectives should not be an afterthought. In fact, we should be an equal partner at the table envisioning the future of the church, and not just an audience whose perspectives are being asked after others have made plans and decisions that affect our mission work. This demands equity and respect.
Whatever happens after GC2020, I can assure you that the Philippines Central Conference will remain part of The United Methodist Church.
OUR JOINT POSITION AS A PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE
As a central conference of United Methodists in the Philippines, we are intensely opposed to any move that dissolves the United Methodist Church. We value the witness of the early church as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles, wherein division and schism were avoided and unity in mission was their highest aspiration.
The PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE College of Bishops passed a UNITY STATEMENT dated last August 31, 2019. This statement strongly embraced Unity in Mission and also promotes our desired structural legacy that we can be proud of, namely:
1. Locality or contextuality: that is why we have local churches, annual conferences and central conferences; being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.
2. Connectionality in relationships; that is why there is a General Conference and a Council of Bishops; having a global identity and organic structure are necessary.
3. Globality in inclusiveness; that is why the UMC reaches out in mutual relations with all governments and civil communities that promote Christian values and principles. Wesley said: “The world is my parish.”
It is clear to us in the Philippine Central Conference that a church empowered by God’s dynamic spirit and biblical wisdom requires that these structural legacies be maintained and promoted in any restructuring of the UMC. These principles are all opposed to the move to dissolve or splinter the UMC.
To support effective mission work across the connection, our Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops has recommended the following, and I quote:
1. “The UMC is to be restructured into regional conferences, within which will remain central and jurisdictional conferences, annual conferences and local churches.
2. “The UMC will remain as one global church in which regional, annual and local conferences are organic parts; but have the authority to decide their witness, mission and ministry, thus, preserving locality and connectionality.
3. “The Council of Bishops shall be retained as both the living organic symbol of the globality of the UMC; and the mechanism for general and local oversight over all the UMC.
“These elements for restructuring the UMC will both preserve the organic integrity and identity of the UMC and make it free and responsive to the new world that is aborning.”
Parallel to this Resolution, the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday, a GC delegate from the Davao area, submitted a Petition dated September 18, 2019, entitled “Oppose Dissolution and Preserve the Unity of The United Methodist Church”. We believe keeping the UMC united against dissolution and schism is affirmed by the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution.
This petition highlights the following principles that promote the unity and inclusiveness of the church described in the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution:
1. “Any form of structure and relationship that defines and treats one part of the church as a mere extension of another is colonial in nature and unjust.
2. “Contextualization is a missional, structural, and connectional endeavor that is an expression of our historical unity and core heritage, church order, and discipline.
3. “The diversity of our ministry and cultural contexts is real, but unity rooted in fulfilling the mission of the church can be maintained by identifying such differences and allowing for contextual authority to be exercised equitably by both central and jurisdictional conferences, or any regional structure formed by General Conference.”
This petition asks General Conference to:
1. “Suspend all actions furthering any dissolution, disaffiliation, and separation plans in favor of preserving the unity of the church in compliance with our Constitution and the biblically founded values of unity, inclusiveness, and redemptive grace and mission in our Preamble, also the wisdom and practice of contextual central conference authority (Par. 31.5, Par. 31.6, and Par. 543).
2. “Authorize the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to jointly study and submit a report with proposals to the next General Conference session that preserves and strengthens the unity of the church in mission through a restructured polity that affirms and values broad contextual ministry policies and practices, including parity in contextual authority among existing central and jurisdictional conferences and/or any future regional bodies established by General Conference.”
THE CHRISTMAS COVENANT
As I close let me share a bit about the Christmas Covenant. Together with Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi here and other central conference GC delegates and alternate delegates, I am a signatory to the Christmas Covenant. The Christmas Covenant is a vision coming from our central conferences that is guided by this frame, and I quote:
“As United Methodists from central conferences, we envision a Church that connects globally, engages in mission together, respects contextual ministry settings, celebrates the diversity of God’s creation in its many beautiful expressions, and values mutually empowering relationships in order to strengthen our core mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social witness for the transformation of the world. This is our covenant.”
The Christmas Covenant legislation will focus on establishing a regional conference structure for the future United Methodist Church. This legislation has been sent by the Philippines Annual Conference – Cavite to the General Conference. Possibly, it will be the only restructure proposal from central conferences. We are claiming our place at the table.
CONCLUSION
As we draw closer to General Conference this May, may we be one in prayer and strongly sustain our position to stand for UNITY IN MISSION, EVEN IF IT IS A RISK-TAKING MOVE. In any event, the Philippines Central Conference will seek to sustain ourselves and be part of The United Methodist Church.
I am honored and privileged to represent the Philippines Central Conference in this post. We seek to assert our rights within our Connection, and our desire to be included as an equal part of the global United Methodist Church - not just seen and treated as a subordinate member of our faith community.
OUR VISION FOR THE UMC IN PHILIPPINES
Our vision AS A CHURCH in the Philippines is strongly founded and deeply anchored in the visionary prayer of Jesus “THAT THEY MAY BE ALL ONE” (John 17). We are one in mission, ministries, and service to all people, especially the marginalized and excluded, who are in need of God’s compassionate love. Our vision of “unity in mission” is grounded in our unique Filipino cultural and political context wherein we continue to struggle against colonial influences. It is in our work to share the gospel of love that binds us. Our polity needs to reflect this vision.
We envision a Philippines Central Conference where human dignity, human rights, and the integrity of all people are upheld. We envision a United Methodist Church that respects and honors all, regardless of their race and ethnicity, political views, class, location, age, gender and gender identity, and sexual orientation. I believe that being Wesleyan means that we extend grace and love to all. We need to work for a church that promotes the highest standard of equality, justice, and fairness. There is too much arrogance, division, violence, and hate in our society and unfortunately, even in our church. Our division has brought so much agony, frustration, and pain in the body of Christ. Thus, our witness and mission to make disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world have suffered.
WE ARE ONE IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR UNITY
Extrajudicial killings, the murder of innocent lives, political and economic oppression, and even the murder of church people fighting for justice are the historical elements that continue to inspire us in the Philippines to raise our voices in this season before General Conference, that WE ARE STRONGLY UNITED, WE ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED IN MISSION and STRONGLY COMMITTED IN SERVICE.
As a central conference, we have a distinct missional context. We have a diverse culture with many languages. We minister in a country of 1,641 islands. We have three episcopal areas: Baguio (Ilocano region), Manila (Tagalog region), and Davao (Visayan region). We have differences in culture, location, language, and theological leanings, but we are united in being United Methodists. Our voice as a central conference has to be heard and our context understood and respected. Central conference perspectives should not be an afterthought. In fact, we should be an equal partner at the table envisioning the future of the church, and not just an audience whose perspectives are being asked after others have made plans and decisions that affect our mission work. This demands equity and respect.
Whatever happens after GC2020, I can assure you that the Philippines Central Conference will remain part of The United Methodist Church.
OUR JOINT POSITION AS A PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE
As a central conference of United Methodists in the Philippines, we are intensely opposed to any move that dissolves the United Methodist Church. We value the witness of the early church as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles, wherein division and schism were avoided and unity in mission was their highest aspiration.
The PHILIPPINE CENTRAL CONFERENCE College of Bishops passed a UNITY STATEMENT dated last August 31, 2019. This statement strongly embraced Unity in Mission and also promotes our desired structural legacy that we can be proud of, namely:
1. Locality or contextuality: that is why we have local churches, annual conferences and central conferences; being responsive to our missional context is obligatory.
2. Connectionality in relationships; that is why there is a General Conference and a Council of Bishops; having a global identity and organic structure are necessary.
3. Globality in inclusiveness; that is why the UMC reaches out in mutual relations with all governments and civil communities that promote Christian values and principles. Wesley said: “The world is my parish.”
It is clear to us in the Philippine Central Conference that a church empowered by God’s dynamic spirit and biblical wisdom requires that these structural legacies be maintained and promoted in any restructuring of the UMC. These principles are all opposed to the move to dissolve or splinter the UMC.
To support effective mission work across the connection, our Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops has recommended the following, and I quote:
1. “The UMC is to be restructured into regional conferences, within which will remain central and jurisdictional conferences, annual conferences and local churches.
2. “The UMC will remain as one global church in which regional, annual and local conferences are organic parts; but have the authority to decide their witness, mission and ministry, thus, preserving locality and connectionality.
3. “The Council of Bishops shall be retained as both the living organic symbol of the globality of the UMC; and the mechanism for general and local oversight over all the UMC.
“These elements for restructuring the UMC will both preserve the organic integrity and identity of the UMC and make it free and responsive to the new world that is aborning.”
Parallel to this Resolution, the Rev. Jonathan Ulanday, a GC delegate from the Davao area, submitted a Petition dated September 18, 2019, entitled “Oppose Dissolution and Preserve the Unity of The United Methodist Church”. We believe keeping the UMC united against dissolution and schism is affirmed by the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution.
This petition highlights the following principles that promote the unity and inclusiveness of the church described in the Preamble and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of The UMC Constitution:
1. “Any form of structure and relationship that defines and treats one part of the church as a mere extension of another is colonial in nature and unjust.
2. “Contextualization is a missional, structural, and connectional endeavor that is an expression of our historical unity and core heritage, church order, and discipline.
3. “The diversity of our ministry and cultural contexts is real, but unity rooted in fulfilling the mission of the church can be maintained by identifying such differences and allowing for contextual authority to be exercised equitably by both central and jurisdictional conferences, or any regional structure formed by General Conference.”
This petition asks General Conference to:
1. “Suspend all actions furthering any dissolution, disaffiliation, and separation plans in favor of preserving the unity of the church in compliance with our Constitution and the biblically founded values of unity, inclusiveness, and redemptive grace and mission in our Preamble, also the wisdom and practice of contextual central conference authority (Par. 31.5, Par. 31.6, and Par. 543).
2. “Authorize the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters to jointly study and submit a report with proposals to the next General Conference session that preserves and strengthens the unity of the church in mission through a restructured polity that affirms and values broad contextual ministry policies and practices, including parity in contextual authority among existing central and jurisdictional conferences and/or any future regional bodies established by General Conference.”
THE CHRISTMAS COVENANT
As I close let me share a bit about the Christmas Covenant. Together with Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi here and other central conference GC delegates and alternate delegates, I am a signatory to the Christmas Covenant. The Christmas Covenant is a vision coming from our central conferences that is guided by this frame, and I quote:
“As United Methodists from central conferences, we envision a Church that connects globally, engages in mission together, respects contextual ministry settings, celebrates the diversity of God’s creation in its many beautiful expressions, and values mutually empowering relationships in order to strengthen our core mission of evangelism, discipleship, and social witness for the transformation of the world. This is our covenant.”
The Christmas Covenant legislation will focus on establishing a regional conference structure for the future United Methodist Church. This legislation has been sent by the Philippines Annual Conference – Cavite to the General Conference. Possibly, it will be the only restructure proposal from central conferences. We are claiming our place at the table.
CONCLUSION
As we draw closer to General Conference this May, may we be one in prayer and strongly sustain our position to stand for UNITY IN MISSION, EVEN IF IT IS A RISK-TAKING MOVE. In any event, the Philippines Central Conference will seek to sustain ourselves and be part of The United Methodist Church.
Monday, December 9, 2019
Nkemba Ndjungu on "Sent in Love," Part 2
Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Nkemba Ndjungu. Rev. Nkemba is a missionary with Global Ministries. He formerly
served as the Mission Superintendent of the Cameroon Mission and
currently serves in Belize. This post is part of a
series on the UMC's new ecclesiology document, Sent in Love: A United Methodist Understanding of the Church, which will be presented to General Conference 2020 for review and adoption. It is the second of two posts by Rev. Nkemba.
The United Methodist Church is called to be one
“It is through others that we experience the love of God; it is with others that the pattern of new life that God gives is both learned and lived out” (Sent in Love, p.28). This is our commitment to unity.
Unity is the backbone of the Christian testimony. His relationship with the Father is what Jesus gives us as example of unity. In his Priestly Prayer, Jesus says that if disciples are one, then the world will believe in him (John 17: 21). Christian unity should be understood in the light of the unity that exists between Jesus and his Father. This is not about physical oneness; rather it is a spiritual oneness. Jesus and the Father are two different hypostases, but they are one in the spirit. Likewise, Christian unity is mostly a spiritual reality. In order to build unity and avoid disunity, we need to focus on things that unite us and ignore those that divide us.
Structurally, churches cannot be one but unity is possible in the spirit. Individuals have different opinions and churches have different doctrines. Some of those opinions and doctrines are of very opposing views and beliefs. We may never be able to agree with one another on them. But we can respect each other’s views and beliefs, knowing that we all have the same Master, Jesus Christ.
To be united in Christ means to be one in the spirit through him who sanctifies us. Often, some Christians feel superior to others. There is misunderstanding, resentment, pride and hurt among church members. Some groups of persons sometimes act as if they were in competition with others. Within congregations there are sometimes factions and divisions that have lasted for years; issues that have been unresolved for a long time. Oneness and unity is what Jesus wants for his Church.
Unity in Christ Jesus means that those who were near God and those who were far away from God have been brought together through Christ and are now equally gifted by God. In its unity, the Church should embody the reconciliation made possible in Christ who has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.
However, we must say that unity is not equal to uniformity. The mystery of God that is revealed in Christ and results in our reconciliation does not wipe out our differences of opinions, traditions and cultures. Instead, what is made known through the church is the wisdom of God in its rich variety. To live out Christian unity, we must learn to be tolerant or to bear with one another (Ephesians 4:2). Our distinctions will never cease, but even with the persistence of differences, the Church may advance toward its maturity in the fullness of Christ.
When we come together out of various traditions and cultures, we must make an effort to get rid of our previous prejudices and peculiarities. We should not confine our fellowship to former friends and companies. We must seek to clear away the barriers that have separated us in the past. We must also cultivate friendship and fellowship with those who have come from different traditions and cultures. There is always more profit in considering words and ways which differ from our own than in rehearsing what we have been taught. So, it is very important to make an earnest effort to realize the absolute unity of all, in Christ. If we call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, in spite of our different beliefs, we can accomplish fellowship.
One of the greatest advantages is that unity fosters reconciliation. Unity of the Church is a reflection of God's gift of reconciliation in Christ. Ephesians 4:1 indicates that the argument here is built upon the previous chapters. In Ephesians chapters 1-3, the author has elaborated upon the reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles that God has brought about in Christ. In light of that, the repetition of the word “one” highlights the understanding that the church is a new humanity that is “one” in Christ Jesus. Through the one body of Jesus, God has brought together two groups under one plan of salvation: Jews who were near God and Gentiles who were far away from God. Christ has joined the two groups together and drawn them nearer to God. The church’s task is to reflect this unity. And this task is a process that leads to perfection.
Preserving unity makes the Church stronger. The Church is equipped with gifts (Ephesians 4.7, 11); and those gifts will help the Church to reach maturity. No one individual can have all the gifts alone. The text says: “And he personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and some teachers” (Ephesians 4: 11). The reason why the Lord has distributed these gifts to different individuals is so that church maturity can be obtained when there is unity. When spiritual unity is a reality in a church, we can put our gifts together, and spiritual maturity can be attained.
I believe that God provided a diversity of gifts for many reasons. One of those reasons is that God wants his people to build a strong community of believers by depending on one another. If every Christian received all the gifts, competition and rivalry would have taken hold of the Church.
The other reason is that the diversity of gifts to different people allows believers to acknowledge their limitation and learn humility. Humility is the feeling that I don’t possess everything; so I need the intervention of other people. In church, even if you are the leader, you will need help sometimes.
Even still, the other reason why God provided a diversity of gifts is to be a living testimony of his presence in the world. When spiritual gifts are exercised properly, signs and wonders are effective among God’s people. And that makes people outside to affirm that the working power of God abides among believers. Jesus told his disciples that if they didn’t believe what he was saying to them, they should at least believe on account of the works (John 14: 11).
One thing all of us can do to bring about harmony in the Church of Christ is to facilitate dialogue whenever possible. Dialogue refers to a type of communication between two or more people. It is different from a discussion or debate. It refers to a mode of conversation that necessarily involves reason, discernment, accuracy and wisdom, as well as an interpenetration of convergent and convincing arguments, as dialogue unfolds among the interlocutors. Given that there are always issues among believers, dialogue must be constant to clear misunderstandings and conflicts.
Conclusion
The Church is God’s mission to the world. The Triune God sends His Church to be His ambassador in the world. For this purpose, He sends His Church in love. On its part, the Church responds to this sending and understands its mission as being fourfold: 1) Called to be apostolic: commitment to mission; 2) Called to be catholic: commitment to universality, diversity and ecumenism; 3) called to be holy: commitment to spiritual and social transformation; 4) Called to be one: commitment to unity.
Mission, universality, transformation and unity are the four meanings of our calling. In order to carry out efficiently its mission, the United Methodist Church must consider issues that arise inside her and find adequate solutions. History teaches us that the Methodist Church, our predecessor, had already suffered division in the past. Due to a conflict borne by the questions of owning slaves and the power of bishops in the 19th century, the Methodist Church in the USA split into three factions: 1) the Methodist Episcopal Church North; 2) the Methodist Episcopal Church South; and 3) the Protestant Methodist Church in the center. With God’s help, these three branches came back together in 1939 to form the Methodist Church. In 1968 the Methodist Church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren Church to form what we now call The United Methodist Church.
It seems to me that history is about to repeat itself. The issue of human sexuality is about to reenact the scenario of the 19th century. I believe that no matter what happens at the General Conference in 2020, our church will not be the same. We all hoped that the Special General Conference of February 2019 in Saint Louis would resolve the problem once and for all, but it did not. Three plans have been submitted for the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis: 1) The Traditional Plan; 2) The Indianapolis Plan; 3) The Next Generation UMC Plan. Another conversation has started under the leadership of Bishop John Yambasu of Sierra Leone to propose a new legislation for 2020 or modify proposals that have already been submitted. Unfortunately, because of the big and apparently irreconcilable differences in views and beliefs of our members, people are going to leave the church no matter the plan that will be adopted because behind every plan there are people pulling strings.
As I personally meditate on this issue, I find wisdom in the First Book of Kings, chapter twelve. After the death of King Salomon, his son Rehoboam became king in his place. But because of his harshness in words and rudeness of his actions, Jeroboam and all the tribes in the North rebelled against him. Rehoboam wanted to wage war with them and bring them back to unity. But God sent Prophet Shemaiah to tell Rehoboam to leave the tribes of the North alone, because that division was willed by God himself. So, Israel was separated from Judah from that day. The lesson we learn here is that not every separation is diabolic. Perhaps, the best thing that can happen to the United Methodist Church concerning human sexuality at this point is amicable separation.
The United Methodist Church is called to be one
“It is through others that we experience the love of God; it is with others that the pattern of new life that God gives is both learned and lived out” (Sent in Love, p.28). This is our commitment to unity.
Unity is the backbone of the Christian testimony. His relationship with the Father is what Jesus gives us as example of unity. In his Priestly Prayer, Jesus says that if disciples are one, then the world will believe in him (John 17: 21). Christian unity should be understood in the light of the unity that exists between Jesus and his Father. This is not about physical oneness; rather it is a spiritual oneness. Jesus and the Father are two different hypostases, but they are one in the spirit. Likewise, Christian unity is mostly a spiritual reality. In order to build unity and avoid disunity, we need to focus on things that unite us and ignore those that divide us.
Structurally, churches cannot be one but unity is possible in the spirit. Individuals have different opinions and churches have different doctrines. Some of those opinions and doctrines are of very opposing views and beliefs. We may never be able to agree with one another on them. But we can respect each other’s views and beliefs, knowing that we all have the same Master, Jesus Christ.
To be united in Christ means to be one in the spirit through him who sanctifies us. Often, some Christians feel superior to others. There is misunderstanding, resentment, pride and hurt among church members. Some groups of persons sometimes act as if they were in competition with others. Within congregations there are sometimes factions and divisions that have lasted for years; issues that have been unresolved for a long time. Oneness and unity is what Jesus wants for his Church.
Unity in Christ Jesus means that those who were near God and those who were far away from God have been brought together through Christ and are now equally gifted by God. In its unity, the Church should embody the reconciliation made possible in Christ who has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.
However, we must say that unity is not equal to uniformity. The mystery of God that is revealed in Christ and results in our reconciliation does not wipe out our differences of opinions, traditions and cultures. Instead, what is made known through the church is the wisdom of God in its rich variety. To live out Christian unity, we must learn to be tolerant or to bear with one another (Ephesians 4:2). Our distinctions will never cease, but even with the persistence of differences, the Church may advance toward its maturity in the fullness of Christ.
When we come together out of various traditions and cultures, we must make an effort to get rid of our previous prejudices and peculiarities. We should not confine our fellowship to former friends and companies. We must seek to clear away the barriers that have separated us in the past. We must also cultivate friendship and fellowship with those who have come from different traditions and cultures. There is always more profit in considering words and ways which differ from our own than in rehearsing what we have been taught. So, it is very important to make an earnest effort to realize the absolute unity of all, in Christ. If we call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, in spite of our different beliefs, we can accomplish fellowship.
One of the greatest advantages is that unity fosters reconciliation. Unity of the Church is a reflection of God's gift of reconciliation in Christ. Ephesians 4:1 indicates that the argument here is built upon the previous chapters. In Ephesians chapters 1-3, the author has elaborated upon the reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles that God has brought about in Christ. In light of that, the repetition of the word “one” highlights the understanding that the church is a new humanity that is “one” in Christ Jesus. Through the one body of Jesus, God has brought together two groups under one plan of salvation: Jews who were near God and Gentiles who were far away from God. Christ has joined the two groups together and drawn them nearer to God. The church’s task is to reflect this unity. And this task is a process that leads to perfection.
Preserving unity makes the Church stronger. The Church is equipped with gifts (Ephesians 4.7, 11); and those gifts will help the Church to reach maturity. No one individual can have all the gifts alone. The text says: “And he personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and some teachers” (Ephesians 4: 11). The reason why the Lord has distributed these gifts to different individuals is so that church maturity can be obtained when there is unity. When spiritual unity is a reality in a church, we can put our gifts together, and spiritual maturity can be attained.
I believe that God provided a diversity of gifts for many reasons. One of those reasons is that God wants his people to build a strong community of believers by depending on one another. If every Christian received all the gifts, competition and rivalry would have taken hold of the Church.
The other reason is that the diversity of gifts to different people allows believers to acknowledge their limitation and learn humility. Humility is the feeling that I don’t possess everything; so I need the intervention of other people. In church, even if you are the leader, you will need help sometimes.
Even still, the other reason why God provided a diversity of gifts is to be a living testimony of his presence in the world. When spiritual gifts are exercised properly, signs and wonders are effective among God’s people. And that makes people outside to affirm that the working power of God abides among believers. Jesus told his disciples that if they didn’t believe what he was saying to them, they should at least believe on account of the works (John 14: 11).
One thing all of us can do to bring about harmony in the Church of Christ is to facilitate dialogue whenever possible. Dialogue refers to a type of communication between two or more people. It is different from a discussion or debate. It refers to a mode of conversation that necessarily involves reason, discernment, accuracy and wisdom, as well as an interpenetration of convergent and convincing arguments, as dialogue unfolds among the interlocutors. Given that there are always issues among believers, dialogue must be constant to clear misunderstandings and conflicts.
Conclusion
The Church is God’s mission to the world. The Triune God sends His Church to be His ambassador in the world. For this purpose, He sends His Church in love. On its part, the Church responds to this sending and understands its mission as being fourfold: 1) Called to be apostolic: commitment to mission; 2) Called to be catholic: commitment to universality, diversity and ecumenism; 3) called to be holy: commitment to spiritual and social transformation; 4) Called to be one: commitment to unity.
Mission, universality, transformation and unity are the four meanings of our calling. In order to carry out efficiently its mission, the United Methodist Church must consider issues that arise inside her and find adequate solutions. History teaches us that the Methodist Church, our predecessor, had already suffered division in the past. Due to a conflict borne by the questions of owning slaves and the power of bishops in the 19th century, the Methodist Church in the USA split into three factions: 1) the Methodist Episcopal Church North; 2) the Methodist Episcopal Church South; and 3) the Protestant Methodist Church in the center. With God’s help, these three branches came back together in 1939 to form the Methodist Church. In 1968 the Methodist Church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren Church to form what we now call The United Methodist Church.
It seems to me that history is about to repeat itself. The issue of human sexuality is about to reenact the scenario of the 19th century. I believe that no matter what happens at the General Conference in 2020, our church will not be the same. We all hoped that the Special General Conference of February 2019 in Saint Louis would resolve the problem once and for all, but it did not. Three plans have been submitted for the 2020 General Conference in Minneapolis: 1) The Traditional Plan; 2) The Indianapolis Plan; 3) The Next Generation UMC Plan. Another conversation has started under the leadership of Bishop John Yambasu of Sierra Leone to propose a new legislation for 2020 or modify proposals that have already been submitted. Unfortunately, because of the big and apparently irreconcilable differences in views and beliefs of our members, people are going to leave the church no matter the plan that will be adopted because behind every plan there are people pulling strings.
As I personally meditate on this issue, I find wisdom in the First Book of Kings, chapter twelve. After the death of King Salomon, his son Rehoboam became king in his place. But because of his harshness in words and rudeness of his actions, Jeroboam and all the tribes in the North rebelled against him. Rehoboam wanted to wage war with them and bring them back to unity. But God sent Prophet Shemaiah to tell Rehoboam to leave the tribes of the North alone, because that division was willed by God himself. So, Israel was separated from Judah from that day. The lesson we learn here is that not every separation is diabolic. Perhaps, the best thing that can happen to the United Methodist Church concerning human sexuality at this point is amicable separation.
Monday, November 25, 2019
The UMC and Jared Diamond’s Upheaval, Part 5: Group Cohesion and Conclusion
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the fourth category:
Denominational Factors Related to Group Cohesion
Finally are two factors related not to a crisis itself, but to the group experiencing it: How strong are the senses of denominational identity and a shared set of denominational core values? Diamond writes about national identity being a particularly important factor for nations resolving crises.
6. Denominational identity
Up until 2019, a sense of denominational identity was rather high in The United Methodist Church. For many leaders and active participants in the UMC, it was important not just that they were Christians or that they were in the Wesleyan/Methodist family, but that they were specifically United Methodist. This is shown, for instance, in attachment to the cross and flame logo or denominational touchstones like the hymn “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing” or pride in UMCOR.
There was not necessarily strong agreement as to what constituted the core of that identity, and indeed that has been a matter of significant debate. Nevertheless, most parties did have a sense that a United Methodist identity, however defined, was important to them.
It is this sense of denominational identity that has kept the various parties within the UMC at the table. None were willing to walk away because each had a sense that there would be a real loss associated with no longer being part of this denominational identity.
That has changed for many US American United Methodists since General Conference 2019. Many US Americans have begun to question how important it is to them to be specifically United Methodist and to consider futures in which they are no longer part of the UMC.
This decrease in the perceived importance of denominational identity makes it less likely that the denomination will successfully resolve its crisis as an organizational whole. It increases the possibility that the crisis will be resolved by some leaving the denomination, singly or in groups.
11. Denominational core values
While, as noted above, certain touchstones of United Methodist identity are widely shared – the cross and flame, UMCOR, etc. – there is significant debate over the core of denominational identity. Nowhere is that more true than the area of denominational core values.
Debates over the status of LGBTQ persons in the church have highlighted the differences in what different groups of United Methodists perceive to be the core values of the denomination. Kendall Soulen and others have analyzed the debate between traditionalists and progressives as the consequence of different framings of the situation that emphasize either holiness and obedience or justice and liberation. Mission is a core value for many United Methodists, but that value is understood and practiced differently.
The issue of shared core values becomes even more complicated when one takes into account the international nature of the church. As I have shown for Filipino United Methodists, even when Filipinos share core values with American Traditionalists, Centrists, or Progressives, they way they understand those values and connect them to one another differs from the way US American United Methodists approach these core values.
Thus, shared core values for the denomination as an ideological and international whole may not exist.
Conclusion
This brings us to the end of the twelve factors identified by Jared Diamond as relevant to whether and how nations resolve crises. Assuming these factors have some validity for denominations as well as nations has allowed me to take stock of the UMC’s strengths and weaknesses as it attempts to resolve its current crisis of division over sexuality, declining US membership and giving, and difficult international decision-making.
Diamond does not intend his schema as mathematically predictive, and neither do I for my adaptation of his framework. It is impossible to say that if a nation or denomination has X number of factors in its favor or if it just has factors Y and Z, then it will certainly surmount its crisis. Thus, a review of the crisis-resolution factors in the UMC cannot lead to a definitive prediction of whether or nor the UMC will resolve its current crisis, let alone how.
Nonetheless, it is possible to briefly summarize some findings. While my survey of the twelve factors did identify some assets that the UMC has as it tries to resolve its crisis, the UMC also faces challenges in almost every one of these twelve factors. This should give us pause about the prospects of the UMC successfully resolving its current crisis.
In acknowledging that the UMC may not successfully resolve its current crisis, it is important to keep in mind what the opposite of resolving that crisis means. The opposite of resolving the crisis is not schism or the expulsion of one party. These scenarios resolve the crisis in one fashion or another.
No, the opposite of resolving the crisis is for the crisis to continue. That is the real danger for the UMC.
Having laid out an assessment of the crisis that the UMC is facing, and having laid out the framework that Jared Diamond used in his book Upheaval to assess nation’s abilities to effectively resolve national crisis, I will now examine those factors (adapted for denominations instead of nations) as they apply to The United Methodist Church. I will look at the factors in a different order that Diamond listed them, grouping them instead into four related categories. This post will look at the fourth category:
Denominational Factors Related to Group Cohesion
Finally are two factors related not to a crisis itself, but to the group experiencing it: How strong are the senses of denominational identity and a shared set of denominational core values? Diamond writes about national identity being a particularly important factor for nations resolving crises.
6. Denominational identity
Up until 2019, a sense of denominational identity was rather high in The United Methodist Church. For many leaders and active participants in the UMC, it was important not just that they were Christians or that they were in the Wesleyan/Methodist family, but that they were specifically United Methodist. This is shown, for instance, in attachment to the cross and flame logo or denominational touchstones like the hymn “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing” or pride in UMCOR.
There was not necessarily strong agreement as to what constituted the core of that identity, and indeed that has been a matter of significant debate. Nevertheless, most parties did have a sense that a United Methodist identity, however defined, was important to them.
It is this sense of denominational identity that has kept the various parties within the UMC at the table. None were willing to walk away because each had a sense that there would be a real loss associated with no longer being part of this denominational identity.
That has changed for many US American United Methodists since General Conference 2019. Many US Americans have begun to question how important it is to them to be specifically United Methodist and to consider futures in which they are no longer part of the UMC.
This decrease in the perceived importance of denominational identity makes it less likely that the denomination will successfully resolve its crisis as an organizational whole. It increases the possibility that the crisis will be resolved by some leaving the denomination, singly or in groups.
11. Denominational core values
While, as noted above, certain touchstones of United Methodist identity are widely shared – the cross and flame, UMCOR, etc. – there is significant debate over the core of denominational identity. Nowhere is that more true than the area of denominational core values.
Debates over the status of LGBTQ persons in the church have highlighted the differences in what different groups of United Methodists perceive to be the core values of the denomination. Kendall Soulen and others have analyzed the debate between traditionalists and progressives as the consequence of different framings of the situation that emphasize either holiness and obedience or justice and liberation. Mission is a core value for many United Methodists, but that value is understood and practiced differently.
The issue of shared core values becomes even more complicated when one takes into account the international nature of the church. As I have shown for Filipino United Methodists, even when Filipinos share core values with American Traditionalists, Centrists, or Progressives, they way they understand those values and connect them to one another differs from the way US American United Methodists approach these core values.
Thus, shared core values for the denomination as an ideological and international whole may not exist.
Conclusion
This brings us to the end of the twelve factors identified by Jared Diamond as relevant to whether and how nations resolve crises. Assuming these factors have some validity for denominations as well as nations has allowed me to take stock of the UMC’s strengths and weaknesses as it attempts to resolve its current crisis of division over sexuality, declining US membership and giving, and difficult international decision-making.
Diamond does not intend his schema as mathematically predictive, and neither do I for my adaptation of his framework. It is impossible to say that if a nation or denomination has X number of factors in its favor or if it just has factors Y and Z, then it will certainly surmount its crisis. Thus, a review of the crisis-resolution factors in the UMC cannot lead to a definitive prediction of whether or nor the UMC will resolve its current crisis, let alone how.
Nonetheless, it is possible to briefly summarize some findings. While my survey of the twelve factors did identify some assets that the UMC has as it tries to resolve its crisis, the UMC also faces challenges in almost every one of these twelve factors. This should give us pause about the prospects of the UMC successfully resolving its current crisis.
In acknowledging that the UMC may not successfully resolve its current crisis, it is important to keep in mind what the opposite of resolving that crisis means. The opposite of resolving the crisis is not schism or the expulsion of one party. These scenarios resolve the crisis in one fashion or another.
No, the opposite of resolving the crisis is for the crisis to continue. That is the real danger for the UMC.
Monday, October 21, 2019
The Filipino UMC Link Between Revival, Unity, and Mission
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.
In a previous post, I recounted the story of the Lito Tangonan-led split in the Philippines UMC in the early 2010s. I argued that politically this split has made those in the UMC more committed to the global church and more averse to the possibility of further splits in the UMC in the Philippines.
Yet there has also been a significant theological development that has come out of the aftermath of the Tangonan split. For the Philippines UMC, revival, unity, and mission go together. One can best see the connection between these three theological concepts in the Revive events held in the Philippines.
The first Revive event was held in November 2012. It was a revival gathering of 8,000 United Methodists from across the Philippines. It was organized by lay Methodists, especially retired Philippines Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno.
The event was intended as a direct response to the Tangonan split. Puno referred to the event as an attempt to heal “our wounded church,” a reference to wounds incurred during the split.
The event also came just two weeks before the Philippines Central Conference met to elect bishops. 16 out of the 26 candidates for episcopal election spoke at the event. I am sure that part of the reason for holding a revival and prayer meeting at which the episcopal candidates spoke was to ensure that the Spirit would guide delegates two weeks later in making good choices of episcopal leaders, thereby avoiding another harmful saga like that set off by Tangonan’s election four years earlier.
The event drew on and sought to reignite Filipino Methodist holiness piety, which have its roots in a holiness theology shared among the Philippines and the US in the early 20th century, one that has proven to be more enduring in the Philippines than in the US. Yet in addition to the focus on holiness, there was also a focus on unity, an important theme for an event organized to respond to the Tangonan split. American speaker Scott Kelso, one of the main presenters, spoke about “praying for healing and unity.”
Unity continued to be a main focus for Revive 2, held in November 2016, just before the next meeting of the Philippines Central Conference. That event was even more popular than the first, drawing 10,000 Filipino United Methodists, including participants from across the Filipino theological spectrum. The theme for Revive 2 was “Go in Faith, Go in Power, Go in Unity,” making even clearer the connection for Filipino United Methodists between revival, unity, and mission.
Reynato Puno was again a major organizer of the event, and he again connected it to unity in the wake of the Tangonan split. In a UMNS interview for the 2016 event, he explained the origins of the event in 2012 by saying, “Some of the churches were breaking away because of some issues not being reasonably resolved. As laymen, we thought that the proper response to the crisis was to have a revival.”
And although the church was past the worst of the split in 2016, the issue had by no means faded from memory. In testimonies by current bishops shown at the revival, Bishop Rudy Juan, then bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area, mentions the AIMP split in his description of the challenges and goals in the work of his episcopal area (see minute 13).
Nor was Puno the only one to make the connection between revival and unity. Several videos were produced for the event, including interviews with retired Filipino bishops. The opening video for the event includes several retired bishops speaking of the connection between revival, unity, mission, and evangelism.
A history of the UMC in the Philippines produced for the event (worth a watch in its own right) concludes with remarks by retired Bishop Soriano linking unity, revival, and mission. In those remarks, he specifically mentions the debate over sexuality as an issue of disagreement, but one that need not preclude unity for the sake of mission.
Moreover, there is evidence that this theological linking of revival, mission, and unity has continued to have currency among Filipino (and Filipino-American) United Methodists since the Revive events. In announcing the formation of the Global Filipino United Methodists Movement earlier this year, Rev. Edgar De Jesus again made the connection between revival, unity, and mission, saying “This [mission] movement is a wakeup call to the people called Methodists to keep the main thing the main thing — the centrality of our faith in Jesus Christ, the humble servant and the risen one, who draws us into profound community with one another in love and unity.”
To grasp the significance for the UMC connection as a whole of this linking of revival, unity, and mission by Filipinos, consider some of the American alternatives.
For American centrists, there is a strong link between unity and mission, but that linkage typically lacks the inclusion of revival. Thus, unity is primarily understood in structural terms – we as United Methodists are united because we are part of one organization. For Filipinos, however, unity has less of structural connotation and more of a spiritual one – we are united because of our connection in Christ and our love for one another. That spiritual dimension to unity is evident in de Jesus’ quote above.
For American traditionalists, there is a strong link between revival and mission, but instead of these two being linked to unity, they are linked to purity. American traditionalists believe that revival will lead to mission, especially in the form of evangelism. But American traditionalists believe that for such revival to occur, the church must be pure, especially pure in its teachings around sexuality, which is to say, of one mind about those teachings. For American traditionalists, purity leads to spiritual power, whereas for Filipinos, unity with one another leads to spiritual power.
American progressives are less likely to use language of revival and mission, though they do have a vision of a future church where cherished spiritual values are in greater abundance (revival) and in which the church has an impact on social issues in the world around it (mission). They are, however, often antagonistic to language of unity, seeing it as a term used to justify continued oppression. It is clear that for progressives, as for traditionalists, purity is the theological virtue that will lead to the church they want, not unity. For progressives, this purity means a church that is pure from anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
There are also different understandings of mission among American centrists, American traditionalists, American progressives, and Filipinos. Centrists are most likely to think in terms of charity, traditionalists in terms of evangelism, and progressives in terms of social justice. Filipinos are more likely to have a wholistic view of mission which encompasses all three, since all three have been important to the UMC in the Philippines, not just through separate constituencies, but through overlapping concern.
Thus, the Philippines again represents a different starting point from which to think about the nature of the global church, one that could potentially lead to different conclusions about the future of that global church, were others willing to listen to Filipino theology and history and see where thinking alongside them might lead.
In a previous post, I recounted the story of the Lito Tangonan-led split in the Philippines UMC in the early 2010s. I argued that politically this split has made those in the UMC more committed to the global church and more averse to the possibility of further splits in the UMC in the Philippines.
Yet there has also been a significant theological development that has come out of the aftermath of the Tangonan split. For the Philippines UMC, revival, unity, and mission go together. One can best see the connection between these three theological concepts in the Revive events held in the Philippines.
The first Revive event was held in November 2012. It was a revival gathering of 8,000 United Methodists from across the Philippines. It was organized by lay Methodists, especially retired Philippines Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno.
The event was intended as a direct response to the Tangonan split. Puno referred to the event as an attempt to heal “our wounded church,” a reference to wounds incurred during the split.
The event also came just two weeks before the Philippines Central Conference met to elect bishops. 16 out of the 26 candidates for episcopal election spoke at the event. I am sure that part of the reason for holding a revival and prayer meeting at which the episcopal candidates spoke was to ensure that the Spirit would guide delegates two weeks later in making good choices of episcopal leaders, thereby avoiding another harmful saga like that set off by Tangonan’s election four years earlier.
The event drew on and sought to reignite Filipino Methodist holiness piety, which have its roots in a holiness theology shared among the Philippines and the US in the early 20th century, one that has proven to be more enduring in the Philippines than in the US. Yet in addition to the focus on holiness, there was also a focus on unity, an important theme for an event organized to respond to the Tangonan split. American speaker Scott Kelso, one of the main presenters, spoke about “praying for healing and unity.”
Unity continued to be a main focus for Revive 2, held in November 2016, just before the next meeting of the Philippines Central Conference. That event was even more popular than the first, drawing 10,000 Filipino United Methodists, including participants from across the Filipino theological spectrum. The theme for Revive 2 was “Go in Faith, Go in Power, Go in Unity,” making even clearer the connection for Filipino United Methodists between revival, unity, and mission.
Reynato Puno was again a major organizer of the event, and he again connected it to unity in the wake of the Tangonan split. In a UMNS interview for the 2016 event, he explained the origins of the event in 2012 by saying, “Some of the churches were breaking away because of some issues not being reasonably resolved. As laymen, we thought that the proper response to the crisis was to have a revival.”
And although the church was past the worst of the split in 2016, the issue had by no means faded from memory. In testimonies by current bishops shown at the revival, Bishop Rudy Juan, then bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area, mentions the AIMP split in his description of the challenges and goals in the work of his episcopal area (see minute 13).
Nor was Puno the only one to make the connection between revival and unity. Several videos were produced for the event, including interviews with retired Filipino bishops. The opening video for the event includes several retired bishops speaking of the connection between revival, unity, mission, and evangelism.
A history of the UMC in the Philippines produced for the event (worth a watch in its own right) concludes with remarks by retired Bishop Soriano linking unity, revival, and mission. In those remarks, he specifically mentions the debate over sexuality as an issue of disagreement, but one that need not preclude unity for the sake of mission.
Moreover, there is evidence that this theological linking of revival, mission, and unity has continued to have currency among Filipino (and Filipino-American) United Methodists since the Revive events. In announcing the formation of the Global Filipino United Methodists Movement earlier this year, Rev. Edgar De Jesus again made the connection between revival, unity, and mission, saying “This [mission] movement is a wakeup call to the people called Methodists to keep the main thing the main thing — the centrality of our faith in Jesus Christ, the humble servant and the risen one, who draws us into profound community with one another in love and unity.”
To grasp the significance for the UMC connection as a whole of this linking of revival, unity, and mission by Filipinos, consider some of the American alternatives.
For American centrists, there is a strong link between unity and mission, but that linkage typically lacks the inclusion of revival. Thus, unity is primarily understood in structural terms – we as United Methodists are united because we are part of one organization. For Filipinos, however, unity has less of structural connotation and more of a spiritual one – we are united because of our connection in Christ and our love for one another. That spiritual dimension to unity is evident in de Jesus’ quote above.
For American traditionalists, there is a strong link between revival and mission, but instead of these two being linked to unity, they are linked to purity. American traditionalists believe that revival will lead to mission, especially in the form of evangelism. But American traditionalists believe that for such revival to occur, the church must be pure, especially pure in its teachings around sexuality, which is to say, of one mind about those teachings. For American traditionalists, purity leads to spiritual power, whereas for Filipinos, unity with one another leads to spiritual power.
American progressives are less likely to use language of revival and mission, though they do have a vision of a future church where cherished spiritual values are in greater abundance (revival) and in which the church has an impact on social issues in the world around it (mission). They are, however, often antagonistic to language of unity, seeing it as a term used to justify continued oppression. It is clear that for progressives, as for traditionalists, purity is the theological virtue that will lead to the church they want, not unity. For progressives, this purity means a church that is pure from anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
There are also different understandings of mission among American centrists, American traditionalists, American progressives, and Filipinos. Centrists are most likely to think in terms of charity, traditionalists in terms of evangelism, and progressives in terms of social justice. Filipinos are more likely to have a wholistic view of mission which encompasses all three, since all three have been important to the UMC in the Philippines, not just through separate constituencies, but through overlapping concern.
Thus, the Philippines again represents a different starting point from which to think about the nature of the global church, one that could potentially lead to different conclusions about the future of that global church, were others willing to listen to Filipino theology and history and see where thinking alongside them might lead.
Friday, September 20, 2019
The Current Three-Way Standoff in the UMC
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 The United Methodist Church continues to react to GC2019, plan for GC2020, and try to come to grips with the all-consuming debate over gay ordination and gay marriage in the church, it seems that the church may be settling into a three-way standoff between US (and Western European) centrists and progressives, US traditionalists, and African (and Eastern European) leaders.
In technical terms, a three-way standoff is a conflict in which none of the parties can achieve their goals, nor can they retreat from the conflict. Thus, the parties remain in a deadlocked state. Armed three-way (or more) standoffs are a trope in movies such as "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
Here’s a run-down of the parties in the current UMC three-way standoff, why they can’t achieve what they want, and why they are not willing to retreat.
US Centrists and (some) Progressives
The goal of US centrists and progressives, along with progressives in Western Europe, is clear: to remove what they see as discriminatory language against LGBTQ persons in the Book of Discipline, enabling United Methodist in those contexts to ordain LGBTQ persons and to perform gay weddings.
Yet as has been shown repeatedly, US & European centrists and progressives do not have enough GC votes to accomplish this goal, since both US traditionalists and Africans, Eastern Europeans, and many Filipinos are opposed to such changes.
Yet at the same time, US centrists and some US progressives have also indicated that they are not willing to walk away from the UMC. The UMC Next plan that is being advanced to GC2020 essentially calls for US traditionalists to leave the church instead of centrists and progressives.
Some US progressives (especially those associated with UM Forward and the Western Jurisdiction) have indicated a willingness to leave the conflict, but this appears to still be a minority opinion among centrists and progressives as a bloc.
Motivations vary, but a sense of ownership of the UMC, commitment to current structures, including the boards and agencies, and a sense of having the direction of history on their side have made most centrists and progressives unwilling to leave the denomination en masse.
US Traditionalists
The goal of US traditionalists is to be part of a church that does not ordain queer people or perform gay weddings. While they have up until GC2019 tried to accomplish this goal through GC legislation, the way events have unfolded since then seems to have shown them that they cannot easily achieve that goal through this strategy. UMC polity allows too many ways for centrists and progressives to stay and resist.
While it is possible that traditionalists could win a long-term legislative war of closing loopholes, most traditionalists seem to have concluded that they best way to achieve the goal of being in a church without gay ministers or gay weddings is to split the denomination.
Yet African bishops have indicated that, while they support traditionalists’ understanding of marriage, they do not support traditionalists’ goal to split the church. Without the support of that bloc, US traditionalists have a relatively small bloc of votes themselves and cannot advance any agenda.
At the same time, US traditionalists overall seem unwilling to walk away from the UMC. Certainly, there have been individual traditionalist congregations here and there that have left or are leaving, but leaders of Good News have been vocal about their intention to stay in the UMC.
In large part, this seems to be because traditionalists are unwilling to accept anything that could look like a defeat, and they believe that leaving the denomination after “winning” the GC2019 vote would look like a defeat. Much of the motivating energy of US traditionalists seems to come from a sense of being a successful insurgency. Leaving does not fit with that narrative.
African Bishops (and Eastern Europeans)
The African bishops recently met and reiterated their traditional understanding of marriage and their unwillingness to split the denomination. This statement is consistent with earlier statements. Yet reading between the lines of the bishops’ statement, the overall political goals of African leaders seem to be two-fold: to be included as central players in the UMC decision-making process and to preserve the current agency structure.
One of the African bishops’ main objections to all of the division proposals was that they were developed without African input. For a major group in the denomination, Africans are given relatively little say in determining the agenda and possible futures of the denomination, and they would like more.
In addition to that goal is support for the boards and agencies and the financial and technical support they provide for ministries in Africa. In this regard, Eastern Europeans find themselves in a similar place – maintain a strongly traditionalist stance on marriage but opposed to dividing the church.
Yet American control of agenda-setting is deeply ingrained in the UMC and reinforced by a variety of linguistic, procedural, administrative, financial, and practical considerations, and neither US traditionalists nor US centrists and progressives seem interested in making major changes to the denomination that would give Africans a greater voice, as evidenced by the division plans developed without any African input.
Moreover, US United Methodists very clearly control the purse strings both of the boards and agencies and of annual conference- and church-based partnerships. Thus, Africans can ask for the boards and agencies to continue and continue their funding, but since Americans provide that funding and can withhold it, it is beyond Africans’ power to determine the future of the boards and agencies.
At the same time, Africans, or at least the African bishops, have indicated that they are unwilling to walk away from the UMC. The name of United Methodist has strong “brand equity” on the continent of Africa, and Africans are deeply committed to the name because of what it says to the societies in which African United Methodists operate. Moreover, Africans feel like they should not have to leave their church because of fights that others have caused and are mostly occurring among others.
And thus we arrive at the current three-way standoff in the UMC: US centrists and progressives, US traditionalists, and Africans, none able to achieve their goals in the church, but none willing to walk away, deadlocked in conflict.
Editor's note: The original version of this post referred to the UMC's situation as a "Mexican standoff." The name was changed in response to readers who raised concerns that this term implied negative ethnic stereotypes. While this was certainly not my intent, I sincerely apologize to any who may have been offended by the use of this term.
As The United Methodist Church continues to react to GC2019, plan for GC2020, and try to come to grips with the all-consuming debate over gay ordination and gay marriage in the church, it seems that the church may be settling into a three-way standoff between US (and Western European) centrists and progressives, US traditionalists, and African (and Eastern European) leaders.
In technical terms, a three-way standoff is a conflict in which none of the parties can achieve their goals, nor can they retreat from the conflict. Thus, the parties remain in a deadlocked state. Armed three-way (or more) standoffs are a trope in movies such as "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
Here’s a run-down of the parties in the current UMC three-way standoff, why they can’t achieve what they want, and why they are not willing to retreat.
US Centrists and (some) Progressives
The goal of US centrists and progressives, along with progressives in Western Europe, is clear: to remove what they see as discriminatory language against LGBTQ persons in the Book of Discipline, enabling United Methodist in those contexts to ordain LGBTQ persons and to perform gay weddings.
Yet as has been shown repeatedly, US & European centrists and progressives do not have enough GC votes to accomplish this goal, since both US traditionalists and Africans, Eastern Europeans, and many Filipinos are opposed to such changes.
Yet at the same time, US centrists and some US progressives have also indicated that they are not willing to walk away from the UMC. The UMC Next plan that is being advanced to GC2020 essentially calls for US traditionalists to leave the church instead of centrists and progressives.
Some US progressives (especially those associated with UM Forward and the Western Jurisdiction) have indicated a willingness to leave the conflict, but this appears to still be a minority opinion among centrists and progressives as a bloc.
Motivations vary, but a sense of ownership of the UMC, commitment to current structures, including the boards and agencies, and a sense of having the direction of history on their side have made most centrists and progressives unwilling to leave the denomination en masse.
US Traditionalists
The goal of US traditionalists is to be part of a church that does not ordain queer people or perform gay weddings. While they have up until GC2019 tried to accomplish this goal through GC legislation, the way events have unfolded since then seems to have shown them that they cannot easily achieve that goal through this strategy. UMC polity allows too many ways for centrists and progressives to stay and resist.
While it is possible that traditionalists could win a long-term legislative war of closing loopholes, most traditionalists seem to have concluded that they best way to achieve the goal of being in a church without gay ministers or gay weddings is to split the denomination.
Yet African bishops have indicated that, while they support traditionalists’ understanding of marriage, they do not support traditionalists’ goal to split the church. Without the support of that bloc, US traditionalists have a relatively small bloc of votes themselves and cannot advance any agenda.
At the same time, US traditionalists overall seem unwilling to walk away from the UMC. Certainly, there have been individual traditionalist congregations here and there that have left or are leaving, but leaders of Good News have been vocal about their intention to stay in the UMC.
In large part, this seems to be because traditionalists are unwilling to accept anything that could look like a defeat, and they believe that leaving the denomination after “winning” the GC2019 vote would look like a defeat. Much of the motivating energy of US traditionalists seems to come from a sense of being a successful insurgency. Leaving does not fit with that narrative.
African Bishops (and Eastern Europeans)
The African bishops recently met and reiterated their traditional understanding of marriage and their unwillingness to split the denomination. This statement is consistent with earlier statements. Yet reading between the lines of the bishops’ statement, the overall political goals of African leaders seem to be two-fold: to be included as central players in the UMC decision-making process and to preserve the current agency structure.
One of the African bishops’ main objections to all of the division proposals was that they were developed without African input. For a major group in the denomination, Africans are given relatively little say in determining the agenda and possible futures of the denomination, and they would like more.
In addition to that goal is support for the boards and agencies and the financial and technical support they provide for ministries in Africa. In this regard, Eastern Europeans find themselves in a similar place – maintain a strongly traditionalist stance on marriage but opposed to dividing the church.
Yet American control of agenda-setting is deeply ingrained in the UMC and reinforced by a variety of linguistic, procedural, administrative, financial, and practical considerations, and neither US traditionalists nor US centrists and progressives seem interested in making major changes to the denomination that would give Africans a greater voice, as evidenced by the division plans developed without any African input.
Moreover, US United Methodists very clearly control the purse strings both of the boards and agencies and of annual conference- and church-based partnerships. Thus, Africans can ask for the boards and agencies to continue and continue their funding, but since Americans provide that funding and can withhold it, it is beyond Africans’ power to determine the future of the boards and agencies.
At the same time, Africans, or at least the African bishops, have indicated that they are unwilling to walk away from the UMC. The name of United Methodist has strong “brand equity” on the continent of Africa, and Africans are deeply committed to the name because of what it says to the societies in which African United Methodists operate. Moreover, Africans feel like they should not have to leave their church because of fights that others have caused and are mostly occurring among others.
And thus we arrive at the current three-way standoff in the UMC: US centrists and progressives, US traditionalists, and Africans, none able to achieve their goals in the church, but none willing to walk away, deadlocked in conflict.
Editor's note: The original version of this post referred to the UMC's situation as a "Mexican standoff." The name was changed in response to readers who raised concerns that this term implied negative ethnic stereotypes. While this was certainly not my intent, I sincerely apologize to any who may have been offended by the use of this term.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Will the Future of the UMC Look Like CIEMAL?
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.
While General Conference 2019 was a divisive experience and the legislative results hotly contested, the one thing that everyone seems to agree on in its aftermath is that The United Methodist Church cannot continue in the same form it has. Our present ecclesiological system is unable to respond adequately to the challenges of our life together, and it is necessary to find new ways of being Methodist together, or quite likely, apart from one another.
It is entirely possible that if the UMC splits, the remaining parts would have no relation to one another. Yet there are many who do not want to give up on our global connections even while there is some form of separation. How then can these connections continue?
Robert Hunt, in a recent blog post, asserts that "true unity is found only in the world-wide mission of the apostolic church," but sees such an understanding of unity as compatible with "a global Methodist Church made up of autonomous annual conferences."
What would such a global Methodist Church look like? One possibility is that it would look a good deal like CIEMAL, El Consejo de Iglesias Evangélicas Metodistas de América Latina y el Caribe (the Council of Methodist Churches of Latin America and the Caribbean).
CIEMAL is an organization that brings together fifteen autonomous Methodist churches. It "acts as a convener, guide and director of the service and the testimony of Latin American Methodism."
The member denominations of CIEMAL are entirely autonomous. They are responsible for their own doctrinal standards, worship guidance, clergy credentialing, and structures of authority and accountability. They also each have internal structures for joint mission and ministry and for shared fellowship among their members.
Yet the denominations of CIEMAL recognize that they have something to gain through the joint mission, joint ministry, and mutual fellowship provided by the wider body. CIEMAL does such things as promoting coordination between member bodies, facilitating fraternal exchange among member denominations, mutually training cross-cultural missionaries, recognizing and supporting newly-forming Methodist churches in the area (such as Columbia and Venezuela), resolving conflicts between Methodist bodies (as in Venezuela), and engaging other Methodist bodies around the world (such as the Methodist Church in Britain). All this happens through a Program Commission, a Council of Bishops, a four-person Executive Committee, and an occasional General Assembly.
CIEMAL was formed in the late 1960s when United Methodist Church annual conferences in Latin America were becoming autonomous but wanted to avoid becoming insular and instead maintain some connection to one another and The United Methodist Church, which participates in CIEMAL through Global Ministries.
If The United Methodist Church breaks up into two or more autonomous bodies, there could still be a role for some organization to play in facilitating conversations between members of these bodies, coordinating mutual mission and ministry work, training and sending missionaries, and supporting the creation of new Methodist churches in areas around the world. Such an arrangement could provide current United Methodists with enough space from each other through autonomy without surrendering the global sense of mutual compassion and fellowship that at best characterizes our international body as it is.
While General Conference 2019 was a divisive experience and the legislative results hotly contested, the one thing that everyone seems to agree on in its aftermath is that The United Methodist Church cannot continue in the same form it has. Our present ecclesiological system is unable to respond adequately to the challenges of our life together, and it is necessary to find new ways of being Methodist together, or quite likely, apart from one another.
It is entirely possible that if the UMC splits, the remaining parts would have no relation to one another. Yet there are many who do not want to give up on our global connections even while there is some form of separation. How then can these connections continue?
Robert Hunt, in a recent blog post, asserts that "true unity is found only in the world-wide mission of the apostolic church," but sees such an understanding of unity as compatible with "a global Methodist Church made up of autonomous annual conferences."
What would such a global Methodist Church look like? One possibility is that it would look a good deal like CIEMAL, El Consejo de Iglesias Evangélicas Metodistas de América Latina y el Caribe (the Council of Methodist Churches of Latin America and the Caribbean).
CIEMAL is an organization that brings together fifteen autonomous Methodist churches. It "acts as a convener, guide and director of the service and the testimony of Latin American Methodism."
The member denominations of CIEMAL are entirely autonomous. They are responsible for their own doctrinal standards, worship guidance, clergy credentialing, and structures of authority and accountability. They also each have internal structures for joint mission and ministry and for shared fellowship among their members.
Yet the denominations of CIEMAL recognize that they have something to gain through the joint mission, joint ministry, and mutual fellowship provided by the wider body. CIEMAL does such things as promoting coordination between member bodies, facilitating fraternal exchange among member denominations, mutually training cross-cultural missionaries, recognizing and supporting newly-forming Methodist churches in the area (such as Columbia and Venezuela), resolving conflicts between Methodist bodies (as in Venezuela), and engaging other Methodist bodies around the world (such as the Methodist Church in Britain). All this happens through a Program Commission, a Council of Bishops, a four-person Executive Committee, and an occasional General Assembly.
CIEMAL was formed in the late 1960s when United Methodist Church annual conferences in Latin America were becoming autonomous but wanted to avoid becoming insular and instead maintain some connection to one another and The United Methodist Church, which participates in CIEMAL through Global Ministries.
If The United Methodist Church breaks up into two or more autonomous bodies, there could still be a role for some organization to play in facilitating conversations between members of these bodies, coordinating mutual mission and ministry work, training and sending missionaries, and supporting the creation of new Methodist churches in areas around the world. Such an arrangement could provide current United Methodists with enough space from each other through autonomy without surrendering the global sense of mutual compassion and fellowship that at best characterizes our international body as it is.
Monday, April 22, 2019
Recommended Readings: Nordic & Baltic UMC forms a roundtable on a way forward
The Area Group of the Nordic and Baltic Council of the Northern Europe and Eurasia Central Conference met on March 29 and 30. At that meeting, they unanimously approved the creation of a roundtable for the sake of "seeking a foundation for the future of the Nordic and Baltic episcopal area that includes as much unity and as much missional strength as possible."
If that language sounds familiar, it's because it draws on the purpose statement for the Commission on a Way Forward for the entire UMC. In essence, the Nordic and Baltic Area is attempting their own, regional rather than global Commission on a Way Forward, one aimed at building "a consensus on one proposal for the future of the Nordic and Baltic area" rather than a majority vote on the future of the UMC as a whole.
While the Nordic and Baltic Area has some advantages in this effort that the UMC as a whole lacked - close relationships, perhaps less cultural difference among participants - it is worth noting that the task will not be easy, as this episcopal area spans from Western to Eastern Europe, and thus contains both sides of that cultural divide on homosexuality. It will be interesting to see whether the assets that the Nordic and Baltic Area bring to this difficult project are able to produce a better result than the UMC as a whole experienced at General Conference 2019.
For more details, see the following:
A statement from the Area Group on their meeting in English
A paraphrase of that statement in Norwegian
A short description of the roundtables in English
A news article on the group's meeting and decision in German
If that language sounds familiar, it's because it draws on the purpose statement for the Commission on a Way Forward for the entire UMC. In essence, the Nordic and Baltic Area is attempting their own, regional rather than global Commission on a Way Forward, one aimed at building "a consensus on one proposal for the future of the Nordic and Baltic area" rather than a majority vote on the future of the UMC as a whole.
While the Nordic and Baltic Area has some advantages in this effort that the UMC as a whole lacked - close relationships, perhaps less cultural difference among participants - it is worth noting that the task will not be easy, as this episcopal area spans from Western to Eastern Europe, and thus contains both sides of that cultural divide on homosexuality. It will be interesting to see whether the assets that the Nordic and Baltic Area bring to this difficult project are able to produce a better result than the UMC as a whole experienced at General Conference 2019.
For more details, see the following:
A statement from the Area Group on their meeting in English
A paraphrase of that statement in Norwegian
A short description of the roundtables in English
A news article on the group's meeting and decision in German
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
E. Stanley Jones on Christ and Unity
In the discussion of the Way Forward and the current United Methodist debates over homosexuality, thinkers on many sides have parsed the words of the Bible, John Wesley, and Francis Asbury on the nature of and conditions for church unity. Here, I offer thoughts from another significant Methodist: missionary E. Stanley Jones. These thoughts are not meant to endorse any particular policy position in the UMC. Rather, some words from Jones on the connection between Christ and unity seemed timely at this moment of the life of the church, and in this Advent season.
"For at the central place of our experience of Jesus we are one. It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrines that divide. As someone has suggested, if you ask a congregation of Christians, "What do you believe?" there will be a chorus of conflicting beliefs, for no two persons believe exactly alike. But if the question is asked, "Whom do you trust?" then we are together. If the emphasis in our approach to Christianity is "What?" then it is divisive, but if the emphasis is "Whom?" then we are drawn together at the place of this Central Magnet. One has the tendency of the centrifugal and the other the tendency of the centripetal. He is the hub that holds together in himself the divided spokes."
"Christianity with a what-emphasis is bound to be divisive, but this tendency is lessened with a Whom-emphasis. Note the things that have created denominations in the West: baptism, human freedom, rites, ceremonies, church government, dress, orders--the points of division have been nearly all "whats." The church divided once over the "Whom," namely, in the Unitarian issue. Here it had a right to divide, for the question of who Jesus is is vital and decisive. Everything is bound up with that question."
"Do not misunderstand me: The whats of Christianity are important, a body of doctrine is bound to grow up around him [Christ]. We cannot do without doctrine, but I am so anxious for the purity of doctrine that I want it to be held in the white light of his Person and under the constant corrective of his living Mind. The only place where we can hold our doctrines pure is to hold them in the light of his countenance. Here their defects are at once apparent, but only here.
"But we must hold in mind that no doctrine, however true, no statement, however correct, no teaching, however pure, can save a man. "We are saved by a Person and only by a Person, and, as far as I know, by only one Person," said Bishop McDowell. Only Life can lift life. ...
"But further, we shall soon see that as we draw closer to him we shall be closer to each other in doctrine. Suppose the essence of Christianity is in utter devotion to Jesus, and truly following him is the test of discipleship, will not such doctrine as the new birth take on new meaning? If I am to follow such as he, I must be born again and born different. A new birth is a necessary beginning for this new life. And as for the doctrines of sanctification and the fullness of the Spirit, apart from him, they may become hollow cant, as they, in fact, have often become; but in the business of following Jesus they become, not maximum attainments, but minimum necessities. If I am to follow him, he will demand my all, and I shall not want to offer him less. Holiness has been preached very often until it has become a synonym for hollowness. The word has got loosed from Christ and has lost its meaning. Had it kept close to Christ, we would have preached less holiness and more of a Christ who makes men [sic] holy."
E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road (The Abingdon Press: New York and Cincinnati, 1925), excerpts from Chapter IX, "What or Whom?"
"For at the central place of our experience of Jesus we are one. It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrines that divide. As someone has suggested, if you ask a congregation of Christians, "What do you believe?" there will be a chorus of conflicting beliefs, for no two persons believe exactly alike. But if the question is asked, "Whom do you trust?" then we are together. If the emphasis in our approach to Christianity is "What?" then it is divisive, but if the emphasis is "Whom?" then we are drawn together at the place of this Central Magnet. One has the tendency of the centrifugal and the other the tendency of the centripetal. He is the hub that holds together in himself the divided spokes."
"Christianity with a what-emphasis is bound to be divisive, but this tendency is lessened with a Whom-emphasis. Note the things that have created denominations in the West: baptism, human freedom, rites, ceremonies, church government, dress, orders--the points of division have been nearly all "whats." The church divided once over the "Whom," namely, in the Unitarian issue. Here it had a right to divide, for the question of who Jesus is is vital and decisive. Everything is bound up with that question."
"Do not misunderstand me: The whats of Christianity are important, a body of doctrine is bound to grow up around him [Christ]. We cannot do without doctrine, but I am so anxious for the purity of doctrine that I want it to be held in the white light of his Person and under the constant corrective of his living Mind. The only place where we can hold our doctrines pure is to hold them in the light of his countenance. Here their defects are at once apparent, but only here.
"But we must hold in mind that no doctrine, however true, no statement, however correct, no teaching, however pure, can save a man. "We are saved by a Person and only by a Person, and, as far as I know, by only one Person," said Bishop McDowell. Only Life can lift life. ...
"But further, we shall soon see that as we draw closer to him we shall be closer to each other in doctrine. Suppose the essence of Christianity is in utter devotion to Jesus, and truly following him is the test of discipleship, will not such doctrine as the new birth take on new meaning? If I am to follow such as he, I must be born again and born different. A new birth is a necessary beginning for this new life. And as for the doctrines of sanctification and the fullness of the Spirit, apart from him, they may become hollow cant, as they, in fact, have often become; but in the business of following Jesus they become, not maximum attainments, but minimum necessities. If I am to follow him, he will demand my all, and I shall not want to offer him less. Holiness has been preached very often until it has become a synonym for hollowness. The word has got loosed from Christ and has lost its meaning. Had it kept close to Christ, we would have preached less holiness and more of a Christ who makes men [sic] holy."
E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road (The Abingdon Press: New York and Cincinnati, 1925), excerpts from Chapter IX, "What or Whom?"
Monday, October 8, 2018
Recommended Viewing: Christian Alsted videos
United Methodist Communications has put out a series of four short (1-2 min.) video interviews with Bishop Christian Alsted of the Nordic-Baltic Episcopal Area.
In the videos, Bishop Alsted discusses divisions in the church over human sexuality. He argues for continued relationship despite differences. It is worth noting that Bishop Alsted's episcopal area contains significant differences on this topic, especially between Denmark and Estonia. The videos also include a mention of the Nordic-Baltic unified cabinet model, which crosses annual conferences, languages, and nations, and an affirmation of mission by Bishop Alsted and the Connectional Table, which he chairs.
The four videos are as follows:
United Methodist bishop: "It's important for us to stay in dialogue"
United Methodist bishop urges congregants to face challenges together
United Methodist bishop: "I trust the General Conference"
United Methodist bishop: "God's mission is yet alive"
In the videos, Bishop Alsted discusses divisions in the church over human sexuality. He argues for continued relationship despite differences. It is worth noting that Bishop Alsted's episcopal area contains significant differences on this topic, especially between Denmark and Estonia. The videos also include a mention of the Nordic-Baltic unified cabinet model, which crosses annual conferences, languages, and nations, and an affirmation of mission by Bishop Alsted and the Connectional Table, which he chairs.
The four videos are as follows:
United Methodist bishop: "It's important for us to stay in dialogue"
United Methodist bishop urges congregants to face challenges together
United Methodist bishop: "I trust the General Conference"
United Methodist bishop: "God's mission is yet alive"
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Four Interpretations of the African UMC Bishops' Statement
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.
The Africa College of Bishops met recently in Sierra Leone for a regular time of discussion and learning as the episcopal leaders of the UMC in Africa. Following that meeting, they released a statement summarizing some key points of their meeting, including discussions related to the topic of sexuality, the upcoming called General Conference, and the work of the Commission on a Way Forward. You can read the full statement, a summary by the Council of Bishops, and a UMNS article about the statement and meeting.
The statement reaffirmed the bishops' support of a traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman and emphasized their commitment to the unity of the denomination. While that much is clear, there are at least four possible interpretations of what this statement means for how African delegates will likely vote at February's special General Conference.
The first interpretation is that the African bishops were showing support for the Traditionalist Plan. Indeed, the initial version of the UMNS story indicated that the African bishops had done just this, though UMNS retracted that version of the story and indicated that the African bishops did not support any of the three plans coming out of the Commission's work.
While it is clear that of the three plans, a traditional understanding of marriage aligns most closely with the Traditionalist Plan, that does not necessarily mean that the bishops' support of traditional marriage equates to support of the Traditionalist Plan. The current Book of Discipline upholds a traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, so implementing the Traditionalist Plan would not be necessary for the church to officially have a traditional understanding of marriage.
Thus, a second interpretation of the African bishops' statement is that is actually is a call to maintain the status quo rather than adopting any of the three plans. The African bishops did speak positively of the Commission, but that does not mean they agree that African delegates should vote for one or another plan. They did not endorse any of the three, and that may be a sign that they do not see any of the three as attractive options.
This interpretation may be more plausible depending on how one reads the bishops' statements for unity and against "legislation that calls for the dissolution of The United Methodist Church." The Traditionalist Plan includes extensive provisions for prompting the exit of portions of the (American) UMC unwilling to abide by Book of Discipline provisions on gay marriage and gay ordination. Such exits would come at some cost to the unity of the denomination, though it would not entail full-scale "dissolution" of the UMC.
Focusing on this term "dissolution" leads to a third interpretation of the African bishops' statement, as a specific warning against legislation proposed by the WCA that would outright dissolve The United Methodist Church without making provisions for what comes next. Under this interpretation, the bishops are warning their constituents against that particular legislation and signaling that either the Traditionalist Plan or the status quo (both of which preserve teachings on traditional marriage) would be acceptable.
A fourth and final interpretation rejects the assumption that this statement actually offers any new or reliable information about how African delegates will vote next February. Much of the statement is a reiteration of past sentiments (referred to in the statement). Moreover, there are several reasons that this statement might not translate directly to voting behaviors.
First, a "unanimous" statement by the bishops may more indicate a commitment by the bishops to presenting a united front rather than an accurate indication of the opinions of each bishop individually. I have spoken before about how understandings of voting differ outside the US and unanimous votes can mask spirited discussions that occurred just prior to the vote. Thus, it is quite possible that the African bishops, despite this unanimous statement, do not unanimously agree which, if any, of the three plans would be best for the church in Africa.
Second, the statement by the bishops may be seen as a statement that is about sending the right public messages (to African rather than American publics) that are necessary to ensure their constituents' continued support. Such a public statement may then open up private discussions with delegates that may take more specific directions regarding which of the plans a particular bishop supports. The public statement contain enough in it to provide bishops with theological cover while providing enough room for interpretation for bishops to recommend different plans.
Third, bishops aren't voting delegates themselves, and despite African bishops' vaunted authority, they do not determine how their delegates vote. Even if this statement is an indication that the bishops are support a plan (or no plan), African delegates could still vote in other ways. A recent article about the Africa Initiative meeting in Nairobi indicated that there are tensions between the bishops and the Africa Initiative (which did support the Traditionalist Plan). Delegates may have to choose between listening to the Africa Initiative, listening to their bishop, or selecting another option.
It's hard to read much encouragement in the statement by the African bishops for the One Church Plan, let alone the Simple Plan proposed by American progressives. Still, the statement is open to a variety of interpretations and should not be taken as foregone evidence that passage of the Traditionalist Plan is inevitable. That is still a real possibility, but nothing passing is at least as likely, and other scenarios may yet come to pass, too. We won't know definitively how African delegates will vote until next February.
The Africa College of Bishops met recently in Sierra Leone for a regular time of discussion and learning as the episcopal leaders of the UMC in Africa. Following that meeting, they released a statement summarizing some key points of their meeting, including discussions related to the topic of sexuality, the upcoming called General Conference, and the work of the Commission on a Way Forward. You can read the full statement, a summary by the Council of Bishops, and a UMNS article about the statement and meeting.
The statement reaffirmed the bishops' support of a traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman and emphasized their commitment to the unity of the denomination. While that much is clear, there are at least four possible interpretations of what this statement means for how African delegates will likely vote at February's special General Conference.
The first interpretation is that the African bishops were showing support for the Traditionalist Plan. Indeed, the initial version of the UMNS story indicated that the African bishops had done just this, though UMNS retracted that version of the story and indicated that the African bishops did not support any of the three plans coming out of the Commission's work.
While it is clear that of the three plans, a traditional understanding of marriage aligns most closely with the Traditionalist Plan, that does not necessarily mean that the bishops' support of traditional marriage equates to support of the Traditionalist Plan. The current Book of Discipline upholds a traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, so implementing the Traditionalist Plan would not be necessary for the church to officially have a traditional understanding of marriage.
Thus, a second interpretation of the African bishops' statement is that is actually is a call to maintain the status quo rather than adopting any of the three plans. The African bishops did speak positively of the Commission, but that does not mean they agree that African delegates should vote for one or another plan. They did not endorse any of the three, and that may be a sign that they do not see any of the three as attractive options.
This interpretation may be more plausible depending on how one reads the bishops' statements for unity and against "legislation that calls for the dissolution of The United Methodist Church." The Traditionalist Plan includes extensive provisions for prompting the exit of portions of the (American) UMC unwilling to abide by Book of Discipline provisions on gay marriage and gay ordination. Such exits would come at some cost to the unity of the denomination, though it would not entail full-scale "dissolution" of the UMC.
Focusing on this term "dissolution" leads to a third interpretation of the African bishops' statement, as a specific warning against legislation proposed by the WCA that would outright dissolve The United Methodist Church without making provisions for what comes next. Under this interpretation, the bishops are warning their constituents against that particular legislation and signaling that either the Traditionalist Plan or the status quo (both of which preserve teachings on traditional marriage) would be acceptable.
A fourth and final interpretation rejects the assumption that this statement actually offers any new or reliable information about how African delegates will vote next February. Much of the statement is a reiteration of past sentiments (referred to in the statement). Moreover, there are several reasons that this statement might not translate directly to voting behaviors.
First, a "unanimous" statement by the bishops may more indicate a commitment by the bishops to presenting a united front rather than an accurate indication of the opinions of each bishop individually. I have spoken before about how understandings of voting differ outside the US and unanimous votes can mask spirited discussions that occurred just prior to the vote. Thus, it is quite possible that the African bishops, despite this unanimous statement, do not unanimously agree which, if any, of the three plans would be best for the church in Africa.
Second, the statement by the bishops may be seen as a statement that is about sending the right public messages (to African rather than American publics) that are necessary to ensure their constituents' continued support. Such a public statement may then open up private discussions with delegates that may take more specific directions regarding which of the plans a particular bishop supports. The public statement contain enough in it to provide bishops with theological cover while providing enough room for interpretation for bishops to recommend different plans.
Third, bishops aren't voting delegates themselves, and despite African bishops' vaunted authority, they do not determine how their delegates vote. Even if this statement is an indication that the bishops are support a plan (or no plan), African delegates could still vote in other ways. A recent article about the Africa Initiative meeting in Nairobi indicated that there are tensions between the bishops and the Africa Initiative (which did support the Traditionalist Plan). Delegates may have to choose between listening to the Africa Initiative, listening to their bishop, or selecting another option.
It's hard to read much encouragement in the statement by the African bishops for the One Church Plan, let alone the Simple Plan proposed by American progressives. Still, the statement is open to a variety of interpretations and should not be taken as foregone evidence that passage of the Traditionalist Plan is inevitable. That is still a real possibility, but nothing passing is at least as likely, and other scenarios may yet come to pass, too. We won't know definitively how African delegates will vote until next February.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Lisa Beth White: The Hopefulness of Mission, or Why I’m Not Worried about the Future of the UMC
Today's post is by Rev. Lisa Beth White, founder of Sister of Hope Ministries, an organization that exists to equip and support short-term mission teams, churches and non-profit organizations with training, resources and evaluation tools with the aim of enabling the faithful practice of Christian mission. This piece is reposted with permission from the author's personal site.
I am a United Methodist. My denomination recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, remembering how it was formed by a union of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968. This church has formed me as a disciple of Jesus Christ, has taught me grace, taught me how to sing grace, preach grace, and practice grace. I have given my life’s work to Christ through the United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Church’s Difficult Season
But the United Methodist Church is having a difficult season. To be honest, it’s been having a contentious season for about 40 years. If you are a United Methodist and you’re on social media, you are likely aware of our struggles. If not, let me try to summarize.
The issue is inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church. Our denomination has been in the news for holding clergy trials when pastors officiate same-gender weddings, even for their own children; for holding clergy trials and stripping clergy of their credentials when they admit their identity as an LGBTQ person; for having protests and debates at our quadrennial gatherings during which church legislation is considered. We’ve had study commissions, we’ve added language to our Book of Discipline (the text that holds our constitution, our Articles of Religion, our structure and order for ministry), we’ve argued and argued. Most recently, our last General Conference (that once every four year gathering) asked our Council of Bishops (all bishops, active and retired) to form a commission and advise the church how to move forward as a united denomination, despite our continuing and harsh disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion.
And so, the commission has held meetings, prayed and discussed our difficult season. In the end, they recommended three plans to the Council of Bishops – the Traditionalist Plan which would essentially maintain the status quo; the Connectional-Conference Plan, which would allow churches to affiliate with other churches that their perspectives align with, rather than our current geographic structure; and the One Church Plan, which allows decisions about ordaining LGBTQ persons to be made in local areas and removes all restrictive language from the Book of Discipline. The Bishops are recommending the One Church Plan to the special session of General Conference that will meet in February 2019. You can read articles here and here about this recommendation.
And So, Anxiety Reigns
Now, if you’re not United Methodist, this may all seem confusing and tedious. Methodists have a decision making process that isn’t simple. We don’t have a pope and cardinals to make decisions for us. We don’t have a simple majority rules vote. We hold our church buildings and land in trust for the church that will come after we are gone, so we understand that the brick and mortar in which we gather isn’t “ours” but God’s for the work of God’s people.
And it’s exactly at that point – God and the work of God’s people – in which I take great hope for the United Methodist Church.
In the midst of all the debates, clergy trials and commission reports, people have been getting very upset and anxious. At a recent pre-conference meeting (yes, a meeting before our annual meeting, it’s how we do things in the UMC) I heard such anxiety from the people gathered as they discussed what our future may look like. “If this happens, then…” or “if that happens, then…” The proposed resolutions we were voting on were contradictory, as people wanted to be ready for whatever comes next. If things don’t go according to their desire, they want to be able to split the denomination, to take possession of their buildings, to ensure their beliefs and not have to compromise or change.
Such anxiety. Near panic. Judgment and suspicion. The one thing we could agree on is that we disagree.
I was only able to attend the meeting because I had been visiting my parents. When I got back home, I found in my mail a letter from our Board of Pensions, which administers all clergy retirement accounts. The letter opens with “concerns” and “expressed worries…during this time of change.” The whole purpose of the letter was to reassure anxious clergy, who, as the meeting had made obvious, were still anxious.
They Will Know You Are My Disciples By Your Love
I am not anxious about the future of the church. No matter what happens in the United Methodist Church, I have faith in the work of the Holy Spirit to call people into partnership with God in mission. God is always at work in the world, reaching out in mission in, to, and for the world. The church is the Body of Christ, and God uses the church to share God’s grace and love with the world. No church split or union will change the mission of God.
In the book of Acts we read about the early church, and how the Spirit moved people to show love for their neighbors. Chapter 2:44-45 states that Christians were together, collecting funds so that if anyone had a need, it could be taken care of by the group. This care for others is reinforced in chapter 4:34-35, that there was not a single person in need among the believers because the people trusted the apostles to use their funds to care for everyone. By chapter six, the group of believers had grown so large that seven people had to be appointed to manage the funds for common care.
The disciples and the early church were not afraid to care for those who were on the margins. In Acts 8 we read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian treasury official. Despite being a eunuch and barred from entering the temple, he had traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship. In his chariot as he rode home, he was reading Isaiah and Philip helped explain how this passage revealed the good news of Jesus Christ, unbothered by the fact that he was with a person who was considered impure. Immediately after this, we read in chapter 9 that Peter healed Tabitha, who ministered to widows in Joppa. Widows led a fragile existence, often on the margins, without the legal protection of spouse or family. In chapter 10, Peter shares the good news of the gospel with Cornelius, despite the fact that it was unlawful for him to visit the house of a Gentile.
These early practices of mission – care for those on the margins in the face of difficulty and/or legal restrictions continued in the early church. Takanori Inoue argues* that during a time of plagues and rampant disease in Roman cities, “Christians ministered as a transformative movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear and brutality of life in the Roman Empire.” The basis for this ministry is love of God and love of neighbor “because it is God’s pleasure that they should share [God’s] generosity with all people.”
In Mission By Grace
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit moves us to love God more deeply and enables us to live out God’s love for and with our neighbors. This participation in God’s mission was a witness to the gospel by the early church – love made visible – and it continues in the church today. I know that people will continue to participate in mission practices – to go on short-term mission trips to offer disaster relief and recovery assistance, to make UMCOR kits to distribute around the world, to make meals to share with those who are food insecure in their communities, to volunteer in free clinics, to sit and listen with humble spirits and open hearts. I know this because people are moved by the Holy Spirit to live out the Great Commission and the Greatest Commandment with Great Compassion – and they will not stop loving their neighbors because our denomination is struggling.
We live out the call of Christ to go and make disciples, to love one another and to care for those on the margins because we have heard the call in our local communities. In our local churches we worship, pray and study together. In our local churches we learn about the needs of our neighbors near and far. In our local churches we invite each other to participate in mission practices. I choose to live in a posture of hope, knowing that ordinary United Methodists will continue to practice mission as a witness to the world of their faith in Christ. I choose to live in a posture of hope because the mission work of everyday United Methodists reveals the ongoing call of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit to live in love. I choose to live in a posture of hope because I trust in God’s unfailing grace.
* The Early Church's Approach to the Poor in Society and Its Significance to the Church's Social Engagement Today by Takanori Inoue. Quotes from pages 11-13.
I am a United Methodist. My denomination recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, remembering how it was formed by a union of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968. This church has formed me as a disciple of Jesus Christ, has taught me grace, taught me how to sing grace, preach grace, and practice grace. I have given my life’s work to Christ through the United Methodist Church.
United Methodist Church’s Difficult Season
But the United Methodist Church is having a difficult season. To be honest, it’s been having a contentious season for about 40 years. If you are a United Methodist and you’re on social media, you are likely aware of our struggles. If not, let me try to summarize.
The issue is inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life of the church. Our denomination has been in the news for holding clergy trials when pastors officiate same-gender weddings, even for their own children; for holding clergy trials and stripping clergy of their credentials when they admit their identity as an LGBTQ person; for having protests and debates at our quadrennial gatherings during which church legislation is considered. We’ve had study commissions, we’ve added language to our Book of Discipline (the text that holds our constitution, our Articles of Religion, our structure and order for ministry), we’ve argued and argued. Most recently, our last General Conference (that once every four year gathering) asked our Council of Bishops (all bishops, active and retired) to form a commission and advise the church how to move forward as a united denomination, despite our continuing and harsh disagreement over LGBTQ inclusion.
And so, the commission has held meetings, prayed and discussed our difficult season. In the end, they recommended three plans to the Council of Bishops – the Traditionalist Plan which would essentially maintain the status quo; the Connectional-Conference Plan, which would allow churches to affiliate with other churches that their perspectives align with, rather than our current geographic structure; and the One Church Plan, which allows decisions about ordaining LGBTQ persons to be made in local areas and removes all restrictive language from the Book of Discipline. The Bishops are recommending the One Church Plan to the special session of General Conference that will meet in February 2019. You can read articles here and here about this recommendation.
And So, Anxiety Reigns
Now, if you’re not United Methodist, this may all seem confusing and tedious. Methodists have a decision making process that isn’t simple. We don’t have a pope and cardinals to make decisions for us. We don’t have a simple majority rules vote. We hold our church buildings and land in trust for the church that will come after we are gone, so we understand that the brick and mortar in which we gather isn’t “ours” but God’s for the work of God’s people.
And it’s exactly at that point – God and the work of God’s people – in which I take great hope for the United Methodist Church.
In the midst of all the debates, clergy trials and commission reports, people have been getting very upset and anxious. At a recent pre-conference meeting (yes, a meeting before our annual meeting, it’s how we do things in the UMC) I heard such anxiety from the people gathered as they discussed what our future may look like. “If this happens, then…” or “if that happens, then…” The proposed resolutions we were voting on were contradictory, as people wanted to be ready for whatever comes next. If things don’t go according to their desire, they want to be able to split the denomination, to take possession of their buildings, to ensure their beliefs and not have to compromise or change.
Such anxiety. Near panic. Judgment and suspicion. The one thing we could agree on is that we disagree.
I was only able to attend the meeting because I had been visiting my parents. When I got back home, I found in my mail a letter from our Board of Pensions, which administers all clergy retirement accounts. The letter opens with “concerns” and “expressed worries…during this time of change.” The whole purpose of the letter was to reassure anxious clergy, who, as the meeting had made obvious, were still anxious.
They Will Know You Are My Disciples By Your Love
I am not anxious about the future of the church. No matter what happens in the United Methodist Church, I have faith in the work of the Holy Spirit to call people into partnership with God in mission. God is always at work in the world, reaching out in mission in, to, and for the world. The church is the Body of Christ, and God uses the church to share God’s grace and love with the world. No church split or union will change the mission of God.
In the book of Acts we read about the early church, and how the Spirit moved people to show love for their neighbors. Chapter 2:44-45 states that Christians were together, collecting funds so that if anyone had a need, it could be taken care of by the group. This care for others is reinforced in chapter 4:34-35, that there was not a single person in need among the believers because the people trusted the apostles to use their funds to care for everyone. By chapter six, the group of believers had grown so large that seven people had to be appointed to manage the funds for common care.
The disciples and the early church were not afraid to care for those who were on the margins. In Acts 8 we read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian treasury official. Despite being a eunuch and barred from entering the temple, he had traveled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship. In his chariot as he rode home, he was reading Isaiah and Philip helped explain how this passage revealed the good news of Jesus Christ, unbothered by the fact that he was with a person who was considered impure. Immediately after this, we read in chapter 9 that Peter healed Tabitha, who ministered to widows in Joppa. Widows led a fragile existence, often on the margins, without the legal protection of spouse or family. In chapter 10, Peter shares the good news of the gospel with Cornelius, despite the fact that it was unlawful for him to visit the house of a Gentile.
These early practices of mission – care for those on the margins in the face of difficulty and/or legal restrictions continued in the early church. Takanori Inoue argues* that during a time of plagues and rampant disease in Roman cities, “Christians ministered as a transformative movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear and brutality of life in the Roman Empire.” The basis for this ministry is love of God and love of neighbor “because it is God’s pleasure that they should share [God’s] generosity with all people.”
In Mission By Grace
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit moves us to love God more deeply and enables us to live out God’s love for and with our neighbors. This participation in God’s mission was a witness to the gospel by the early church – love made visible – and it continues in the church today. I know that people will continue to participate in mission practices – to go on short-term mission trips to offer disaster relief and recovery assistance, to make UMCOR kits to distribute around the world, to make meals to share with those who are food insecure in their communities, to volunteer in free clinics, to sit and listen with humble spirits and open hearts. I know this because people are moved by the Holy Spirit to live out the Great Commission and the Greatest Commandment with Great Compassion – and they will not stop loving their neighbors because our denomination is struggling.
We live out the call of Christ to go and make disciples, to love one another and to care for those on the margins because we have heard the call in our local communities. In our local churches we worship, pray and study together. In our local churches we learn about the needs of our neighbors near and far. In our local churches we invite each other to participate in mission practices. I choose to live in a posture of hope, knowing that ordinary United Methodists will continue to practice mission as a witness to the world of their faith in Christ. I choose to live in a posture of hope because the mission work of everyday United Methodists reveals the ongoing call of God through the gift of the Holy Spirit to live in love. I choose to live in a posture of hope because I trust in God’s unfailing grace.
* The Early Church's Approach to the Poor in Society and Its Significance to the Church's Social Engagement Today by Takanori Inoue. Quotes from pages 11-13.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Recommended Readings: Global Young People's Convocation 2018
The Global Young People's Convocation took place July 18-22 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Here are a variety of stories and videos related to that church-wide gathering of United Methodist youth and young adults.
Press release about GYPC before its start
UMNS summary of the event after its conclusion
UMNS article about translators at the event
Video summaries of Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 of the event
Blogs posts from Johnston Taylor of Susquehanna AC about the event
Articles about young adults from South Carolina and Michigan who participated
Since this event was a gathering of young people, more information, images, and videos about the event can be found by searching #GYPC2018 on social media.
Press release about GYPC before its start
UMNS summary of the event after its conclusion
UMNS article about translators at the event
Video summaries of Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 of the event
Blogs posts from Johnston Taylor of Susquehanna AC about the event
Articles about young adults from South Carolina and Michigan who participated
Since this event was a gathering of young people, more information, images, and videos about the event can be found by searching #GYPC2018 on social media.
Friday, July 6, 2018
Can a (different) book help the church stay together?
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.
The Anatomy of Peace is a book that the United Methodist Church's Commission on a Way Forward, bishops, and other significant denominational leaders have drawn on in the process of attempting to find a solution to the UMC's decades-long dispute over homosexuality. The significance of the book at this moment in the church is captured by the title of a UMNS story about it "Can a book help the church stay together?"
Yet the book has also been piercingly criticized by United Methodist pastor Hannah Adair Bonner as "an artifice" that allows powerful white men to put words into the mouths of marginalized African Americans and Palestinians without being fully honest about the role of those white men in creating the book and its characters. As Rev. Jeremy Smith writes in a sympathetic response to Rev. Bonner's critique, that obfuscation does not completely invalidate the book's larger point about moving from conflict to peace, but it does raise significant questions about the book.
I will confess that I have not read The Anatomy of Peace and thus cannot comment on the book one way or another.
Yet if you are looking for a book that can help move the church from conflict between competing groups to a new sense of togetherness in Christ and one that takes seriously (and honestly) the perspectives of minority voices, I heartily recommend Christena Cleveland's Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2013).
Christena Cleveland is a social psychologist and theologian dedicated to intercultural and interracial reconciliation in the church. She is also African American and a professor at United Methodist-related Duke Divinity School (though not United Methodist herself). This presumably would exempt her and her book from some of Rev. Bonner's criticisms of The Anatomy of Peace.
The book draws on both social psychology and theology to describe the ways in which our natural mental processes and desires for self-esteem, security, and control lead us to distance ourselves from those we see as different from us and how we exaggerate those differences to produce conflict between our ingroup and outgroups. More hopefully, Dr. Cleveland also points out how we can go about overcoming those biases that keep us apart and prevent unity in the body of Christ.
While Dr. Cleveland has cultural differences foremost in mind, she acknowledges that most of her arguments apply to differences of any kind, and she frequently cites theological differences as one type of disunity in the body of Christ. As I read the book, I kept thinking how well what she was saying described the current state of The United Methodist Church.
You should read the book to get the full impact of Dr. Cleveland's argument, but among the solutions she proposes are developing a larger sense of group identity that encompasses opposing groups, using "we" language to reinforce that identity, affirming the basis of our own identity in Christ, and the importance of interacting with those from outgroups.
Ultimately, we do not need to choose between reading The Anatomy of Peace and Disunity in Christ. I would hope that United Methodists can read as many resources as possible to prepare us to discern together how to be faithful and in unity with one another. But I do hope that Disunity in Christ will be one of the resources that United Methodists read.
The Anatomy of Peace is a book that the United Methodist Church's Commission on a Way Forward, bishops, and other significant denominational leaders have drawn on in the process of attempting to find a solution to the UMC's decades-long dispute over homosexuality. The significance of the book at this moment in the church is captured by the title of a UMNS story about it "Can a book help the church stay together?"
Yet the book has also been piercingly criticized by United Methodist pastor Hannah Adair Bonner as "an artifice" that allows powerful white men to put words into the mouths of marginalized African Americans and Palestinians without being fully honest about the role of those white men in creating the book and its characters. As Rev. Jeremy Smith writes in a sympathetic response to Rev. Bonner's critique, that obfuscation does not completely invalidate the book's larger point about moving from conflict to peace, but it does raise significant questions about the book.
I will confess that I have not read The Anatomy of Peace and thus cannot comment on the book one way or another.
Yet if you are looking for a book that can help move the church from conflict between competing groups to a new sense of togetherness in Christ and one that takes seriously (and honestly) the perspectives of minority voices, I heartily recommend Christena Cleveland's Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2013).
Christena Cleveland is a social psychologist and theologian dedicated to intercultural and interracial reconciliation in the church. She is also African American and a professor at United Methodist-related Duke Divinity School (though not United Methodist herself). This presumably would exempt her and her book from some of Rev. Bonner's criticisms of The Anatomy of Peace.
The book draws on both social psychology and theology to describe the ways in which our natural mental processes and desires for self-esteem, security, and control lead us to distance ourselves from those we see as different from us and how we exaggerate those differences to produce conflict between our ingroup and outgroups. More hopefully, Dr. Cleveland also points out how we can go about overcoming those biases that keep us apart and prevent unity in the body of Christ.
While Dr. Cleveland has cultural differences foremost in mind, she acknowledges that most of her arguments apply to differences of any kind, and she frequently cites theological differences as one type of disunity in the body of Christ. As I read the book, I kept thinking how well what she was saying described the current state of The United Methodist Church.
You should read the book to get the full impact of Dr. Cleveland's argument, but among the solutions she proposes are developing a larger sense of group identity that encompasses opposing groups, using "we" language to reinforce that identity, affirming the basis of our own identity in Christ, and the importance of interacting with those from outgroups.
Ultimately, we do not need to choose between reading The Anatomy of Peace and Disunity in Christ. I would hope that United Methodists can read as many resources as possible to prepare us to discern together how to be faithful and in unity with one another. But I do hope that Disunity in Christ will be one of the resources that United Methodists read.
Friday, May 25, 2018
Hendrik Pieterse: My Hope for Methodism
Today's post is part of a series that features United Methodist scholars and leaders from around the world reflecting on their hope for the future of The United Methodist Church as a global movement within the larger context of worldwide Methodism as a whole. Today's post is written by Dr. Hendrik R. Pieterse, Associate Professor of Global Christianity and World Religions at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.
When United Methodists seek to cast a vision of our “nature” as a church, we routinely employ the terms global and worldwide. Paragraph 123 of the Book of Discipline reminds us of the “global nature of our mission” as a denomination, while ¶125 speaks eloquently of our “connectional covenant” as a set of “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship.”
This is a powerful vision, and I affirm it. In fact, it expresses my hope for United Methodism. It is a genuine hope, but a chastened one, for these claims we make about ourselves remain largely unaddressed and unfulfilled.
And so I think it is more truthful to say we stand at the threshold of becoming a “worldwide connectional covenant.” Our vision describes a United Methodist Church we can become but are not yet. The fact is crossing that threshold requires that we become a worldwide connection in conviction and practice and not just in sentiment and name. Paragraph 125 puts the point provocatively: Our “worldwide nature,” it says, must become a “living practice” in our congregations, woven deeply into their daily being and doing. In other words, our worldwide covenant must take on concrete life in our churches, shaping congregational mission, discipleship, and witness.
This is an audacious suggestion, but difficult to visualize. What would such a living practice look like in our congregations, our conferences, our general church? What needs to happen for it to take form? What values and habits need correcting or abandoning? Which need adopting, retrieving, or renewing? And perhaps most important: Is such an idea even worth considering right now? After all, we find ourselves in a worldwide United Methodist connection fractured by factional standoffs, distrust, divisions, and brinkmanship. For many of us, the idea of a connectional covenant-as-living-practice feels like a pipe dream at best and cynical propaganda at worst. I too share these misgivings, more or less intensely, depending on the day.
So yes, the idea is counterintuitive, to put it mildly. And yet, I believe the vision of a worldwide connectional covenant as living practice might just provide us with a pathway through our current brokenness toward the church we can become but are not yet.
Unlike the Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward, I have no plans to recommend for traversing this pathway. But then, I don’t think plans are where we need to start. Better to start at the level of presupposition, value, habit, and practice. After all, more often than not, fueling our intractable conflicts are unexamined presuppositions, unquestioned beliefs, default habits, and taken-for-granted practices. Let me suggest a couple such habits and practices we would do we to examine as we consider this pathway.
In reflecting on our “worldwide connectional covenant,” let’s focus on “covenant” more than “worldwide.” We seem enamored with geography: where we are located around the globe, where we are growing and declining, which areas need additional or fewer bishops, and the like. These are important concerns. However, in the process we can easily neglect the theological center of the phrase, namely, “covenant.”
As I understand this rich biblical concept, covenantal relationships exist in two modes: Some are symmetrical (the human partnerships) and some are asymmetrical (the divine-human partnership). Paragraph 125 uses phrases like “web of interactive relationships,” “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship,” and “a covenant of mutual commitment based on shared mission, equity, and hospitality” to describe the symmetrical dimension.
What is virtually missing in the paragraph (and in our churchly discourse) is the asymmetrical dimension: We are equal partners with one another, but not with God. The covenant exists because of God’s initiative. Without it, there is no covenant, no “connection.” And that divine initiative—that divine mission—forever transcends our plans and our prognostications, as a grace that always “goes before.” This lends the covenant an eschatological character—open, pliable, expectant. If we believe that God’s mission grounds our “connectional covenant,” too, should we not then be a bit less ready right now to design our own undoing? Shall we not at least hold open the possibility that there is a connection we can become but are not yet?
Let’s resist the temptation to substitute affinity for unity. Against our better instincts, United Methodists tend to think of unity as conformity and compliance and diversity as autonomy and freedom. Paragraph 125 encourages this view by juxtaposing “connectional unity” with “local freedom.” On this view, the freedom to be different must be wrested from the sameness of unity. (Even a cursory reading of the Commission’s deliberations reveals the same understanding at work.)
The very real danger is that such a view of unity can easily justify a move to unity as affinity, as conformity by self-selection. This is particularly tempting when an issue—at the moment, sexuality—becomes the criterion for how, why, and with whom we belong. Such a moribund understanding of unity and diversity puts paid to the possibility of a worldwide connectional covenant. Perhaps it is time to ponder the idea of “connectional freedom”—a freedom found and lived precisely as a connection. Perhaps we discover our unity in and not despite our diversity.
Let’s not use “contextualization” as a strategy for resolving conflict. “Contextualization” and “contextual freedom” have become popular terms in our current discourse, notably in the Commission’s deliberations. The problem is that contextualization is employed as a tool for ameliorating discord, negotiating compromises, and forestalling division.
In fact, contextualization is not a tool or a strategy. It is the church’s obedience to a profound theological truth, namely, that God has chosen to dwell with us as one of us, in the cultural particularity of our cultural forms, our language, our context. That is, contextualization is the church’s acknowledgment of the Incarnation. Unless United Methodists see this truth, we will remain stuck at the threshold of the worldwide connection we can become—or abandon it altogether.
My chastened (at times, anguished) hope is that we will choose to surrender to a connectional covenant yet to be—in which “worldwide” and “global” depict a living practice, a form of discipleship, a spirituality, more than a location on a map.
When United Methodists seek to cast a vision of our “nature” as a church, we routinely employ the terms global and worldwide. Paragraph 123 of the Book of Discipline reminds us of the “global nature of our mission” as a denomination, while ¶125 speaks eloquently of our “connectional covenant” as a set of “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship.”
This is a powerful vision, and I affirm it. In fact, it expresses my hope for United Methodism. It is a genuine hope, but a chastened one, for these claims we make about ourselves remain largely unaddressed and unfulfilled.
And so I think it is more truthful to say we stand at the threshold of becoming a “worldwide connectional covenant.” Our vision describes a United Methodist Church we can become but are not yet. The fact is crossing that threshold requires that we become a worldwide connection in conviction and practice and not just in sentiment and name. Paragraph 125 puts the point provocatively: Our “worldwide nature,” it says, must become a “living practice” in our congregations, woven deeply into their daily being and doing. In other words, our worldwide covenant must take on concrete life in our churches, shaping congregational mission, discipleship, and witness.
This is an audacious suggestion, but difficult to visualize. What would such a living practice look like in our congregations, our conferences, our general church? What needs to happen for it to take form? What values and habits need correcting or abandoning? Which need adopting, retrieving, or renewing? And perhaps most important: Is such an idea even worth considering right now? After all, we find ourselves in a worldwide United Methodist connection fractured by factional standoffs, distrust, divisions, and brinkmanship. For many of us, the idea of a connectional covenant-as-living-practice feels like a pipe dream at best and cynical propaganda at worst. I too share these misgivings, more or less intensely, depending on the day.
So yes, the idea is counterintuitive, to put it mildly. And yet, I believe the vision of a worldwide connectional covenant as living practice might just provide us with a pathway through our current brokenness toward the church we can become but are not yet.
Unlike the Bishops’ Commission on a Way Forward, I have no plans to recommend for traversing this pathway. But then, I don’t think plans are where we need to start. Better to start at the level of presupposition, value, habit, and practice. After all, more often than not, fueling our intractable conflicts are unexamined presuppositions, unquestioned beliefs, default habits, and taken-for-granted practices. Let me suggest a couple such habits and practices we would do we to examine as we consider this pathway.
In reflecting on our “worldwide connectional covenant,” let’s focus on “covenant” more than “worldwide.” We seem enamored with geography: where we are located around the globe, where we are growing and declining, which areas need additional or fewer bishops, and the like. These are important concerns. However, in the process we can easily neglect the theological center of the phrase, namely, “covenant.”
As I understand this rich biblical concept, covenantal relationships exist in two modes: Some are symmetrical (the human partnerships) and some are asymmetrical (the divine-human partnership). Paragraph 125 uses phrases like “web of interactive relationships,” “interdependent worldwide partnerships in prayer, mission, and worship,” and “a covenant of mutual commitment based on shared mission, equity, and hospitality” to describe the symmetrical dimension.
What is virtually missing in the paragraph (and in our churchly discourse) is the asymmetrical dimension: We are equal partners with one another, but not with God. The covenant exists because of God’s initiative. Without it, there is no covenant, no “connection.” And that divine initiative—that divine mission—forever transcends our plans and our prognostications, as a grace that always “goes before.” This lends the covenant an eschatological character—open, pliable, expectant. If we believe that God’s mission grounds our “connectional covenant,” too, should we not then be a bit less ready right now to design our own undoing? Shall we not at least hold open the possibility that there is a connection we can become but are not yet?
Let’s resist the temptation to substitute affinity for unity. Against our better instincts, United Methodists tend to think of unity as conformity and compliance and diversity as autonomy and freedom. Paragraph 125 encourages this view by juxtaposing “connectional unity” with “local freedom.” On this view, the freedom to be different must be wrested from the sameness of unity. (Even a cursory reading of the Commission’s deliberations reveals the same understanding at work.)
The very real danger is that such a view of unity can easily justify a move to unity as affinity, as conformity by self-selection. This is particularly tempting when an issue—at the moment, sexuality—becomes the criterion for how, why, and with whom we belong. Such a moribund understanding of unity and diversity puts paid to the possibility of a worldwide connectional covenant. Perhaps it is time to ponder the idea of “connectional freedom”—a freedom found and lived precisely as a connection. Perhaps we discover our unity in and not despite our diversity.
Let’s not use “contextualization” as a strategy for resolving conflict. “Contextualization” and “contextual freedom” have become popular terms in our current discourse, notably in the Commission’s deliberations. The problem is that contextualization is employed as a tool for ameliorating discord, negotiating compromises, and forestalling division.
In fact, contextualization is not a tool or a strategy. It is the church’s obedience to a profound theological truth, namely, that God has chosen to dwell with us as one of us, in the cultural particularity of our cultural forms, our language, our context. That is, contextualization is the church’s acknowledgment of the Incarnation. Unless United Methodists see this truth, we will remain stuck at the threshold of the worldwide connection we can become—or abandon it altogether.
My chastened (at times, anguished) hope is that we will choose to surrender to a connectional covenant yet to be—in which “worldwide” and “global” depict a living practice, a form of discipleship, a spirituality, more than a location on a map.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)