Mission roundtables are a significant methodology for promoting mutuality among mission partners in decision-making. While roundtables have been used in mission for many years, and while Global Ministries has promoted the use of roundtables, many are still unfamiliar with the practice. Two new resources can help familiarize people with the use of roundtables as an aid to healthy mission decision-making. Both may be downloaded for free.
One is a booklet from Global Ministries, entitled Mission Roundtable: Trusting the Circle, Engaging with Dialogue, edited by Amy Valdez-Barker. This ~60 page booklet includes 8 short essays by a variety of authors introducing readers to the theology, theory, and practice of mission roundtables.
One is an e-book from CREAS, entitled Mission Roundtables: A Paradigm of Sharing, by Humberto Martin Shikiya. This book is published in both Spanish and English. Drawing on the experience of mission roundtables among South American Methodists, the book examines the theory and practice of roundtables, sharing wisdom learned from experience.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Friday, January 29, 2021
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Vaccines Won't Save General Conference 2021
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
When the organizers of General Conference postponed that event from May 2020 to August-September 2021 because of the onslaught of the coronavirus, a 15 month delay surely seemed like enough time to bring the pandemic under control. Even last fall, as some (including this blog) began to raise questions about whether an in-person General Conference 2021 would be feasible, hope remained that a soon-to-come vaccination campaign would still allow United Methodists to meet face-to-face in Minneapolis.
Now, a month or so after the first vaccines were approved in the United States, we as a denomination need to be honest: Vaccines won't save an in-person General Conference 2021.
To see why, I'll look at where things stand in Africa and the United States and the impact of new variants of the virus before asking: What then?
Africa
The first and largest hurdle to holding an in-person General Conference is the availability of vaccines for African delegates. As United Methodist Nobel Peace Prize Winner Ellen Sirleaf Johnson and others have noted, vaccines will likely not be available in Africa until 2022 or even later. Simply put, rich countries have bought up the supply of vaccine projected to be available in the next year, leaving none for developing nations.
Without vaccinations, it may not even be legal for African delegates to travel to the United States for General Conference in 2021, depending on what restrictions are then in place. It is certainly not safe or ethical. The danger is less that unvaccinated delegates would bring COVID to General Conference (COVID rates in almost all countries in Africa being much lower than in the United States) and more than unvaccinated delegates would pick up COVID at General Conference and then bring it back home with them, setting off spikes of the pandemic and leading to deaths in United Methodist communities throughout the continent.
Yet, to hold a General Conference without participation by African delegates, who make up approximately 40% of the total, would be a travesty of democracy and a betrayal of denominational polity. In is simply unacceptable to disenfranchise that much of the church. The lack of vaccinations in Africa alone is likely to make an in-person General Conference impossible.
The United States
Even for delegates from the United States, though, there are still open questions about whether an indoor gathering of 1,000 people at the end of summer would be a good idea or not. Vaccines have already started going out, and new president Joe Biden has promised 100 million doses in the next 100 days. Early roll-out has been plagued by logistical challenges, however, which are likely to continue, and vaccine production is currently behind schedule.
Even if the United States hits its 100 million goal by the end of April, that is still less than a third of the total population. It will take longer to vaccinate the rest. A record number of young delegates were elected for the next General Conference, and young people are likely to be among the last groups to receive vaccinations. There is a realistic chance that not all delegates from the United States will be vaccinated by the end of August, let alone delegates from other countries.
The new variants
The other factor that will likely prolong the global impact of the pandemic is the rise of new variants of the coronavirus. New, more quickly-spreading strains of the disease have been identified in Britain, South Africa, and Brazil. These new variants may make reinfection more likely. While vaccines still appear effective against the new variants, their effectiveness may be somewhat reduced. And there is no reason to think that the three new variants identified so far will be the last to appear. The Atlantic has said that the United States is in a race between the vaccine and the variants. The rise of new variants of the virus is likely to prolong the pandemic, in the United States and around the world.
What then?
If it is indeed infeasible to have an in-person General Conference meeting at the end of summer 2021, what are the alternatives?
One option is to have a virtual or distributed General Conference in which technology allows participants in different locations to participate in some form of General Conference. A technology study team appointed by the Commission on General Conference will submit its report on this possibility this weekend for the Commission to consider at their next meeting on Feb. 20.
The other option is to further delay General Conference, either to 2022 or later, depending on when it seems realistic to expect that delegates from around the world could gather. Of course, as with this current postponement, a further delay may not still be enough to bring the pandemic under control.
Neither of these options are great choices. I am not advocating for either based on their own merits. But I do think it behooves us as a denomination to be honest and clear-sighted about where the pandemic is likely to be at come the end of summer and to plan accordingly.
When the organizers of General Conference postponed that event from May 2020 to August-September 2021 because of the onslaught of the coronavirus, a 15 month delay surely seemed like enough time to bring the pandemic under control. Even last fall, as some (including this blog) began to raise questions about whether an in-person General Conference 2021 would be feasible, hope remained that a soon-to-come vaccination campaign would still allow United Methodists to meet face-to-face in Minneapolis.
Now, a month or so after the first vaccines were approved in the United States, we as a denomination need to be honest: Vaccines won't save an in-person General Conference 2021.
To see why, I'll look at where things stand in Africa and the United States and the impact of new variants of the virus before asking: What then?
Africa
The first and largest hurdle to holding an in-person General Conference is the availability of vaccines for African delegates. As United Methodist Nobel Peace Prize Winner Ellen Sirleaf Johnson and others have noted, vaccines will likely not be available in Africa until 2022 or even later. Simply put, rich countries have bought up the supply of vaccine projected to be available in the next year, leaving none for developing nations.
Without vaccinations, it may not even be legal for African delegates to travel to the United States for General Conference in 2021, depending on what restrictions are then in place. It is certainly not safe or ethical. The danger is less that unvaccinated delegates would bring COVID to General Conference (COVID rates in almost all countries in Africa being much lower than in the United States) and more than unvaccinated delegates would pick up COVID at General Conference and then bring it back home with them, setting off spikes of the pandemic and leading to deaths in United Methodist communities throughout the continent.
Yet, to hold a General Conference without participation by African delegates, who make up approximately 40% of the total, would be a travesty of democracy and a betrayal of denominational polity. In is simply unacceptable to disenfranchise that much of the church. The lack of vaccinations in Africa alone is likely to make an in-person General Conference impossible.
The United States
Even for delegates from the United States, though, there are still open questions about whether an indoor gathering of 1,000 people at the end of summer would be a good idea or not. Vaccines have already started going out, and new president Joe Biden has promised 100 million doses in the next 100 days. Early roll-out has been plagued by logistical challenges, however, which are likely to continue, and vaccine production is currently behind schedule.
Even if the United States hits its 100 million goal by the end of April, that is still less than a third of the total population. It will take longer to vaccinate the rest. A record number of young delegates were elected for the next General Conference, and young people are likely to be among the last groups to receive vaccinations. There is a realistic chance that not all delegates from the United States will be vaccinated by the end of August, let alone delegates from other countries.
The new variants
The other factor that will likely prolong the global impact of the pandemic is the rise of new variants of the coronavirus. New, more quickly-spreading strains of the disease have been identified in Britain, South Africa, and Brazil. These new variants may make reinfection more likely. While vaccines still appear effective against the new variants, their effectiveness may be somewhat reduced. And there is no reason to think that the three new variants identified so far will be the last to appear. The Atlantic has said that the United States is in a race between the vaccine and the variants. The rise of new variants of the virus is likely to prolong the pandemic, in the United States and around the world.
What then?
If it is indeed infeasible to have an in-person General Conference meeting at the end of summer 2021, what are the alternatives?
One option is to have a virtual or distributed General Conference in which technology allows participants in different locations to participate in some form of General Conference. A technology study team appointed by the Commission on General Conference will submit its report on this possibility this weekend for the Commission to consider at their next meeting on Feb. 20.
The other option is to further delay General Conference, either to 2022 or later, depending on when it seems realistic to expect that delegates from around the world could gather. Of course, as with this current postponement, a further delay may not still be enough to bring the pandemic under control.
Neither of these options are great choices. I am not advocating for either based on their own merits. But I do think it behooves us as a denomination to be honest and clear-sighted about where the pandemic is likely to be at come the end of summer and to plan accordingly.
Monday, January 25, 2021
UM & Global Collection: Methodist Maps and Membership
The latest (and final, at least for a while) UM & Global collection is now available. This collection examines the distribution of Methodism around the world Methodist membership data, or in other words, Methodist maps and membership.
The collection is broken into three sections: one on maps of global Methodism, one on global membership data for The United Methodist Church and other Methodist denominations, and one on membership decline in The United Methodist Church in the United States.
Along with the text of the posts, this collection includes images of many maps and several tables worth of data. Thus, this collection can serve as a Methodist gazetteer and reference point in addition to the value of the interpretive essays.
The posts are predominantly authored by David W. Scott, with a couple of response posts from Robert Harman and William Payne included. As with other collections, there is a set of discussion questions at the end of the volume.
The collection is broken into three sections: one on maps of global Methodism, one on global membership data for The United Methodist Church and other Methodist denominations, and one on membership decline in The United Methodist Church in the United States.
Along with the text of the posts, this collection includes images of many maps and several tables worth of data. Thus, this collection can serve as a Methodist gazetteer and reference point in addition to the value of the interpretive essays.
The posts are predominantly authored by David W. Scott, with a couple of response posts from Robert Harman and William Payne included. As with other collections, there is a set of discussion questions at the end of the volume.
Friday, January 22, 2021
Clergy vs. Laity Membership Numbers
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Following up on comments that Bob Harman has made on previous blogs, I constructed a table of lay membership and clergy numbers by annual conference for the last three quadrennium. Per Bob’s suggestion, this was an attempt to get a different perspective on the rates of growth and decline in the church in various countries.
The full data set is linked above for those who are interested. Rather than try to put that table into this blog (which is a formatting nightmare), I will instead share three reflections on what I have seen in the data as I have reviewed it.
Clergy Membership Data Is Not Necessarily More Reliable that Lay Membership Data
Membership data has a number of notorious problems: different definitions of membership, non-active members on membership rolls, out-of-date membership numbers, difficulty in assessing membership numbers in remote areas, etc. For a variety of reasons, problems with membership data tend to be especially (but not exclusively) present in the central conferences.
When looking over membership numbers, then, there can be sudden and (to the outside observer unfamiliar with a local context) confusing jumps in membership (up or down) or missing data for some annual conferences for a quadrennium.
For these reasons, it would be nice if clergy numbers gave a more consistent story. However, it does not appear that they do so in all cases.
There is still plenty of instances in which clergy numbers are missing for an annual conference for a quadrennium. There are still instances in which clergy numbers suddenly jump significantly up or down for reasons that are not clear to outside observers. It seems possible that different annual conferences may be using different methods of calculating clergy numbers. (More on that in a minute.)
For all these reasons, clergy numbers are not a perfect dataset that one can use to help sort out questions raised by lay membership.
The Roles (and Perhaps Definitions) of Clergy Are Very Different in Different Contexts
When one compares the ratio of laity to clergy in different areas of the world, it allows one to see just how different that role is in different locations. Having one clergyperson for every 16 lay members (as in Northwest Russia in 2014) is a very different model of church than having one clergyperson for every 5507 lay members (as in Cote d’Ivoire in the same year).
There are a lot of factors that could be behind such variation: average congregational size, number of congregations served per clergyperson, number of clergypersons in extension ministry, number of congregations served by lay leaders or others not included in the category of clergy.
It is also quite possible that there is some variation around the world in terms of who is included in the category of “clergy.” While one might presume that this category includes ordained, active clergy, The United Methodist Church is notoriously fuzzy in terms of who counts as clergy: What about people who are commissioned but not ordained? What about associate members of conference? What about licensed local pastors? What about retirees serving part-time? The list goes on.
Even differences in one or two of these categories for defining who is included in the count could lead to significant differences across contexts in the number of clergypersons counted.
Still, differences in definition aside, clergypersons in parts of Africa are clearly serving many more lay people than clergypersons elsewhere in the connection. This difference probably stems from both greater demands on clergy in these parts of Africa (again, more on that in a minute) and greater lay leadership of the church there.
Tracking Clergy Membership Is Important
In The United Methodist Church, there is a lot of attention paid to lay membership numbers as an indicator of denominational health: where membership is increasing, where it is decreasing, etc. At times, this focus on lay membership can seem like a bit of an obsession even.
At the same time as all this attention is paid to lay membership, relatively little attention is paid to clergy membership. The attention that is paid tends to be focused on clergy membership as an indicator of justice: The ratio of women to men, the presence of clergy of various races, nationalities, and ages.
This focus on clergy membership as an indicator of justice is good and appropriate. But I think that the UMC should also pay more attention to clergy membership and the ratio of laity to clergy as indicators of denominational health, rather than focusing exclusively on lay membership for that purpose.
Here are three examples of what attention to clergy numbers and the ration of laity to clergy can tell us about the health of the denomination in various places:
It can tell us about the membership stability of the church. Areas where there is significant growth in lay membership should be accompanied, sooner or later, by an increase in the number of clergy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that the increased lay membership will not remain in the UMC, if people feel neglected or ignored by the leadership of the church. Even in instances of flat lay membership, a drop in the number of clergy may spell impending declines in lay membership as well.
It can tell us about the financial stability of the church. In much of the United States, there has been a decline in both lay and clergy membership. But the two rates of decline are not always equal. Thus, over the past three quadrennium, there are fewer lay people per clergy person. This means fewer people giving towards the support of clergy salaries (along with buildings and connectional ministries). Ultimately, this means that the dominant current model of full-time clergy serving single point charges is becoming less financially sustainable.
It can tell us about the health and well-being of clergy. When clergy are asked to do ever more and serve ever more members, or when clergy are left struggling to make budgets meet every year, that can take a toll on clergy health and well-being. Thus, there are risks for clergy burn-out both in areas where the church is growing and in areas where it is declining, even while those are not the same.
Clergy, however, are one of the church’s most important resources. I am a proud lay person, and I believe in lay leadership in the church, but I also recognize that a healthy denomination requires healthy clergypersons to help lead it.
In the early days of Methodism as a revival movement led by John Wesley, Methodism was not defined by the number of laity connected to it. It was defined as by the group of preachers in connection with Wesley, preachers who supported each other in the work of spreading the revival.
I do not want to go back to a clergy-dominated model, nor do I want to understate the vital role of lay leadership in forwarding the Wesleyan revival. Still, I think there is an insight there worth recovering: Healthy movements have healthy leadership.
In focusing on the health of our denomination, the health of our clergy leaders must be a central part of that conversation. Paying more attention to data trends about clergy numbers is one way to help engage in that conversation.
Following up on comments that Bob Harman has made on previous blogs, I constructed a table of lay membership and clergy numbers by annual conference for the last three quadrennium. Per Bob’s suggestion, this was an attempt to get a different perspective on the rates of growth and decline in the church in various countries.
The full data set is linked above for those who are interested. Rather than try to put that table into this blog (which is a formatting nightmare), I will instead share three reflections on what I have seen in the data as I have reviewed it.
Clergy Membership Data Is Not Necessarily More Reliable that Lay Membership Data
Membership data has a number of notorious problems: different definitions of membership, non-active members on membership rolls, out-of-date membership numbers, difficulty in assessing membership numbers in remote areas, etc. For a variety of reasons, problems with membership data tend to be especially (but not exclusively) present in the central conferences.
When looking over membership numbers, then, there can be sudden and (to the outside observer unfamiliar with a local context) confusing jumps in membership (up or down) or missing data for some annual conferences for a quadrennium.
For these reasons, it would be nice if clergy numbers gave a more consistent story. However, it does not appear that they do so in all cases.
There is still plenty of instances in which clergy numbers are missing for an annual conference for a quadrennium. There are still instances in which clergy numbers suddenly jump significantly up or down for reasons that are not clear to outside observers. It seems possible that different annual conferences may be using different methods of calculating clergy numbers. (More on that in a minute.)
For all these reasons, clergy numbers are not a perfect dataset that one can use to help sort out questions raised by lay membership.
The Roles (and Perhaps Definitions) of Clergy Are Very Different in Different Contexts
When one compares the ratio of laity to clergy in different areas of the world, it allows one to see just how different that role is in different locations. Having one clergyperson for every 16 lay members (as in Northwest Russia in 2014) is a very different model of church than having one clergyperson for every 5507 lay members (as in Cote d’Ivoire in the same year).
There are a lot of factors that could be behind such variation: average congregational size, number of congregations served per clergyperson, number of clergypersons in extension ministry, number of congregations served by lay leaders or others not included in the category of clergy.
It is also quite possible that there is some variation around the world in terms of who is included in the category of “clergy.” While one might presume that this category includes ordained, active clergy, The United Methodist Church is notoriously fuzzy in terms of who counts as clergy: What about people who are commissioned but not ordained? What about associate members of conference? What about licensed local pastors? What about retirees serving part-time? The list goes on.
Even differences in one or two of these categories for defining who is included in the count could lead to significant differences across contexts in the number of clergypersons counted.
Still, differences in definition aside, clergypersons in parts of Africa are clearly serving many more lay people than clergypersons elsewhere in the connection. This difference probably stems from both greater demands on clergy in these parts of Africa (again, more on that in a minute) and greater lay leadership of the church there.
Tracking Clergy Membership Is Important
In The United Methodist Church, there is a lot of attention paid to lay membership numbers as an indicator of denominational health: where membership is increasing, where it is decreasing, etc. At times, this focus on lay membership can seem like a bit of an obsession even.
At the same time as all this attention is paid to lay membership, relatively little attention is paid to clergy membership. The attention that is paid tends to be focused on clergy membership as an indicator of justice: The ratio of women to men, the presence of clergy of various races, nationalities, and ages.
This focus on clergy membership as an indicator of justice is good and appropriate. But I think that the UMC should also pay more attention to clergy membership and the ratio of laity to clergy as indicators of denominational health, rather than focusing exclusively on lay membership for that purpose.
Here are three examples of what attention to clergy numbers and the ration of laity to clergy can tell us about the health of the denomination in various places:
It can tell us about the membership stability of the church. Areas where there is significant growth in lay membership should be accompanied, sooner or later, by an increase in the number of clergy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that the increased lay membership will not remain in the UMC, if people feel neglected or ignored by the leadership of the church. Even in instances of flat lay membership, a drop in the number of clergy may spell impending declines in lay membership as well.
It can tell us about the financial stability of the church. In much of the United States, there has been a decline in both lay and clergy membership. But the two rates of decline are not always equal. Thus, over the past three quadrennium, there are fewer lay people per clergy person. This means fewer people giving towards the support of clergy salaries (along with buildings and connectional ministries). Ultimately, this means that the dominant current model of full-time clergy serving single point charges is becoming less financially sustainable.
It can tell us about the health and well-being of clergy. When clergy are asked to do ever more and serve ever more members, or when clergy are left struggling to make budgets meet every year, that can take a toll on clergy health and well-being. Thus, there are risks for clergy burn-out both in areas where the church is growing and in areas where it is declining, even while those are not the same.
Clergy, however, are one of the church’s most important resources. I am a proud lay person, and I believe in lay leadership in the church, but I also recognize that a healthy denomination requires healthy clergypersons to help lead it.
In the early days of Methodism as a revival movement led by John Wesley, Methodism was not defined by the number of laity connected to it. It was defined as by the group of preachers in connection with Wesley, preachers who supported each other in the work of spreading the revival.
I do not want to go back to a clergy-dominated model, nor do I want to understate the vital role of lay leadership in forwarding the Wesleyan revival. Still, I think there is an insight there worth recovering: Healthy movements have healthy leadership.
In focusing on the health of our denomination, the health of our clergy leaders must be a central part of that conversation. Paying more attention to data trends about clergy numbers is one way to help engage in that conversation.
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Recommended Reading: What Is Christian Nationalism?
Following the riot at the United States Capitol two weeks ago, Rev. Ryan Dunn wrote a piece entitled "What is Christian nationalism?" for umc.org. The piece, which serves as an introduction to a term that has taken on increased importance in US political discourse, features several quotes and reflections from UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott. Scott's comments also touch on the role of theology, cross-cultural learning, and mission in mitigating harmful versions of nationalism.
Monday, January 18, 2021
Robert Hunt: Religious Freedom and Christian Mission, Part III
Today's post is written by Dr. Robert Hunt, Director of Global Theological Education, Professor of Christian Mission and Interreligious Relations, and Director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of Theology. It is the third of a three-part series.
As I explain in the first post in this series, within the last 25 years, the United States has adopted two laws intended to widen the protection given to the “free exercise of religion”: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).
Have RFRA and RLUIPA benefited Christian witness to the gospel? No, as I explained in my last post, because there is no biblical or apostolic precedent for Christians advancing their mission by asserting special rights to freedom of religion within a secular political system.
Perhaps, though, these laws might be merely harmless, as long as Christians aren’t overly insistent on their own interests under these laws.
To assess this claim, we need to look at the presuppositions behind the law, not just the law’s impact. How does the framing of religious freedom in RFRA and RLUIPA compare to Christian understandings of the exercise of religion and the invitation to Christian discipleship?
Religion Freedom and Community
In scripture, Christian faith in God is always located in both a community and its tradition. The same is true of virtually all religious traditions. In Christian scripture, the first religion, to use the term anachronistically, is that of Abraham and his family, followed by the religion of Israel established at Sinai. In the Old Testament, it is communities, whether families, clans, tribes, or nations that possess what in modern terms we call religion. Similarly, the first Christians are Christians in community, a community so tightly bound that its members’ personal financial decisions and family relationships are a matter of community concern. "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." (Matthew 18:20 NRSV)
Moreover, this Christian community continually locates itself in the longer tradition of Abraham and Israel, to the extent that Jewish scripture becomes its scripture. And it locates itself in the traditions of Jesus and the apostles, which become the normative basis for all its teaching. Finally, these “Old and New Testaments” give birth to a tradition of teaching that ultimately gives birth to the communal creeds and liturgies of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and their offspring.
In terms of freedom, the first Christians and their successors asserted their freedom by both choosing to be followers of Christ, joining in the tradition and community of Christ, and by both expressing their faith in public and by expressing it in ways the benefited the public. They never claimed personal exemptions from the law or serving the public good.
Matthew 5:38–42: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
The RFRA and RLUIPA advance an understanding of religion, and religious freedom, that undermines this traditional understanding of religious faith and replaces it with one that is individual, idiosyncratic, and unconcerned with the public good. These laws ratify a cultural environment in which the fundamental invitation of the gospel, an invitation into community that will be a light to the nations, is undermined.
What To Make of Modern Religious Freedom
For more than 200 years, Christianity thrived in the United States. Christians have every reason to be grateful for, and supportive of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights. It not only affirms the fundamental freedom and equality of human beings taught in scripture, it has given us the freedom to witness to Jesus Christ without coercion and without dependence on the powers and principalities of the world.
In situations where free expression of the gospel conflicts with the law, it has provided a legal basis for Christians to be part of a discourse over the role of religion in society. Most importantly, its understanding of freedom of religion in relation to the public good is consistent with a Christian understanding of both religion and the public good.
The aforementioned legislative efforts to strengthen or extend the right of freedom of religion in the Constitution (RFRA and RLUIPA), however, actually undermine a Christian understanding of religion, weaken the Christian witness to the gospel, and undermine the rights of others.
It is strange in our time that religious people and communities that claim to serve an omnipotent God should feel threatened by social change. But stranger still is an assertion that the religion of Christ crucified will be rescued from the corrosive effects of secularism by pleading a special privilege for Christians to humiliate others and harm their neighbors based on laws that ratify a secular understanding of religion.
As I explain in the first post in this series, within the last 25 years, the United States has adopted two laws intended to widen the protection given to the “free exercise of religion”: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).
Have RFRA and RLUIPA benefited Christian witness to the gospel? No, as I explained in my last post, because there is no biblical or apostolic precedent for Christians advancing their mission by asserting special rights to freedom of religion within a secular political system.
Perhaps, though, these laws might be merely harmless, as long as Christians aren’t overly insistent on their own interests under these laws.
To assess this claim, we need to look at the presuppositions behind the law, not just the law’s impact. How does the framing of religious freedom in RFRA and RLUIPA compare to Christian understandings of the exercise of religion and the invitation to Christian discipleship?
Religion Freedom and Community
In scripture, Christian faith in God is always located in both a community and its tradition. The same is true of virtually all religious traditions. In Christian scripture, the first religion, to use the term anachronistically, is that of Abraham and his family, followed by the religion of Israel established at Sinai. In the Old Testament, it is communities, whether families, clans, tribes, or nations that possess what in modern terms we call religion. Similarly, the first Christians are Christians in community, a community so tightly bound that its members’ personal financial decisions and family relationships are a matter of community concern. "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." (Matthew 18:20 NRSV)
Moreover, this Christian community continually locates itself in the longer tradition of Abraham and Israel, to the extent that Jewish scripture becomes its scripture. And it locates itself in the traditions of Jesus and the apostles, which become the normative basis for all its teaching. Finally, these “Old and New Testaments” give birth to a tradition of teaching that ultimately gives birth to the communal creeds and liturgies of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and their offspring.
In terms of freedom, the first Christians and their successors asserted their freedom by both choosing to be followers of Christ, joining in the tradition and community of Christ, and by both expressing their faith in public and by expressing it in ways the benefited the public. They never claimed personal exemptions from the law or serving the public good.
Matthew 5:38–42: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
The RFRA and RLUIPA advance an understanding of religion, and religious freedom, that undermines this traditional understanding of religious faith and replaces it with one that is individual, idiosyncratic, and unconcerned with the public good. These laws ratify a cultural environment in which the fundamental invitation of the gospel, an invitation into community that will be a light to the nations, is undermined.
What To Make of Modern Religious Freedom
For more than 200 years, Christianity thrived in the United States. Christians have every reason to be grateful for, and supportive of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights. It not only affirms the fundamental freedom and equality of human beings taught in scripture, it has given us the freedom to witness to Jesus Christ without coercion and without dependence on the powers and principalities of the world.
In situations where free expression of the gospel conflicts with the law, it has provided a legal basis for Christians to be part of a discourse over the role of religion in society. Most importantly, its understanding of freedom of religion in relation to the public good is consistent with a Christian understanding of both religion and the public good.
The aforementioned legislative efforts to strengthen or extend the right of freedom of religion in the Constitution (RFRA and RLUIPA), however, actually undermine a Christian understanding of religion, weaken the Christian witness to the gospel, and undermine the rights of others.
It is strange in our time that religious people and communities that claim to serve an omnipotent God should feel threatened by social change. But stranger still is an assertion that the religion of Christ crucified will be rescued from the corrosive effects of secularism by pleading a special privilege for Christians to humiliate others and harm their neighbors based on laws that ratify a secular understanding of religion.
Friday, January 15, 2021
Recommended Viewing: Christmas Covenant Videos
The United Methodists behind the Christmas Covenant, a package of legislation designed to promote regionalization and contextualization within The United Methodist Church, have begun releasing a series of videos related to the Christmas Covenant. The short videos (2-7 minutes) feature various supporters of the Christmas Covenant from around the world speaking in a variety of languages about the proposal. The group's Facebook page gives brief introductions to the videos as well. These videos are a significant opportunity not only to learn about an important piece of legislation for the next General Conference but also to hear and learn from a variety of voices around the world. New videos continue to be added to the YouTube channel, so it is worth subscribing or checking back so as not to miss new content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)