Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
I came across an interesting tidbit in my research recently. I've been doing research on the missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC), one of the precursors of the UMC. In 1900, the MEC had churches in twenty-nine countries on five continents. When investigating some other aspects of that era, I was a bit surprised to realize that this made it one of the most widely distributed human organizations on the planet at that time.
While I have not run the comparative figures for all other possible contenders (such as banks and shipping lines), and there's some fuzziness as to what exactly "most widely distributed" means, thus far I have been able to find find four other institutions with comparable or greater geographic scope: the Catholic Church, the British Empire, the French Empire, and the Eastern Telegraph Company (which may have been the most widely distributed institution of its day).
While I relished that finding for its own particular historical curiosity, it also prompted me to think anew about the current discussion about how the UMC can be a global church. It suggested two questions that I think we in the UMC need to take serious as we seek to grapple with that question:
1. What does it mean for the UMC to claim to be a global church when we are less global that our predecessor bodies were 100 years ago, while many other organizations are more so? The MEC was in the top ten, if not top five institutions for geographic coverage 100 years ago, and that's without adding in the additional countries where the MECS, MPC, EA, or UBC has a presence where there was no MEC presence. Today, even with the impressive number of countries in which UMCOR works, I doubt the UMC would make the top 100 list of human organizations with the widest geographic reach. Through the creation of autonomous Methodist churches, we have gotten smaller while so many other organizations have gotten much bigger - businesses and UN bodies, as well as INGOs and other denominations.
2. How can the UMC be a global church in a way that distinguishes itself from the Ameri-centric, colonialist approach that characterized the church during its geographic apex? One of the implications of the above paragraph is that most global = most widely distributed geographically, which may or may not be true. Still, if we do make that assumption, can we do so in ways that don't reiterate the sort of "conquering the world for Christ" ideology that too often meant "conquering the world by Americans" that characterized even the best Methodist mission thinkers of a century ago? Can we value geographic distance without feeling the need to overcome the difference entailed therein by imposing some sort of American-derived sameness?
These may not be easy questions to answer, but if we are to plot a successful path into the future, we need to take seriously the perspective provided by the past.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Phil Wingeier-Rayo: Race and tradition in American Christianity
Today's post is by Philip Wingeier-Rayo. Dr. Wingeier-Rayo is Director of the Mexican American and Hispanic-Latino/a Church Ministries Program, Director of the United Methodist Regional Course of Study School for Local Pastors, and Professor of Christian Mission and Intercultural Studies at Perkins School of Theology.
The last two weeks in June have posed significant challenges to mainline Christianity in America. One such major challenge to predominantly white Christianity occurred when Dylan Roof attended a Bible study at Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston and then shot and killed nine people—including the pastor, Rev. Clementa Pinckney. If Christianity is to retain its relevance in the United States, the church will need to reflect on its past and make significant adjustments to play a role in the spiritual direction of the country.
The June 17th shooting of nine African Americans at Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston poses a threat to traditional white Christianity. Background checks on the killer, who is white, have revealed that he was baptized and raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and then radicalized through online contact with a conservative white supremacy group. The media is associating conservative white America with Christianity.
In the ensuing days, seven African American churches have been burned down in four southern states. Authorities have categorized some of these acts of arson and the others are still being investigated. Although the perpetrators of all these crimes have still not been caught, the general interpretation is that Christianity, white supremacy and hate are peas in a pod. Traditional white Christianity in the United States has been tainted by its subtle—and sometimes outright—support for white supremacy.
Generally speaking, Christianity is not being portrayed in the media as an institution of love and inclusiveness. Many times Christianity has earned this reputation and other times it is guilty by association. Christians many times would rather associate with another person of their same race and similar background, regardless of his or her religious affiliation, than associate with a Christian of another race or different orientation.
Often times there are immigrant churches in our communities that have little connection or interaction with traditional churches. This could be due to cultural or class differences; however, race plays a big role. American Christianity is made up of primarily monocultural churches of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, or Koreans, among others. Other institutions in society such as schools, companies or the military have become much more integrated than churches. One is more likely to mix with a diverse group of people outside of church. In many instances young people who grow up in integrated schools, sports teams and communities who decide to attend church have to leave their diverse friendships outside the church.
While the shootings in Charleston are a particularly heinous example of the connection between traditional white Christianity and racism, that connection is forged every day in smaller though still destructive ways. I recall an experience twelve years ago while attending a small white church on the South Side of Chicago. The neighborhood was transitioning from Eastern European to predominantly Latino. While the middle school a block away from the church was already 90% Latino, the church remained all white.
When my wife (who is from Nicaragua) was named lead pastor and encouraged the congregation to open its doors to its neighbors, the long-time church members resisted. We proceeded to offer an after school program, ESL and citizenship classes, and eventually Sunday evening services in Spanish—without the members’ support. The members held out and fought the transition tooth and nail. There were verbal attacks left on my wife’s church computer and physical threats. The members came and picked up dishes and furnishings that they had donated, rather than allow Latinos to use them.
When the membership declined to 10 people the annual conference took the formal action to close the church, and re-opened the building as a Spanish-speaking mission in the community. The programs continued in the same building and the mission grew to a worshiping congregation of 70 people before we were assigned as missionaries to Mexico the following year and a new pastor was appointed.
This unfortunate story teaches a great deal about the relationship between traditional white Christianity and race relations. One would assume that Christians would be delighted when a church building is used for new ministries that serve the community. Likewise, Christians should rejoice when new believers give their lives to Christ and join the church. However, the existing congregation had their identity so closely tied to race that they were not able to see past their prejudices to see a God who is bigger than race and nationality.
As the racial demographics of the United States continues to change, traditional white Christianity must seriously reflect on its inability to be welcome people of other ethnicities or it will be in serious peril. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by the year 2044 the United States will be majority minority, i.e., it will have no racial majority. This is more the result of birth rates of ethnic majorities than immigration.
If the church in the United States wants to be relevant to what will soon be the majority of the United States, then it needs to radically change its attachment to white supremacy and place its highest loyalty in a universal God who loves all people without exception--regardless of the color of their skin. Predominantly white churches must repent from any association with white supremacy or accept that it will be an irrelevant institution for the majority of the U.S. population. Christianity, in general, must disassociate itself from any form of racism or hate crimes and immediately welcome people regardless of the color of their skin.
Christians can resist attempts to identify God with their own race or to exclude persons of other ethnicities from attending their churches. Christians can wrestle Christianity away from those who propagate hate and division by restoring a biblical understanding of Jesus as the Son of God who proclaimed the in-breaking of the Reign of God where God’s love, peace and justice will prevail. The Church can be a welcoming place that is a foretaste of the Reign of God. The Gospel of John states: “For God so loved the world that God gave God’s only Son, so that everyone who believes may not perish but may have eternal life.” Jesus came for the whole world to know a better way. This vision of God demands our faith and loyalty above race, nationality or other differences.
The last two weeks in June have posed significant challenges to mainline Christianity in America. One such major challenge to predominantly white Christianity occurred when Dylan Roof attended a Bible study at Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston and then shot and killed nine people—including the pastor, Rev. Clementa Pinckney. If Christianity is to retain its relevance in the United States, the church will need to reflect on its past and make significant adjustments to play a role in the spiritual direction of the country.
The June 17th shooting of nine African Americans at Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston poses a threat to traditional white Christianity. Background checks on the killer, who is white, have revealed that he was baptized and raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and then radicalized through online contact with a conservative white supremacy group. The media is associating conservative white America with Christianity.
In the ensuing days, seven African American churches have been burned down in four southern states. Authorities have categorized some of these acts of arson and the others are still being investigated. Although the perpetrators of all these crimes have still not been caught, the general interpretation is that Christianity, white supremacy and hate are peas in a pod. Traditional white Christianity in the United States has been tainted by its subtle—and sometimes outright—support for white supremacy.
Generally speaking, Christianity is not being portrayed in the media as an institution of love and inclusiveness. Many times Christianity has earned this reputation and other times it is guilty by association. Christians many times would rather associate with another person of their same race and similar background, regardless of his or her religious affiliation, than associate with a Christian of another race or different orientation.
Often times there are immigrant churches in our communities that have little connection or interaction with traditional churches. This could be due to cultural or class differences; however, race plays a big role. American Christianity is made up of primarily monocultural churches of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, or Koreans, among others. Other institutions in society such as schools, companies or the military have become much more integrated than churches. One is more likely to mix with a diverse group of people outside of church. In many instances young people who grow up in integrated schools, sports teams and communities who decide to attend church have to leave their diverse friendships outside the church.
While the shootings in Charleston are a particularly heinous example of the connection between traditional white Christianity and racism, that connection is forged every day in smaller though still destructive ways. I recall an experience twelve years ago while attending a small white church on the South Side of Chicago. The neighborhood was transitioning from Eastern European to predominantly Latino. While the middle school a block away from the church was already 90% Latino, the church remained all white.
When my wife (who is from Nicaragua) was named lead pastor and encouraged the congregation to open its doors to its neighbors, the long-time church members resisted. We proceeded to offer an after school program, ESL and citizenship classes, and eventually Sunday evening services in Spanish—without the members’ support. The members held out and fought the transition tooth and nail. There were verbal attacks left on my wife’s church computer and physical threats. The members came and picked up dishes and furnishings that they had donated, rather than allow Latinos to use them.
When the membership declined to 10 people the annual conference took the formal action to close the church, and re-opened the building as a Spanish-speaking mission in the community. The programs continued in the same building and the mission grew to a worshiping congregation of 70 people before we were assigned as missionaries to Mexico the following year and a new pastor was appointed.
This unfortunate story teaches a great deal about the relationship between traditional white Christianity and race relations. One would assume that Christians would be delighted when a church building is used for new ministries that serve the community. Likewise, Christians should rejoice when new believers give their lives to Christ and join the church. However, the existing congregation had their identity so closely tied to race that they were not able to see past their prejudices to see a God who is bigger than race and nationality.
As the racial demographics of the United States continues to change, traditional white Christianity must seriously reflect on its inability to be welcome people of other ethnicities or it will be in serious peril. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by the year 2044 the United States will be majority minority, i.e., it will have no racial majority. This is more the result of birth rates of ethnic majorities than immigration.
If the church in the United States wants to be relevant to what will soon be the majority of the United States, then it needs to radically change its attachment to white supremacy and place its highest loyalty in a universal God who loves all people without exception--regardless of the color of their skin. Predominantly white churches must repent from any association with white supremacy or accept that it will be an irrelevant institution for the majority of the U.S. population. Christianity, in general, must disassociate itself from any form of racism or hate crimes and immediately welcome people regardless of the color of their skin.
Christians can resist attempts to identify God with their own race or to exclude persons of other ethnicities from attending their churches. Christians can wrestle Christianity away from those who propagate hate and division by restoring a biblical understanding of Jesus as the Son of God who proclaimed the in-breaking of the Reign of God where God’s love, peace and justice will prevail. The Church can be a welcoming place that is a foretaste of the Reign of God. The Gospel of John states: “For God so loved the world that God gave God’s only Son, so that everyone who believes may not perish but may have eternal life.” Jesus came for the whole world to know a better way. This vision of God demands our faith and loyalty above race, nationality or other differences.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Charleston, SC, shootings as an international tragedy
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
The shootings last week in Charleston, SC, at Mother Emanuel AME Church were a horrible tragedy, and I join others in condemning the racially-motivated terrorism that was committed. I have been pleased to see so many other United Methodists from around the country, from individual churches to annual conferences to boards and agencies to the head of the Council of Bishops, join in expressions of grief and sympathy and calls for racial justice in the wake of these deaths.
I have also been pleased, though a bit surprised, to see European United Methodists doing the same, from official statements by the bishops of Germany and the Nordic-Baltic area, to Twitter support from the Bulgarian UMC.
My surprise at these responses comes not from any doubt in the Christian love of our European UMC sisters and brothers. Instead, I was a bit surprised because of how very American this tragedy seemed, in the racial factors driving the shooting and in the type of gun violence committed. While this may be a very American tragedy, it is also a tragedy felt around the world.
We Americans have some serious work to do around issues of race, and last week's shooting made that deadly clear. The response by the European United Methodists reminds us, though, that while Americans must ultimately do the work ourselves, we do so under the scrutiny of but with the support of others around the world. That should increase our motivation to and increase our hope in making progress on our country's long, troubled history of race relations.
The shootings last week in Charleston, SC, at Mother Emanuel AME Church were a horrible tragedy, and I join others in condemning the racially-motivated terrorism that was committed. I have been pleased to see so many other United Methodists from around the country, from individual churches to annual conferences to boards and agencies to the head of the Council of Bishops, join in expressions of grief and sympathy and calls for racial justice in the wake of these deaths.
I have also been pleased, though a bit surprised, to see European United Methodists doing the same, from official statements by the bishops of Germany and the Nordic-Baltic area, to Twitter support from the Bulgarian UMC.
My surprise at these responses comes not from any doubt in the Christian love of our European UMC sisters and brothers. Instead, I was a bit surprised because of how very American this tragedy seemed, in the racial factors driving the shooting and in the type of gun violence committed. While this may be a very American tragedy, it is also a tragedy felt around the world.
We Americans have some serious work to do around issues of race, and last week's shooting made that deadly clear. The response by the European United Methodists reminds us, though, that while Americans must ultimately do the work ourselves, we do so under the scrutiny of but with the support of others around the world. That should increase our motivation to and increase our hope in making progress on our country's long, troubled history of race relations.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Will impetus for United Methodists to address environmental issues come from the Central Conferences?
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
I was struck by the juxtaposition of these two United Methodist news stories from the last week: the first about a litter clean-up project undertaken by a Zimbabwean church and the second about a coastal cleanup project undertaken by United Methodists in the Philippines. Both projects earned praise from local environmental organizations, and while the environmental connection was stronger in the Philippines cleanup, both projects seemed to stem at least in part from motivation to care for the environment.
Nor is this the first time that Filipino United Methodists have shown concern for the environment. Within the last year, Filipino United Methodists have participated in a climate walk, and students at UM-affiliated Wesleyan University-Philippines have launched a climate change movement. Moreover, some of the environmental initiatives of Filipino United Methodists have had clergy and episcopal support, as the articles demonstrate.
In the United States, support for environmental causes has waxed and waned over the years, but recently, the United States has been behind other developed nations and even many developing nations in terms of concern over climate change specifically, as this article and this article show.
While there are certainly many faithful American United Methodists who are working to mitigate negative human effects on the environment (such as United Methodist Bill McKibben), these articles raised a question for me: Is it possible that real impetus for United Methodists to address climate change and other environmental issues will come from the Central Conferences, not the US?
There are reasons to think so beyond just the survey data linked to above. For reasons of geography and level of economic development, it is likely that other countries around the world will be negatively impacted by climate change before the United States is, making these issues more pressing for them. Moreover, since other countries lack the set of political factors that make climate change and environmentalism controversial in the United States, a United Methodist climate initiative from the Philippines or elsewhere could face less domestic opposition. While only time will tell, I think the Central Conferences are a good place to look for United Methodist energy around addressing climate change and other environmental issues.
I was struck by the juxtaposition of these two United Methodist news stories from the last week: the first about a litter clean-up project undertaken by a Zimbabwean church and the second about a coastal cleanup project undertaken by United Methodists in the Philippines. Both projects earned praise from local environmental organizations, and while the environmental connection was stronger in the Philippines cleanup, both projects seemed to stem at least in part from motivation to care for the environment.
Nor is this the first time that Filipino United Methodists have shown concern for the environment. Within the last year, Filipino United Methodists have participated in a climate walk, and students at UM-affiliated Wesleyan University-Philippines have launched a climate change movement. Moreover, some of the environmental initiatives of Filipino United Methodists have had clergy and episcopal support, as the articles demonstrate.
In the United States, support for environmental causes has waxed and waned over the years, but recently, the United States has been behind other developed nations and even many developing nations in terms of concern over climate change specifically, as this article and this article show.
While there are certainly many faithful American United Methodists who are working to mitigate negative human effects on the environment (such as United Methodist Bill McKibben), these articles raised a question for me: Is it possible that real impetus for United Methodists to address climate change and other environmental issues will come from the Central Conferences, not the US?
There are reasons to think so beyond just the survey data linked to above. For reasons of geography and level of economic development, it is likely that other countries around the world will be negatively impacted by climate change before the United States is, making these issues more pressing for them. Moreover, since other countries lack the set of political factors that make climate change and environmentalism controversial in the United States, a United Methodist climate initiative from the Philippines or elsewhere could face less domestic opposition. While only time will tell, I think the Central Conferences are a good place to look for United Methodist energy around addressing climate change and other environmental issues.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
The global and the local at Annual Conferences
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
It's Annual Conference time again in The United Methodist Church. For many, this is a much-anticipated (or much-dreaded) time to reunite with, confer with, and sometimes fight with other pastors and laity from within the geographic bounds of the conference. For us here at UM & Global, though, it means slow news days. Now that I've been moderating this blog for a few years, I can confidently proclaim a trend: during the first few weeks of June, there are fewer stories from around the global connection circulating through United Methodist news media.
That's not to say there are none, as proved by these two great stories from this week about the work Africa University grads are doing throughout Africa. But after a spring when there were almost more stories from outside the US or on transnational issues than I could read, let alone analyze for the blog, the hopper is currently a bit empty as United Methodists focus inward during this time of conferencing.
Yet because of the connectional nature of the UMC, this focus inward during Annual Conference season is not entirely separate from a focus on the global church. While it may not generate stories through UMNS, the global is present at Annual Conference meetings in a variety of ways:
1. Many Annual Conferences are going to be taking up further collections as part of their drive toward denominational goals for the Imagine No Malaria global health initiative.
2. Bishops, pastors, professors, and others from around the UMC and even from non-UMC sister Methodist churches will be preaching and presenting at Annual Conferences other than their own.
3. Many Annual Conferences will consider supporting (or opposing) resolutions related to the various plans for global reorganization of the denomination that will be debated at General Conference 2016.
4. Annual Conferences will be hearing from mission partners located and missionaries serving around the world.
So, as you're coming home from or heading off to your Annual Conference, ask yourself: Where is the global in the local in this year's meeting?
It's Annual Conference time again in The United Methodist Church. For many, this is a much-anticipated (or much-dreaded) time to reunite with, confer with, and sometimes fight with other pastors and laity from within the geographic bounds of the conference. For us here at UM & Global, though, it means slow news days. Now that I've been moderating this blog for a few years, I can confidently proclaim a trend: during the first few weeks of June, there are fewer stories from around the global connection circulating through United Methodist news media.
That's not to say there are none, as proved by these two great stories from this week about the work Africa University grads are doing throughout Africa. But after a spring when there were almost more stories from outside the US or on transnational issues than I could read, let alone analyze for the blog, the hopper is currently a bit empty as United Methodists focus inward during this time of conferencing.
Yet because of the connectional nature of the UMC, this focus inward during Annual Conference season is not entirely separate from a focus on the global church. While it may not generate stories through UMNS, the global is present at Annual Conference meetings in a variety of ways:
1. Many Annual Conferences are going to be taking up further collections as part of their drive toward denominational goals for the Imagine No Malaria global health initiative.
2. Bishops, pastors, professors, and others from around the UMC and even from non-UMC sister Methodist churches will be preaching and presenting at Annual Conferences other than their own.
3. Many Annual Conferences will consider supporting (or opposing) resolutions related to the various plans for global reorganization of the denomination that will be debated at General Conference 2016.
4. Annual Conferences will be hearing from mission partners located and missionaries serving around the world.
So, as you're coming home from or heading off to your Annual Conference, ask yourself: Where is the global in the local in this year's meeting?
Friday, June 5, 2015
Recommended Reading: Status of Bishop Wandabula case
This blog has previously covered the case of Bishop Daniel Wandabula, bishop of the East Africa Annual Conference of the UMC, and his dispute with various UM groups over his use of funds and financial auditing. A few weeks ago, I wrote about a Judicial Council decision affecting Bishop Wandabula's case. As noted at that time, though, this is an ongoing issue. This UMNS story, which appeared after my article, gives a useful rundown on where the case is currently, including the continued call by GCFA for withholding funds from the East Africa Annual Conference. For more on the origins of this case, this article provides a helpful back story. UM & Global will continue to update readers as new developments occur in the case.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
David N. Field: The world is coming to our parish
Today's post is by regular contributor Dr. David N. Field. Dr. Field is the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.
I am a migrant and the descendant of migrants - a South African living in Europe. The majority of my ancestors left Europe to make a new life on the Southern tip of Africa; they fled wars, political uncertainty, poverty, and persecution for their religion. A few were shipwrecked off the coast of the Cape. At least one was fleeing from the law. Another was brought as a slave.
Yet until recently this migrant identity has not been part of my theological reflection. Being involved in planning and teaching a course dealing with the church and migration stimulated me to begin to reflect on the theological challenge posed by the movement of people across the world as an integral and pervasive feature of globalization. The recent sinking of a ship drowning over 800 refugees in the Mediterranean, the outbreak of xenophobic violence in South Africa, and reports of refugee boats being turned away from Malaysia and Indonesia have sharpened this challenge for me.
To rephrase Wesley’s famous quote from a European perspective: “The world is coming to our parish.” What does this mean for the church? In a recent Blog Michael Nausner discussed some aspects of this challenge. I plan to continue the discussion in a few blogs reflecting theologically on different aspects of this challenge.
The presence of “the world in our parish” provides an often ignored but profoundly radical challenge to the way we think about what it means to be the church. It is radical because it confronts us with a long forgotten understanding of the identity of the church that is ironically hidden in the word “parish”. In contemporary English parish refers to a small bounded local area. The related word “parochial” refers to being focused on a local area to the exclusion of the broader world.
The irony is that the word parish comes from the Greek word parokia which means a stranger or a sojourner. It was a word used by the early church to describe itself (see I Peter 2:11) as communities of foreigners who were never fully at home in the societies in which they lived. They were strangers because they owed an ultimate loyalty to the One who was rejected by the religious and political establishment and then tortured and executed as an enemy of the empire.
The presence of the world in our parish is a call to remind us that our primary identity and loyalty can never be defined by citizenship of a particular nation state. The church can never be “at home” in any country or socio-political system, for we are citizens of the dominion of the Crucified One. The church is always to be a restless community of foreigners looking for and embodying in a partial way the coming dominion of the Jesus. It is from this identity that we should address the ethical challenge posed by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (a topic for a later blog).
The presence of the world in our parish reminds us that the community of the Crucified transcends national and geographic. Significant numbers of the migrants coming to Europe and North America are Christians – many are Methodists; in fact, many are United Methodists. To be a Christian, to be a Methodist, to be a United Methodist, is to be part of an international community of communities. We are part of the “catholic” church, in the words of the Apostles creed, or to use a more contemporary word, “ecumenical” church; that is, the church that is present across the whole inhabited world.
The presence is a summons to break out of a “parochial” mindset (in its contemporary English meaning) and discovers our spiritual siblings in other countries and continents, people who live in such situations of need that they engage in long, potentially deadly journeys in search of a new life. Many of us are ignorant of the lives of these fellow members of the church – these strangers who come and those strangers who die on the way.
It is a particular challenge to the UMC as a church that affirms its identity as an international or even global church. To be an international or global church is not merely about participating in mission trips, nor about sending finances and resources to people in need, nor about the logistic and theological complications of having people from other countries at General Conference; it is about the challenge to recognize these people as our spiritual siblings, fellow members of the body of Christ whose lives, sufferings and joys ought to be part of our primary concern. The question is how can we embody this in the structures of the UMC, in the lives of our local congregations, and in the programs of our General Boards, agencies and other institutions, not as an extra concern, but as integral to our identity?
I am a migrant and the descendant of migrants - a South African living in Europe. The majority of my ancestors left Europe to make a new life on the Southern tip of Africa; they fled wars, political uncertainty, poverty, and persecution for their religion. A few were shipwrecked off the coast of the Cape. At least one was fleeing from the law. Another was brought as a slave.
Yet until recently this migrant identity has not been part of my theological reflection. Being involved in planning and teaching a course dealing with the church and migration stimulated me to begin to reflect on the theological challenge posed by the movement of people across the world as an integral and pervasive feature of globalization. The recent sinking of a ship drowning over 800 refugees in the Mediterranean, the outbreak of xenophobic violence in South Africa, and reports of refugee boats being turned away from Malaysia and Indonesia have sharpened this challenge for me.
To rephrase Wesley’s famous quote from a European perspective: “The world is coming to our parish.” What does this mean for the church? In a recent Blog Michael Nausner discussed some aspects of this challenge. I plan to continue the discussion in a few blogs reflecting theologically on different aspects of this challenge.
The presence of “the world in our parish” provides an often ignored but profoundly radical challenge to the way we think about what it means to be the church. It is radical because it confronts us with a long forgotten understanding of the identity of the church that is ironically hidden in the word “parish”. In contemporary English parish refers to a small bounded local area. The related word “parochial” refers to being focused on a local area to the exclusion of the broader world.
The irony is that the word parish comes from the Greek word parokia which means a stranger or a sojourner. It was a word used by the early church to describe itself (see I Peter 2:11) as communities of foreigners who were never fully at home in the societies in which they lived. They were strangers because they owed an ultimate loyalty to the One who was rejected by the religious and political establishment and then tortured and executed as an enemy of the empire.
The presence of the world in our parish is a call to remind us that our primary identity and loyalty can never be defined by citizenship of a particular nation state. The church can never be “at home” in any country or socio-political system, for we are citizens of the dominion of the Crucified One. The church is always to be a restless community of foreigners looking for and embodying in a partial way the coming dominion of the Jesus. It is from this identity that we should address the ethical challenge posed by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (a topic for a later blog).
The presence of the world in our parish reminds us that the community of the Crucified transcends national and geographic. Significant numbers of the migrants coming to Europe and North America are Christians – many are Methodists; in fact, many are United Methodists. To be a Christian, to be a Methodist, to be a United Methodist, is to be part of an international community of communities. We are part of the “catholic” church, in the words of the Apostles creed, or to use a more contemporary word, “ecumenical” church; that is, the church that is present across the whole inhabited world.
The presence is a summons to break out of a “parochial” mindset (in its contemporary English meaning) and discovers our spiritual siblings in other countries and continents, people who live in such situations of need that they engage in long, potentially deadly journeys in search of a new life. Many of us are ignorant of the lives of these fellow members of the church – these strangers who come and those strangers who die on the way.
It is a particular challenge to the UMC as a church that affirms its identity as an international or even global church. To be an international or global church is not merely about participating in mission trips, nor about sending finances and resources to people in need, nor about the logistic and theological complications of having people from other countries at General Conference; it is about the challenge to recognize these people as our spiritual siblings, fellow members of the body of Christ whose lives, sufferings and joys ought to be part of our primary concern. The question is how can we embody this in the structures of the UMC, in the lives of our local congregations, and in the programs of our General Boards, agencies and other institutions, not as an extra concern, but as integral to our identity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)