Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists.
I love General Conference! It is indeed a joyous place to be. One can witness firsthand the worldwide United Methodist Church doing business.
General Conference is the United Methodist’s quadrennial kumbaya. It is the denomination’s legislative amphitheater, its missional market place, its doctrinal battleground, its connectional system’s fiscal auditorium, and its fisted hand budgetary arena.
General Conference is the public dome where the miraculous and the monstrous are equally part of daily deliberations. It is a place where the boundaries between reality and dreams are blurred; lofty vision and imagined future are carved out through the prism of memory, nostalgia, and high ambition for the denomination’s worldwide church.
I enjoy being at the margin and sidelines of the General Conference from where one could see the fringe events that take place which are equally important for the life of the denomination. After all, what is visible and broadcast are important for the record but what is ignored and marginalized are more important for the conscience of the church. The periphery of the General Conference has a status of its own that often draws a rally, a drama, a scene of media sensation, punctuated more by the reportorial, “The-Whole-World-Is-Watching-Us,” than the revelatory.
There is also an aura that surrounds the General Conference, viewed as a latter day United Methodist Byzantium where a galaxy of sensitive, sophisticated human beings from all across United Methodism altruistically join forces to achieve spiritually elevating, ecclesially nourishing, missionally wholesome, and globally transformative programs. Consequently, the General Conference tends to become gouty and pompous.
Now that GC2016 has poured its last cup of tea, strapped its tarp and traveling gear to the trailer, and dispatched its last emissary to form a study commission on human sexuality, I will miss the high drama, its suspense and its myrmidon for another four years (maybe two years!)
Global North meeting Global South under Robert’s Rule or the Palavar Tree?
What fascinated me more than anything else at GC2016 was the large presence and active participation of the multiethnic delegates from the worldwide church. To many Christians in the global north, Christians in the Global South belong only to the domain of missions and not in the region of partnership or mutuality. Only recently it is best understood as an independent church and not as an appendage of Western missionary expansion, and they have an identity and selfhood of their own. Yes, indeed, the age of diversity is upon us.
We, as a denomination, are increasingly a community of communities and should treat that as strength. Despite their full participation in the Conference’s deliberations, more often than not, the comments and observations of the delegates from overseas were punctuated by questions about parliamentary procedures and an unfamiliar legislative process. I wonder if there was any count on how many times the delegates had mentioned that they were confused, lost and totally out of tune with the procedure, the process and the progression of the debate and voting policy of the General Conference.
While the proponents of Rule 44 tried to pitch their tents during the storm of parliamentary procedures and when the extensive debate over the Council of Bishops recommendation to table the petitions on human sexuality for another two years was dragged on, more and more delegates expressed their confusion and dismay over the process deeply rooted and firmly grounded in Robert’s Rules of Order, a North American parliamentary process. The cavernous cultural gap and the resonant parliamentary procedure that disjointed the overseas delegates with the US delegates became more evident while hot-button issues were discussed. While the metaphor of doing business under the palaver tree, an African consensus-building process, was floated around, this remained only as a beautiful metaphor.
Tell us in plain words
While I followed the skilled leadership style of the presiders from the podium and the nuanced arguments of the delegates from the floor, for some strange reason, one sentence from a classic literature kept ringing in my ears. It was from a character in James Joyce’s Ulysses in which Molly asks Bloom about Metempsychosis, a word from a book she had been reading. The response Bloom gave Molly was, “It’s Greek: from the Greek... That means the transmigration of souls.”
“O rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.” So goes Molly’s plea to her lover to explain Metempsychosis.
In my opinion, GC2016 was a weirdly pressurized and verbally jeopardized space due to high-stake petitions that were on the table, such as, Rule 44 and human sexuality. Most importantly, they were crisscrossed with potential divisions and schisms within the denomination. Dropping one’s guard during those tense moments would find oneself holding forth like a lost and somnolent passenger in an international airport terminal in a foreign land.
The vital question that most of us ask after a major event is, “What would history say of this event?” That goes for GC2016 as well. There are narratives we tell our families, the accounts we share with our friends, and most importantly, the versions we describe to our parishioners and ourselves in order to keep on living, serving and ministering. Through the act of narration, we empower others to see what we see. Galileo became famous not just because he saw how the stars move but because he insisted fellow humans see for themselves how the biosphere works. We need to share what we see and shape our society accordingly for the best.
The narratives GC2016 presents is this: Number matters. Persuasion reigns supreme. Status quo prevails. Table difficult issues. If you can’t win, try to cover the opponent with a slow-creeping fog, and mute the voices to ashes with whatever you have in your verbal arsenal.
Rage correlation only with issue boxes
General Conference 2016, I submit, suffered from a rage deficit. It refused to take seriously the persecuted sisters and brothers in Christ in other parts of the world, including the Palestinian Christians. Not just brotherhood but siblinghood matters in mission.
It failed to unleash its righteous anger and holy discontent about the refugees and immigrant crises around the world and by relegating the immigration rally as a freak show. A collective shriek would certainly have gained the attention of those in power around the world.
GC is not all about petitions and politics, but time and memory and love that stand at the heart of GC’s work. A positive, transformative vision statement is not meant just to inspire; it should create the cognitive space for assumptions to be challenged and new ideas to surface. It would help Christ’s holy church if everyone were to get out of their “issue” boxes.
We in the church need to be aware that we are standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us, ever vigilant to examine our role and close the gap between the problems we know and the solutions we propose. So long as the siren call of denial is met with the drone of policy making and petition submitting, the worldwide body of Christ is both being misled and misread.
By the time the study committee on human sexuality prepares its final report in two years, the worldwide church will have gathered in different parts of the world to revisit the 500th anniversary of Protestant Reformation, and studied its impact on human history. The findings and recommendations of the Study Commission will certainly have an impact on our denomination. I sincerely hope and pray that it will enable our beloved denomination to continue to produce spiritual leaders of texture and thoughtful forerunners of caring quality to steer the church through stormy seas. Will our church be comprised of a people divided by our politics, our religious views, and our backgrounds, or will we be a people of diversity and common commitment, with some common boundaries? I hope and believe we can be the latter.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
General Conference roundup: Global health
This is the third of several posts presenting a roundup of General
Conference actions related to the foci of this blog. While the second post in this series looked at mission generally, this third post
looks at the General Conference actions related specifically to global health in The United Methodist Church, a major focus for the work of the denomination.
General Conference reaffirmed its commitment to the Four Areas of Health, which include improving health globally.
GC also officially added global health to the work of Global Ministries.
The conference saw a great celebration of the completion of Imagine No Malaria, the denomination's global health-related campaign of the last eight years. The celebration included a song written especially for the occasion. These photos capture some of the celebratory dance that went with the performance of the song.
At the same time, it launched a new global health initiative: Abundant Health: Our Promise to Children, which is further described in this Global Ministries press release.
General Conference reaffirmed its commitment to the Four Areas of Health, which include improving health globally.
GC also officially added global health to the work of Global Ministries.
The conference saw a great celebration of the completion of Imagine No Malaria, the denomination's global health-related campaign of the last eight years. The celebration included a song written especially for the occasion. These photos capture some of the celebratory dance that went with the performance of the song.
At the same time, it launched a new global health initiative: Abundant Health: Our Promise to Children, which is further described in this Global Ministries press release.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Robert Harman: Historical Context for Affiliated Autonomous Methodist Churches and their Standing in a Global United Methodist Church
Today's post is by Robert J. Harman. Rev. Harman is a mission executive retired from the General Board of Global Ministries.
In a previous post, Dr. Philip Wingeier raised significant issues underlying the claim of the UMC to its global status and some programmatic implications for affiliated autonomous partner churches, especially those in Latin America. A rehearsal of the historical context of their origins underscores the intentionality of their independence and illumines what was lost and gained in the process for these partner churches and a "global" UMC.
At the 1968 General Conference that celebrated the union of the EUB Church and the Methodist Church, a process unfolded that eventuated in all of the churches (conferences) remaining in connection with the former Methodist Church in Latin America and Asia (The Philippines being the only exception) gaining their autonomy. Former EUB Church relationships with mission bodies abroad (except Germany and Sierra Leone) were mostly independent united churches and planned to remain autonomous after the formation of the new United Methodist Church. So, the UMC was left with a much diminished global reach with no denominational presence in Latin America, minimal memberships in populous Asia and small conferences in Europe.
Dr. Wingeier (and others) have suggested that the Methodist churches in Latin America were "encouraged" or influenced by the denomination to choose structural independence from the emerging UMC, a position I fail to find documented in the proceedings I have researched. Both Mexico and Brazil Methodist Churches achieved their autonomy by forcing the creation of a special commission of their parent bodies (Methodist Churches North and South) to successfully advocate devolution at their respective General Conferences in 1930. At a consultation held in Green Lake Wisconsin in 1966, leaders from all churches in the world wide Methodist connection plus representatives of the EUB Mission board offered their thoughts about the future of the denominational structure and mission. The revolutionary changes occurring in the post colonial period impacting governments and social institutions in affected countries were strongly impacting the churches. Most presentations offered by church representatives themselves vigorously concluded that historical linkages suggesting any continuation of colonial patterns of dependency had to be jettisoned. The Commission on the Status on Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), the consultation host, only then agreed to engage in a follow up process that permitted regional conversations resulting in proposals for autonomy to be submitted to the 1968 General Conference.
To each of the follow up regional consultations, COSMOS offered three options: continuation in Central Conferences, Autonomy as independent Methodist churches with affiliated relationships to the UMC, and Autonomy within newly created regional bodies that would also convene periodically as a world wide connectional body. In my reading of the documentation from the Latin American churches, it was the third option that interested them. The Asian churches favored Autonomy and some preferred exploring union with other Protestant churches to strengthen their witness nationally. Within Asia only the Philippine conferences chose continuation in a Central Conference. African leaders pleading greater self determination chose continuation in Central Conference structures. European conferences also chose continuation in Central Conferences.
Latin American Methodist church leaders today rightly maintain that they did not leave the connection, but that the connection left them. They chose the one option that would have created new and potentially vibrant linkages regionally and globally for a connectional Methodism, but that vision soon faded. While the 1972 General Conference approved funding for a global consultation in Atlantic City in 1973 to pursue further discussion of this option and other scenarios for a new globally representative structure for UM originated world church bodies, participants were either tired or wary of the outcome from more energy and funding invested in this conversation. They agreed only to strengthening their commitment to the World Methodist Council where an even larger representation of Methodists with various histories of origin meet periodically.
This explains how the UMC today inherited its reduced global nature and - to some extent - how the newly independent Methodist bodies in Latin America and Asia unfortunately became disconnected satellite entities. It may also suggest why some affiliated autonomous church partners like those in Latin America often feel bereft of the fraternity a global fellowship like meetings of the UM General Conference should offer. Membership has its privileges so a General Conference will always grant favors to its Central Conference members that its autonomous partners, invited as guests (voice without vote), don't experience. But those partners share strong values and offer important venues for significant mission involvement that general agencies, conferences and church mission teams support through project funding and networking. Many challenges remain to be addressed through greater cooperation and that can happen in Latin America because independent self-determining Methodist churches have created an effective regional structure (CIEMAL) for mutual support and advocacy within and beyond Latin America. Like the larger UMC itself, individual Latin American and other autonomous Methodist churches also benefit from membership, representation and direct participation in the World Council of Churches.
Today one cannot be too sanguine about the UMC's potential for reconsidering its compromised standing as a global church, but the best option remains a variation of that the Latin American churches hoped the winds of change in the 1960's would have delivered, I.e. locally/nationally autonomous (and accountable) church bodies where the focus and strength of a relevant cultural witness take precedence, but also united in regional organizations connected to a global structure offering a periodic reflection, outlook and vision for what churches of the Methodist tradition are called to realize in the contemporary world setting.
In a previous post, Dr. Philip Wingeier raised significant issues underlying the claim of the UMC to its global status and some programmatic implications for affiliated autonomous partner churches, especially those in Latin America. A rehearsal of the historical context of their origins underscores the intentionality of their independence and illumines what was lost and gained in the process for these partner churches and a "global" UMC.
At the 1968 General Conference that celebrated the union of the EUB Church and the Methodist Church, a process unfolded that eventuated in all of the churches (conferences) remaining in connection with the former Methodist Church in Latin America and Asia (The Philippines being the only exception) gaining their autonomy. Former EUB Church relationships with mission bodies abroad (except Germany and Sierra Leone) were mostly independent united churches and planned to remain autonomous after the formation of the new United Methodist Church. So, the UMC was left with a much diminished global reach with no denominational presence in Latin America, minimal memberships in populous Asia and small conferences in Europe.
Dr. Wingeier (and others) have suggested that the Methodist churches in Latin America were "encouraged" or influenced by the denomination to choose structural independence from the emerging UMC, a position I fail to find documented in the proceedings I have researched. Both Mexico and Brazil Methodist Churches achieved their autonomy by forcing the creation of a special commission of their parent bodies (Methodist Churches North and South) to successfully advocate devolution at their respective General Conferences in 1930. At a consultation held in Green Lake Wisconsin in 1966, leaders from all churches in the world wide Methodist connection plus representatives of the EUB Mission board offered their thoughts about the future of the denominational structure and mission. The revolutionary changes occurring in the post colonial period impacting governments and social institutions in affected countries were strongly impacting the churches. Most presentations offered by church representatives themselves vigorously concluded that historical linkages suggesting any continuation of colonial patterns of dependency had to be jettisoned. The Commission on the Status on Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), the consultation host, only then agreed to engage in a follow up process that permitted regional conversations resulting in proposals for autonomy to be submitted to the 1968 General Conference.
To each of the follow up regional consultations, COSMOS offered three options: continuation in Central Conferences, Autonomy as independent Methodist churches with affiliated relationships to the UMC, and Autonomy within newly created regional bodies that would also convene periodically as a world wide connectional body. In my reading of the documentation from the Latin American churches, it was the third option that interested them. The Asian churches favored Autonomy and some preferred exploring union with other Protestant churches to strengthen their witness nationally. Within Asia only the Philippine conferences chose continuation in a Central Conference. African leaders pleading greater self determination chose continuation in Central Conference structures. European conferences also chose continuation in Central Conferences.
Latin American Methodist church leaders today rightly maintain that they did not leave the connection, but that the connection left them. They chose the one option that would have created new and potentially vibrant linkages regionally and globally for a connectional Methodism, but that vision soon faded. While the 1972 General Conference approved funding for a global consultation in Atlantic City in 1973 to pursue further discussion of this option and other scenarios for a new globally representative structure for UM originated world church bodies, participants were either tired or wary of the outcome from more energy and funding invested in this conversation. They agreed only to strengthening their commitment to the World Methodist Council where an even larger representation of Methodists with various histories of origin meet periodically.
This explains how the UMC today inherited its reduced global nature and - to some extent - how the newly independent Methodist bodies in Latin America and Asia unfortunately became disconnected satellite entities. It may also suggest why some affiliated autonomous church partners like those in Latin America often feel bereft of the fraternity a global fellowship like meetings of the UM General Conference should offer. Membership has its privileges so a General Conference will always grant favors to its Central Conference members that its autonomous partners, invited as guests (voice without vote), don't experience. But those partners share strong values and offer important venues for significant mission involvement that general agencies, conferences and church mission teams support through project funding and networking. Many challenges remain to be addressed through greater cooperation and that can happen in Latin America because independent self-determining Methodist churches have created an effective regional structure (CIEMAL) for mutual support and advocacy within and beyond Latin America. Like the larger UMC itself, individual Latin American and other autonomous Methodist churches also benefit from membership, representation and direct participation in the World Council of Churches.
Today one cannot be too sanguine about the UMC's potential for reconsidering its compromised standing as a global church, but the best option remains a variation of that the Latin American churches hoped the winds of change in the 1960's would have delivered, I.e. locally/nationally autonomous (and accountable) church bodies where the focus and strength of a relevant cultural witness take precedence, but also united in regional organizations connected to a global structure offering a periodic reflection, outlook and vision for what churches of the Methodist tradition are called to realize in the contemporary world setting.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
General Conference roundup: Mission initiatives
This is the second of several posts presenting a roundup of General
Conference actions related to the foci of this blog. This second post
looks at the General Conference actions related to mission in The United Methodist Church.
General Conference celebrated the commissioning of 29 new missionaries and the consecration of 26 deaconesses and home missioners.
General Conference approved a name change for One Great Hour of Sharing to UMCOR Sunday to better reflect the purpose of the special offering.
General Conference recognized mission centers at Gulfside Assembly and the Lambuth Family Pearl River Church as Heritage Landmarks of the UMC.
General Conference approved a resolution calling for more ministries with migrants, along with several other mission-related resolutions.
While the General Conference rejected divestment from companies doing business in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it did adopt a petition on behalf of Wadi Foquin, a Palestinian village threatened by encroaching settlements. Global Ministries supports mission work in Wadi Foquin.
Global health is a significant area of mission work for the church, but enough happened at General Conference related to global health that it deserves its own post. The next roundup, which will be posted later this week, will look at actions related to global health.
General Conference celebrated the commissioning of 29 new missionaries and the consecration of 26 deaconesses and home missioners.
General Conference approved a name change for One Great Hour of Sharing to UMCOR Sunday to better reflect the purpose of the special offering.
General Conference recognized mission centers at Gulfside Assembly and the Lambuth Family Pearl River Church as Heritage Landmarks of the UMC.
General Conference approved a resolution calling for more ministries with migrants, along with several other mission-related resolutions.
While the General Conference rejected divestment from companies doing business in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it did adopt a petition on behalf of Wadi Foquin, a Palestinian village threatened by encroaching settlements. Global Ministries supports mission work in Wadi Foquin.
Global health is a significant area of mission work for the church, but enough happened at General Conference related to global health that it deserves its own post. The next roundup, which will be posted later this week, will look at actions related to global health.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
William Payne: Historical perspectives on the United Methodist bishopric
What is a United Methodist bishop? The idea continues to evolve in United Methodism. In early American Methodism, the use of the term “bishop” caused great distress. Thomas Coke told the Christmas Conference that he and Asbury were de facto bishops because they functioned like bishops in their ministry.
Wesley strongly argued against this innovation. He called them general superintendents. Even though Wesley argued that he was a “Scriptural Episcopus,” he never called himself a bishop. In fact, he rejected the term for himself and Methodism. Wesley writes, “How dare you suffer yourself to called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake put a full end to this!”
How did we get bishops? Simply stated, Coke wanted to become a bishop. Under the influence of Coke, the American conference voted to form itself into an "episcopal" church.[1] In common parlance, the term "episcopal" implies "bishop." According to the Minutes, “Therefore, at this conference we formed ourselves into an Independent Church: and following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the Episcopal mode of government, we thought it best to become an Episcopal church, making the episcopal office elective, and the elected superintendent or bishop, amenable to the body of ministers and preachers.”
However, the above quote came as a result of a later redaction because the 1785 Discipline does not use the term bishop. In the founding documents that Wesley sent to America, he purposely substituted "superintendent" for the office of bishop and elder for the office of priest. The Christmas Conference followed Wesley's guidance at this point. Wesley’s letter calls Coke and Asbury joint superintendents over our brethren in North America. Coke arrogated the title bishop and Asbury consented to its use.
While revising the 1787 Discipline, Coke and Asbury changed the word “superintendent” to bishop in Section IV “On the Constituting of Bishops and their Duty.” According to Jesse Lee’s history, Asbury and Coke did not have approval to change the Discipline or to call themselves bishops. In fact, in terms of the Anglican and Roman Catholic use of the world, they were not bishops. Obviously, United Methodism does not claim “apostolic succession” in the same way as Anglicanism or Catholicism since it takes a bishop to make a bishop. Methodism is apostolic in terms of its doctrines and practices.
The issue of the identity and power of the episcopacy was most strongly argued in the South and southern frontier. The conversation paralleled a national debate that argued about the role of government and the power of rulers. It came to a head in the ill-fated Council in 1791, was a primary reason for James O’Kelly’s defection in 1792, contributed to the huge numerical decline in southern Methodism in the 1790’s, and became a cutting question that caused schisms and determined many future disputes.
Was the general superintendent a constitutional monarch or a president who ruled with the consent of the people? Asbury fought for a strong episcopacy. He believed that he walked in the stead of Wesley and needed episcopal authority to carry out the mission of the church. Asbury had a national vision for the MEC. The young church needed a strong leader to guide it and deploy its resources in an effective way so that it could evangelize the nation. In an attempt to do that, he personified the highest ideals of a Methodist circuit rider.
Those who argued against Asbury reflected an emphasis on personal choice and a localized vision for the church in which the authority was vested in the conference with lay representatives. They believed that the conference walked in the stead of Wesley. Issues related to the stationing of the preachers, the ownership of chapels, shared decision-making power in a general conference, and elected presiding elders were heralded by these people. After fighting a revolutionary war with a monarch who abused his powers, many American Methodists were cautious about yielding to an ecclesial autocratic. Their attitudes represented the southern mindset.
The issue continued to be debated by church reformers. With the exception of the African American churches, break away Methodist churches all rejected the term bishop. In fact, even in United Methodism, a bishop is an elder consecrated to a special ministry. Elder is the primary category. Bishops function as general superintendents. They are not ordained bishops. When they retire or cease to function in that capacity, they cease to be general overseers. As such, retired bishops should revert back to an annual conference and cease to have the power and authority of a bishop. In fact, this is the way that it is in Africa and in many of the autonomous conferences in Latin America.
Where should we go from here? The UMC needs to authorize a commission to study the episcopacy in United Methodism. What is it and what should it do? Recommendations should be forwarded to the General Conference.
Wesley strongly argued against this innovation. He called them general superintendents. Even though Wesley argued that he was a “Scriptural Episcopus,” he never called himself a bishop. In fact, he rejected the term for himself and Methodism. Wesley writes, “How dare you suffer yourself to called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake put a full end to this!”
How did we get bishops? Simply stated, Coke wanted to become a bishop. Under the influence of Coke, the American conference voted to form itself into an "episcopal" church.[1] In common parlance, the term "episcopal" implies "bishop." According to the Minutes, “Therefore, at this conference we formed ourselves into an Independent Church: and following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the Episcopal mode of government, we thought it best to become an Episcopal church, making the episcopal office elective, and the elected superintendent or bishop, amenable to the body of ministers and preachers.”
However, the above quote came as a result of a later redaction because the 1785 Discipline does not use the term bishop. In the founding documents that Wesley sent to America, he purposely substituted "superintendent" for the office of bishop and elder for the office of priest. The Christmas Conference followed Wesley's guidance at this point. Wesley’s letter calls Coke and Asbury joint superintendents over our brethren in North America. Coke arrogated the title bishop and Asbury consented to its use.
While revising the 1787 Discipline, Coke and Asbury changed the word “superintendent” to bishop in Section IV “On the Constituting of Bishops and their Duty.” According to Jesse Lee’s history, Asbury and Coke did not have approval to change the Discipline or to call themselves bishops. In fact, in terms of the Anglican and Roman Catholic use of the world, they were not bishops. Obviously, United Methodism does not claim “apostolic succession” in the same way as Anglicanism or Catholicism since it takes a bishop to make a bishop. Methodism is apostolic in terms of its doctrines and practices.
The issue of the identity and power of the episcopacy was most strongly argued in the South and southern frontier. The conversation paralleled a national debate that argued about the role of government and the power of rulers. It came to a head in the ill-fated Council in 1791, was a primary reason for James O’Kelly’s defection in 1792, contributed to the huge numerical decline in southern Methodism in the 1790’s, and became a cutting question that caused schisms and determined many future disputes.
Was the general superintendent a constitutional monarch or a president who ruled with the consent of the people? Asbury fought for a strong episcopacy. He believed that he walked in the stead of Wesley and needed episcopal authority to carry out the mission of the church. Asbury had a national vision for the MEC. The young church needed a strong leader to guide it and deploy its resources in an effective way so that it could evangelize the nation. In an attempt to do that, he personified the highest ideals of a Methodist circuit rider.
Those who argued against Asbury reflected an emphasis on personal choice and a localized vision for the church in which the authority was vested in the conference with lay representatives. They believed that the conference walked in the stead of Wesley. Issues related to the stationing of the preachers, the ownership of chapels, shared decision-making power in a general conference, and elected presiding elders were heralded by these people. After fighting a revolutionary war with a monarch who abused his powers, many American Methodists were cautious about yielding to an ecclesial autocratic. Their attitudes represented the southern mindset.
The issue continued to be debated by church reformers. With the exception of the African American churches, break away Methodist churches all rejected the term bishop. In fact, even in United Methodism, a bishop is an elder consecrated to a special ministry. Elder is the primary category. Bishops function as general superintendents. They are not ordained bishops. When they retire or cease to function in that capacity, they cease to be general overseers. As such, retired bishops should revert back to an annual conference and cease to have the power and authority of a bishop. In fact, this is the way that it is in Africa and in many of the autonomous conferences in Latin America.
Where should we go from here? The UMC needs to authorize a commission to study the episcopacy in United Methodism. What is it and what should it do? Recommendations should be forwarded to the General Conference.
[1] Coke thought that American Methodism would become a national Episcopal church and he would be its head bishop. When that did not work out, he tried to cut a deal with Bishop White of the newly formed Protestant Episcopal Church to unite the MEC to it so he could become a "real" bishop.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
General Conference roundup: Global structures and leaders
This is the first of several posts presenting a roundup of General Conference actions related to the foci of this blog. This first post looks at the General Conference actions related to global structures and leaders in The United Methodist Church.
General Conference approved continued work on a global Book of Discipline and global Social Principles. Proposals for a US central conference died in committee.
General Conference approved five more bishops for Africa starting in 2020, going with the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters' recommendation rather than a motion to add two new bishops immediately to Nigeria and Zimbabwe.
General Conference approved a provisional central conference for Southeast Asia and Mongolia, allowing missions there to go forward with the process of forming Annual Conferences and thereby beginning to determine their own pastoral leadership. It also approved a provisional Rwanda Annual Conference and deferred the creation of a Uganda Annual Conference to the West Africa Central Conference.
During General Conference, the Judicial Council elected N. Oswald Tweh, Sr., a Liberian, as the head of the Council, the first from outside the US to hold that position.
Responding to a request for a declaratory decision from the General Conference, the Judicial Council ruled that a Central Conference as a body, not its bishops, has the authority to set the time and place of its meetings, addressing questions regarding the 2016 meeting of the Congo Central Conference.
The next roundup, which will be posted next week, will look at actions related to mission work.
General Conference approved continued work on a global Book of Discipline and global Social Principles. Proposals for a US central conference died in committee.
General Conference approved five more bishops for Africa starting in 2020, going with the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters' recommendation rather than a motion to add two new bishops immediately to Nigeria and Zimbabwe.
General Conference approved a provisional central conference for Southeast Asia and Mongolia, allowing missions there to go forward with the process of forming Annual Conferences and thereby beginning to determine their own pastoral leadership. It also approved a provisional Rwanda Annual Conference and deferred the creation of a Uganda Annual Conference to the West Africa Central Conference.
During General Conference, the Judicial Council elected N. Oswald Tweh, Sr., a Liberian, as the head of the Council, the first from outside the US to hold that position.
Responding to a request for a declaratory decision from the General Conference, the Judicial Council ruled that a Central Conference as a body, not its bishops, has the authority to set the time and place of its meetings, addressing questions regarding the 2016 meeting of the Congo Central Conference.
The next roundup, which will be posted next week, will look at actions related to mission work.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Philip Wingeier-Rayo: A Small Victory for Missions at General Conference
Among all the polemics and fireworks discussing human sexuality at General Conference over 10 days, this small petition of $30,000 for mission opportunities in Latin American and the Caribbean almost fell through the cracks. Fortunately this petition (No. 60874) "Holistic Strategy on Latin American and the Caribbean" passed by an overwhelming margin. This demonstrates to me that in spite of our differences the United Methodist Church is still a missional and generous people. I have attached below the link to the original petition describing the missional opportunities and the conditions of poverty in the 20 countries in the region of 502 million people.
While I'm pleased that this passed, it makes me wonder what we could do if we spent less money on debating other issues and having large world-wide gatherings. This General Conference cost $10,532,800 and 32% of this was spent on delegate travel with the bulk of this being international airfare for the 350 Central Conference delegates.
I know that the United Methodist Church is not synonymous with the U.S., but my question is why do we have United Methodists so far away in Europe, Africa and the Philippines, when right here in Latin America—with so much need—we don’t have a United Methodist Church? None of the 350 international voting delegates were from Latin America. I know that there are great needs around the world and the UMC does wonderful ministries everywhere it is present, I'm just asking if this money couldn't do more good for more people closer to home?
The United States also has much more in common with Latin America historically, economically and geographically. Even culturally the U.S. now consumes more salsa than ketchup and it’s hard to find a town in the U.S. without a Latin American restaurant. Words such as tortilla, jalapeño and hurricane originate in Latin America and the Caribbean are are now part of our vocabulary. Also, the Hispanic population in the U.S. is currently 55 million (17.3%) and increasing, which represents a huge mission opportunity in our midst. The U.S. Census predicts that this demographic will be 31% of the U.S. population by the year 2060. By contrast, there were only about 20 Hispanic delegates at the 2016 General Conference to help lift and interpret this opportunity to the body.
The UMC does have historic relationships with Methodist Churches in Latin America and the Caribbean that were established by missionaries in the late 19th century, however most of these churches were encouraged to become autonomous in the late 1960s.[1] These autonomous affiliated churches retain fraternal ties through comity agreements, but do not have nearly as much financial support as the Central Conference churches.
Greater mission involvement of the United Methodist Church with partnerships in Latin America & the Caribbean could make more disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The Volunteer in Mission movement began when the Western North Carolina Conference began sending mission teams to Costa Rica in the late 1950s. Since then, thousands of United Methodists have served in short-term mission trips in the Americas. Of course, there are mission trips to Africa and Asia, but because of the cost and the distance, these are much less common. These mission trips function best (for the senders and the receivers) when there are long-term partnerships carried out in a spirit of mutuality and respect.
Greater UMC involvement in Latin America could support churches and ministries that would improve the quality of life in the region. There was a wonderful video presentation at GC on Wednesday (5/18) highlighting the ministry of Acción Medica Cristiana where GBGM missionary Belinda Forbes is assigned. This ministry promotes health and development in rural Nicaragua.
I believe that the UMC has done a wonderful thing in founding and building Africa University. This institution is training bright young people from several African nations who will be part of solving regional problems well into the future. At the same time, the oldest Spanish-speaking seminary founded by the Methodist Church in South America, ISIDET in Buenos Aires closed its doors last year because of lack of funding, thus creating a void for Spanish speaking theological education in South America.
What would it look like to build a Latin American University similar to Africa University? Could such a university help to train young people who could help solve problems in Latin American societies? Could future Christian-grounded leaders educated at such an institution promote more stable democracies in the region, Christian ethical values, businesses with more job opportunities, more equal distribution of resources, and creative solutions for environmental and societal issues that affect the Western hemisphere? More just societies in Latin America and the Caribbean with stable democracies would make emigration to the north less desirable.
Since there already exists autonomous Methodist Churches throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I am not actually advocating starting United Methodist Churches; however, I am encouraging the UMC to re-evaluate its global structure and see where its resources can do the most good. I recommend consulting with our historical partners before beginning any new initiatives to ask how we can be of assistance to support what God is already doing. This petition is a good model of mutuality in mission as this request was made in consultation with the Council of Methodist Churches in Latin America and the Caribbean (CIEMAL), which is the corresponding representative body. My only question is whether or not $30,000 is enough and whether the current global structure is in the best interest of the U.S. based UMC?
In an ideal world with unlimited resources we could have UMC ministries in every country, however we are forced with difficult stewardship questions. I know that there are needs everywhere and we’d like to help everyone, but this time of numerical and budget decline could be used as an opportunity to reflect on the best way to organize the UMC and be wise stewards of God's resources. In conclusion, I’m pleased that Petition #60874 passed and that Latin America and the Caribbean will receive $30,000 for missional opportunities, it just seems like such a small amount compared to the $10 million that we just spent to host 864 delegates for a 10-day meeting and the ongoing commitments that we sustain as a global church.
Here is the link to the original Petition #60874:
http://calms2016.umc.org/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=874
[1] With the exception of the Methodist Churches in Brazil and Mexico that gained its autonomy in 1930, and the United Methodist Mission in Honduras that started in the early 1990s.
While I'm pleased that this passed, it makes me wonder what we could do if we spent less money on debating other issues and having large world-wide gatherings. This General Conference cost $10,532,800 and 32% of this was spent on delegate travel with the bulk of this being international airfare for the 350 Central Conference delegates.
I know that the United Methodist Church is not synonymous with the U.S., but my question is why do we have United Methodists so far away in Europe, Africa and the Philippines, when right here in Latin America—with so much need—we don’t have a United Methodist Church? None of the 350 international voting delegates were from Latin America. I know that there are great needs around the world and the UMC does wonderful ministries everywhere it is present, I'm just asking if this money couldn't do more good for more people closer to home?
The United States also has much more in common with Latin America historically, economically and geographically. Even culturally the U.S. now consumes more salsa than ketchup and it’s hard to find a town in the U.S. without a Latin American restaurant. Words such as tortilla, jalapeño and hurricane originate in Latin America and the Caribbean are are now part of our vocabulary. Also, the Hispanic population in the U.S. is currently 55 million (17.3%) and increasing, which represents a huge mission opportunity in our midst. The U.S. Census predicts that this demographic will be 31% of the U.S. population by the year 2060. By contrast, there were only about 20 Hispanic delegates at the 2016 General Conference to help lift and interpret this opportunity to the body.
The UMC does have historic relationships with Methodist Churches in Latin America and the Caribbean that were established by missionaries in the late 19th century, however most of these churches were encouraged to become autonomous in the late 1960s.[1] These autonomous affiliated churches retain fraternal ties through comity agreements, but do not have nearly as much financial support as the Central Conference churches.
Greater mission involvement of the United Methodist Church with partnerships in Latin America & the Caribbean could make more disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. The Volunteer in Mission movement began when the Western North Carolina Conference began sending mission teams to Costa Rica in the late 1950s. Since then, thousands of United Methodists have served in short-term mission trips in the Americas. Of course, there are mission trips to Africa and Asia, but because of the cost and the distance, these are much less common. These mission trips function best (for the senders and the receivers) when there are long-term partnerships carried out in a spirit of mutuality and respect.
Greater UMC involvement in Latin America could support churches and ministries that would improve the quality of life in the region. There was a wonderful video presentation at GC on Wednesday (5/18) highlighting the ministry of Acción Medica Cristiana where GBGM missionary Belinda Forbes is assigned. This ministry promotes health and development in rural Nicaragua.
I believe that the UMC has done a wonderful thing in founding and building Africa University. This institution is training bright young people from several African nations who will be part of solving regional problems well into the future. At the same time, the oldest Spanish-speaking seminary founded by the Methodist Church in South America, ISIDET in Buenos Aires closed its doors last year because of lack of funding, thus creating a void for Spanish speaking theological education in South America.
What would it look like to build a Latin American University similar to Africa University? Could such a university help to train young people who could help solve problems in Latin American societies? Could future Christian-grounded leaders educated at such an institution promote more stable democracies in the region, Christian ethical values, businesses with more job opportunities, more equal distribution of resources, and creative solutions for environmental and societal issues that affect the Western hemisphere? More just societies in Latin America and the Caribbean with stable democracies would make emigration to the north less desirable.
Methodist Pastors from Colombia, Peru, Mexico and Puerto Rico
Course of Study at Perkins School of Theology
Since there already exists autonomous Methodist Churches throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I am not actually advocating starting United Methodist Churches; however, I am encouraging the UMC to re-evaluate its global structure and see where its resources can do the most good. I recommend consulting with our historical partners before beginning any new initiatives to ask how we can be of assistance to support what God is already doing. This petition is a good model of mutuality in mission as this request was made in consultation with the Council of Methodist Churches in Latin America and the Caribbean (CIEMAL), which is the corresponding representative body. My only question is whether or not $30,000 is enough and whether the current global structure is in the best interest of the U.S. based UMC?
In an ideal world with unlimited resources we could have UMC ministries in every country, however we are forced with difficult stewardship questions. I know that there are needs everywhere and we’d like to help everyone, but this time of numerical and budget decline could be used as an opportunity to reflect on the best way to organize the UMC and be wise stewards of God's resources. In conclusion, I’m pleased that Petition #60874 passed and that Latin America and the Caribbean will receive $30,000 for missional opportunities, it just seems like such a small amount compared to the $10 million that we just spent to host 864 delegates for a 10-day meeting and the ongoing commitments that we sustain as a global church.
Here is the link to the original Petition #60874:
http://calms2016.umc.org/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=874
[1] With the exception of the Methodist Churches in Brazil and Mexico that gained its autonomy in 1930, and the United Methodist Mission in Honduras that started in the early 1990s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)