Unity without sameness

This is the sixth in a series of posts on unity in the United Methodist Church. This series of blog posts originally appeared on David W. Scott’s personal blog, Posts from the Frontier. The posts have been lightly edited and are being republished here.

In my past several blog posts, I’ve been examining various possible sources of unity for The United Methodist Church. One assumption behind these posts so far has been that it may be possible to find something(s) that ties together all United Methodists and that unity in the denomination depends upon finding such thing(s). I’ve certainly suggested that there may be more than one thing which unites everybody (e.g., polity, worship, and mission), but the quest so far has been for something that everybody can agree upon.

That makes sense. United almost always has the connotation of sameness is some way. My next suggestion for source of denominational unity, however, calls that idea of united by sameness into question. It’s a major departure, so I’m going to spend two or three posts exploring it. It’s also an idea I think can have much wider application than The United Methodist Church, so there will be a lot fewer Methodist-specific references.

The idea of unity I would like to explore can be thought of not as unity through sameness, but unity through relationships and networks. This model of unity actually presupposes that there is nothing that’s going to apply to everyone, but instead looks for overlapping things that, when added together, include everyone.

To make myself clearer, let’s look at a couple of diagrams. The first diagram is a diagram of the unity through sameness model. It’s pretty simple:

It’s just a circle. The outline of those who are united and the outline of those who share a certain characteristic coincide. The diagram for the unity through relationship or network is a bit more complicated, though. It looks something like this:

Here the heavy black line is the group of people who are united in a certain organization. The thinner black lines are groups of people who share certain characteristics. None of these circles coincide with the heavy black circle. None cover the entirety of that circle. All of the thin circles overlap with some other circle(s), but there are pairs of circles which don’t overlap with each other. Nevertheless, by adding all of the thin circles together, all of the area inside the heavy circle is covered. Note, though, that the thin circles include not just area in the heavy black circle, but area outside of it as well.

I think this is a truer-to-life model of how unity works. There is some functional way in which the heavy black circle is drawn (polity, perhaps), but most of the uniting factors that hold us together are like the thin circles – they’re things we have in common with a subset of the group as a whole as well as some others outside of the group.

There’s nothing that we have in common with the group as a whole (except the polity which defines the heavy black circle). Only by adding up a series of uniting factors are we able to include the group as a whole.

Yet the unity we as the group experiences comes not from the boundaries of the heavy black circle, but from the series of relationships that connect the thin circles. We are united by a network of relationships built upon a series of shared characteristics.

Thus, this model depends crucially upon relationships and networks, and it’s to that aspect of the model I will turn next week.

Understading the status of theology at Africa University

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

The African College of United Methodist Bishops, meeting at Africa University Sept. 3-9, has asked Africa University to reconsider a 2016 restructure that merged the Faculty of Theology with Faculties in education, humanities, and the social sciences to create a new College of Humanities. The faculties of theology and education were two of the three founding faculties, or schools, within the university, along with agriculture.

This request by the bishops continues a controversy about this restructuring plan and what it says about the status and role of theology at Africa University (AU), The United Methodist Church's premier church-affiliated school in Africa. The reorganization has been criticized since it was announced. Graduates of the program, faculty, and students have expressed concern that the reorganization de-emphasizes theology, which they see as a critically important subject area for a church-related institution. The reorganization has coincided with a drop in theology enrollment and a significant decline in the number of theology faculty at AU.

Africa University was created by action of General Conference in 1992. Thus, it recently celebrated its 25th anniversary with a celebration that drew United Methodists from around the world. The university was conceived to help education United Methodists (and others) throughout the continent, and United Methodists have indeed been a key part of the university's student and faculty bodies.

Moreover, United Methodists have been critical financial supporters throughout the university's history. AU is supported by one of seven church-wide service funds underwritten by apportionment dollars. Additional church support continues today with the Campaign for Africa University, a four-year initiative launched in 2016 to raise $50 million for the institution's endowment. Yet the church is not the university's only financial source, and non-church support has been on the rise.

With that context in mind, there are at least three different ways of reading this reorganization and the resulting conflict at Africa University.

First, there is the view of the bishops and the critics of the reorganization, who see it as a church-birthed and church-sponsored institution backing down on a key commitment to the church - to provide theological education. Such a perspective could even detect in this reorganization the beginning of the secularization of AU, a path many Methodist-founded colleges in the United States went down historically.

Second, there is the view of the AU administration, which has presented the reorganization as a financial and logistical necessity. AU is the size of a small liberal arts college in the US. Prior to the reorganization, it had seven academic deans, one for each college, which is a top-heavy structure for that size of school. Enrollment in the theology faculty had declined; hence, according to the administration, the move was economically justified.

There is, however, a third way of reading these events not put forward by either side, which is to see it as a reflection of the changing dynamics of United Methodist higher education in Africa. While there are important distinctions between baccalaureate and master's level degrees provided, the number of United Methodist schools other than AU offering theological education in Africa has grown substantially since AU was founded. General Conference has recognized this development and approved money since 2008 to support the growth of such schools. The question, though, is whether these schools' success comes at the expense of AU, or whether a growing number of United Methodists on the continent and growing demand for theological education can increase the pool of resources and students such that all can prosper. Accordingly, the fates of AU and the other schools raise important questions about contextualization, centralization, and the nature of collaboration.

Whichever of these three interpretations one takes, this story line will be one to continue to watch, since it is directly tied to how both Africans and Americans see United Methodism in Africa.

Mission as basis for United Methodist unity

This is the fifth in a series of posts on unity in the United Methodist Church. This series of blog posts originally appeared on David W. Scott’s personal blog, Posts from the Frontier. The posts have been lightly edited and are being republished here.

One of John Wesley’s famous lines is “I look on all the world as my parish.” A lot of Methodists like this phrase, but does it contain a potential source of United Methodist unity? I’d like to argue that it does. I think a attitude of mission has the potential to conceptually unite a lot of currently disparate United Methodist energies. Such an approach is not without its dangers and depends importantly on a robust commitment to holism, but has, I think, potential.

Having a focus on mission denotes a certain understanding of the church and its relationship to the world that I think is characteristic of Methodism (and many other denominations as well). It denotes an understanding that the purpose of the church is not just to care for its own members but also to reach out beyond itself to engage with the world, to be in mission to the world.

Currently in American Christendom, there are two understandings of how the church reaches out to be in mission to the world. One is a conversionary understanding in which the church’s job is to try to convert individuals out of the world and into the church. The other is a social justice understanding in which the church’s job is to try to combat the unjust structures of the world.

All too often, there is a bifurcation of the two, and they are seen as mutually exclusive and competing understandings of how to minister to the world. Such a view is often present within United Methodism itself and reflects yet another dimension of the conflict between conservative and religious voices in the denomination.

Yet such a breach between these two forms of ministry to the world has not always existed. Indeed, it’s really only a product of the last 100-125 years. Before that, Methodism had a long history of trying to reform both individuals and society. John Wesley was certainly no slouch in preaching individual conversion, but also tackled systematic injustices like poverty and the slave trade. He wasn’t Marx in his analysis, but he did have an awareness of and concern for systemic problems with human society. Such a combination of a drive for individual and societal reform continued through Methodist history until the fundamentalist/modernist debates of the turn of the 20th century began to drive these two options apart.

Nevertheless, I think it is possible to reclaim such a unity in the concept of mission to the world which is our parish, and thus to reclaim some unity in our denomination. To do so, however, depends upon a robust understanding of the holism of the church’s mission.

What is holism? It’s thinking about things as wholes, not as a collection of divisible parts. If we seek to undertake holistic ministry to the world our parish, we will seek to present a whole gospel to whole people in the whole creation.

This means that seeking religious and moral transformation is important. To say it’s not and that economic and political injustice is all that matters is to practice a materialist reduction that goes against the spirit of religion, which emphasizes that matters of the spirit matter.

Yet we can’t stop at seeking individual religious and moral transformation, for that would also ignore the wholeness of people, who are also economic, political, sexual, and physical beings with associated needs and concerns in these areas. Our ministry to the world must therefore address these areas as well.

Furthermore, because whole people are part of a whole world, our efforts in these areas must not be solely individual but also systemic in nature. Moreover, because the whole world is not just human, but natural as well, our ministry to the world must also include ministry to the created, natural world, the essential context of all human life.

My guess is that right now there are a lot of people doing street evangelism who wouldn’t want to see their work as flowing from the same impetus as people protesting the School of Americas, and vice versa. Yet in order to stay together as a denomination, we must find ways in which we can think of these two aspects of the church’s mission in the world as part of the same understanding that the world is our parish. Since mission in and to the world is one of the central reasons for the church’s existence, we need something to unite the denomination in its mission, just as singing can unite us in our worship. I hope that agreeing that the world (in a wholistic sense) is our parish can be an important part of that uniting bond.

Recommended Viewing: Endow F-TECC Conversations

About a year ago, UMC Giving put out a series of video interviews with United Methodists from the central conferences about the value they have experienced in theological education. The eleven videos are about a minute long each. While the videos are part of a fundraising campaign for an endowment for the Fund for Theological Education in the Central Conferences, they are also worth viewing as glimpses into what United Methodism, pastoral training, and theological education look like around the world.

Worship as basis for United Methodist unity

This is the fourth in a series of posts on unity in the United Methodist Church. This series of blog posts originally appeared on David W. Scott’s personal blog, Posts from the Frontier. The posts have been lightly edited and are being republished here.

This week’s possibility for source of unity of United Methodism is worship, especially singing in worship. Whereas I’ve pointed out problems with the three previous sources of unity I’ve examined (theology, history, and polity), I would like to suggest that worship is a potentially promising source of United Methodist unity (though not without its own problems as well).

Singing in worship is also more distinctively United Methodist than the other three areas I’ve looked at. Of course, I’m not saying that only United Methodists sing. Obviously, other denominations have fine traditions of singing, especially the Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches, with their well-developed tradition of unaccompanied part singing. Nevertheless, while not uniquely Methodist, I would like to suggest that singing is distinctively Methodist.

Methodists have long been known as “a singing people”, and I believe that designation remains apt today. Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, was also one of the most prolific hymn writers ever. His brother John also composed and translated hymns. In America, hymn-singing was an important part of the tradition of camp meetings, religious worship and revival services common in the nineteenth century. The current United Methodist Hymnal (UMH) is the most successful hymnal ever published. While certainly not all Methodists can sing or like singing, the denomination was and is a tuneful one as a whole.

Of course, worship is not an entirely uncomplicated source of unity. Even if everyone agrees that Methodists should be singing together, there remains the question of what to sing, and here there have been and are some significant disagreements.

There are, of course, the famous worship wars of the past couple of decades between those who like the old, traditional hymns and those who prefer contemporary worship songs. There’s the question of the adequate inclusion of black gospel and spiritual songs in denominational hymnals, not to mention the issue of Spanish-language songs and songs from other ethnic groups and other countries around the world.

It’s also often the case, as the supervisory committee for the UMH found, that the list of best-loved hymns and the list of most-hated hymns have some overlap. People take issue with hymns for a variety of theological, musical, and personal-preference reasons. In addition, there’s the question of revisions to the words of hymns. Thus, while United Methodism may be united in agreement over the importance of singing our faith, there is disagreement over what exactly to sing.

The question then becomes whether we are able to overcome some of that disagreement on how to worship and what to sing and still sing together for the sake of having our voices in harmony. Can we still lift every voice and sing together, even when the owners of some of those voices dislike what’s being sung? Are we willing to sing a few songs we don’t like (or don’t know) along with some that we love, so that everyone can sing together and everyone can find something they like? Or will every song that’s not on our own personal list sound discordant to us? These are important questions for us to consider as a denomination.

I would like to believe that despite the potential for disagreement over particular songs, singing does still have to potential to unite us as a denomination. Not only is singing a shared value, but the act of singing embodies that unity toward which we should strive as a denomination.

Furthermore, singing together is a fundamental component of worship, which is one of the primary functions of the church. Thus, if we can sing together, we’ve gone a long way towards being able to worship together in unity and thus toward being the church. While none of us individually may have a thousand tongues, collectively we as a denomination have several million tongues to sing our great Redeemer’s praise. Let us strive to use them in chorus.

Recommended Reading: David Field on Wesley's Passion and the Renewal of Methodism

Regular UM & Global contributor Dr. David N. Field has recently published a piece on Ministry Matters entitled "Wesley's Passion and the Renewal of Methodism." In it, Field calls for a United Methodist renewal that follows John Wesley's passion in being missional, counter-cultural, sacramental, marginal, transnational, communal and connectional, and catholic. The piece is worth reading in its own right, and pairs well with Peter Bellini's piece in last week's recommended reading.

Polity as basis for United Methodist unity

This is the third in a series of posts on unity in the United Methodist Church. This series of blog posts originally appeared on David W. Scott’s personal blog, Posts from the Frontier. The posts have been lightly edited and are being republished here.

This week’s contender for possible source of unity for The United Methodist Church is polity. Polity means the rules and structures that define the formal organization of the church. It includes things like membership vows, definitions of ordained ministry (and the rules for becoming and remaining an ordained minister), General Conference, the general boards and agencies and their relations to other parts of the church, annual conferences, ministerial pension funds, property ownership and oversight, staff-parish relations committee, and a whole host of other organizational apparatuses.

On a first glance, polity is certainly part of what constitutes the unity of The United Methodist Church. Historian Richard Heitzenrater (and others) argues that what it truly meant to be Methodist in the early days was to be in connection (or connexion, as the British would spell it) with John Wesley. Similarly, to be United Methodist nowadays means to be a member, minister, or ministry of The United Methodist Church, a formal organization with its own set of laws and regulations governing how the church functions.

People can play with the boundaries of those laws or disobey those laws at times, but one isn’t United Methodist unless one buys into the organization to a certain extent. If a church completely disregards the Book of Discipline, never sends delegates to an Annual Conference, doesn’t pay apportionments, and is in no way linked to the church hierarchy, it’s not United Methodist; it’s an independent, non-denominational church.

Hence, polity is definitely part of what unites United Methodists. In fact, polity is such an important uniting force that it also highlights the forces for disunity. Methodists can argue with Presbyterians and feel that, as fellow Christians or even fellow Protestants, they have a stake in keeping those arguments going and not just walking out. But, at the end of the day, there’s always the option that, if the argument gets too much to deal with, Methodists (or Presbyterians) can take their ball (or, rather, their pension fund) and go home. Yes, that might be a defeat of Christian unity, but it’s not going to cause massive administrative problems in local churches.

United Methodists cannot, however, when arguing with each other, just take their pension fund and go home because it’s the same pension fund! Because polity governs things like money and power but is also something that unites denominations in a fairly robust way, disagreements over other issues quickly get translated into disagreements over polity, and these disagreements matter because they affect things like who gets to be a minister, which ministries get money, and who can become a member of a church. It affects the day-to-day operations of churches in real, tangible ways. Sometimes polity is strong enough to survive these types of conflicts, and churches work through their differences; sometimes it’s not, and churches split.

This tendency for conflicts from other areas of the church to become conflicts about polity means, however, that polity cannot be the sole source of denominational unity. If all we have in common is common pools of money and common structures of power, then all we will do is fight about money and power. There’s already a good deal of that going on in the church (see the comment from a couple of posts ago about people fighting like weasels at General Conference), and we don’t need more of it. Fighting about things like money and power means that the church is focused internally on itself and not focused externally, and that it is focused on earthly things and not heavenly things.

When the church is not focused externally, then it can’t be in mission and ministry to the world, which is a good portion of the church’s reason for existence. When the church is stuck thinking solely about earthly and not heavenly things, then it can’t be an effective worshiping community, which is most of the rest of the church’s reason for existence. And if the church isn’t in mission and isn’t a worshiping community, then it has effectively stopped to be the church, no matter what the name on the incorporation papers say.

Therefore, to do ministry together and to worship communally, which are the reasons for the church’s existence, there must be something more holding the church together than just polity. In the next two weeks, I’ll look at some ideas as to what else might provide that basis of unity.