Today's post is by Dr. Kwok Pui Lan. Dr. Kwok is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Theology at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, and a past president of the American Academy of Religion.
Since the 1980s, feminist theology from the Global South has been developed through various women’s networks. In 1988, the Asian Women’s Centre for Culture and Theology was formed and began publishing the journal In God’s Image. In 1989, the Circle of Concerned African Women Theologians was established as a forum for promoting theological works by African women. Latin American feminist theologians also began to include gender into their theological analyses, and the Con-spirando Collective was formed in Santiago, Chile, in 1991 to promote ecofeminist awareness.
The first intercontinental gathering of feminist theologians from the Global South took place in Oxatepec, Mexico, in 1986. The papers presented at that gathering were published in the book With Passion and Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology (1988). Since then, I edited a sequel entitled Hope Abundant: Third World and Indigenous Women’s Theology (2010).
Feminist theologians from the Global South have spoken against the negative impact of globalization and the neo-liberal market economy on women. In some cases, women are absorbed into the global labor market, but many of them still work in precarious working conditions. In other cases, women’s subsistence economy and livelihood are threatened by transnational companies. In Southeast Asia, women’s sexual labor has been exploited in order to bolster the economy. Feminist theologians have pointed out that the free-market economy is gendered and biased against women. They remind us of the Biblical mandate to care for the poor and the marginalized among us.
Cultural criticism is another concern for these feminist theologians. Some African and Asian male theologians have argued for the indigenization or inculturation of theology in their specific cultural contexts, but African and Asian feminist theologians argue that some of the indigenous cultural elements are deeply patriarchal and harmful. Kenyan theologian Musimbi Kanyoro used the term “cultural hermeneutics” to describe the analysis of cultural ideologies regarding gender roles and power, and of cultural violence against women.
Gendered violence and sexual assault are critical issues facing women in the Global South. The kidnapping of 200 schoolgirls by Boko Haram militants in Nigeria in 2014 was a blatant example. War, violence, and religious and ethnic conflicts often lead to rape, sexual abuse, and gender-specific violence. Feminist theologians in Africa and elsewhere have challenged the Church to speak out against gendered violence and to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which affects many African countries.
But women in the Third World are not just victims. They have provided food for the family, cared for the sick, taught the young, and resisted violence and oppression. Indigenous women have protected the environment and fought against the exploitation of their lands and waters. Indigenous feminist theologians speak of a spirituality of resilience and resistance. Many Christian women in the Global South have looked to women in the Bible for inspiration, and have created songs and liturgies to sustain their work for justice.
If the Church’s mission is to proclaim God’s kingdom and to work for justice and peace, the Church must stand in solidarity with women in the Global South. In the past, Christian mission has been criticized for its assumptions of cultural superiority and participation in colonization. Today, Christian mission must be understood as partnership and accompaniment. Properly understood, mission is a two-way process, and each partner will learn in, and be enriched by, the collaboration. Christian women in the Global South and indigenous women have much to teach the Church about resilience, hospitality, and care for God’s creation.
The mission of the Church must include the denunciation of an unjust economic system that benefits a transnational capitalist class at the expense of the poor—the majority of whom are women and children. Through its global networks, the Church can facilitate the sharing of information and resources and build relationships. By working with grassroots groups, the Church can help train women leaders and provide support in their fight for justice.
As a reaction to the forces of globalization, religious fundamentalism and extremism of all kinds have emerged and intensified. Religious fundamentalisms tend to treat women as subordinate to men, and often prescribe strict female codes of conduct. The Church needs to challenge these fundamentalist claims and to promote interreligious dialogue and learning in order to foster mutual respect and understanding. Religious leaders can—and must—work together to address gendered violence in their communities and protect the vulnerable in society.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
How can denominations foster relationships?
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.
I have made the argument on this blog that Christian unity is best understood as a relational quality, like the relations of a family, and that in the United Methodist tradition, connectionalism speaks to the importance of relationships as the basis of the church.
I have also indicated that the four main official functions of a modern denomination are to set theological affirmations, to establish lines of authority and decision-making, to credential ministers and pair them with congregations, and to engage in collaborative ministry. Note that “establish relationships” is not on this list.
Of course, relationships may still be connected to some of these four points. Authority is always a relational attribute. At its best, itinerancy means United Methodists know pastors or parishioners in places other than their current congregations. And certainly, engaging in shared ministry can produce relationships as well.
Yet none of these official functions is geared directly toward producing relationships. Moreover, each of these functions may be affected by or even cause relational stress. If relationships are poor, authority becomes contested, and impositions of authority often hurt relationships. If pastors or congregations don’t trust the conference, they are not likely to trust the appointive process, either. That distrust can be created through previous bad experiences with appointments. People are naturally more interested in collaborating in ministry with those with whom they have pre-existing relationships. When ministry is indirect, it fails to produce relationship. Two people both sending in checks to relief work does not create relationship, as important as it may be.
The opposite is also true, though. When relationships are strong, they can facilitate easier and better decision-making, more effective recruitment, credentialing, and assignment of pastors, more collaborative ministry, and greater depth of theological discussion and insight. Just as Peter Senge wrote about systems thinking as a “fifth discipline” that unites and magnifies the other four functions of a learning organization, Christian relationships serve as a “fifth function” that unites and magnifies the other four functions of a denomination.
Thus, if relationships are important to unity and unity is important to denominations, then fostering relationships should be important to denominations. However, the official functions of denominations are poorly set up to foster relationships. Herein lies a problem.
Fortunately, organizations can and do fulfill functions other than their explicit functions all the time. This insight applies to churches as well. Churches serve to help people find spouse, increase voting participation, establish business networks, and increase people’s longevity. None of these are directly related to theology, authority, ministers, or ministry.
Of course, nurturing the relationships of a Christian family is directly related to the purpose of a church than are any of the personal or civic byproducts of churches mentioned above. Therefore, this goal is more important, so churches should be more intentional about nurturing Christian relationships.
Yet churches should be careful about how they go about this goal of nurturing Christian relationships for two reasons.
First, as stated above, relationship is not a direct by-product of any of the official functions of a denomination. Therefore, denominations can’t produce more relationship by simply doing more of what they’re already doing. They can’t produce more relationship by calling for greater deference to authority, by calling for more shared ministry, by pushing for a particular theological position to be made official, or by advocating higher standards for ordination. Yet, because these are the things a denomination is set up to do, these are often the first impulses.
Second, there is a tricky relationship between structure and relationship, whether that is relationship among people or between people and God. Structures are important and can facilitate relationship. Yet, relationship is a fluid quality that cannot be reduced to structures. Moreover, the structures that facilitate relationship in one place and time will not be the structures that facilitate relationship in other places and/or times.
Structures can easily become rigid such that they fail to support relationship in the same way and, at worst, harm the relationships they were created to support. Relationship must always take priority to particular structural supports, but because of the dynamics of institutions, there is a tendency for structures to take on a life of their own and then to fight for their continued existence, even if they are disconnected from or antagonistic toward their original purpose.
Thus, I have no specific structural recommendations for how The United Methodist Church can improve its function of building Christian relationships. Nevertheless, I think there is a structural practice in the United Methodist tradition that can play an important role in fostering relationships: conferencing. I will explore more about conferencing as a means to relationships in my next piece.
I have made the argument on this blog that Christian unity is best understood as a relational quality, like the relations of a family, and that in the United Methodist tradition, connectionalism speaks to the importance of relationships as the basis of the church.
I have also indicated that the four main official functions of a modern denomination are to set theological affirmations, to establish lines of authority and decision-making, to credential ministers and pair them with congregations, and to engage in collaborative ministry. Note that “establish relationships” is not on this list.
Of course, relationships may still be connected to some of these four points. Authority is always a relational attribute. At its best, itinerancy means United Methodists know pastors or parishioners in places other than their current congregations. And certainly, engaging in shared ministry can produce relationships as well.
Yet none of these official functions is geared directly toward producing relationships. Moreover, each of these functions may be affected by or even cause relational stress. If relationships are poor, authority becomes contested, and impositions of authority often hurt relationships. If pastors or congregations don’t trust the conference, they are not likely to trust the appointive process, either. That distrust can be created through previous bad experiences with appointments. People are naturally more interested in collaborating in ministry with those with whom they have pre-existing relationships. When ministry is indirect, it fails to produce relationship. Two people both sending in checks to relief work does not create relationship, as important as it may be.
The opposite is also true, though. When relationships are strong, they can facilitate easier and better decision-making, more effective recruitment, credentialing, and assignment of pastors, more collaborative ministry, and greater depth of theological discussion and insight. Just as Peter Senge wrote about systems thinking as a “fifth discipline” that unites and magnifies the other four functions of a learning organization, Christian relationships serve as a “fifth function” that unites and magnifies the other four functions of a denomination.
Thus, if relationships are important to unity and unity is important to denominations, then fostering relationships should be important to denominations. However, the official functions of denominations are poorly set up to foster relationships. Herein lies a problem.
Fortunately, organizations can and do fulfill functions other than their explicit functions all the time. This insight applies to churches as well. Churches serve to help people find spouse, increase voting participation, establish business networks, and increase people’s longevity. None of these are directly related to theology, authority, ministers, or ministry.
Of course, nurturing the relationships of a Christian family is directly related to the purpose of a church than are any of the personal or civic byproducts of churches mentioned above. Therefore, this goal is more important, so churches should be more intentional about nurturing Christian relationships.
Yet churches should be careful about how they go about this goal of nurturing Christian relationships for two reasons.
First, as stated above, relationship is not a direct by-product of any of the official functions of a denomination. Therefore, denominations can’t produce more relationship by simply doing more of what they’re already doing. They can’t produce more relationship by calling for greater deference to authority, by calling for more shared ministry, by pushing for a particular theological position to be made official, or by advocating higher standards for ordination. Yet, because these are the things a denomination is set up to do, these are often the first impulses.
Second, there is a tricky relationship between structure and relationship, whether that is relationship among people or between people and God. Structures are important and can facilitate relationship. Yet, relationship is a fluid quality that cannot be reduced to structures. Moreover, the structures that facilitate relationship in one place and time will not be the structures that facilitate relationship in other places and/or times.
Structures can easily become rigid such that they fail to support relationship in the same way and, at worst, harm the relationships they were created to support. Relationship must always take priority to particular structural supports, but because of the dynamics of institutions, there is a tendency for structures to take on a life of their own and then to fight for their continued existence, even if they are disconnected from or antagonistic toward their original purpose.
Thus, I have no specific structural recommendations for how The United Methodist Church can improve its function of building Christian relationships. Nevertheless, I think there is a structural practice in the United Methodist tradition that can play an important role in fostering relationships: conferencing. I will explore more about conferencing as a means to relationships in my next piece.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Recommended Reading: African higher education meetings
In September, the African Association of United Methodist Theological Institutions (AAUMTI) and African Association of Methodist Institutes of Higher Education (AAMIHE) held their annual meetings, including a joint meeting in Cote d'Ivoire. There are both a UMNS story and a GBHEM story about these meetings.
The major decision coming out of these meetings was to proceed with plans to create a Methodist University Senate for Africa, modelled on the United Methodist University Senate for the United States. Such an undertaking would be a significant development for Methodist higher education in Africa.
First, it would be a significant step as regards higher education. Such a body capable of developing standards and reviewing individual schools to determine how they are living up to those standards would be a major step forward in terms of higher education quality control, accountability, and inter-school networking.
Second, it would be a significant step as regards Methodism. As this blog has pointed out, the unity of African United Methodism is not given. Nevertheless, higher education and specifically the work of AAUMTI and AAMIHE is one of the most important forces bringing together United Methodists from across the continent.
The major decision coming out of these meetings was to proceed with plans to create a Methodist University Senate for Africa, modelled on the United Methodist University Senate for the United States. Such an undertaking would be a significant development for Methodist higher education in Africa.
First, it would be a significant step as regards higher education. Such a body capable of developing standards and reviewing individual schools to determine how they are living up to those standards would be a major step forward in terms of higher education quality control, accountability, and inter-school networking.
Second, it would be a significant step as regards Methodism. As this blog has pointed out, the unity of African United Methodism is not given. Nevertheless, higher education and specifically the work of AAUMTI and AAMIHE is one of the most important forces bringing together United Methodists from across the continent.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Unity as friends or family?
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.
Last week, I posted that because denominations serve different functions, people will understand denominational unity in different ways. This week, I'd like to make a similar point about Christian relationships. There are different ways of understanding such relationships, and those different understandings lead to different understandings of Christian unity.
To demonstrate, let me ask a question: Are relationships with your fellow Christians more like your relationships with your friends or your relationships with your family?
Both metaphors have been used to describe relationships between fellow Christians, but there are important distinctions in the implications of these metaphors.
Friendships are based primarily on shared qualities, whether those are interests, aspects of personality, common experiences, or common pursuits. They are freely chosen and may be ended for a variety of reasons (hurt, diminishment of shared qualities, change in life circumstances, inconvenience, etc.). Certainly, there are various types of friendships (best friends, Facebook friends, friends of convenience, work friends, etc.), but these three qualities apply to all type of friends. The degree of closeness and the level of mutual obligation may vary or be understood differently in different cultures, but at the heart, friendship is a choice.
If we think of fellow Christians, or more to the point, fellow United Methodists, as spiritual friends, then these three characteristics will carry over: We will understand United Methodists as people with whom we have freely chosen to affiliate. We will expect them to have certain shared qualities with us (whatever that list may be). We will reserve the right to end our relationships with our fellow United Methodists for a variety of reasons, including hurt, diminishment of shared qualities, inconvenience, etc., since we will see our relations with fellow United Methodists as a choice.
Family relationships, at least with families of origin, are different. We do not choose them. They do not necessarily imply shared qualities, though often some shared history and shared genetic material are part of that. Thus, family relationships may make a clearer distinction between "like" and "love" than friendships. You may love your family members even when you don't like them. Moreover, we can choose to stop nurturing or participating in our family relationships, but we cannot end them. You cannot stop being a sister or brother to someone, even if you never see them. The degree of closeness and the level of mutual obligation may vary or be understood differently in different cultures, but at the heart, family is not a choice.
If we think of fellow United Methodists as sisters and brothers in Christ, we will expect these three qualities to carry over: We will understand our fellow United Methodists not as people with whom we have freely chosen to associate, but as people that God, descent, and/or chance have conspired to link to us. We may presume some shared history and some genetic similarities, but we will not necessarily expect our fellow United Methodists to share an extensive list of qualities with us. We may not always like our fellow United Methodists, but we will love them. We may choose to stop engaging in our relationships with fellow United Methodists or those relationships may become strained, but we will recognize that a connection will always exist, whether or not we act on it.
American culture tends to emphasize choice. Indeed, in the US, there is a whole discourse about choosing your family. This is a particularly contemporary, consumerist, and American approach to family that would be incomprehensible in much of the rest of the world.
Given the emphasis by Americans on choice, I think there is a tendency for Americans to think about church relationships as friendships, which as I said, are about choice. Unity then, is the unity of friends, which presumes similarity and which the parties may choose to end for a variety of reasons. It is important to note, though, that denominational unity as chosen friendships is not necessarily what makes most sense for non-Americans.
Interestingly, the more common metaphor for Christian relationships throughout history has been the family one. Paul writes to the "brothers" (and "sisters") in the early churches, and this language has stuck. Many denominations (including some of the UMC's predecessors) put the term "brethren" or "brotherhood" or "family" right in the name of the denomination. "Brother" and "sister" were common terms among early Methodists. This metaphor may also be the more important one for many United Methodists outside of the US.
How might it shift American United Methodists' thinking about the current state of the denomination to draw more extensively on the metaphor of family instead of the metaphor of friendship? How does contrasting these two understandings of what it means to be in relationship as United Methodists help all United Methodists more fully understanding the nature and quality of unity?
Last week, I posted that because denominations serve different functions, people will understand denominational unity in different ways. This week, I'd like to make a similar point about Christian relationships. There are different ways of understanding such relationships, and those different understandings lead to different understandings of Christian unity.
To demonstrate, let me ask a question: Are relationships with your fellow Christians more like your relationships with your friends or your relationships with your family?
Both metaphors have been used to describe relationships between fellow Christians, but there are important distinctions in the implications of these metaphors.
Friendships are based primarily on shared qualities, whether those are interests, aspects of personality, common experiences, or common pursuits. They are freely chosen and may be ended for a variety of reasons (hurt, diminishment of shared qualities, change in life circumstances, inconvenience, etc.). Certainly, there are various types of friendships (best friends, Facebook friends, friends of convenience, work friends, etc.), but these three qualities apply to all type of friends. The degree of closeness and the level of mutual obligation may vary or be understood differently in different cultures, but at the heart, friendship is a choice.
If we think of fellow Christians, or more to the point, fellow United Methodists, as spiritual friends, then these three characteristics will carry over: We will understand United Methodists as people with whom we have freely chosen to affiliate. We will expect them to have certain shared qualities with us (whatever that list may be). We will reserve the right to end our relationships with our fellow United Methodists for a variety of reasons, including hurt, diminishment of shared qualities, inconvenience, etc., since we will see our relations with fellow United Methodists as a choice.
Family relationships, at least with families of origin, are different. We do not choose them. They do not necessarily imply shared qualities, though often some shared history and shared genetic material are part of that. Thus, family relationships may make a clearer distinction between "like" and "love" than friendships. You may love your family members even when you don't like them. Moreover, we can choose to stop nurturing or participating in our family relationships, but we cannot end them. You cannot stop being a sister or brother to someone, even if you never see them. The degree of closeness and the level of mutual obligation may vary or be understood differently in different cultures, but at the heart, family is not a choice.
If we think of fellow United Methodists as sisters and brothers in Christ, we will expect these three qualities to carry over: We will understand our fellow United Methodists not as people with whom we have freely chosen to associate, but as people that God, descent, and/or chance have conspired to link to us. We may presume some shared history and some genetic similarities, but we will not necessarily expect our fellow United Methodists to share an extensive list of qualities with us. We may not always like our fellow United Methodists, but we will love them. We may choose to stop engaging in our relationships with fellow United Methodists or those relationships may become strained, but we will recognize that a connection will always exist, whether or not we act on it.
American culture tends to emphasize choice. Indeed, in the US, there is a whole discourse about choosing your family. This is a particularly contemporary, consumerist, and American approach to family that would be incomprehensible in much of the rest of the world.
Given the emphasis by Americans on choice, I think there is a tendency for Americans to think about church relationships as friendships, which as I said, are about choice. Unity then, is the unity of friends, which presumes similarity and which the parties may choose to end for a variety of reasons. It is important to note, though, that denominational unity as chosen friendships is not necessarily what makes most sense for non-Americans.
Interestingly, the more common metaphor for Christian relationships throughout history has been the family one. Paul writes to the "brothers" (and "sisters") in the early churches, and this language has stuck. Many denominations (including some of the UMC's predecessors) put the term "brethren" or "brotherhood" or "family" right in the name of the denomination. "Brother" and "sister" were common terms among early Methodists. This metaphor may also be the more important one for many United Methodists outside of the US.
How might it shift American United Methodists' thinking about the current state of the denomination to draw more extensively on the metaphor of family instead of the metaphor of friendship? How does contrasting these two understandings of what it means to be in relationship as United Methodists help all United Methodists more fully understanding the nature and quality of unity?
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Unity and the Modern Denomination
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.
Unity has been much on the minds of United Methodists lately. There has been extensive discussion (including by me on this blog) of the theological and spiritual grounds of unity. There has not been as much attention paid to what unity looks like in functional, organizational terms.
First, it is important to note that unity need not be taken in a structural sense. It is possible to have spiritual unity with fellow Christians from other denominations, and that is real unity. Nevertheless, since the question at hand is the question of the unity of The United Methodist Church, a particular Christian denomination, it is worth thinking about what structural unity means for a denomination.
The question of what unity means functionally and organizationally for a denomination is actually a complicated one, given the complicated nature of modern denominations.
Many might assume that denominations are primarily about setting doctrinal standards. Here perhaps echoes of the recently observed 500th anniversary of the Reformation ring in people’s ears. The Reformation was about debates over beliefs, so denominations must be about belief, right? Yet while setting doctrine is (at least in many cases) one function of denominations, it is not the only one.
Another function of denominations is establishing systems of authority. The Reformation, especially the English Reformation, was as much about questioning the pope’s authority as it was about doctrine. Denominational structures indicate who has authority to make what decisions in the common life of a group of Christians. Those decisions may or may not be related to doctrine.
While it is easy to see the roots of denominations in the Reformation, the modern denomination as an organizational form was perfected in the United States. Here, denominations have taken on at least two additional functions.
First, denominations serve to credential clergy and connect clergy and congregations. They define a pool of Christians designated as clergy who are commissioned to perform sacraments. Denominations also provide some assistance to congregations in helping identify credentialed clergy to exert congregational leadership and perform sacraments in those congregations (though the extent and form of that assistance vary widely).
Second, denominations provide a means for congregations, clergy, and individual Christians to collaborate in joint ministry. This joint ministry can include everything from evangelistic campaigns to mission organizations to pension systems to publishing efforts to colleges. The list goes on. These joint ministries are in many ways the most visible part of the denomination, since they are the most numerous and link individual congregations on the most regular basis.
Hence, there are at least four components to denominations and thus denominational unity: theology, authority, clergy, and joint ministry.
What makes the question of unity in modern denominations complicated is that unity or disunity in one area does not necessary, but may, imply unity or disunity in another area. This observation holds both within and between denominations. For instance, the UMC’s full communion agreement with the ELCA recognizes unity in clergy and sacraments and some theological unity without implying any unity in authority or joint ministry or complete theological unity.
Thus, it is possible for a denomination to be simultaneously united and in a state of disunity. In the UMC, there has been long-standing disunity on theological understandings of homosexuality and related theological questions. In recent years, these have increasingly been translated into disunity regarding clergy (Can LGBTQ+ persons be ordained?) and authority (What authority do Boards of Ordained Ministry, bishops, and clergy have to make case-by-case decisions in disputes about ministry with and by LGBTQ+ persons?).
The situation in which the UMC currently finds itself is asking to what extent the existing theological, clergy, and authority disunity should be formalized and whether and to what extent these forms of disunity will cause disunity in the joint ministry of United Methodists. The answers to these questions are complicated not just because there are strongly held theological differences, but because it is unclear what this theological disunity should mean for other functions of a denomination and, furthermore, because the answer might be different for different functions.
Among the components of denominational unity, shared authority and clergy are the most basic. Shared authority and mutually recognized clergy are both necessary and sufficient for a group of Christians to function as a denomination. It is possible to do joint ministry through interdenominational (or nondenominational) means. Theological debates always exist within denominations, to some extent and on some issues, though they are often what motivate people to sunder the basic unity of shared authority and mutually recognized clergy.
Another way to ask the questions facing the UMC, then is to what extent theological disagreement necessitates ceasing to share common authority structures and mutually recognition of clergy, and if so, to what extent continued joint ministry in a newly interdenominational sense is possible.
Thus, there is a range of options for the UMC from complete separation (formalized disunity in all four areas) to confederated churches (formalized theological, authority, and clergy disunity, with continued unity in joint ministry and possibly some continued shared authority and clergy) to continued existence as a single denomination (with unity in authority, clergy, and joint ministry despite theological differences). At play here are not just individuals’ theological beliefs about sexuality but their understandings of the nature of unity and the nature of denominations. It makes for a complicated debate, but one that will be interesting to watch.
Unity has been much on the minds of United Methodists lately. There has been extensive discussion (including by me on this blog) of the theological and spiritual grounds of unity. There has not been as much attention paid to what unity looks like in functional, organizational terms.
First, it is important to note that unity need not be taken in a structural sense. It is possible to have spiritual unity with fellow Christians from other denominations, and that is real unity. Nevertheless, since the question at hand is the question of the unity of The United Methodist Church, a particular Christian denomination, it is worth thinking about what structural unity means for a denomination.
The question of what unity means functionally and organizationally for a denomination is actually a complicated one, given the complicated nature of modern denominations.
Many might assume that denominations are primarily about setting doctrinal standards. Here perhaps echoes of the recently observed 500th anniversary of the Reformation ring in people’s ears. The Reformation was about debates over beliefs, so denominations must be about belief, right? Yet while setting doctrine is (at least in many cases) one function of denominations, it is not the only one.
Another function of denominations is establishing systems of authority. The Reformation, especially the English Reformation, was as much about questioning the pope’s authority as it was about doctrine. Denominational structures indicate who has authority to make what decisions in the common life of a group of Christians. Those decisions may or may not be related to doctrine.
While it is easy to see the roots of denominations in the Reformation, the modern denomination as an organizational form was perfected in the United States. Here, denominations have taken on at least two additional functions.
First, denominations serve to credential clergy and connect clergy and congregations. They define a pool of Christians designated as clergy who are commissioned to perform sacraments. Denominations also provide some assistance to congregations in helping identify credentialed clergy to exert congregational leadership and perform sacraments in those congregations (though the extent and form of that assistance vary widely).
Second, denominations provide a means for congregations, clergy, and individual Christians to collaborate in joint ministry. This joint ministry can include everything from evangelistic campaigns to mission organizations to pension systems to publishing efforts to colleges. The list goes on. These joint ministries are in many ways the most visible part of the denomination, since they are the most numerous and link individual congregations on the most regular basis.
Hence, there are at least four components to denominations and thus denominational unity: theology, authority, clergy, and joint ministry.
What makes the question of unity in modern denominations complicated is that unity or disunity in one area does not necessary, but may, imply unity or disunity in another area. This observation holds both within and between denominations. For instance, the UMC’s full communion agreement with the ELCA recognizes unity in clergy and sacraments and some theological unity without implying any unity in authority or joint ministry or complete theological unity.
Thus, it is possible for a denomination to be simultaneously united and in a state of disunity. In the UMC, there has been long-standing disunity on theological understandings of homosexuality and related theological questions. In recent years, these have increasingly been translated into disunity regarding clergy (Can LGBTQ+ persons be ordained?) and authority (What authority do Boards of Ordained Ministry, bishops, and clergy have to make case-by-case decisions in disputes about ministry with and by LGBTQ+ persons?).
The situation in which the UMC currently finds itself is asking to what extent the existing theological, clergy, and authority disunity should be formalized and whether and to what extent these forms of disunity will cause disunity in the joint ministry of United Methodists. The answers to these questions are complicated not just because there are strongly held theological differences, but because it is unclear what this theological disunity should mean for other functions of a denomination and, furthermore, because the answer might be different for different functions.
Among the components of denominational unity, shared authority and clergy are the most basic. Shared authority and mutually recognized clergy are both necessary and sufficient for a group of Christians to function as a denomination. It is possible to do joint ministry through interdenominational (or nondenominational) means. Theological debates always exist within denominations, to some extent and on some issues, though they are often what motivate people to sunder the basic unity of shared authority and mutually recognized clergy.
Another way to ask the questions facing the UMC, then is to what extent theological disagreement necessitates ceasing to share common authority structures and mutually recognition of clergy, and if so, to what extent continued joint ministry in a newly interdenominational sense is possible.
Thus, there is a range of options for the UMC from complete separation (formalized disunity in all four areas) to confederated churches (formalized theological, authority, and clergy disunity, with continued unity in joint ministry and possibly some continued shared authority and clergy) to continued existence as a single denomination (with unity in authority, clergy, and joint ministry despite theological differences). At play here are not just individuals’ theological beliefs about sexuality but their understandings of the nature of unity and the nature of denominations. It makes for a complicated debate, but one that will be interesting to watch.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
55 Futures for the UMC
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
The Council of Bishops has released their initial comments on the midterm report of the Commission on a Way Forward. They have indicated that they are considering three options for the future of The United Methodist Church in the face of its long-standing and increasingly divisive debate over homosexuality and the roles of LGBTQ+ people in the church.
Two of the three options seem fairly clear at this point, but the third option could entail a variety of distinct scenarios. This post will present three such scenarios. Taking each of these different scenarios as a distinct proposal, that leads to five possible proposals from the Commission and the Council of Bishops.
As I will then detail, each of these five proposals could then meet with six possible responses from the called General Conference in 2019, all but one of which would presumably need to be voted on by the annual conferences, which could ratify or reject the special General Conference’s action.
That gives at least 55 options still on the table for the future of the denomination (5*5*2 + 5*1). It’s a large number, and the ultimate outcome may not be evident until sometime in 2020.
The first option the Council of Bishops indicated is “a model [that] affirms the current Book of Discipline language and places a high value on accountability.” Presumably this means harsher penalties for those who disobey existing provisions against ordaining LGBTQ+ persons or performing gay marriages, which would lead to a purging of progressives from the denomination.
The second option mentioned is “a model [that] removes restrictive language and places a high value on contextualization. This sketch also specifically protects the rights of those whose conscience will not allow them to perform same gender weddings or ordain LGBTQ persons.” This seems to be the much-discussed “local option,” which would leave decisions about ordination to annual conferences and gay marriages to individual pastors and churches.
The third option is “a model [that] is grounded in a unified core that includes shared doctrine and services and one COB, while also creating different branches that have clearly defined values such as accountability, contextualization and justice.” It is not clear what exactly, this option would entail, but I can anticipate at least three possibilities:
1. A split into confederated churches – The United Methodist Church would split into two or more denominations with different stances on homosexuality. The two (or more) denominations would enter into an ecumenical agreement to mutually recognize members and, when they meet requirements, ministers. The two denominations would also continue to support joint ministries through shared boards and agencies and collaborative committees. The degree of collaboration and cooperation is a big question in this option. Another big question is whether the split would apply to any branches of The United Methodist Church outside the US.
2. US geographic central conferences – The five US jurisdictions (or some other configuration of geographic areas) become central conferences. Central conferences have the power to adapt portions of the Book of Discipline. Sexuality is placed in that portion to allow some parts of the church to maintain a traditional stance, others to adopt an affirming stance, and perhaps others to choose a local option. Presumably central conferences outside the US would have this option, too, though other than possibly parts of Europe, it seems unlikely any would.
3. US theological central conferences – The US is divided into central conferences, as above, but rather than rely on geography as a proxy for theology, the central conferences are explicitly based on theological convictions over sexuality.
Of these three, the first seems most likely, but the latter two may still be possibilities.
The bishops also indicated that whichever proposal they put forward will include a “gracious way of exit for those who feel called to exit from the denomination.” This pressure-valve release, if you will, allows a strongly dissenting minority to leave the denomination, presumably through relaxation of the trust clause, thus allowing congregations to take their church property with them.
Whichever of these five (two clearly indicated and three possible) proposals the Commission on a Way Forward and Council of Bishops ultimately recommend; General Conference will then need to vote on the recommendation. Again, there are several different possibilities for what the General Conference will do.
1. General Conference approves proposal – This is the most straight-forward scenario, though not necessarily what will happen.
2. General Conference significantly alters proposal – The bishops put forward a proposal, but General Conference delegates are not completely happy with it. They significantly alter the details of the proposal (especially possible if it’s one of the confederated church or US central conference proposals).
3. General Conference rejects proposal, approves alternative model indicated by bishops – Instead of merely changing the bishops’ recommendation, the General Conference may reject it in favor of a completely different proposal, substituting one of the other three models mentioned by the Council of Bishops.
4. General Conference rejects proposal, approves completely different plan – Instead of substituting one of the other three models mentioned by the Council of Bishops, General Conference could approve a completely different option not considered by the bishops, up to and including a full division of the denomination into two or more unconnected successors.
5. General Conference rejects proposal, implements only pressure value release – The General Conference could decide to keep the system as it is, yet seek to rid itself of those most discontented with the current system. Accommodations could be made for those on either side of the debate who wish to leave the denomination to do so.
6. General Conference rejects proposal, takes no alternative action – Varying interest groups, based either on theology or geography could oppose the plan put forward by the bishops. The plan could fail to garner sufficient votes to pass. However, because of the divided nature of the church, no other plan may win sufficient votes to pass, especially if it requires constitutional amendment. The called General Conference would end without any action being taken.
The first five of these possible General Conference actions would presumably involve changes to the UMC’s constitution. If so, such changes would need to be ratified by the annual conferences. Annual conferences, then, would vote on any General Conference-approved plan and could either ratify or reject it. It is certainly possible that even if a plan is approved by General Conference, opposition to it could build afterward, leading annual conferences to reject it. This may be especially likely if General Conference approves something other than what the bishops recommend.
It is unclear whether such annual conference ratification on a plan approved by General Conference in February of 2019 could begin with the American annual conference season in June 2019. Such a time-table would allow all annual conferences around the world to vote before the 2020 regular General Conference. (Some European annual conferences meeting in spring 2020 would be the last to vote.) General Conference 2020 could then take further action to implement the decisions of the prior year, if ratified. It is also possible ratification voting may not begin until fall 2019, with the final votes coming at American annual conferences in June 2020, after the May 2020 regular General Conference, though that seems ill-timed.
The last possible General Conference action, taking no action, would of course not require ratification by the annual conference. If this happened, it is not clear where the denomination would go from there. It is likely that, General Conference having failed to address the denomination’s impasse on sexuality, individual annual conferences and caucus groups like the WCA would implement their own plans for the future of their particular constituencies. Such plans are likely to be conflicting.
While it is unclear which of these 55 roads the church will go down, what is clear is that we are still several years away from knowing the ultimate fate of The United Methodist Church.
The Council of Bishops has released their initial comments on the midterm report of the Commission on a Way Forward. They have indicated that they are considering three options for the future of The United Methodist Church in the face of its long-standing and increasingly divisive debate over homosexuality and the roles of LGBTQ+ people in the church.
Two of the three options seem fairly clear at this point, but the third option could entail a variety of distinct scenarios. This post will present three such scenarios. Taking each of these different scenarios as a distinct proposal, that leads to five possible proposals from the Commission and the Council of Bishops.
As I will then detail, each of these five proposals could then meet with six possible responses from the called General Conference in 2019, all but one of which would presumably need to be voted on by the annual conferences, which could ratify or reject the special General Conference’s action.
That gives at least 55 options still on the table for the future of the denomination (5*5*2 + 5*1). It’s a large number, and the ultimate outcome may not be evident until sometime in 2020.
The first option the Council of Bishops indicated is “a model [that] affirms the current Book of Discipline language and places a high value on accountability.” Presumably this means harsher penalties for those who disobey existing provisions against ordaining LGBTQ+ persons or performing gay marriages, which would lead to a purging of progressives from the denomination.
The second option mentioned is “a model [that] removes restrictive language and places a high value on contextualization. This sketch also specifically protects the rights of those whose conscience will not allow them to perform same gender weddings or ordain LGBTQ persons.” This seems to be the much-discussed “local option,” which would leave decisions about ordination to annual conferences and gay marriages to individual pastors and churches.
The third option is “a model [that] is grounded in a unified core that includes shared doctrine and services and one COB, while also creating different branches that have clearly defined values such as accountability, contextualization and justice.” It is not clear what exactly, this option would entail, but I can anticipate at least three possibilities:
1. A split into confederated churches – The United Methodist Church would split into two or more denominations with different stances on homosexuality. The two (or more) denominations would enter into an ecumenical agreement to mutually recognize members and, when they meet requirements, ministers. The two denominations would also continue to support joint ministries through shared boards and agencies and collaborative committees. The degree of collaboration and cooperation is a big question in this option. Another big question is whether the split would apply to any branches of The United Methodist Church outside the US.
2. US geographic central conferences – The five US jurisdictions (or some other configuration of geographic areas) become central conferences. Central conferences have the power to adapt portions of the Book of Discipline. Sexuality is placed in that portion to allow some parts of the church to maintain a traditional stance, others to adopt an affirming stance, and perhaps others to choose a local option. Presumably central conferences outside the US would have this option, too, though other than possibly parts of Europe, it seems unlikely any would.
3. US theological central conferences – The US is divided into central conferences, as above, but rather than rely on geography as a proxy for theology, the central conferences are explicitly based on theological convictions over sexuality.
Of these three, the first seems most likely, but the latter two may still be possibilities.
The bishops also indicated that whichever proposal they put forward will include a “gracious way of exit for those who feel called to exit from the denomination.” This pressure-valve release, if you will, allows a strongly dissenting minority to leave the denomination, presumably through relaxation of the trust clause, thus allowing congregations to take their church property with them.
Whichever of these five (two clearly indicated and three possible) proposals the Commission on a Way Forward and Council of Bishops ultimately recommend; General Conference will then need to vote on the recommendation. Again, there are several different possibilities for what the General Conference will do.
1. General Conference approves proposal – This is the most straight-forward scenario, though not necessarily what will happen.
2. General Conference significantly alters proposal – The bishops put forward a proposal, but General Conference delegates are not completely happy with it. They significantly alter the details of the proposal (especially possible if it’s one of the confederated church or US central conference proposals).
3. General Conference rejects proposal, approves alternative model indicated by bishops – Instead of merely changing the bishops’ recommendation, the General Conference may reject it in favor of a completely different proposal, substituting one of the other three models mentioned by the Council of Bishops.
4. General Conference rejects proposal, approves completely different plan – Instead of substituting one of the other three models mentioned by the Council of Bishops, General Conference could approve a completely different option not considered by the bishops, up to and including a full division of the denomination into two or more unconnected successors.
5. General Conference rejects proposal, implements only pressure value release – The General Conference could decide to keep the system as it is, yet seek to rid itself of those most discontented with the current system. Accommodations could be made for those on either side of the debate who wish to leave the denomination to do so.
6. General Conference rejects proposal, takes no alternative action – Varying interest groups, based either on theology or geography could oppose the plan put forward by the bishops. The plan could fail to garner sufficient votes to pass. However, because of the divided nature of the church, no other plan may win sufficient votes to pass, especially if it requires constitutional amendment. The called General Conference would end without any action being taken.
The first five of these possible General Conference actions would presumably involve changes to the UMC’s constitution. If so, such changes would need to be ratified by the annual conferences. Annual conferences, then, would vote on any General Conference-approved plan and could either ratify or reject it. It is certainly possible that even if a plan is approved by General Conference, opposition to it could build afterward, leading annual conferences to reject it. This may be especially likely if General Conference approves something other than what the bishops recommend.
It is unclear whether such annual conference ratification on a plan approved by General Conference in February of 2019 could begin with the American annual conference season in June 2019. Such a time-table would allow all annual conferences around the world to vote before the 2020 regular General Conference. (Some European annual conferences meeting in spring 2020 would be the last to vote.) General Conference 2020 could then take further action to implement the decisions of the prior year, if ratified. It is also possible ratification voting may not begin until fall 2019, with the final votes coming at American annual conferences in June 2020, after the May 2020 regular General Conference, though that seems ill-timed.
The last possible General Conference action, taking no action, would of course not require ratification by the annual conference. If this happened, it is not clear where the denomination would go from there. It is likely that, General Conference having failed to address the denomination’s impasse on sexuality, individual annual conferences and caucus groups like the WCA would implement their own plans for the future of their particular constituencies. Such plans are likely to be conflicting.
While it is unclear which of these 55 roads the church will go down, what is clear is that we are still several years away from knowing the ultimate fate of The United Methodist Church.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Report on GBHEM Colloquy on Missio Dei and the United States
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.
I had the honor of participating earlier this week in the Colloquy event organized by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. The colloquy was a meeting of United Methodist seminary professors and bishops (and me). The theme for this event was "Missio Dei and the United States: Toward a Faithful United Methodist Witness." I will provide some reflections on the colloquy as I experienced it. These, of course, will not reflect the experiences of all others at the event.
As the colloquy began, there was confusion about the purpose of the event. The stated goal of the colloquy was "to engage United Methodist scholars and bishops in constructive dialogue that will open new pathways in our understanding and faithful practice of the Missio Dei. During the colloquy, participants will explore the future of the church from a missional perspective, and examine how to reengage our Wesleyan heritage to participate in the Missio Dei."
Because of the phrase "the future of the church" and because the first GBHEM colloquy in the spring was directly tied to the work of the Commission on A Way Forward, many participants and attendees assumed that this colloquy was also intended to be directly tied to the Commission's work and the status of LGBTQ+ persons in the church. GBHEM staff clarified that this colloquy was not designed to feed into the work of the Commission; the bishops had asked for it as a separate resource for the UMC in the US.
In part because of this confusion, there were at least four different conversations happening within the colloquy: a conversation about the status of LGBTQ+ persons, a conversation about decline and pathways to revitalization in the denomination, a conversation about the general theological content of missio Dei as a term, and a conversation about specific practices of mission and ministry or specific applications of the concept of missio Dei. These four conversations frequently intersected but were nonetheless to some extent distinct.
Moreover, within these four conversations, participants spoke with a wide variety of voices based on their social location, theological presuppositions, contexts of ministry, racial and ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, and personal scholarly interests. Again, there were intersections, but participants at times seemed to struggle in articulating convergences among the many voices.
What emerged instead were three broad areas of concern, articulated by Dr. Anne Wimberly: polity, especially as it relates to the roles of LGBTQ+ persons in the church; theology; and practices of ministry. While GBHEM will continue to process the insights shared around these three points, there did not seem to be overriding consensus on what the missio Dei meant for the future of The United Methodist Church within these three areas.
Two other points of convergence did, however, emerge, though not around the meaning of missio Dei or a shared vision for the future of the church.
The first point of convergence was an appreciation to GBHEM for having brought together this group of scholars and bishops for conversation, even if those conversations were at times difficult and painful. Many participants affirmed the need for the academy and the church to be in deeper relationship and more frequent conversation with each other.
The second point of convergence was around a spiritual posture implied by missio Dei, one of humility and listening. These two points came up frequently in discussions around all three broad topic areas: polity, theology, and practices of ministry. Humility and listening are not a program in any of these three areas, but they are perhaps an important prerequisite for hearing and responding to the missio Dei.
Relationship, humility, and listening may not seem like much, and for those who were hoping for specific programmatic recommendations or a shared theological framework to come out of the colloquy, it may have seemed like a failure. Yet we should not scorn such elements of deepened spirituality. They may indeed be exactly where God is leading us in God's mission.
I had the honor of participating earlier this week in the Colloquy event organized by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. The colloquy was a meeting of United Methodist seminary professors and bishops (and me). The theme for this event was "Missio Dei and the United States: Toward a Faithful United Methodist Witness." I will provide some reflections on the colloquy as I experienced it. These, of course, will not reflect the experiences of all others at the event.
As the colloquy began, there was confusion about the purpose of the event. The stated goal of the colloquy was "to engage United Methodist scholars and bishops in constructive dialogue that will open new pathways in our understanding and faithful practice of the Missio Dei. During the colloquy, participants will explore the future of the church from a missional perspective, and examine how to reengage our Wesleyan heritage to participate in the Missio Dei."
Because of the phrase "the future of the church" and because the first GBHEM colloquy in the spring was directly tied to the work of the Commission on A Way Forward, many participants and attendees assumed that this colloquy was also intended to be directly tied to the Commission's work and the status of LGBTQ+ persons in the church. GBHEM staff clarified that this colloquy was not designed to feed into the work of the Commission; the bishops had asked for it as a separate resource for the UMC in the US.
In part because of this confusion, there were at least four different conversations happening within the colloquy: a conversation about the status of LGBTQ+ persons, a conversation about decline and pathways to revitalization in the denomination, a conversation about the general theological content of missio Dei as a term, and a conversation about specific practices of mission and ministry or specific applications of the concept of missio Dei. These four conversations frequently intersected but were nonetheless to some extent distinct.
Moreover, within these four conversations, participants spoke with a wide variety of voices based on their social location, theological presuppositions, contexts of ministry, racial and ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, and personal scholarly interests. Again, there were intersections, but participants at times seemed to struggle in articulating convergences among the many voices.
What emerged instead were three broad areas of concern, articulated by Dr. Anne Wimberly: polity, especially as it relates to the roles of LGBTQ+ persons in the church; theology; and practices of ministry. While GBHEM will continue to process the insights shared around these three points, there did not seem to be overriding consensus on what the missio Dei meant for the future of The United Methodist Church within these three areas.
Two other points of convergence did, however, emerge, though not around the meaning of missio Dei or a shared vision for the future of the church.
The first point of convergence was an appreciation to GBHEM for having brought together this group of scholars and bishops for conversation, even if those conversations were at times difficult and painful. Many participants affirmed the need for the academy and the church to be in deeper relationship and more frequent conversation with each other.
The second point of convergence was around a spiritual posture implied by missio Dei, one of humility and listening. These two points came up frequently in discussions around all three broad topic areas: polity, theology, and practices of ministry. Humility and listening are not a program in any of these three areas, but they are perhaps an important prerequisite for hearing and responding to the missio Dei.
Relationship, humility, and listening may not seem like much, and for those who were hoping for specific programmatic recommendations or a shared theological framework to come out of the colloquy, it may have seemed like a failure. Yet we should not scorn such elements of deepened spirituality. They may indeed be exactly where God is leading us in God's mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)