Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Monday, February 12, 2018
Recommended reading: Lisa Beth White on #MyHope4Methodism
United Methodist missiologist and UM & Global contributor Rev. Lisa Beth White has published a recent piece entitled "Cross-Cultural Short-Term Mission" on her blog, Sister of Hope Ministries, in which she picks up on our series on #MyHope4Methodism. In particular, Rev. White interacts with Robert Hunt's piece in that series and uses it to reflect on the role of culture in short-term mission trips. Rev. White's piece is well worth reading.
Friday, February 9, 2018
Phil Wingeier-Rayo: A reflection on the Methodist Church in Cuba on the occasion of its 50th anniversary
This is the second of a four-part blog by Rev. Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Methodist Studies at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, that will discuss the work of the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the formation of The United Methodist Church.
Arguably no mission church faced a more difficult path to autonomy than the Methodist Church in Cuba. Before 1960 a group of Cuban leaders had conversations with the Methodist Mission Board about autonomy, but the response that came back from New York was that the Cuban church was not ready. At the time of the revolution in 1959 there were 54 U.S. missionaries, 108 churches, and 51 Cuban pastors with 9,209 members of the Methodist Church.[1]
However, Fidel Castro and his group of rebels claimed power on the island on January 1, 1959, when dictator Fulgencio Batista fled the country and change happened quickly. Many Cubans were excited about the revolutionary goals of land reform, education, and health care for all. Most Christians were sympathetic with these egalitarian goals and nationalistic sentiments, as were the majority of the population. The problems with church-state relations began when Castro declared the Revolution to be socialist on the eve of the Bay of Pigs invasion on April 17, 1961. The United States had broken off diplomatic ties with the island three months earlier and imposed an economic embargo.
There was a growing spirit of nationalism in Cuba and anti-American sentiments. Cuban Methodists were being stigmatized for being pro-U.S. and the presence of American missionaries contributed to this sentiment. In 1961 the Board of Missions recalled all the missionaries back to the U.S. for their safety and for the well-being of the work in Cuba. Indeed the revolutionary Cuban government took over the 22 Methodist schools and universities, six clinics and campground. Many people thought the church buildings would be next.
Some missionaries invited their favorite Cuban pastors and helped them escape to the United States. Later in the 1960s the Cuban government organized a Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Produccion (UMAP) where several counterrevolutionaries, gays and religious, including some Methodist pastors and lay leaders, were lumped together as “anti-socials” and placed in forced work camps to be “re-oriented.” Eventually all but eight of the Cuban pastors would flee the country and only three of them were ordained elders.[2] How was the church to survive with only eight pastors for over 100 churches? Certainly Cuba’s path to autonomy was challenging but it is also a tribute to the power of the Holy Spirit that is an example for all of Methodism.
The Process toward Autonomy
Methodism in Cuba had historically been a missionary conference under the episcopal area of Florida. In 1923 the Cuban Annual Conference was formed with the bishop of Florida as the presiding bishop. Before 1960 Cubans considered autonomy but were told that the church wasn’t ready. Finally under strained U.S.-Cuban diplomatic relations the bishop from Florida was unable to travel to Cuba in December 1963 to conduct annual conference, and the Cuban superintendent Rev. Angel Fuster, did all the appointments.
As a result, the Cuban leaders wrote a letter to the 1964 General Conference requesting autonomy. General Conference responded by asking them to submit drafts for consideration of their own Book of Discipline and Articles of Faith to the COSMOS commission. These were received and reviewed by COSMOS during the quadrennium and the recommendation went forward to the 1968 General Conference that the Methodist Church in Cuba become an affiliated autonomous church.
In the interim, the Cuban church was facing more adversity. Lacking trained pastors and confronting the growing anti-religious sentiment, the Methodist Church faced an extremely challenging period in the early 1960s. Not only was the church weakened through emigration, in addition many lay people left the church for greater opportunity or out of loyalty to the revolution.[3] The membership dropped to 5,000 in the mid-1960s.[4] The membership continued to drop to the low-point of 1,800 in 1973.[5]
Nevertheless, there was a faithful remnant. The District Superintendent of Cuba’s Oriente region, Rev. Armando Rodriguez, had trained a group of young men and women to be lay missioners. As the churches were being left without pastors, he asked this group to replace those pastors who had left. Lacking theological education and experience, these young lay people heroically served those churches, often living on the premises, thus protecting church property from vandalism and confiscation.[6]
Not only had the U.S. missionaries been recalled, leaving a leadership vacuum, but the Cuban church was also facing a financial crisis. They had been receiving nearly 70 percent of their financial resources from the United States, and had also lost the income generated from Methodist schools after their nationalization by the Revolution. In July 1963, Rev. Angel Fuster, president of the Cuban Annual Conference, received the news from the head of the Latin America desk of the Methodist Mission Board, Dr. Eugene Stockwell, that financial support could no longer be disbursed due to the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
In response the Cuban cabinet proposed three options: 1) lay off half the pastors (those who enjoyed less seniority), 2) ask the revolutionary government for compensation for the nationalized properties, or 3) request the local churches to send apportionments to the national church. The Cuban leadership valiantly chose the third option and sent pledge cards requesting all the members to tithe their support. They received 3,000 financial commitments within two months the national church was solvent.[7] The early enthusiasm and nationalistic spirit also influenced the church leaders’ desire to be independent.[8] Financial self-sufficiency prepared the groundwork for autonomy.
In late 1966 Superintendent Rev. Angel Fuster traveled to a World Methodist meeting in Ireland and stopped in Miami on his way home to visit two daughters. On January 5, 1967 he died in Miami from injuries sustained in an automobile accent. The following year, February 1-4, 1968, the Cuban church held its founding annual conference and honored Rev. Fuster as the first Cuban bishop elected posthumously. Then they elected Rev. Armando Rodriguez the first active bishop of the Cuban Annual Conference, but the Cuban government did not grant a visa to an outside bishop to consecrate him. Finally, a week later, Bishop Alejandro Ruiz was allowed to come from Mexico and consecrated Rev. Armando Rodriguez. All this was subject to the pending approval of the General Conference in April later that year.
In spite of losing most of its clergy to emigration, the financial crisis, decline in membership and tense church-state relations in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the Methodist Church in Cuba has not only survived, but has actually has thrived. Today the Methodist Church in Cuba retains its affiliated autonomous relationship to the UMC and has approximately 43,000 members, which is more than four times its 1959 membership and has 400 churches with 1,000 other mission sites.[9]
One of the concerns discussed about affiliated autonomous churches is that they would become so nationalistic that they would not want to relate back to the U.S. However, Cuban Methodism continues to have many partnerships with monthly Volunteer in Mission teams, and prayer partnerships with the Florida Annual Conference and many sister churches.
On Saturday, February 10th at 7:00pm there will be a celebration held at the Iglesia North Hialeah, 5559 Palm Avenue in Miami in honor of 50 years of Cuba Methodist autonomy.
[1] Clyde W. Taylor, Protestant Missions in Latin America: A Statistical Survey , Washington: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1961, p.110.
Arguably no mission church faced a more difficult path to autonomy than the Methodist Church in Cuba. Before 1960 a group of Cuban leaders had conversations with the Methodist Mission Board about autonomy, but the response that came back from New York was that the Cuban church was not ready. At the time of the revolution in 1959 there were 54 U.S. missionaries, 108 churches, and 51 Cuban pastors with 9,209 members of the Methodist Church.[1]
However, Fidel Castro and his group of rebels claimed power on the island on January 1, 1959, when dictator Fulgencio Batista fled the country and change happened quickly. Many Cubans were excited about the revolutionary goals of land reform, education, and health care for all. Most Christians were sympathetic with these egalitarian goals and nationalistic sentiments, as were the majority of the population. The problems with church-state relations began when Castro declared the Revolution to be socialist on the eve of the Bay of Pigs invasion on April 17, 1961. The United States had broken off diplomatic ties with the island three months earlier and imposed an economic embargo.
There was a growing spirit of nationalism in Cuba and anti-American sentiments. Cuban Methodists were being stigmatized for being pro-U.S. and the presence of American missionaries contributed to this sentiment. In 1961 the Board of Missions recalled all the missionaries back to the U.S. for their safety and for the well-being of the work in Cuba. Indeed the revolutionary Cuban government took over the 22 Methodist schools and universities, six clinics and campground. Many people thought the church buildings would be next.
Some missionaries invited their favorite Cuban pastors and helped them escape to the United States. Later in the 1960s the Cuban government organized a Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Produccion (UMAP) where several counterrevolutionaries, gays and religious, including some Methodist pastors and lay leaders, were lumped together as “anti-socials” and placed in forced work camps to be “re-oriented.” Eventually all but eight of the Cuban pastors would flee the country and only three of them were ordained elders.[2] How was the church to survive with only eight pastors for over 100 churches? Certainly Cuba’s path to autonomy was challenging but it is also a tribute to the power of the Holy Spirit that is an example for all of Methodism.
The Process toward Autonomy
Methodism in Cuba had historically been a missionary conference under the episcopal area of Florida. In 1923 the Cuban Annual Conference was formed with the bishop of Florida as the presiding bishop. Before 1960 Cubans considered autonomy but were told that the church wasn’t ready. Finally under strained U.S.-Cuban diplomatic relations the bishop from Florida was unable to travel to Cuba in December 1963 to conduct annual conference, and the Cuban superintendent Rev. Angel Fuster, did all the appointments.
As a result, the Cuban leaders wrote a letter to the 1964 General Conference requesting autonomy. General Conference responded by asking them to submit drafts for consideration of their own Book of Discipline and Articles of Faith to the COSMOS commission. These were received and reviewed by COSMOS during the quadrennium and the recommendation went forward to the 1968 General Conference that the Methodist Church in Cuba become an affiliated autonomous church.
In the interim, the Cuban church was facing more adversity. Lacking trained pastors and confronting the growing anti-religious sentiment, the Methodist Church faced an extremely challenging period in the early 1960s. Not only was the church weakened through emigration, in addition many lay people left the church for greater opportunity or out of loyalty to the revolution.[3] The membership dropped to 5,000 in the mid-1960s.[4] The membership continued to drop to the low-point of 1,800 in 1973.[5]
Nevertheless, there was a faithful remnant. The District Superintendent of Cuba’s Oriente region, Rev. Armando Rodriguez, had trained a group of young men and women to be lay missioners. As the churches were being left without pastors, he asked this group to replace those pastors who had left. Lacking theological education and experience, these young lay people heroically served those churches, often living on the premises, thus protecting church property from vandalism and confiscation.[6]
Not only had the U.S. missionaries been recalled, leaving a leadership vacuum, but the Cuban church was also facing a financial crisis. They had been receiving nearly 70 percent of their financial resources from the United States, and had also lost the income generated from Methodist schools after their nationalization by the Revolution. In July 1963, Rev. Angel Fuster, president of the Cuban Annual Conference, received the news from the head of the Latin America desk of the Methodist Mission Board, Dr. Eugene Stockwell, that financial support could no longer be disbursed due to the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
In response the Cuban cabinet proposed three options: 1) lay off half the pastors (those who enjoyed less seniority), 2) ask the revolutionary government for compensation for the nationalized properties, or 3) request the local churches to send apportionments to the national church. The Cuban leadership valiantly chose the third option and sent pledge cards requesting all the members to tithe their support. They received 3,000 financial commitments within two months the national church was solvent.[7] The early enthusiasm and nationalistic spirit also influenced the church leaders’ desire to be independent.[8] Financial self-sufficiency prepared the groundwork for autonomy.
In late 1966 Superintendent Rev. Angel Fuster traveled to a World Methodist meeting in Ireland and stopped in Miami on his way home to visit two daughters. On January 5, 1967 he died in Miami from injuries sustained in an automobile accent. The following year, February 1-4, 1968, the Cuban church held its founding annual conference and honored Rev. Fuster as the first Cuban bishop elected posthumously. Then they elected Rev. Armando Rodriguez the first active bishop of the Cuban Annual Conference, but the Cuban government did not grant a visa to an outside bishop to consecrate him. Finally, a week later, Bishop Alejandro Ruiz was allowed to come from Mexico and consecrated Rev. Armando Rodriguez. All this was subject to the pending approval of the General Conference in April later that year.
In spite of losing most of its clergy to emigration, the financial crisis, decline in membership and tense church-state relations in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the Methodist Church in Cuba has not only survived, but has actually has thrived. Today the Methodist Church in Cuba retains its affiliated autonomous relationship to the UMC and has approximately 43,000 members, which is more than four times its 1959 membership and has 400 churches with 1,000 other mission sites.[9]
One of the concerns discussed about affiliated autonomous churches is that they would become so nationalistic that they would not want to relate back to the U.S. However, Cuban Methodism continues to have many partnerships with monthly Volunteer in Mission teams, and prayer partnerships with the Florida Annual Conference and many sister churches.
On Saturday, February 10th at 7:00pm there will be a celebration held at the Iglesia North Hialeah, 5559 Palm Avenue in Miami in honor of 50 years of Cuba Methodist autonomy.
[1] Clyde W. Taylor, Protestant Missions in Latin America: A Statistical Survey , Washington: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1961, p.110.
[2] Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Cuban Methodism: The Untold Story of Survival and Revival, Atlanta, GA: Dolphins & Orchids, 2006, 67.
[3] Shawn Malone, “Conflict, Coexistence, and Cooperation: Church-State Relations in Cuba,” The Cuba Project, Center for Latin American Studies, Georgetown
University, August 1996, 2.
[4] Clyde W. Taylor, Protestant Missions in Latin America: A Statistical Survey , Washington: Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, 1961, 110.
[5] According to church statistician Generoso Pérez. Email with Rev. Rinaldo Hernandez, February 1, 2018.
[6] Telephone conversation with Bishop Armando Rodriguez, Sr., February 1, 2018.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Linda
Bloom, “Cuban Methodists Are Packing the Pews,” UMNS, January 31, 2017.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Phil Wingeier-Rayo: The work of the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS)
This is the first of a four-part blog by Rev. Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Methodist Studies at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, that will discuss the work of the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the formation of The United Methodist Church.
1968 was a momentous year of change in recent history. The time of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S., Black Power, and growing nationalistic independence and self-determination movements around the world. The Vietnam war was well underway with greater U.S. involvement. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in April and June, respectively, and the Soviet Union repressed a group of protesters in Czechoslovakia, which became known as the Prague Spring. It was also an important year of the space race with implications for the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. In Mexico a protest rally was met by the army killing 300-400 students on October 2nd, just 10 days before the world descended on Mexico for the 1968 Olympics. The Latin American Council of Roman Catholic Bishops met in Medellin, Colombia to interpret the changes of the Second Vatican Council to their context making a “preferential option for the poor.”
A lesser known, but nonetheless significant event in Methodist circles was the decision of Cuban Methodists to become autonomous from Methodists in the U.S. The first Cuban bishop, Rev. Armando Rodriguez, was consecrated 50 years ago on February 11, 1968.
This coming Saturday, February 10th at 7:00pm there will be a celebration held at the Iglesia North Hialeah, 5559 Palm Ave. in Miami in recognition of 50 years of Cuba Methodist autonomy.
An Early Vision of Autonomy for Mission Churches
Early missionaries and mission executives envisioned all international mission churches would become autonomous. Pioneer Methodist missionary to India, Bishop James Thoburn, wrote in 1893:
While Bishop Thoburn (1836-1922) was writing about Asia, his findings and beliefs were relevant for mission everywhere.
Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas
At the same time as the world was changing in the 1960s, the Methodist Church in America was also going through some internal changes. The denomination was having conversations internally to integrate the all-African American Central Jurisdiction and externally to merge with the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) Church. In addition to these eventualities, the 1964 General Conference commissioned the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) to “study the structure and supervision of the Methodist Church in its work outside the United States…and prepare recommendations as it considers necessary for presentation to the General Conference of 1968.”[2]
The COSMOS commission met in November of 1965 to plan for a major consultation in the fall of 1966. This larger gathering brought together 250 people including all the members of COSMOS, all American and overseas bishops, General Conference delegates from the U.S., the General Board of Missions, the Judicial Council, theological professors and representatives from the EUB Church, the World Methodist Council, and the World Council of Churches, among others.
The five-day gathering heard and discussed four main options: 1. Keep the present basic Methodist Structure, 2. Encourage Methodist units outside the U.S. to become autonomous churches, 3. Create a truly international Methodist Church that would have several Regional Conferences (the U.S. being one of several) and one General Conference with balanced representation between the U.S. and Central Conferences abroad, and finally 4. Organize a world fellowship of autonomous Methodist Churches. This gathering did not have the authority to choose one of these options—only to make a recommendation to the 1968 General Conference.
One of the problems facing the Methodist Church was the structure of the world church that covered 46 countries and very different contexts. In Cuba and elsewhere, opponents of Christianity attacked local Methodism as being an appendix of the United States. In a report prepared for the 1966 COSMOS conference, Lonnie Turnipseed wrote “…it is easy to see how persons opposed to the Christian faith can use them to brand the church as a foreign rather than an indigenous church.”[3] This concern was certainly a reality in Cuba among many people fighting for self-determination and the end of foreign interference.
COSMOS also recommended to 1968 General Conference the autonomy for the Methodist churches in Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Chile, Panama, Peru, Malaya, Sarawak, and Uruguay, in addition to the prior recommendation for Cuba. These were the first since the churches in Mexico and Brazil had become autonomous in 1930.
Besides these churches, the recommendations from the 1964-1968 COSMOS commission have largely not been pursued by General Conference. Methodism overseas was overshadowed by the efforts to incorporate the all-African American Central Jurisdiction and unite with the Evangelical United Brethren into the United Methodist Church. Nevertheless, the recent crisis on the United Methodist stance toward human sexuality and the deliberations of the Way Forward Commission have highlighted the ongoing importance of the worldwide structure and the influence of context on church effectiveness.
In the second part of this blog, I will examine how this process toward autonomy played out in Cuba. In the third and fourth parts to this blog, I will examine in greater detail the four suggestions for the international structure of the United Methodist Church and explore what happened in other regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America with implications for the current dilemma that the UMC is facing about organizational structure.
** This article was corrected from an earlier version that listed secular events as happening in 1968 that actually occurred in 1967 or 1969.
1968 was a momentous year of change in recent history. The time of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S., Black Power, and growing nationalistic independence and self-determination movements around the world. The Vietnam war was well underway with greater U.S. involvement. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in April and June, respectively, and the Soviet Union repressed a group of protesters in Czechoslovakia, which became known as the Prague Spring. It was also an important year of the space race with implications for the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. In Mexico a protest rally was met by the army killing 300-400 students on October 2nd, just 10 days before the world descended on Mexico for the 1968 Olympics. The Latin American Council of Roman Catholic Bishops met in Medellin, Colombia to interpret the changes of the Second Vatican Council to their context making a “preferential option for the poor.”
A lesser known, but nonetheless significant event in Methodist circles was the decision of Cuban Methodists to become autonomous from Methodists in the U.S. The first Cuban bishop, Rev. Armando Rodriguez, was consecrated 50 years ago on February 11, 1968.
This coming Saturday, February 10th at 7:00pm there will be a celebration held at the Iglesia North Hialeah, 5559 Palm Ave. in Miami in recognition of 50 years of Cuba Methodist autonomy.
An Early Vision of Autonomy for Mission Churches
Early missionaries and mission executives envisioned all international mission churches would become autonomous. Pioneer Methodist missionary to India, Bishop James Thoburn, wrote in 1893:
“We may accept it as certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that in every nation under the sun our Christian converts will want to assume the management of their own affairs as soon as they are permitted to do so…Accepting, then, a fact so obvious as this, it requires the highest wisdom on the part of all missionary managers to co-operate with the natural tendency of events on the mission field, and to develop our indigenous government of every Christian church as rapidly as possible.[1]
While Bishop Thoburn (1836-1922) was writing about Asia, his findings and beliefs were relevant for mission everywhere.
Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas
At the same time as the world was changing in the 1960s, the Methodist Church in America was also going through some internal changes. The denomination was having conversations internally to integrate the all-African American Central Jurisdiction and externally to merge with the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) Church. In addition to these eventualities, the 1964 General Conference commissioned the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) to “study the structure and supervision of the Methodist Church in its work outside the United States…and prepare recommendations as it considers necessary for presentation to the General Conference of 1968.”[2]
The COSMOS commission met in November of 1965 to plan for a major consultation in the fall of 1966. This larger gathering brought together 250 people including all the members of COSMOS, all American and overseas bishops, General Conference delegates from the U.S., the General Board of Missions, the Judicial Council, theological professors and representatives from the EUB Church, the World Methodist Council, and the World Council of Churches, among others.
The five-day gathering heard and discussed four main options: 1. Keep the present basic Methodist Structure, 2. Encourage Methodist units outside the U.S. to become autonomous churches, 3. Create a truly international Methodist Church that would have several Regional Conferences (the U.S. being one of several) and one General Conference with balanced representation between the U.S. and Central Conferences abroad, and finally 4. Organize a world fellowship of autonomous Methodist Churches. This gathering did not have the authority to choose one of these options—only to make a recommendation to the 1968 General Conference.
One of the problems facing the Methodist Church was the structure of the world church that covered 46 countries and very different contexts. In Cuba and elsewhere, opponents of Christianity attacked local Methodism as being an appendix of the United States. In a report prepared for the 1966 COSMOS conference, Lonnie Turnipseed wrote “…it is easy to see how persons opposed to the Christian faith can use them to brand the church as a foreign rather than an indigenous church.”[3] This concern was certainly a reality in Cuba among many people fighting for self-determination and the end of foreign interference.
COSMOS also recommended to 1968 General Conference the autonomy for the Methodist churches in Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Chile, Panama, Peru, Malaya, Sarawak, and Uruguay, in addition to the prior recommendation for Cuba. These were the first since the churches in Mexico and Brazil had become autonomous in 1930.
Besides these churches, the recommendations from the 1964-1968 COSMOS commission have largely not been pursued by General Conference. Methodism overseas was overshadowed by the efforts to incorporate the all-African American Central Jurisdiction and unite with the Evangelical United Brethren into the United Methodist Church. Nevertheless, the recent crisis on the United Methodist stance toward human sexuality and the deliberations of the Way Forward Commission have highlighted the ongoing importance of the worldwide structure and the influence of context on church effectiveness.
In the second part of this blog, I will examine how this process toward autonomy played out in Cuba. In the third and fourth parts to this blog, I will examine in greater detail the four suggestions for the international structure of the United Methodist Church and explore what happened in other regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America with implications for the current dilemma that the UMC is facing about organizational structure.
** This article was corrected from an earlier version that listed secular events as happening in 1968 that actually occurred in 1967 or 1969.
[1] Daniel
Johnson Fleming, Devolution in Mission Administration: As Exemplified by the Legislative History of Five American Missionary Societies in India, New York: Fleming Revell Co., 1916, 72.
[2] The Journal of the 1968 General Conference, Nashville: TN, The United Methodist Publishing House, Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas, Report
no.1.
[3] Lawrence Turnipseed, “New Structures for Methodism Overseas,” paper prepared for the COSMOS conference, February 10, 1966.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Two UM & Global Updates
Dear readers:
A quick note about two updates to the UM & Global blog.
1. As of this week, UM & Global will begin publishing pieces three times per week instead of the twice per week it has done in the past. It will publish articles Monday, Wednesday, and Friday instead of Tuesday and Thursday. While the days of week on which it publishes will change, this is an effort to bring more high-quality content to you.
2. As you will have noticed, I have freshened up the blog's look slightly. Most noticeably, I have reduced our side panels to better highlight our main content. That insightful content is the primary reason you come to this blog, and I want to make it visually easier for you to read.
Regards,
David W. Scott,
UM & Global Blogmaster
A quick note about two updates to the UM & Global blog.
1. As of this week, UM & Global will begin publishing pieces three times per week instead of the twice per week it has done in the past. It will publish articles Monday, Wednesday, and Friday instead of Tuesday and Thursday. While the days of week on which it publishes will change, this is an effort to bring more high-quality content to you.
2. As you will have noticed, I have freshened up the blog's look slightly. Most noticeably, I have reduced our side panels to better highlight our main content. That insightful content is the primary reason you come to this blog, and I want to make it visually easier for you to read.
Regards,
David W. Scott,
UM & Global Blogmaster
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Robert Hunt: #MyHope4Methodism
Today's post is the second in a series that features United Methodist scholars and leaders from around the world reflecting on their hope for the future of The United Methodist Church as a global movement within the larger context of worldwide Methodism as a whole. Today's post is written by Dr. Robert Hunt, Director of Global Theological Education, Professor of Christian Mission and Interreligious Relations, and Director, Center for Evangelism and Missional Church Studies at Perkins School of Theology.
My hope for Methodism is that we will understand that we are an inter-cultural church and not merely an international church.
The structures of Methodist and then United Methodist mission were formed by the social location of the church as a denomination among denominations, as an international church in a world of nations, and as a national church engaged in mission in the context of international colonialism. These structures attuned to the political realities shaping American and global society in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Today denominationalism, internationalism, and national church mission both mask and are out of tune with the complex cultural realities characteristic of the contemporary religious and political worlds. In order to fully engage God’s Mission within these emerging cultural and political realities the United Methodist church must revise its self-understanding. It must realize that it is primarily inter-cultural rather than international and understand its mission as the cultivation of a pragmatic inter-cultural dialogue on the meaning of the claim that Jesus is the Christ in relation to God’s Reign. This means that the single most important set of skills for the future of United Methodist leadership and mission will be the skills necessary for inter-cultural dialogue and collaboration.
In order to achieve a new approach to the mission of the church that is intentionally cross-cultural and dialogical in nature I believe we must revise our understandings of the world we live in and ourselves.
1) The first of these revisions must be to re-engage the Biblical vision of mission as inter-cultural rather than international.
a) The “nations” of the Bible were not nation-states, but people groups. The incarnation of the Risen Christ takes place in specific cultural settings and not merely socio-political settings. As importantly, each culture adds to the human understanding of the Gospel through its own distinctive premonition of God’s presence in its history. What emerges as the Biblical witness to Christ is God speaking out of an intense inter-cultural dialogue. An excessive focus on socio-political realities masks this dialogue and leads to an imbalanced understanding of the gospel message.
b) Revelation should be understood as the movement of the Spirit in a multi-cultural community engaged with the apostolic witness to Christ. The Bible is the Church’s book so long as we recognize that the church was and is a Beit Midrash; a House of dialogue and discovery. This doesn’t mean that no definitive conclusions are drawn, only that we recognize that they are also culturally located and that through time and circumstance the Spirit of Christ will draw us back to re-engage the scripture.
c) Moreover, the Biblical witness is a witness of people on the move to peoples on the move. As Israel discovered, and early Christian communities enacted, migration is both the context of Christian mission and a means for the spread of the gospel. Paul’s journeys, as well as the migrations of the groups to whom he and other apostles witnessed, led inevitably to the emergence of ever changing and often newly emergent Christian cultures. Thus, the appropriate inculturation and proclamation of the Gospel, the appropriate interpretation of the apostolic witness into words and deeds, is an emergent phenomenon even in scripture. As an intercultural church rather than an international church, we will need to read the Bible as a witness to Christ arising out of an inter-cultural dialogue whose meaning emerges in the context of multiple new cultural encounters.
2) The second of these revisions in self-understanding is to recognize that our contemporary global United Methodist church must be understood as inter-cultural not merely international.
a) By conforming its structures to the emerging colonial world of the 19th century Methodism gained a pragmatic advantage in that political world. And by shaping itself in conformity to an emerging international economy it gained a pragmatic advantage in that economic world. Yet it also thereby participated in the Enlightenment influenced colonial suppression of indigenous cultural resources for the ordering of both human societies and human institutions. This laid the groundwork for much of the divisiveness experienced today both within the United States and across the globe.
b) The conflation of nation-state with national culture, something that Europe’s 19th century history made to seem natural, is extremely deceptive even in the European context. Our generation has seen the break-up of established European nations on the basis of cultural difference, including through civil war. My Austrian German teacher used to repeat the mantra: es gibt kein Europaer. Even little Austria had distinctive subcultures, multiple languages, and mutually incomprehensible dialects of German.
c) In the context of US history and the history of the colonially created nation-states of the 20th century the idea of a single national culture is even more dubious. The voluntary union of the Methodist Episcopal Church North and the Methodist Episcopal Church South with the Methodist Protestant Church in 1939 hasn’t eliminated the cultural fault lines marked by the division of 1844. Rather, these have simply taken on more contemporary forms even as they represent much older cultural divisions than those around slavery. Only a structure and concept of mission that recognizes and puts on a dialogically engaged footing different cultures within nations and trans-national cultural movements among nations will allow us to live together as a single church.
d) A reasonable first step in this direction was the 20th century creation of autonomous national Methodist churches gathered in the World Methodist Council, even if the existence of national church polities often masked cultural differences within their respective nations. However, there are social locations in which this degree of autonomy, or autonomy in the context of a nation-state, isn’t desirable or desired. In these situations, the UMC needs to both create new polities and allow a variation in polities so as to allow not only local churches, but districts and annual conferences to design governance structures that are both culturally relevant (including relevancy in a mixed culture context) and allow all the cultural resources for working together to be fully expressed.
e) As importantly, the UMC needs to recognize that the ways in which the mission of the church is understood and executed should be determined by the cultural contexts of those engaged in mission as partners. The urgent needs of those both witnessing to the gospel and receiving that witness will vary between social contexts. And the perception of those needs and how they relate to the gospel will vary between cultural contexts. A congregation in the Philippines shouldn’t be bound to structures of mission organization that originate in the US. Nor should an annual conference in Africa be bound to strategies formulated for the Philippines.
f) In short, the guiding principle of our polity needs to become the facilitation of inter-cultural dialogue rather than the supposed efficiencies created by replicating nested hierarchies. This kind of re-imagining of structures is already taking place within the inter-cultural business community. The value of such experimentation should not be lost on us.
3) The third revision is to recognize that post-enlightenment North Atlantic culture, along with its many outposts across the globe, is a distinctly new human phenomenon.
a) Theorists of Christian mission may find similarities between the urban societies of the 21st centuries and those in Greece and Rome of Jesus' time. But what is emerging today is actually unprecedented, as Charles Taylor has shown in his socio-cultural history A Secular Age. The distinction, indeed gulf between the modern and non-modern experiences of being human as well, as those in some form of transition, demands a new conceptualization of our mission in terms of complex inter-cultural engagements across this gulf.
b) Our primary mission cannot be reduced to addressing reified understandings of non-modern religions or cultures, nor to making the gospel relevant to the detritus of modernity, nor even to making it relevant in whatever has been identified as the latest market for religion, whether it is boomers, gen x, or millenials. Rather our mission must account for the new cultures continuously emerging among us, whoever the “us” is, and across the globe. These are cultures whose contours are only now being discovered, whom we must engage out of our own multiple cultural contexts in dialogue over what it means in specific times, places, and social locations to proclaim and enact that Jesus is the Christ.
c) Our mission is to discover among the people of these new cultures what distinctive apprehensions of God’s presence in the world are coming to light. And this requires that we understand both ourselves and others as bearers of culture and thus vessels of incarnation rather than rivals or enemies in the articulation of the truth about God.
Which means, and I come to my most important point, that the single most important set of skills for the future of United Methodist leadership and mission will be the skills necessary for inter-cultural dialogue and collaboration. These skills include awareness of our own culture and of cultural difference and its various dimension, the motivation to engage those differences, knowledge of the multiple dimensions of cultural difference, and the ability to form strategies and adopt new behaviors in order to effectively work in complex cultural environments.
These skills are not unknown, and indeed have been explored, defined, and placed in pedagogical frameworks for the last 50 years. What remains is for those of us who are leaders and who train leaders to make the acquisition of these skills our first priority.
In sum, these three revisions in our self-understanding suggest that we must move beyond the models of what it means to be Christian in society that have dominated Methodism since its beginning. We must rediscover the both distinctly Biblical and fully contemporary understanding of the Church as a body of cultural communities within societies that are culturally diverse and constantly changing. Put another way, we must recognize that our cult does not become, but is always embedded within a culture. And since God intends that cultural diversity be an enduring part of the human order, our church will always need to be inter-cultural if it is to be global.
My hope for Methodism is that we will understand that we are an inter-cultural church and not merely an international church.
The structures of Methodist and then United Methodist mission were formed by the social location of the church as a denomination among denominations, as an international church in a world of nations, and as a national church engaged in mission in the context of international colonialism. These structures attuned to the political realities shaping American and global society in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Today denominationalism, internationalism, and national church mission both mask and are out of tune with the complex cultural realities characteristic of the contemporary religious and political worlds. In order to fully engage God’s Mission within these emerging cultural and political realities the United Methodist church must revise its self-understanding. It must realize that it is primarily inter-cultural rather than international and understand its mission as the cultivation of a pragmatic inter-cultural dialogue on the meaning of the claim that Jesus is the Christ in relation to God’s Reign. This means that the single most important set of skills for the future of United Methodist leadership and mission will be the skills necessary for inter-cultural dialogue and collaboration.
In order to achieve a new approach to the mission of the church that is intentionally cross-cultural and dialogical in nature I believe we must revise our understandings of the world we live in and ourselves.
1) The first of these revisions must be to re-engage the Biblical vision of mission as inter-cultural rather than international.
a) The “nations” of the Bible were not nation-states, but people groups. The incarnation of the Risen Christ takes place in specific cultural settings and not merely socio-political settings. As importantly, each culture adds to the human understanding of the Gospel through its own distinctive premonition of God’s presence in its history. What emerges as the Biblical witness to Christ is God speaking out of an intense inter-cultural dialogue. An excessive focus on socio-political realities masks this dialogue and leads to an imbalanced understanding of the gospel message.
b) Revelation should be understood as the movement of the Spirit in a multi-cultural community engaged with the apostolic witness to Christ. The Bible is the Church’s book so long as we recognize that the church was and is a Beit Midrash; a House of dialogue and discovery. This doesn’t mean that no definitive conclusions are drawn, only that we recognize that they are also culturally located and that through time and circumstance the Spirit of Christ will draw us back to re-engage the scripture.
c) Moreover, the Biblical witness is a witness of people on the move to peoples on the move. As Israel discovered, and early Christian communities enacted, migration is both the context of Christian mission and a means for the spread of the gospel. Paul’s journeys, as well as the migrations of the groups to whom he and other apostles witnessed, led inevitably to the emergence of ever changing and often newly emergent Christian cultures. Thus, the appropriate inculturation and proclamation of the Gospel, the appropriate interpretation of the apostolic witness into words and deeds, is an emergent phenomenon even in scripture. As an intercultural church rather than an international church, we will need to read the Bible as a witness to Christ arising out of an inter-cultural dialogue whose meaning emerges in the context of multiple new cultural encounters.
2) The second of these revisions in self-understanding is to recognize that our contemporary global United Methodist church must be understood as inter-cultural not merely international.
a) By conforming its structures to the emerging colonial world of the 19th century Methodism gained a pragmatic advantage in that political world. And by shaping itself in conformity to an emerging international economy it gained a pragmatic advantage in that economic world. Yet it also thereby participated in the Enlightenment influenced colonial suppression of indigenous cultural resources for the ordering of both human societies and human institutions. This laid the groundwork for much of the divisiveness experienced today both within the United States and across the globe.
b) The conflation of nation-state with national culture, something that Europe’s 19th century history made to seem natural, is extremely deceptive even in the European context. Our generation has seen the break-up of established European nations on the basis of cultural difference, including through civil war. My Austrian German teacher used to repeat the mantra: es gibt kein Europaer. Even little Austria had distinctive subcultures, multiple languages, and mutually incomprehensible dialects of German.
c) In the context of US history and the history of the colonially created nation-states of the 20th century the idea of a single national culture is even more dubious. The voluntary union of the Methodist Episcopal Church North and the Methodist Episcopal Church South with the Methodist Protestant Church in 1939 hasn’t eliminated the cultural fault lines marked by the division of 1844. Rather, these have simply taken on more contemporary forms even as they represent much older cultural divisions than those around slavery. Only a structure and concept of mission that recognizes and puts on a dialogically engaged footing different cultures within nations and trans-national cultural movements among nations will allow us to live together as a single church.
d) A reasonable first step in this direction was the 20th century creation of autonomous national Methodist churches gathered in the World Methodist Council, even if the existence of national church polities often masked cultural differences within their respective nations. However, there are social locations in which this degree of autonomy, or autonomy in the context of a nation-state, isn’t desirable or desired. In these situations, the UMC needs to both create new polities and allow a variation in polities so as to allow not only local churches, but districts and annual conferences to design governance structures that are both culturally relevant (including relevancy in a mixed culture context) and allow all the cultural resources for working together to be fully expressed.
e) As importantly, the UMC needs to recognize that the ways in which the mission of the church is understood and executed should be determined by the cultural contexts of those engaged in mission as partners. The urgent needs of those both witnessing to the gospel and receiving that witness will vary between social contexts. And the perception of those needs and how they relate to the gospel will vary between cultural contexts. A congregation in the Philippines shouldn’t be bound to structures of mission organization that originate in the US. Nor should an annual conference in Africa be bound to strategies formulated for the Philippines.
f) In short, the guiding principle of our polity needs to become the facilitation of inter-cultural dialogue rather than the supposed efficiencies created by replicating nested hierarchies. This kind of re-imagining of structures is already taking place within the inter-cultural business community. The value of such experimentation should not be lost on us.
3) The third revision is to recognize that post-enlightenment North Atlantic culture, along with its many outposts across the globe, is a distinctly new human phenomenon.
a) Theorists of Christian mission may find similarities between the urban societies of the 21st centuries and those in Greece and Rome of Jesus' time. But what is emerging today is actually unprecedented, as Charles Taylor has shown in his socio-cultural history A Secular Age. The distinction, indeed gulf between the modern and non-modern experiences of being human as well, as those in some form of transition, demands a new conceptualization of our mission in terms of complex inter-cultural engagements across this gulf.
b) Our primary mission cannot be reduced to addressing reified understandings of non-modern religions or cultures, nor to making the gospel relevant to the detritus of modernity, nor even to making it relevant in whatever has been identified as the latest market for religion, whether it is boomers, gen x, or millenials. Rather our mission must account for the new cultures continuously emerging among us, whoever the “us” is, and across the globe. These are cultures whose contours are only now being discovered, whom we must engage out of our own multiple cultural contexts in dialogue over what it means in specific times, places, and social locations to proclaim and enact that Jesus is the Christ.
c) Our mission is to discover among the people of these new cultures what distinctive apprehensions of God’s presence in the world are coming to light. And this requires that we understand both ourselves and others as bearers of culture and thus vessels of incarnation rather than rivals or enemies in the articulation of the truth about God.
Which means, and I come to my most important point, that the single most important set of skills for the future of United Methodist leadership and mission will be the skills necessary for inter-cultural dialogue and collaboration. These skills include awareness of our own culture and of cultural difference and its various dimension, the motivation to engage those differences, knowledge of the multiple dimensions of cultural difference, and the ability to form strategies and adopt new behaviors in order to effectively work in complex cultural environments.
These skills are not unknown, and indeed have been explored, defined, and placed in pedagogical frameworks for the last 50 years. What remains is for those of us who are leaders and who train leaders to make the acquisition of these skills our first priority.
In sum, these three revisions in our self-understanding suggest that we must move beyond the models of what it means to be Christian in society that have dominated Methodism since its beginning. We must rediscover the both distinctly Biblical and fully contemporary understanding of the Church as a body of cultural communities within societies that are culturally diverse and constantly changing. Put another way, we must recognize that our cult does not become, but is always embedded within a culture. And since God intends that cultural diversity be an enduring part of the human order, our church will always need to be inter-cultural if it is to be global.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Recommended Reading: Harald Rückert on "Tension, Hesitation and Hope"
German United Methodist bishop Harald Rückert reports on the recent European meeting of United Methodist leaders. His remarks reflect his #MyHope4Methodism. The original German version of his report can be found here. What follows is an English translation from UM & Global blogmaster David Scott.
Harald Rückert – Tension, Hesitation, and Hope
Bishop Rückert reports on the European meeting of the leaders of the UMC. In addition to collaboration and preparation, it was also about a “hot potato.”
At the beginning of December, the four European bishops of the UMC and around 50 District Superintendents met in the Hessian city of Braunfels. Harald Rückert, the presiding bishop of the UMC in Germany, shared his impressions:
It was a “colorful” group of people who came together for our annual Europe-wide meeting: from Scandinavia and the Baltic, from Southeast Europe and Russia, from Kyrgyzstan and Algeria, from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. For a whole day, we heard and considered examples of communities that opened themselves to their surroundings and bravely dared to do something new. Although our church in Europe numerically belongs to the “small churches,” it is in many places vital and significant for its surroundings. What a motivational boost! Impressive also were various projects in which, for the sake of our mission, unity was lived out in the midst of great differences; for example, the peace conference between Russian and Ukrainian Methodists, whose relationship was heavily strained because of the political enmity between their countries; or the collaboration of an established community with people on the margins of society. We can learn so much from one another.
Unity is stronger than division
Our “hot potato” was also embedded in the meetings: How do we as a church deal with the questions surrounding the issue of homosexuality? Since we Methodists in Europe have just as widely divergent views as the church worldwide, I went to Braunfels with a fearful heart. The opposing convictions and understandings seem so strong and unshakeable, so fundamental and deep-seated. Will they tear us apart? Will we stay together despite these differences? Tension was in the air. Hesitation to approach one another was palpable. I am still moved by how, over the course of these days, the atmosphere changed hour by hour. By the end, this conviction was clear: We belong together. We can help each other invite people to follow Jesus Christ to transform our world that is ripped apart.
Hope and courage
After this meeting, we still were not of one mind on homosexuality – as also on other questions. But that is not necessary to be one in Christ. We have by not discussed everything by a long way. Many more discussions will follow. How far will the impressions of this conference take us? That is not yet fully determined, but certain first steps have been taken. We listened with the firm intention of understanding one another a little bit better. Yet we have also noticed our totally different political, social, cultural, and religious contexts. But most of all, we have always drawn closer to God’s presence, studied the Bible, sung, and prayed. We have celebrated worship, been invited to the table of the Lord, and experienced one another anew as brothers and sisters. Unity in Jesus Christ is strong than that which would separate us. That gives me hope and courage.
Harald Rückert has been bishop of the UMC in Germany since May 2017. His office is in Frankfurt am Main. His email is bischofsbuero (at) emk.de.
Harald Rückert – Tension, Hesitation, and Hope
Bishop Rückert reports on the European meeting of the leaders of the UMC. In addition to collaboration and preparation, it was also about a “hot potato.”
At the beginning of December, the four European bishops of the UMC and around 50 District Superintendents met in the Hessian city of Braunfels. Harald Rückert, the presiding bishop of the UMC in Germany, shared his impressions:
It was a “colorful” group of people who came together for our annual Europe-wide meeting: from Scandinavia and the Baltic, from Southeast Europe and Russia, from Kyrgyzstan and Algeria, from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. For a whole day, we heard and considered examples of communities that opened themselves to their surroundings and bravely dared to do something new. Although our church in Europe numerically belongs to the “small churches,” it is in many places vital and significant for its surroundings. What a motivational boost! Impressive also were various projects in which, for the sake of our mission, unity was lived out in the midst of great differences; for example, the peace conference between Russian and Ukrainian Methodists, whose relationship was heavily strained because of the political enmity between their countries; or the collaboration of an established community with people on the margins of society. We can learn so much from one another.
Unity is stronger than division
Our “hot potato” was also embedded in the meetings: How do we as a church deal with the questions surrounding the issue of homosexuality? Since we Methodists in Europe have just as widely divergent views as the church worldwide, I went to Braunfels with a fearful heart. The opposing convictions and understandings seem so strong and unshakeable, so fundamental and deep-seated. Will they tear us apart? Will we stay together despite these differences? Tension was in the air. Hesitation to approach one another was palpable. I am still moved by how, over the course of these days, the atmosphere changed hour by hour. By the end, this conviction was clear: We belong together. We can help each other invite people to follow Jesus Christ to transform our world that is ripped apart.
Hope and courage
After this meeting, we still were not of one mind on homosexuality – as also on other questions. But that is not necessary to be one in Christ. We have by not discussed everything by a long way. Many more discussions will follow. How far will the impressions of this conference take us? That is not yet fully determined, but certain first steps have been taken. We listened with the firm intention of understanding one another a little bit better. Yet we have also noticed our totally different political, social, cultural, and religious contexts. But most of all, we have always drawn closer to God’s presence, studied the Bible, sung, and prayed. We have celebrated worship, been invited to the table of the Lord, and experienced one another anew as brothers and sisters. Unity in Jesus Christ is strong than that which would separate us. That gives me hope and courage.
Harald Rückert has been bishop of the UMC in Germany since May 2017. His office is in Frankfurt am Main. His email is bischofsbuero (at) emk.de.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Darryl Stephens: #MyHope4Methodism
Today's post is the second in a series that features United Methodist scholars and leaders from around the world reflecting on their hope for the future of The United Methodist Church as a global movement within the larger context of worldwide Methodism as a whole. While the posts will not avoid issues related to the UMC’s debate on sexuality, the goals of the series are 1) to broaden the conversation about the future of Methodism as a global, missional movement concerned with a wide range of issues, not just a set of church institutions concerned with this one issue, and 2) to identify the bright spots of hope in the United Methodist tradition. Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Texas Annual Conference. He is author of Methodist Morals: Social Principles in the Public Church’s Witness (University of Tennessee Press). It is timed to coincide with the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
Voicing hope for Methodism is no light task. I’m tempted to dream big. I want to believe that United Methodists can overcome their divisions of theology, race, class, sexuality, and politics. I’m drawn toward the eschatological visions of peace and righteousness of Isaiah and the new creation proclaimed by Paul. With the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. echoing in my head, I want to shout, “I have a dream, that one day United Methodists will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” I want to believe that our slavery to sin and death will be no more. I want to believe that, one day, we will be free of division and strife within this denomination. I want to believe that Jesus’ prayer, “that they may all be one . . . so that the world may believe,” is a divine promise of unity. If Jesus is praying for us, who can be against us?
Yet, in Jesus’ prayer, I also see a warning: that division sows disbelief. That our refusal to be one body, in love and service to the Three-in-One God and our neighbor, displays a counter-witness to the truth we would proclaim. Our very efforts to guard the church, to be on the “right” side of history and the right hand of God, reveal our stubborn pride and misplaced trust in ourselves. Out of our fiery passion for purity popped a golden calf! Blinded with holy ambition and puffed up with dogmatic confidence, we wrest the task of unity from God, attempting to mold this church in our own image.
“You faithless generation,” I can hear Jesus saying once again, “how much longer must I put up with you?” Like the boy with the spirit in Mark 9, Methodism has, from its childhood, foamed and ground its teeth, unable to speak to unity in Christ. Methodists have spread the gospel far and wide, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and strived for perfection. Yet, we repeatedly attempt to structure our church as if it were up to us to control where the Holy Spirit leads and who is included in the body of Christ. Jacob survived his wrestling match with a limp and a new name. May The United Methodist Church be so blessed! Far better than another declaration of right belief would be an honest supplication to our sovereign God: “I believe; help my unbelief!”
I believe that the gospel is Good News. I believe Jesus when he said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Any so-called gospel message that does not serve the least of these, that does not prove abundantly life-giving to the poor, that does not scatter the proud or fill the hungry with good things is a curse against the gospel of Jesus Christ. True unity does not create scapegoats or countenance injustice for the sake of avoiding disruption. Embracing a cheap unity without justice is tantamount to saying, “‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” An abomination, says the Lord.
The unity for which I hope is not characterized by unanimity, sameness, or even shared mission. It is not the product of political compromise or doctrinal decree by a church council (no matter how “democratic” its representation). It does not replicate the tribalism, like-minded associations, and barriers to belonging that we hold so dearly in our finite hearts. It is not even the result of Christian conferencing, mutual recognition of baptism and ministry, or any other conciliatory or ecumenical effort. Unity in Methodism, and Christianity more broadly, is not something to be earned, deserved, or settled for. It is not of our own making.
I believe unity is a gift of God. The unity for which I hope is that of shared identity as disciples of Christ. It is with all of our differences that we encounter each other through Christ, answering his invitation to true communion. “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another.” Only then can we recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Only then are we truly empowered to “welcome one another . . . just as Christ has welcomed” us. Our common identity in and through Christ gives us the kind of unity that boasts “a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit.” It is by the Holy Spirit that we find ourselves “many members, yet one body,” tasked with giving “greater honor to the inferior member.”
Unity—this divine, common identity as children of God—is our witness. I believe that “God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,” also equips us for this ministry. I believe that in serving Christ, in seeking reconciliation and unity, we are empowered to fulfill his command to love one another, not simply tolerate each other. Is it too much to hope, as ambassadors for Christ, “that in him we might become the righteousness of God”? Not through our own righteousness but through the righteousness of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
My hope for Methodism is this unity. God, help our unbelief!
Voicing hope for Methodism is no light task. I’m tempted to dream big. I want to believe that United Methodists can overcome their divisions of theology, race, class, sexuality, and politics. I’m drawn toward the eschatological visions of peace and righteousness of Isaiah and the new creation proclaimed by Paul. With the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. echoing in my head, I want to shout, “I have a dream, that one day United Methodists will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” I want to believe that our slavery to sin and death will be no more. I want to believe that, one day, we will be free of division and strife within this denomination. I want to believe that Jesus’ prayer, “that they may all be one . . . so that the world may believe,” is a divine promise of unity. If Jesus is praying for us, who can be against us?
Yet, in Jesus’ prayer, I also see a warning: that division sows disbelief. That our refusal to be one body, in love and service to the Three-in-One God and our neighbor, displays a counter-witness to the truth we would proclaim. Our very efforts to guard the church, to be on the “right” side of history and the right hand of God, reveal our stubborn pride and misplaced trust in ourselves. Out of our fiery passion for purity popped a golden calf! Blinded with holy ambition and puffed up with dogmatic confidence, we wrest the task of unity from God, attempting to mold this church in our own image.
“You faithless generation,” I can hear Jesus saying once again, “how much longer must I put up with you?” Like the boy with the spirit in Mark 9, Methodism has, from its childhood, foamed and ground its teeth, unable to speak to unity in Christ. Methodists have spread the gospel far and wide, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and strived for perfection. Yet, we repeatedly attempt to structure our church as if it were up to us to control where the Holy Spirit leads and who is included in the body of Christ. Jacob survived his wrestling match with a limp and a new name. May The United Methodist Church be so blessed! Far better than another declaration of right belief would be an honest supplication to our sovereign God: “I believe; help my unbelief!”
I believe that the gospel is Good News. I believe Jesus when he said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Any so-called gospel message that does not serve the least of these, that does not prove abundantly life-giving to the poor, that does not scatter the proud or fill the hungry with good things is a curse against the gospel of Jesus Christ. True unity does not create scapegoats or countenance injustice for the sake of avoiding disruption. Embracing a cheap unity without justice is tantamount to saying, “‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” An abomination, says the Lord.
The unity for which I hope is not characterized by unanimity, sameness, or even shared mission. It is not the product of political compromise or doctrinal decree by a church council (no matter how “democratic” its representation). It does not replicate the tribalism, like-minded associations, and barriers to belonging that we hold so dearly in our finite hearts. It is not even the result of Christian conferencing, mutual recognition of baptism and ministry, or any other conciliatory or ecumenical effort. Unity in Methodism, and Christianity more broadly, is not something to be earned, deserved, or settled for. It is not of our own making.
I believe unity is a gift of God. The unity for which I hope is that of shared identity as disciples of Christ. It is with all of our differences that we encounter each other through Christ, answering his invitation to true communion. “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another.” Only then can we recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Only then are we truly empowered to “welcome one another . . . just as Christ has welcomed” us. Our common identity in and through Christ gives us the kind of unity that boasts “a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit.” It is by the Holy Spirit that we find ourselves “many members, yet one body,” tasked with giving “greater honor to the inferior member.”
Unity—this divine, common identity as children of God—is our witness. I believe that “God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,” also equips us for this ministry. I believe that in serving Christ, in seeking reconciliation and unity, we are empowered to fulfill his command to love one another, not simply tolerate each other. Is it too much to hope, as ambassadors for Christ, “that in him we might become the righteousness of God”? Not through our own righteousness but through the righteousness of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
My hope for Methodism is this unity. God, help our unbelief!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)