Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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.
There has been a lot of recent debate about vaccine requirements as a bar to participation in General Conference by delegates from outside the United States. This debate has surfaced important issues about international equality and equity within the church. It has, however, overlooked the second big bar to participation in General Conference by delegates from outside the United States: visas.
Heather Hahn's recent article about UMC debates emphasizes, though, that visas are just as important as vaccinations for allowing General Conference to happen. And new data show that it may be visas, rather than vaccinations, that are the more insurmountable obstacle. Up to a third of General Conference delegates (and three-quarters of those from outside the United States) may not be able to obtain visas in time to participate in an August 2022 General Conference.
Visas are difficult to obtain even in normal times, as previously reported. But the pandemic has created anything but normal times over the past two years, making the process much slower and more difficult.
The wait times for visa processing depends on both the demand for visas from a country and the capacity of the consulate in that country to process visas. Visa wait times vary somewhat by country and from year to year, but normally, they are around two months.
COVID has disrupted normal wait times in many countries, however. During some parts of the pandemic, the US government was not issuing visas at all, at least to particular countries. This has created a backlog of demand for visas in some countries. COVID may have also diminished the capacity of various consulates to process visas in some cases.
The result is that in a number of countries, including countries where UMC General Conference delegates reside, wait times for obtaining visas have become quite long. Moreover, visas are still completely unavailable in a few countries where General Conference delegates reside. Other countries have returned to fairly normal wait times.
Based on the visa appointment wait times reported by the US State Department, there are up to 286 General Conference delegates who, if they were to start the process today in the US consulate in the capital of their country, would not even be able to get a visa application interview before General Conference is scheduled to meet. This is approximately a third of the total number of delegates and just over three quarters of the delegates from outside the United States.
Moreover, having a visa application interview is no guarantee of getting a visa, and in some cases there is additional processing time required to issue the visa. That additional processing time could mean that several more delegates would not be able to get visas before General Conference is scheduled to meet in August if they started the process today.
This group includes all of the delegates from the DRC (the country with the second highest number of United Methodists) and the Philippines (representing an entire central conference). It also includes a variety of other African and European countries, including Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Russia, all of which have substantial delegate counts. If they start now, at current rates, Nigerian delegates couldn’t get visas in time for General Conference in 2024.
Of course, some of these delegates may already have started the visa process. The US government began processing visas again in most countries three months ago. Not only did that represent an earlier start to the process, if delegates applied then, the timing of their interview would be based on wait times at that point, which may have been lower.
Some delegates may already have visas for other purposes. In a typical General Conference year, some delegates have visitor visas already because of travel to the United States for other church meetings or business or personal travel. That number is likely to be lower this year because of the pause in travel due to the pandemic.
It is possible that the visa application wait times could come down, though in many cases, they would need to come down substantially to allow delegates to participate. There are also sometimes other work arounds – for instance, applying in another nearby country (which is not allowed in all cases).
Part of the challenge of visas is that, because the process is controlled entirely by the US government, the UMC has little leverage to affect the outcome or timing. UMC leaders can advocate on behalf of delegates, and the Commission on General Conference is undoubtedly doing so, but such advocacy has limited effectiveness even in normal times.
Thus, even with the exceptions noted above, an in-person General Conference held in the United States in August would likely not allow representatives from a substantial portion of the church to participate.
Obviously, I cannot speak for the Commission on General Conference. But given their previous statements about their desire to have an in-person General Conference with representation from a wide and representative array of United Methodists, the outlook for holding General Conference this year does not look good.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Friday, February 4, 2022
Wednesday, February 2, 2022
What I've learned about Methodism and democracy from Argentina and the Philippines
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian 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 past two weeks, Juan Gattinoni of Argentina and Norma Dollaga of the Philippines have written two excellent pieces on the relationship between Methodism and democracy. I am grateful for their wisdom and generosity in sharing their insights on this topic. As a show of appreciation, I wanted to reflect publicly on what I have learned about the topic from them.
The connection between democracy, civil rights, and economic justice
Living in the United States, I have tended to think of democracy as a self-evident good—of course democracy is important for its own sake! Both authors showed me, though, that democracy is not just a good in its own right. Democracy is important because it is part of a broader framework that emphasizes human rights and economic justice, both of which are connected to God’s justice.
Gattinoni quoted the Southern American Annual Conference saying, “We must fight for democracy, so that within this regime of coexistence, men can use their freedom to obtain economic justice for all.” He added in his own words, “It is not only a question of pronouncing oneself in favor of democracy, but of having an action/mission that has to do with the needs of the people.”
Throughout her piece, Dollaga emphasized human rights and care for the poor. She noted the connection between the two, writing, “The violation of human rights … began when the powerful few accumulated, stock-piled and privatized the resources, wealth and property of the people and calcified their strength through social-economic-political order.”
I have been reminded that Christianity has survived under many political systems, but the emphasis on just treatment of the poor and the oppressed is an essential thread of the faith in all contexts and under all political systems.
The connection between democracy and the law
I have tended to think of democracy and the rule of law going hand in hand. Dollaga and Gattinoni reminded me that the law can be perverted by injustice and end up subverting democracy.
Dollaga wrote of the Philippines, “The weaponization of the law has exacerbated the narrowing of democratic spaces.” In a similar vein, Gattinoni said of Argentina, “The concern for the decline of democracy in recent times fundamentally goes through the judicial power.”
When I taught college students, they struggled with the distinction between legal and moral. Surely, they thought, if something is legal, it must be okay? Dollaga and Gattinoni emphasized that legal does not always mean just. We must pay attention to the effect of laws: How do they impact the poor and marginalized? Do they increase or decrease people’s ability to shape their own government?
Methodism as model of and advocate for democracy, even in undemocratic situations
I was struck in both of their pieces by the ways in which Methodism in Argentina and the Philippines has historically and today served as a model of democracy in its own structure and an advocate for democracy within wider society.
Gattinoni noted that Methodist polity “is conceptually democratic,” relying upon a system of elections and representation.
Both authors shared stories of Methodists engaged in advocacy for democracy on behalf of the rights of the poor and marginalized, even in the face of repressive and undemocratic regimes. Indeed, the Methodist witness was that much more dramatic in the face of government injustice. Often, that witness required a great deal of courage.
Gattinoni related the story of an Argentine Methodist church that was bombed in 1975 for its work with refugees fleeing from dictatorship in Chile. Dollaga wrote of current work in the Phillipines, “Red-tagging, maligning and persecution of prophetic voices in the Philippines continue. The democratic space and the mission and ministries of the Church with poor and marginalized communities are endangered.” She added, “Doing relief work used to be a ‘safe’ ministry. You would not get into trouble if you give soup to the hungry. Today, you become a suspect, and you can even be jailed.”
I can only be impressed and humbled by such courageous witnesses to God’s justice and wonder whether I would be similarly courageous if need be.
Biblical grounding for justice work
I noticed that both Dollaga and Gattinoni included scripture near the close of both of their pieces. Gattinoni quoted Psalm 85:10-13, and Dollaga quoted Amos 5:24. I took this as a sign that for both of them, this work is rooted not merely in abstract reflections on concepts of justice, but in justice as a quality of God, as revealed in the Bible.
That pushed me to do a bit of biblical study of my own on government and justice. I observed that the Bible repeatedly makes the connection between good government and treatment of the poor, as Dollaga and Gattinoni did.
In Psalm 72, King Solomon prays about himself, “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.” In Isaiah 3:13-15, God judges the “elders and princes” because of their treatment of the poor. Proverbs 29 asserts in v. 2, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan,” and then clarifies a few verses later that “the righteous know the rights of the poor; the wicked have no such understanding.”
Conclusion
One of the fundamental convictions of this blog is the importance of learning across cultures and contexts. There has been a lot of recent conversation about democracy within my country (the United States). Reading Gattinoni’s and Dollaga’s pieces about the relationship between Methodism and democracy in their contexts has deepened my understanding of the topic and has helped shape how I think about the connection between Methodism and democracy in my context.
The past two weeks, Juan Gattinoni of Argentina and Norma Dollaga of the Philippines have written two excellent pieces on the relationship between Methodism and democracy. I am grateful for their wisdom and generosity in sharing their insights on this topic. As a show of appreciation, I wanted to reflect publicly on what I have learned about the topic from them.
The connection between democracy, civil rights, and economic justice
Living in the United States, I have tended to think of democracy as a self-evident good—of course democracy is important for its own sake! Both authors showed me, though, that democracy is not just a good in its own right. Democracy is important because it is part of a broader framework that emphasizes human rights and economic justice, both of which are connected to God’s justice.
Gattinoni quoted the Southern American Annual Conference saying, “We must fight for democracy, so that within this regime of coexistence, men can use their freedom to obtain economic justice for all.” He added in his own words, “It is not only a question of pronouncing oneself in favor of democracy, but of having an action/mission that has to do with the needs of the people.”
Throughout her piece, Dollaga emphasized human rights and care for the poor. She noted the connection between the two, writing, “The violation of human rights … began when the powerful few accumulated, stock-piled and privatized the resources, wealth and property of the people and calcified their strength through social-economic-political order.”
I have been reminded that Christianity has survived under many political systems, but the emphasis on just treatment of the poor and the oppressed is an essential thread of the faith in all contexts and under all political systems.
The connection between democracy and the law
I have tended to think of democracy and the rule of law going hand in hand. Dollaga and Gattinoni reminded me that the law can be perverted by injustice and end up subverting democracy.
Dollaga wrote of the Philippines, “The weaponization of the law has exacerbated the narrowing of democratic spaces.” In a similar vein, Gattinoni said of Argentina, “The concern for the decline of democracy in recent times fundamentally goes through the judicial power.”
When I taught college students, they struggled with the distinction between legal and moral. Surely, they thought, if something is legal, it must be okay? Dollaga and Gattinoni emphasized that legal does not always mean just. We must pay attention to the effect of laws: How do they impact the poor and marginalized? Do they increase or decrease people’s ability to shape their own government?
Methodism as model of and advocate for democracy, even in undemocratic situations
I was struck in both of their pieces by the ways in which Methodism in Argentina and the Philippines has historically and today served as a model of democracy in its own structure and an advocate for democracy within wider society.
Gattinoni noted that Methodist polity “is conceptually democratic,” relying upon a system of elections and representation.
Both authors shared stories of Methodists engaged in advocacy for democracy on behalf of the rights of the poor and marginalized, even in the face of repressive and undemocratic regimes. Indeed, the Methodist witness was that much more dramatic in the face of government injustice. Often, that witness required a great deal of courage.
Gattinoni related the story of an Argentine Methodist church that was bombed in 1975 for its work with refugees fleeing from dictatorship in Chile. Dollaga wrote of current work in the Phillipines, “Red-tagging, maligning and persecution of prophetic voices in the Philippines continue. The democratic space and the mission and ministries of the Church with poor and marginalized communities are endangered.” She added, “Doing relief work used to be a ‘safe’ ministry. You would not get into trouble if you give soup to the hungry. Today, you become a suspect, and you can even be jailed.”
I can only be impressed and humbled by such courageous witnesses to God’s justice and wonder whether I would be similarly courageous if need be.
Biblical grounding for justice work
I noticed that both Dollaga and Gattinoni included scripture near the close of both of their pieces. Gattinoni quoted Psalm 85:10-13, and Dollaga quoted Amos 5:24. I took this as a sign that for both of them, this work is rooted not merely in abstract reflections on concepts of justice, but in justice as a quality of God, as revealed in the Bible.
That pushed me to do a bit of biblical study of my own on government and justice. I observed that the Bible repeatedly makes the connection between good government and treatment of the poor, as Dollaga and Gattinoni did.
In Psalm 72, King Solomon prays about himself, “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.” In Isaiah 3:13-15, God judges the “elders and princes” because of their treatment of the poor. Proverbs 29 asserts in v. 2, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan,” and then clarifies a few verses later that “the righteous know the rights of the poor; the wicked have no such understanding.”
Conclusion
One of the fundamental convictions of this blog is the importance of learning across cultures and contexts. There has been a lot of recent conversation about democracy within my country (the United States). Reading Gattinoni’s and Dollaga’s pieces about the relationship between Methodism and democracy in their contexts has deepened my understanding of the topic and has helped shape how I think about the connection between Methodism and democracy in my context.
Monday, January 31, 2022
Sung Il Lee: Wesley’s Attitude towards Other Religions
Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Sung Il Lee. Rev. Dr. Lee is a missionary of Global Ministries and Missionary Practitioner in Residence at Candler School of Theology.
In Wesley’s sermons, I found that his concept of “religion” was very different from the term we use today in missiological and theological circles. Philip R. Meadows confirmed that: “The idea of ‘true religion’ has specific content, informed by the Christian scriptures … So. Wesley asserts that as there is one God, so there is one religion and one happiness for all men. God never intended there should be any more; and it is not possible there should.”[1] Thompson correctly says that Wesley “combined the Catholic accent of ‘work’ and the Reformation emphasis of ‘faith alone’ into ‘faith working in love.’ Thus, Wesley transformed Christianity from the personal and philosophical exercise of a few into a practical and public witness of many for Jesus Christ.”[2] Wesley concluded “that true religion, in the very sense of it, is nothing short of holy tempers. Consequently, all other religion, whatever name it bears, whether pagan, Mahometan, Jewish, or Christian; and whether popish or Protestant, Lutheran, or Reformed, without these is lighter and vanity itself” (#91. On Charity. III. §12).
According to Randy Maddox, Wesley was not only acquainted with the comparative studies of the four major religions—Christianity, Judaism, Mohametanism, and paganism, but also tended to organize religions in these categories.[3] Wesley sorted faith into several categories: materialist faith, deist faith, the faith of a Jew, and that of a heathen or Mahometan. In relation to the faith of Jew and that of a heathen, he viewed them as the “faith of servant.” “There is no reason why you should be satisfied with the faith of a materialist, a heathen, or a deist; nor indeed with that of a servant” (#106 On Faith. I. §13). However, he said that “we cannot doubt that many of them, … still retain (notwithstanding many mistakes) that faith that worked by love” (#106 On Faith. II. §6).
Wesley had two different attitudes toward other religions: First, he judged religions in terms of morality. In relation to this, all religions, including Christianity, have inward experience and outward practice. Outward practices are supported by inward experiences of religions. “True Christianity cannot exist without both inward experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth; and this alone is given in morality” (#125 On Living Without God. §14).
Thompson mentions that Wesley placed unchanged Christians and heathens on the same level. In other words, he gave equal level of standing between those who experience the holy regardless of their religion.[4] Wesley affirmed that this mystery of iniquity made these Christians little better than heathen nations, asking “have they more justice, mercy, or truth, than the inhabitants of China or Indostan?” (#61. §29) and that it was one of the “causes of the inefficacy of Christianity” (#116. Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity). In terms of morality, he judged with careful observations that there is no superiority of Christianity over other religions, for he saw how Western Christianity was far from true Scriptural Christianity, in that “true Christianity cannot exist without both the inward experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth; and this alone is given in morality” (#125. On Living Without God. §14).
Many of us do not want to compare in this way, but Wesley rooted out the sprout of pride from unchanged Christians. During Wesley's experience as a missionary in Georgia, he observed deeply how formal and nominal Christians’ low morality and atrocities toward Indians and black slaves were hindering the progress of the gospel. Wesley deplored the lower morality of many so-called Christians more so than that of people of other religions. Here we see how Wesley thinks importantly of Christian sanctification.
Second, Wesley viewed religions in terms of revelation. In the sermon entitled The Case of Reason Impartiality Considered, he argued that “the foundation of true religion stands upon the oracles of God. It built upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone” (#70 The Case of Reason Impartially Considered, I. §6). According to Wesley, other religion also has truth, and God works in other religion,[5] though Wesley could be critical of other religion’s understanding of truth as well. In Sermon #63 The General Spread of the Gospel, Wesley viewed Islam as “miserable delusion,” “a disgrace to human nature,” and “a plague to all that are under their iron yoke” (#63. §3). He also placed “the faith of a Jew above that of a heathen or Mohometan” (#63. §5), but he judged that “the veil is still upon their hearts when Moses and the Prophets are read” (#63. §6).
Still, Wesley does not argue for an absolute discontinuity between Christianity and other religions. Instead, he emphasizes the “imperfection of human knowledge” (#69. The Imperfection of Human Knowledge). “Although we are well apprised of this general truth that all things are governed by the providence of God, … how little do we comprehend of God’s providential dealings with them?” (#69. II. §3). In addition, the mystery of iniquity “still hardens their heart, and still blinds their eyes, lest at any time the light of the glorious gospel should break in upon them.” (#106. On Faith. I. §6). The gods of this world “make the heart of this people waxed gross, their ears dull of hearing and their eyes closed” (#106. I. §6). For this reason, creation, including religions, is groaning to perfection. Both the imperfection of human knowledge and the works of the gods of this world keep them under the veil upon their hearts in order not to know the mystery of Christ, even though prevenient grace is available to all equally through God’s creation.
Here I want to search an answer from Wesley for a question: “What do other religions make to stand upon the oracles of God, that is, the foundation of true religion?” He surely did not draw a clear demarcation between Christian and other religions but made it clear that “true religion is heart religion, a religion of love, which Wesley describes as scriptural Christianity or possessing a faith that worketh by love.”[6] Most importantly, he emphasizes the religion of the heart as the essentials of true religion. In “On Charity,” Wesley concludes “that true religion, in the very essence of it, is nothing short of holy tempers. Consequently, all other religion, whatever name it bears, whether Pagan, Mahometan, Jewish, or Christian; and whether Popish or Protestant, Lutheran or Reformed; without these, is lighter than vanity itself (#91. III. §12). In terms of emphasizing the religion of the heart, the religion of holiness, Wesley is open to interreligious dialogue.
Wesley puts no emphasis on institutional religion, but rather on the inner religion or the religion of the heart. In general, looking at Wesley's understanding of religion in its own way, perhaps Wesley viewed from the point of view of revelation that true religion is a religion that not only knows the miserable reality of humanity and provides a solution, but also helps to restore the image of God. Wesley seems to understand that a religion that does not know the reality of humanity and cannot offer a solution is a false religion “which does not imply the giving of the heart to God (#114. The Unity of the Divine Being. §15), and a religion that knows the reality of humanity but cannot provide an exact solution is called a pseudo-religion. “If it does not lead to the recovery of the soul, even if it is called Christianity, it is just a false religion and pseudo-religion.”[7]
In my next post, I will describe what Wesley’s understanding of religion means for our practice of mission and evangelism.
In Wesley’s sermons, I found that his concept of “religion” was very different from the term we use today in missiological and theological circles. Philip R. Meadows confirmed that: “The idea of ‘true religion’ has specific content, informed by the Christian scriptures … So. Wesley asserts that as there is one God, so there is one religion and one happiness for all men. God never intended there should be any more; and it is not possible there should.”[1] Thompson correctly says that Wesley “combined the Catholic accent of ‘work’ and the Reformation emphasis of ‘faith alone’ into ‘faith working in love.’ Thus, Wesley transformed Christianity from the personal and philosophical exercise of a few into a practical and public witness of many for Jesus Christ.”[2] Wesley concluded “that true religion, in the very sense of it, is nothing short of holy tempers. Consequently, all other religion, whatever name it bears, whether pagan, Mahometan, Jewish, or Christian; and whether popish or Protestant, Lutheran, or Reformed, without these is lighter and vanity itself” (#91. On Charity. III. §12).
According to Randy Maddox, Wesley was not only acquainted with the comparative studies of the four major religions—Christianity, Judaism, Mohametanism, and paganism, but also tended to organize religions in these categories.[3] Wesley sorted faith into several categories: materialist faith, deist faith, the faith of a Jew, and that of a heathen or Mahometan. In relation to the faith of Jew and that of a heathen, he viewed them as the “faith of servant.” “There is no reason why you should be satisfied with the faith of a materialist, a heathen, or a deist; nor indeed with that of a servant” (#106 On Faith. I. §13). However, he said that “we cannot doubt that many of them, … still retain (notwithstanding many mistakes) that faith that worked by love” (#106 On Faith. II. §6).
Wesley had two different attitudes toward other religions: First, he judged religions in terms of morality. In relation to this, all religions, including Christianity, have inward experience and outward practice. Outward practices are supported by inward experiences of religions. “True Christianity cannot exist without both inward experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth; and this alone is given in morality” (#125 On Living Without God. §14).
Thompson mentions that Wesley placed unchanged Christians and heathens on the same level. In other words, he gave equal level of standing between those who experience the holy regardless of their religion.[4] Wesley affirmed that this mystery of iniquity made these Christians little better than heathen nations, asking “have they more justice, mercy, or truth, than the inhabitants of China or Indostan?” (#61. §29) and that it was one of the “causes of the inefficacy of Christianity” (#116. Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity). In terms of morality, he judged with careful observations that there is no superiority of Christianity over other religions, for he saw how Western Christianity was far from true Scriptural Christianity, in that “true Christianity cannot exist without both the inward experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth; and this alone is given in morality” (#125. On Living Without God. §14).
Many of us do not want to compare in this way, but Wesley rooted out the sprout of pride from unchanged Christians. During Wesley's experience as a missionary in Georgia, he observed deeply how formal and nominal Christians’ low morality and atrocities toward Indians and black slaves were hindering the progress of the gospel. Wesley deplored the lower morality of many so-called Christians more so than that of people of other religions. Here we see how Wesley thinks importantly of Christian sanctification.
Second, Wesley viewed religions in terms of revelation. In the sermon entitled The Case of Reason Impartiality Considered, he argued that “the foundation of true religion stands upon the oracles of God. It built upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone” (#70 The Case of Reason Impartially Considered, I. §6). According to Wesley, other religion also has truth, and God works in other religion,[5] though Wesley could be critical of other religion’s understanding of truth as well. In Sermon #63 The General Spread of the Gospel, Wesley viewed Islam as “miserable delusion,” “a disgrace to human nature,” and “a plague to all that are under their iron yoke” (#63. §3). He also placed “the faith of a Jew above that of a heathen or Mohometan” (#63. §5), but he judged that “the veil is still upon their hearts when Moses and the Prophets are read” (#63. §6).
Still, Wesley does not argue for an absolute discontinuity between Christianity and other religions. Instead, he emphasizes the “imperfection of human knowledge” (#69. The Imperfection of Human Knowledge). “Although we are well apprised of this general truth that all things are governed by the providence of God, … how little do we comprehend of God’s providential dealings with them?” (#69. II. §3). In addition, the mystery of iniquity “still hardens their heart, and still blinds their eyes, lest at any time the light of the glorious gospel should break in upon them.” (#106. On Faith. I. §6). The gods of this world “make the heart of this people waxed gross, their ears dull of hearing and their eyes closed” (#106. I. §6). For this reason, creation, including religions, is groaning to perfection. Both the imperfection of human knowledge and the works of the gods of this world keep them under the veil upon their hearts in order not to know the mystery of Christ, even though prevenient grace is available to all equally through God’s creation.
Here I want to search an answer from Wesley for a question: “What do other religions make to stand upon the oracles of God, that is, the foundation of true religion?” He surely did not draw a clear demarcation between Christian and other religions but made it clear that “true religion is heart religion, a religion of love, which Wesley describes as scriptural Christianity or possessing a faith that worketh by love.”[6] Most importantly, he emphasizes the religion of the heart as the essentials of true religion. In “On Charity,” Wesley concludes “that true religion, in the very essence of it, is nothing short of holy tempers. Consequently, all other religion, whatever name it bears, whether Pagan, Mahometan, Jewish, or Christian; and whether Popish or Protestant, Lutheran or Reformed; without these, is lighter than vanity itself (#91. III. §12). In terms of emphasizing the religion of the heart, the religion of holiness, Wesley is open to interreligious dialogue.
Wesley puts no emphasis on institutional religion, but rather on the inner religion or the religion of the heart. In general, looking at Wesley's understanding of religion in its own way, perhaps Wesley viewed from the point of view of revelation that true religion is a religion that not only knows the miserable reality of humanity and provides a solution, but also helps to restore the image of God. Wesley seems to understand that a religion that does not know the reality of humanity and cannot offer a solution is a false religion “which does not imply the giving of the heart to God (#114. The Unity of the Divine Being. §15), and a religion that knows the reality of humanity but cannot provide an exact solution is called a pseudo-religion. “If it does not lead to the recovery of the soul, even if it is called Christianity, it is just a false religion and pseudo-religion.”[7]
In my next post, I will describe what Wesley’s understanding of religion means for our practice of mission and evangelism.
[1] Philip R. Meadows, “Candidates for Heaven: Wesleyan Resources for a Theology of Religions,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 35:1 (2000): 110.
[2] Nehemiah Thompson, “The Search for a Methodist Theology of Religious Pluralism.” In Ground for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, 93-106. Edited by S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 95.
[3] Randy L. Maddox, “Wesley as Theological Mentor: The Question of Truth or Salvation through Other Religions” Wesleyan Theological Journal 27 (1992): 7–29.
[4] Thompson, 99.
[5] Thompson, 106.
[6] Meadows, 110.
[7] Dong-whan Kim, “Original Sin,” 8/1/2017. http://www.sermon66.com/news_view.html?s=index&no=214841&s_id=4386.
Friday, January 28, 2022
Recommended Readings: Filipino and European UMC Self-Descriptions
The Connectional Table has been sponsoring an initiative entitled "Imagining the Future." While the initiative is playing out differently in different branches of the church, essentially it is an attempt to promote regional discussions on the current context of the church and the hoped-for future of the church. As part of that initiative, regional leaders have published "Background and Contextual Information" statements for both the Philippines and Europe. These statements situate The United Methodist Church in these contexts in light of societal, political, and intra-church dynamics currently at play. If the UMC is ever to become a more successfully global denomination, honest sharing and receptive listening to such recounting of the situation of the church in various contexts will need to become a more regular practice. Therefore, these short reflections are highly recommended.
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Norma Dollaga: Doing Human Rights in the Philippines as a Church amid Shrinking Democracy
Today's piece is written by Norma Dollaga, a deaconess from the Philippines Annual Conference of the Manila Episcopal Area - Philippines Central Conference. Her episcopal appointment is at Kapatirang Simbahan Para a Bayan (KASIMBAYAN) / Ecumenical Center for Development.
The violation of human rights did not start when people, rising against tyranny or oppression, were persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, disappeared, harassed and killed. It began when the powerful few accumulated, stock-piled and privatized the resources, wealth and property of the people and calcified their strength through social-economic-political order. Laws, colonization, wars of aggression, and prison cells were later harnessed to ensure power.
The inception of human rights violations came when foreign colonizers violently occupied our lands and made us their slaves. When our ancestors rose and revolted, the colonizers mis(used) and exploited laws, religion, and their political system to justify their assault against those who dissented or resisted. The laws and the rules that they invented labelled the revolutionaries as plain bandits and criminals, so they were punished and executed.
In the Philippines, the centuries-old hacienda and feudal bondage is the main reason why the farmers go hungry even during the harvest season. At present, nine out of ten Filipino farmers do not own the land they till compared to seven out of ten landless farmers twenty years ago.[1] The minimum daily wage in the Philippines is P537 (USD 10.74), while the estimated family living wage is P1,022 (USD 20.44). The minimum wage may be legal, but the wide gap manifests the violation of economic rights.
Human Rights and the Duterte Regime
The human rights situation in the Philippines is worsening. Violations have been further aggravated amid a climate of impunity. The impact of the Duterte administration’s anti-narcotics program, counterinsurgency campaign, and its efforts to implement and enact policies that undermine its commitments to international and domestic human rights framework are among the stark indications of this spiraling situation. Extrajudicial killings (EJKs), enforced disappearance, illegal arrests and detention, torture, forcible evacuation and other rights violations were committed with impunity against families, communities, and human rights defenders (HRDs) in the course of the implementation of these policies.[2]
KARAPATAN, a human rights group, reported that between July 2016 and November 2021, there are 470, 647 cases of forced evacuation, 424 victims of extrajudicial killings, and 1,159 cases of illegal arrest and detention. Political prisoners were slapped with trumped-up charges, in many instances, using planted evidences. They are justice and peace workers, activists and community organizers who have devoted their most precious time, talent and life serving others.
Rise Up for Life and For Rights, a network of families of victims of the War on Drugs and church-based human rights advocates reported, “Over five years of Duterte’s so-called ‘War on Drugs’ have glaringly bared its inherent anti-poor and anti-people design. Duterte’s brazen ‘Kill, Kill, Kill’ policy provided carte blanche permission for state forces and other agents to commit extrajudicial killings, mostly of Filipinos in urban poor communities. The impunity is evident in the death toll: from government reports of 6,215 victims in police operations (as of 31 October, 2021) to as many as 30,000 per human rights groups estimates.”
Even before COVID, Pres. Duterte has been flaunting extravagantly a terrorizing threat. In his second year in the office, he threatened to arrest the communists and their legal fronts: “‘You're terrorists and even your legal fronts are terrorists, I know, …’ said Duterte in a speech in front of soldiers in Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija.”[3]
This rhetoric has legitimized increased violence. He ordered the soldiers to shoot female rebels in their vagina.[4]
The institutionalization of the Whole-of-Nation Approach is a counter insurgency campaign that dealt a heavy blow to human rights work and human rights defenders. According to Esperanza de la Paz, “The ‘whole-of-nation approach’ (or WONA) being bannered by the AFP as the ‘new paradigm’ that would ‘end the local armed conflict’ or the ‘communist insurgency’ … institutionalizes and declares the government’s total abandonment of its commitment to and obligations in implementing the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (CAHRHIL) and in forging basic political, social and economic reforms that would address the roots of the armed conflict and bring about a just and lasting peace.”[5]
Human Rights in the Time of Covid
The pandemic has further aggravated and exposed tyranny and fascism. The pandemic has only intensified the hardship of the marginalized, increased the braggadocio of the authorities with tyrannical cover, and has exposed the inhumane, anti-poor, anti people character of the state in responding to and managing the current health crisis.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has marked the Philippines as exhibiting a “toxic lockdown culture” in response to the pandemic.[6] Thousands have been arrested and detained for violation of confinement measures linked to the pandemic. The Philippines topped the list among countries that declared emergency, with 120,000 apprehended for curfew violations in the past 30 days.[7]
The weaponization of the law has exacerbated the narrowing of democratic spaces. The Anti Terror Law, swiftly passed at the height of pandemic, mocks the very fundamentals of the Constitution. Several groups have questioned the constitutionality of the law, including individuals from churches and church-related organizations.
One Faith, One Nation, One Voice, an ecumenical network for truth, justice and peace, opposed the Anti-Terrorism Act 2020 on multiple grounds, including “an overly broad and amorphous usage of the term ‘terrorism,’ which will surely be utilized by state forces for attacks on dissent and curtailment of human rights and civil liberties,” “a weakening of the judicial system and the constitutionally enshrined function to check-and-balance the actions of other branches of government, including state forces under the executive branch,” and “a removal of financial penalties to be awarded to persons detained under false pretense as well as other safeguards against abuse by police officers and soldiers, thus increasing the likelihood of gross impunity to be committed by state forces.”
Continuing Challenge to Church
Red-tagging, maligning and persecution of prophetic voices in the Philippines continue. The democratic space and the mission and ministries of the Church with poor and marginalized communities are endangered. Activists and persons associated with left-leaning views and organizations are being tagged as suspected members of “terrorist groups.” Organizations and institutions with long and credible histories/record who are engaged in humanitarian service work with the vulnerable have been subjected to scrutiny and malicious tagging, calling them front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) or New People’s Army (NPA).
Doing relief work used to be a “safe” ministry. You would not get into trouble if you give soup to the hungry. Today, you become a suspect, and you can even be jailed.
We are witnesses to the weaponization of the law that was used to harass, persecute and punish the faithful ones, seeking to defend the rights of the poor and pursue the cause of JUSTICE.
Closing
Human rights violations are innate to the power block in society’s structure to achieve and perpetuate its goals. It uses military might to sustain its power founded on exploitation, oppression and violence. It weaponizes the law in order to threaten, harass, and imprison the dissenters. If legal measures are not enough, human rights defenders become victims of torture, enforced disappearance and extra judicial killings.
The very foundation of structure and system that is unjust and oppressive must be replaced by a system where “justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24)
The Church needs to fulfil its prophetic role to denounce injustice, to proclaim the gospel’s wisdom, to work for ethical alternatives to poverty and the sufferings of the many.
The church like The United Methodist Church faces challenges as it chooses to serve the people. There is an attack on church only because it is doing what it needs to do in defense of the poor and of people’s dignity. The church work is to promote peace and human rights, it is not to defend itself but to defend the flock against oppression and exploitation.
Democracy is always at risk under an authoritarian rule. The church can either speak out prophetically or be an accomplice to the authoritarian rule.
The violation of human rights did not start when people, rising against tyranny or oppression, were persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, disappeared, harassed and killed. It began when the powerful few accumulated, stock-piled and privatized the resources, wealth and property of the people and calcified their strength through social-economic-political order. Laws, colonization, wars of aggression, and prison cells were later harnessed to ensure power.
The inception of human rights violations came when foreign colonizers violently occupied our lands and made us their slaves. When our ancestors rose and revolted, the colonizers mis(used) and exploited laws, religion, and their political system to justify their assault against those who dissented or resisted. The laws and the rules that they invented labelled the revolutionaries as plain bandits and criminals, so they were punished and executed.
In the Philippines, the centuries-old hacienda and feudal bondage is the main reason why the farmers go hungry even during the harvest season. At present, nine out of ten Filipino farmers do not own the land they till compared to seven out of ten landless farmers twenty years ago.[1] The minimum daily wage in the Philippines is P537 (USD 10.74), while the estimated family living wage is P1,022 (USD 20.44). The minimum wage may be legal, but the wide gap manifests the violation of economic rights.
Human Rights and the Duterte Regime
The human rights situation in the Philippines is worsening. Violations have been further aggravated amid a climate of impunity. The impact of the Duterte administration’s anti-narcotics program, counterinsurgency campaign, and its efforts to implement and enact policies that undermine its commitments to international and domestic human rights framework are among the stark indications of this spiraling situation. Extrajudicial killings (EJKs), enforced disappearance, illegal arrests and detention, torture, forcible evacuation and other rights violations were committed with impunity against families, communities, and human rights defenders (HRDs) in the course of the implementation of these policies.[2]
KARAPATAN, a human rights group, reported that between July 2016 and November 2021, there are 470, 647 cases of forced evacuation, 424 victims of extrajudicial killings, and 1,159 cases of illegal arrest and detention. Political prisoners were slapped with trumped-up charges, in many instances, using planted evidences. They are justice and peace workers, activists and community organizers who have devoted their most precious time, talent and life serving others.
Rise Up for Life and For Rights, a network of families of victims of the War on Drugs and church-based human rights advocates reported, “Over five years of Duterte’s so-called ‘War on Drugs’ have glaringly bared its inherent anti-poor and anti-people design. Duterte’s brazen ‘Kill, Kill, Kill’ policy provided carte blanche permission for state forces and other agents to commit extrajudicial killings, mostly of Filipinos in urban poor communities. The impunity is evident in the death toll: from government reports of 6,215 victims in police operations (as of 31 October, 2021) to as many as 30,000 per human rights groups estimates.”
Even before COVID, Pres. Duterte has been flaunting extravagantly a terrorizing threat. In his second year in the office, he threatened to arrest the communists and their legal fronts: “‘You're terrorists and even your legal fronts are terrorists, I know, …’ said Duterte in a speech in front of soldiers in Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija.”[3]
This rhetoric has legitimized increased violence. He ordered the soldiers to shoot female rebels in their vagina.[4]
The institutionalization of the Whole-of-Nation Approach is a counter insurgency campaign that dealt a heavy blow to human rights work and human rights defenders. According to Esperanza de la Paz, “The ‘whole-of-nation approach’ (or WONA) being bannered by the AFP as the ‘new paradigm’ that would ‘end the local armed conflict’ or the ‘communist insurgency’ … institutionalizes and declares the government’s total abandonment of its commitment to and obligations in implementing the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (CAHRHIL) and in forging basic political, social and economic reforms that would address the roots of the armed conflict and bring about a just and lasting peace.”[5]
Human Rights in the Time of Covid
The pandemic has further aggravated and exposed tyranny and fascism. The pandemic has only intensified the hardship of the marginalized, increased the braggadocio of the authorities with tyrannical cover, and has exposed the inhumane, anti-poor, anti people character of the state in responding to and managing the current health crisis.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has marked the Philippines as exhibiting a “toxic lockdown culture” in response to the pandemic.[6] Thousands have been arrested and detained for violation of confinement measures linked to the pandemic. The Philippines topped the list among countries that declared emergency, with 120,000 apprehended for curfew violations in the past 30 days.[7]
The weaponization of the law has exacerbated the narrowing of democratic spaces. The Anti Terror Law, swiftly passed at the height of pandemic, mocks the very fundamentals of the Constitution. Several groups have questioned the constitutionality of the law, including individuals from churches and church-related organizations.
One Faith, One Nation, One Voice, an ecumenical network for truth, justice and peace, opposed the Anti-Terrorism Act 2020 on multiple grounds, including “an overly broad and amorphous usage of the term ‘terrorism,’ which will surely be utilized by state forces for attacks on dissent and curtailment of human rights and civil liberties,” “a weakening of the judicial system and the constitutionally enshrined function to check-and-balance the actions of other branches of government, including state forces under the executive branch,” and “a removal of financial penalties to be awarded to persons detained under false pretense as well as other safeguards against abuse by police officers and soldiers, thus increasing the likelihood of gross impunity to be committed by state forces.”
Continuing Challenge to Church
Red-tagging, maligning and persecution of prophetic voices in the Philippines continue. The democratic space and the mission and ministries of the Church with poor and marginalized communities are endangered. Activists and persons associated with left-leaning views and organizations are being tagged as suspected members of “terrorist groups.” Organizations and institutions with long and credible histories/record who are engaged in humanitarian service work with the vulnerable have been subjected to scrutiny and malicious tagging, calling them front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) or New People’s Army (NPA).
Doing relief work used to be a “safe” ministry. You would not get into trouble if you give soup to the hungry. Today, you become a suspect, and you can even be jailed.
We are witnesses to the weaponization of the law that was used to harass, persecute and punish the faithful ones, seeking to defend the rights of the poor and pursue the cause of JUSTICE.
Closing
Human rights violations are innate to the power block in society’s structure to achieve and perpetuate its goals. It uses military might to sustain its power founded on exploitation, oppression and violence. It weaponizes the law in order to threaten, harass, and imprison the dissenters. If legal measures are not enough, human rights defenders become victims of torture, enforced disappearance and extra judicial killings.
The very foundation of structure and system that is unjust and oppressive must be replaced by a system where “justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24)
The Church needs to fulfil its prophetic role to denounce injustice, to proclaim the gospel’s wisdom, to work for ethical alternatives to poverty and the sufferings of the many.
The church like The United Methodist Church faces challenges as it chooses to serve the people. There is an attack on church only because it is doing what it needs to do in defense of the poor and of people’s dignity. The church work is to promote peace and human rights, it is not to defend itself but to defend the flock against oppression and exploitation.
Democracy is always at risk under an authoritarian rule. The church can either speak out prophetically or be an accomplice to the authoritarian rule.
[1] http://kilusangmagbubukidngpilipinas.com/nine-out-of-ten-farmers-are-landless-agri-sector-condition-going-from-worst-to-extreme-under-globalization/
[2] SUBMISSION TO THE OHCHR FOR HRC REPORT 41/2 BY KARAPATAN ALLIANCE PHILIPPINES, 9 DECEMBER 2019.
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-orders-soldiers-to-shoot-female-rebels-in-the-vagina
Monday, January 24, 2022
Sung Il Lee: Korean and Western Experiences of Religious Pluralism
Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Sung Il Lee. Rev. Dr. Lee is a missionary of Global Ministries and Missionary Practitioner in Residence at Candler School of Theology.
Most Koreans, including myself, are exposed to the gospel of Christianity for the first time in a religiously pluralistic world. Korean religious culture includes elements of Shamanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity. In my last post, I examined the personal questions that this religious pluralism raises. In this post, I want to contrast the Korean context with the Christendom context in the West.
Becoming church members, Koreans come to think that Christianity, to which they belong, is one of many religions in Korea; that is, they have a relativistic view of religion. Evangelists did not regard Shamanism or Confucianism as religions, so they are eager to share the Gospel with people. However, Buddhist monks who were clearly regarded as Buddhists would pass without evangelism. However, through many miraculous experiences of meeting Jesus Christ personally, Korean Christians became exclusive and aggressive evangelists in the eyes of non-believers, but they acknowledge that Jesus is the only King of kings and Lord of lords and show zeal to evangelize to all people.
As such, the experience of Korean Christians started in the world of religious pluralism, and through hearing the Christian gospel and receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord, Christianity developed into a religious relativism that is one of many religions in Korea. Then, through a miraculous religious experience, they also made the same confession that Moses' father-in-law Jethro confessed after hearing Moses' testimony. "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods, and he has overcome those who behaved proudly toward Israel" (Exodus 18:11).
This confession of Korean Christians becomes an absolute confession of faith that only Jesus Christ is the God of all gods and the Lord of lords in the context of religious pluralism. Experiencing maturity through the experience of the Holy Spirit, it develops into what Wesley called “religion of the heart, faith that works by love” (Section 1 of the preface series § 6, #7 Path to Heaven I. §6). In the eyes of others, it appears to be a religiously exclusive attitude, but over time, while ethically considerate of other religions, those Korean Christians embrace people of other religions with love. In the end, we can see the heart of Christ, who endures all persecution and misunderstanding and leads us to the Lord with love, in the hearts of Korean Christians.
Western Christians' experience of religious pluralism is fundamentally different from Korean Christians. They traditionally lived in a Christian world (Christendom) and considered themselves true Christians. Perhaps in Wesley's eyes, they would have looked like “nominal Christians” (#63. The General Spread of the Gospel. §1) with a formal and outward religion, but the sad thing is that they think themselves true biblical Christians. The Western world has traditionally viewed evangelism as a domestic activity targeting non-believers and nominal church members and missions as targeting unbelievers in the non-Christian world. However, surprised by the vast scriptures of Eastern religions and their piety, Western Christians, starting with the missionaries who served on the mission field, gradually changed from the belief that Christianity is the only absolute religion to a religious relativist teaching and finally took over a pluralistic teaching, wherein they became accepting of the existence of other religions. By a relativistic teaching of religion, I mean one that is based on the premise that you should not impose your religion on me; and by pluralistic teachings, I mean those that assume that all religions represent only one path to salvation.
Although the Western world has now embraced a religious pluralism that has always characterized Korea, Koreans have not found Western views on pluralism helpful. Korean Christians are generally conservative. Out of thankfulness to the church in USA, which sent missionaries to Korea, Korean Christians have put more trust in American theologians than others. Yet, those Korean theologians who have accepted a religiously pluralistic theology developed in the United States have shaken the Korean Christian faith fundamentally. In this sense, the religious pluralism developed by Western theologians has been damaging to the churches in Korea. What is necessary is for Korean Christians to develop their own understandings of other religions and to be trained to have an ethical attitude toward peoples of other faiths so as not to demand social conflicts due to the lack of ethical attitudes that deserve respect in a religiously pluralistic Korean society.
In future posts, I will read Wesley’s sermon series from a Korean perspective on religious pluralism, examining how John Wesley understood religions, including Christianity, and their salvation.
Most Koreans, including myself, are exposed to the gospel of Christianity for the first time in a religiously pluralistic world. Korean religious culture includes elements of Shamanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity. In my last post, I examined the personal questions that this religious pluralism raises. In this post, I want to contrast the Korean context with the Christendom context in the West.
Becoming church members, Koreans come to think that Christianity, to which they belong, is one of many religions in Korea; that is, they have a relativistic view of religion. Evangelists did not regard Shamanism or Confucianism as religions, so they are eager to share the Gospel with people. However, Buddhist monks who were clearly regarded as Buddhists would pass without evangelism. However, through many miraculous experiences of meeting Jesus Christ personally, Korean Christians became exclusive and aggressive evangelists in the eyes of non-believers, but they acknowledge that Jesus is the only King of kings and Lord of lords and show zeal to evangelize to all people.
As such, the experience of Korean Christians started in the world of religious pluralism, and through hearing the Christian gospel and receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord, Christianity developed into a religious relativism that is one of many religions in Korea. Then, through a miraculous religious experience, they also made the same confession that Moses' father-in-law Jethro confessed after hearing Moses' testimony. "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods, and he has overcome those who behaved proudly toward Israel" (Exodus 18:11).
This confession of Korean Christians becomes an absolute confession of faith that only Jesus Christ is the God of all gods and the Lord of lords in the context of religious pluralism. Experiencing maturity through the experience of the Holy Spirit, it develops into what Wesley called “religion of the heart, faith that works by love” (Section 1 of the preface series § 6, #7 Path to Heaven I. §6). In the eyes of others, it appears to be a religiously exclusive attitude, but over time, while ethically considerate of other religions, those Korean Christians embrace people of other religions with love. In the end, we can see the heart of Christ, who endures all persecution and misunderstanding and leads us to the Lord with love, in the hearts of Korean Christians.
Western Christians' experience of religious pluralism is fundamentally different from Korean Christians. They traditionally lived in a Christian world (Christendom) and considered themselves true Christians. Perhaps in Wesley's eyes, they would have looked like “nominal Christians” (#63. The General Spread of the Gospel. §1) with a formal and outward religion, but the sad thing is that they think themselves true biblical Christians. The Western world has traditionally viewed evangelism as a domestic activity targeting non-believers and nominal church members and missions as targeting unbelievers in the non-Christian world. However, surprised by the vast scriptures of Eastern religions and their piety, Western Christians, starting with the missionaries who served on the mission field, gradually changed from the belief that Christianity is the only absolute religion to a religious relativist teaching and finally took over a pluralistic teaching, wherein they became accepting of the existence of other religions. By a relativistic teaching of religion, I mean one that is based on the premise that you should not impose your religion on me; and by pluralistic teachings, I mean those that assume that all religions represent only one path to salvation.
Although the Western world has now embraced a religious pluralism that has always characterized Korea, Koreans have not found Western views on pluralism helpful. Korean Christians are generally conservative. Out of thankfulness to the church in USA, which sent missionaries to Korea, Korean Christians have put more trust in American theologians than others. Yet, those Korean theologians who have accepted a religiously pluralistic theology developed in the United States have shaken the Korean Christian faith fundamentally. In this sense, the religious pluralism developed by Western theologians has been damaging to the churches in Korea. What is necessary is for Korean Christians to develop their own understandings of other religions and to be trained to have an ethical attitude toward peoples of other faiths so as not to demand social conflicts due to the lack of ethical attitudes that deserve respect in a religiously pluralistic Korean society.
In future posts, I will read Wesley’s sermon series from a Korean perspective on religious pluralism, examining how John Wesley understood religions, including Christianity, and their salvation.
Friday, January 21, 2022
Juan Gattinoni: Methodism and Democracy
Today's post is written by Rev. Juan Gattanoni, pastor of la Iglesia Evangélica Metodista Argentina (the Evangelical Methodist Church Argentina).
The themes of Methodism and democracy have sailed together in harmony since ancient times. I belong to a family with a long history of Methodism in Argentina. In fact, hymns and the Wesleyan spirit accompanied me from the cradle. For more than 180 years, the Evangelical Methodist Church has been accompanying the history of Argentina with its presence, being one of the first Protestant Churches to develop a missionary task.
My intention is to speak from a testimonial perspective and from the facts that show the commitment of the Methodists in Argentina to democracy.
I would like to make a preliminary distinction. We talk about "politics" and "the political." Politics is the set of activities that people associated with a group (political party) do to accumulate power that allows them to govern, make decisions, and direct the destinies of a society. The political is what "happens in the polis" and therefore is of concern, interest, or need to the people in their daily lives. I understand that the church is not called to govern and get into the tug-of-war of politics. But she is called to get into the political, that is, with what happens to the people.
We speak of democracy when we say that the populace (demos), the people, have participation in the decisions that govern them. Elect and be elected. Delegate authority to exercise on your behalf.
The Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (Argentine Evangelical Methodist Church) (as well as others in the world) is conceptually democratic and it has been since its inception. We would say that we value democracy as a system of government "in its own flesh."
The Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (IEMA), already autonomous since 1969, takes for its own government a broadly democratic system, where its representatives (bishops, superintendents, work commissions, etc.) are elected by the representatives of the churches gathered in General Assembly.
Argentina since 1816 (its Independence) has had different governments, some with "a certain level" of democracy (only in 1950 was the female vote and its participation approved), and a large number of coups d'état, softer or harsher dictatorships, but nothing democratic. Probably the most ferocious dictatorship in Argentina was during the years 1976 to 1983, with more than 30,000 people kidnapped and disappeared, and that came to an end involving us in war with Great Britain for the recovery of our Malvinas Islands, which, as was supposed, was lost, leaving a balance of 650 Argentine troops dead.
That said, it is worth affirming that democracy in Argentina really begins in December 1983. And uninterruptedly since that date, not without various crises, we have lived under a democratic government regime for 39 years! This means that democracy as a way of life, for Argentines, is something very desired, valued, and necessary.
I keep a clipping from the conference journal of 1938, where the Methodist Episcopal Church South America Conference, gathered in the 46th annual conference, tells us through its Bishop Juan E. Gattinoni (my grandfather): "The Methodist Church must fight to maintain democracy and therefore will resist dictatorships, as they decapitate the opposition. On the contrary, the former dignifies the latter. Creative minds are destroyed by dictatorships, and the entire nation marches under such regimes to the most absolute mental sterility. On the contrary, in democracy, the creative mind is protected and preserved, because it wants freedom, equality and fraternity to be a fact of life consciously enjoyed by all." ... "We must fight for democracy, so that within this regime of coexistence, men can use their freedom to obtain economic justice for all" ... "The Methodist Episcopal Church does not endorse, sustain, or participate in war. Its components are convinced that good understanding and goodwill can bear better fruit and can save precious lives." It is worth mentioning that this statement of the MEC arose in a context in which, in Europe, Communism and Nazism were firmly and violently questioning democracy as a system of government.
Each Assembly of the IEMA since autonomy has spoken in favor of democracy, the participation of the people, and the inclusion of those most in need in the objectives of government in the country.
But it is not only a question of pronouncing oneself in favor of democracy, but of having an action/mission that has to do with the needs of the people. It is in this sense that the Missionary Strategy outlined and approved in the General Assembly in 1973 by the IEMA pointed out that it is the state that must meet the needs of its people and that the church is called to cover in a supplementary way what the state would not be able to attend to, that is, education, health, social problems, etc.
The coup d'état and dictatorship of March 1976 in Argentina was one of the many that spread throughout Latin America. In Argentina, it was really tragic as we mentioned above. The IEMA not only did not support that dictatorship (it is worth mentioning that other churches did, including the official Roman Catholic Church), but also committed several of its leaders in the struggle for human rights, as a form of struggle for the restitution of the democratic system.
The coup d'état in Chile in September 1973, which ended democratic life, was also bloody and immediately generated thousands of refugees fleeing for their lives. Most found their way out more accessible in Argentina, mainly in Mendoza, but also other cities in Argentina.
The IEMA was inevitably compelled to get involved in the political and risk organizing refugee care committees together with other churches (not many). Bishop Federico J. Pagura (elected in 1977) tells us what that experience was, being a pastor in the city of Mendoza. "In view of the reality of thousands of Chilean refugees who crossed the mountain range claiming refuge in our country, with the risks involved[1] at that time to receive, accompany, and defend them against the dictatorship that was already beginning to show its teeth and claws, I asked my Bishop Carlos Gattinoni (first bishop of the autonomous IM) for an urgent visit to Mendoza, and in a more than secret conversation, I asked him if he and our Methodist Church would be willing to support us and accompany us in this dangerous adventure to which we were challenged. And he answered me, 'Go ahead Frederick, with those who are willing to commit out of love for Christ and the people. We will accompany them to the end, whatever the consequences.'"
The IEMA, with the firm decision of its bishop, not only understood that the cause of human rights and political refuge has to do with the democratic conception of life, but also encouraged the formation of different human rights organizations that played a very important role in politics in our country. The church understood it this way, in her fidelity to the Lord and other Protestant churches accompanied this position as well. Resonating behind this firm decision is that "the world is my parish." This was the way to get involved in "the political." Other evangelical churches did NOT understand it that way and continued to worry about "heavenly things."
One of the things that distinguish Argentina from other countries that went through oppressive dictatorships is that, once democracy returned, the genocide perpetrated by the dictatorship was judged in national courts (76-83). The genocidal dictators were found guilty and convicted under Argentine law. The Methodist Church also has something to do with this process. It happened that, with the advent of the new democratic government, on December 10, 1983, President AlfonsÃn made an important decision just 5 days after his inauguration (December 15, 1983). By Decree of Necessity and Urgency, he created the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP), whose objective was to investigate the issue of disappeared persons and violations of human rights that occurred in the period 1976-1983.
It was composed of a group of 10 people, known for their honesty, among whom were three religious leaders: a rabbi, a Catholic bishop, and Methodist Bishop Carlos Gattinoni. CONADEP was based in Buenos Aires, but several subcommissions were created in different cities of the country, in which there were Methodist pastors serving as well. The importance of CONADEP's investigative work lies in the fact that its report was a fundamental input for the Civil Court that tried the dictators months later.
The concern for the decline of democracy in recent times fundamentally goes through the judicial power.[2] With the advent of the "low fare” widely practiced in judicial venues and the power of media corporations that shamelessly practice "fake news," confusing and manipulating the thinking of the people, the role of the judicial branch (one of the three branches of the democratic system) has effectively taken preeminence over the other two powers. This shakes the democratic system in our country. If justice is not there to protect the right of the weak, it is not justice.
As Psalm 85:10-13 says:
"Mercy and truth meet; justice and peace kiss. Truth will spring from the earth and justice will look out from the heavens. Jehovah will also give good and our land will bear its fruit. Justice will go before him, and his steps will set us on the road."
The themes of Methodism and democracy have sailed together in harmony since ancient times. I belong to a family with a long history of Methodism in Argentina. In fact, hymns and the Wesleyan spirit accompanied me from the cradle. For more than 180 years, the Evangelical Methodist Church has been accompanying the history of Argentina with its presence, being one of the first Protestant Churches to develop a missionary task.
My intention is to speak from a testimonial perspective and from the facts that show the commitment of the Methodists in Argentina to democracy.
I would like to make a preliminary distinction. We talk about "politics" and "the political." Politics is the set of activities that people associated with a group (political party) do to accumulate power that allows them to govern, make decisions, and direct the destinies of a society. The political is what "happens in the polis" and therefore is of concern, interest, or need to the people in their daily lives. I understand that the church is not called to govern and get into the tug-of-war of politics. But she is called to get into the political, that is, with what happens to the people.
We speak of democracy when we say that the populace (demos), the people, have participation in the decisions that govern them. Elect and be elected. Delegate authority to exercise on your behalf.
The Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (Argentine Evangelical Methodist Church) (as well as others in the world) is conceptually democratic and it has been since its inception. We would say that we value democracy as a system of government "in its own flesh."
The Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Argentina (IEMA), already autonomous since 1969, takes for its own government a broadly democratic system, where its representatives (bishops, superintendents, work commissions, etc.) are elected by the representatives of the churches gathered in General Assembly.
Argentina since 1816 (its Independence) has had different governments, some with "a certain level" of democracy (only in 1950 was the female vote and its participation approved), and a large number of coups d'état, softer or harsher dictatorships, but nothing democratic. Probably the most ferocious dictatorship in Argentina was during the years 1976 to 1983, with more than 30,000 people kidnapped and disappeared, and that came to an end involving us in war with Great Britain for the recovery of our Malvinas Islands, which, as was supposed, was lost, leaving a balance of 650 Argentine troops dead.
That said, it is worth affirming that democracy in Argentina really begins in December 1983. And uninterruptedly since that date, not without various crises, we have lived under a democratic government regime for 39 years! This means that democracy as a way of life, for Argentines, is something very desired, valued, and necessary.
I keep a clipping from the conference journal of 1938, where the Methodist Episcopal Church South America Conference, gathered in the 46th annual conference, tells us through its Bishop Juan E. Gattinoni (my grandfather): "The Methodist Church must fight to maintain democracy and therefore will resist dictatorships, as they decapitate the opposition. On the contrary, the former dignifies the latter. Creative minds are destroyed by dictatorships, and the entire nation marches under such regimes to the most absolute mental sterility. On the contrary, in democracy, the creative mind is protected and preserved, because it wants freedom, equality and fraternity to be a fact of life consciously enjoyed by all." ... "We must fight for democracy, so that within this regime of coexistence, men can use their freedom to obtain economic justice for all" ... "The Methodist Episcopal Church does not endorse, sustain, or participate in war. Its components are convinced that good understanding and goodwill can bear better fruit and can save precious lives." It is worth mentioning that this statement of the MEC arose in a context in which, in Europe, Communism and Nazism were firmly and violently questioning democracy as a system of government.
Each Assembly of the IEMA since autonomy has spoken in favor of democracy, the participation of the people, and the inclusion of those most in need in the objectives of government in the country.
But it is not only a question of pronouncing oneself in favor of democracy, but of having an action/mission that has to do with the needs of the people. It is in this sense that the Missionary Strategy outlined and approved in the General Assembly in 1973 by the IEMA pointed out that it is the state that must meet the needs of its people and that the church is called to cover in a supplementary way what the state would not be able to attend to, that is, education, health, social problems, etc.
The coup d'état and dictatorship of March 1976 in Argentina was one of the many that spread throughout Latin America. In Argentina, it was really tragic as we mentioned above. The IEMA not only did not support that dictatorship (it is worth mentioning that other churches did, including the official Roman Catholic Church), but also committed several of its leaders in the struggle for human rights, as a form of struggle for the restitution of the democratic system.
The coup d'état in Chile in September 1973, which ended democratic life, was also bloody and immediately generated thousands of refugees fleeing for their lives. Most found their way out more accessible in Argentina, mainly in Mendoza, but also other cities in Argentina.
The IEMA was inevitably compelled to get involved in the political and risk organizing refugee care committees together with other churches (not many). Bishop Federico J. Pagura (elected in 1977) tells us what that experience was, being a pastor in the city of Mendoza. "In view of the reality of thousands of Chilean refugees who crossed the mountain range claiming refuge in our country, with the risks involved[1] at that time to receive, accompany, and defend them against the dictatorship that was already beginning to show its teeth and claws, I asked my Bishop Carlos Gattinoni (first bishop of the autonomous IM) for an urgent visit to Mendoza, and in a more than secret conversation, I asked him if he and our Methodist Church would be willing to support us and accompany us in this dangerous adventure to which we were challenged. And he answered me, 'Go ahead Frederick, with those who are willing to commit out of love for Christ and the people. We will accompany them to the end, whatever the consequences.'"
The IEMA, with the firm decision of its bishop, not only understood that the cause of human rights and political refuge has to do with the democratic conception of life, but also encouraged the formation of different human rights organizations that played a very important role in politics in our country. The church understood it this way, in her fidelity to the Lord and other Protestant churches accompanied this position as well. Resonating behind this firm decision is that "the world is my parish." This was the way to get involved in "the political." Other evangelical churches did NOT understand it that way and continued to worry about "heavenly things."
One of the things that distinguish Argentina from other countries that went through oppressive dictatorships is that, once democracy returned, the genocide perpetrated by the dictatorship was judged in national courts (76-83). The genocidal dictators were found guilty and convicted under Argentine law. The Methodist Church also has something to do with this process. It happened that, with the advent of the new democratic government, on December 10, 1983, President AlfonsÃn made an important decision just 5 days after his inauguration (December 15, 1983). By Decree of Necessity and Urgency, he created the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP), whose objective was to investigate the issue of disappeared persons and violations of human rights that occurred in the period 1976-1983.
It was composed of a group of 10 people, known for their honesty, among whom were three religious leaders: a rabbi, a Catholic bishop, and Methodist Bishop Carlos Gattinoni. CONADEP was based in Buenos Aires, but several subcommissions were created in different cities of the country, in which there were Methodist pastors serving as well. The importance of CONADEP's investigative work lies in the fact that its report was a fundamental input for the Civil Court that tried the dictators months later.
The concern for the decline of democracy in recent times fundamentally goes through the judicial power.[2] With the advent of the "low fare” widely practiced in judicial venues and the power of media corporations that shamelessly practice "fake news," confusing and manipulating the thinking of the people, the role of the judicial branch (one of the three branches of the democratic system) has effectively taken preeminence over the other two powers. This shakes the democratic system in our country. If justice is not there to protect the right of the weak, it is not justice.
As Psalm 85:10-13 says:
"Mercy and truth meet; justice and peace kiss. Truth will spring from the earth and justice will look out from the heavens. Jehovah will also give good and our land will bear its fruit. Justice will go before him, and his steps will set us on the road."
[1] On September 5, 1975, at 3 am, a bomb was placed in the Methodist Temple of Espejo 423, in the heart of Mendoza, destroying five doors and all the glass in front of the building.
[2] When the military dictatorship was established (1976-83), all the judges were forced to sign fidelity to the "Acts of the National Reorganization Process," led by the military junta, and that was the way they made sure to commit all the abuses they wanted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)