Recommended Reading: Methodist Church of Brazil discusses relations with UMC

There was a debate at the recently-held General Conference of the Methodist Church in Brazil about whether to continue the church's long-standing relationship with the UMC, amid concerns about differing theologies of sexuality. UMNews has published a story about the Brazilian General Conference in Portuguese, with a Google translation available here.

The Methodist Church in Brazil has its roots in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, one of the forerunners of The United Methodist Church. Currently, the UMC invites non-voting delegates from the Methodist Church in Brazil to attend General Conference in recognition of the historic and fraternal ties between the two churches. The two denominations also collaboration on mission and other projects and are both members of the World Methodist Council.

The debate in the Methodist Church in Brazil's General Conference reflects that denomination's conservative stance on sexuality. As the UMNews article makes clear, the Brazilian General Conference also discussed pro-environmental and anti-racism measures, so the Brazilian church does not easily equate to any one theological or political position held in the United States.

Nevertheless, this debate is an indicator of the sort of ecumenical tensions that the UMC/GMC split is causing within world Methodism but beyond the UMC. Such debates, which also arose at the recent Methodist Church of Mexico General Conference, are presenting themselves because of strong GMC outreach beyond the UMC, outreach that often carries an anti-UMC message.

Bishop Jaoa Carlos Lopes and Prof. Paulo Roberto Garcia persuaded the Brazilian General Conference not to take any action regarding its relationship with the UMC until after the next UMC General Conference in 2024, arguing that the UMC has not changed its teachings on sexuality.

MLK vs. the Prophets, or, a Word on Hope in History

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 is a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote that is much beloved by US American progressives: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” As employed by American progressives, this quote implies two elements of belief:

First, that the world as a whole system (and the United States as the part of the world with which the speakers are usually most familiar) is on a trend towards greater equality among and prosperity for all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other salient element of identity. This is the “bends towards justice” part of the quote.

Second, that this trend occurs inevitably. It may work through human organizing and efforts, but it is not dependent on human actions. Instead, it results from an intrinsic divine or social or natural law. This is the “arc of the moral universe” part of the quote.

From MLK’s vantage point when making this remark in the mid-20th century, or from the vantage point of his quoters at the end of the 20th century, looking back over the past couple hundred years of human history, there was good evidence for the two beliefs implied by this quote and its use.

Over that time span, there had been amazing and significant steps towards this understanding of justice, especially in the Western world: chattel slavery was abolished; modern medicine substantially reduced suffering and disease and extended lifespans; child labor was abolished in the West and working conditions were substantially improved for adults; women gained the right to vote, various other rights, and access to increased choices in life; the Civil Rights movement (including MLK) gained various rights for African Americans; Majority World countries became independent of Western colonialism; and queer folks gained increased recognition and rights in society.

Moreover, all these steps towards greater justice came about not as the result of one centralized movement but rather a plethora of movements that sprang up, as if from some central animating spirit that was beyond the individuals involved.

Yet as obvious as such a belief in inevitable human progress was in the mid- to late 20th century, there are abundant reasons to question such a belief by this point in the 21st century. Indeed, we might conclude that this belief in inevitable human progress reflects a particularly modern outlook on the world – modern both in its setting, its belief in progress, and its projection of an evolutionary grand narrative onto human history.

Postmodernism has, of course, raised questions about all such metanarratives, but one need not buy fully into postmodernism to question the narrative of inevitable progress towards greater justice as understood by modern Americans. The rise of autocracy and decline of democracy around the world, the revival of racism and anti-Semitism and rollback of women’s rights in the United States, and the existential threat to all human flourishing represented by climate collapse should raise serious questions about any overly sunny accountings of certain human progress.

At very least, the past couple decades should show us the significance of effective, strategic, and long-term organizing and movement building in influencing the direction of history. While liberal forces had that momentum at their back from the 1930s through the 1970s, it is conservative forces that have most recently been reaping the fruits of such organizing. Whatever direction history takes, it is unlikely to get there outside of well-organized and coordinated effort on the part of very dedicated people willing to be patient and make sacrifices.

Climate change further shows us that the past two hundred years may not be the ramp up to a premillennial paradise of justice and equality but rather a very particular historical moment that is not sustainable as it has played out thus far and therefore may well not last.

A longer historical frame suggests additional possibilities: If we look at the first ten thousand years of human history, leading up to the modern era, we see less of a pattern towards justice, or at least we see a very long incubation period before that pattern towards justice sets in. Instead, we might see waves of progress and regression set against a backdrop of (slowly) increasing societal complexity.

Fortunately, belief in the arc of the moral universe is not the only way to hold out hope for the future. I’d like to suggest another: that of the biblical prophets.

MLK was influenced by and drew upon the biblical prophets, as his rhetoric frequently showed. King and the prophets shared a deep concern for justice.

Where MLK (or at least his oft-repeated quote) and the prophets disagreed is on their understanding of history. While King’s quote suggests a generally upward trajectory to history, the prophets were often quite blunt about their conviction that history was headed in a downward direction.

When Amos declared that “the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste and [God] will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” or Hosea proclaimed that “Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins,” they were announcing anything but sunny optimism about the direction of the future.

The biblical prophets took seriously the possibility that the future would be worse, not just for the enemies of their people, but for their people themselves. Sometimes, like Jeremiah, they even lived through the fulfillment of their prophecies of destruction.

Yet even amid their clear-eyed facing of the possibility and even inevitability of disaster for their communities, the prophets maintained hope. This hope was built not on the assumption that things would keep getting better, but on the belief that they would not always get worse. It was a hope built on trust that God’s mercy would have the last word beyond whatever disaster was impending. “[God] will restore of the fortunes of [God’s] people Israel,” wrote Amos, “and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them.”

For me, in this historical moment, this understanding of hope in history feels more true than the hope implied by the use of the MLK quote. Our cities (or our churches, our institutions, our rights, our ways of life) may indeed become heaps of ruins, either because we tear them down as we tear each other apart or because climate disasters will make them so. But that will not be the end. God’s mercy will still prevail, and we will eventually “rebuild the ruined cities.” That is a bleaker expectation for the future, but more honest and more accurate in my eyes. And, if the prophets are our guides, it is just as faithful.

Jonathan McCurley: FoodLife - Life and Food at the Asian Rural Institute in Japan, Part II

Today's post is by Rev. Jonathan McCurley. Rev. McCurley is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church serving through Global Ministries as a missionary in the community life of the Asian Rural Institute in Nasushiobara, Japan. This post is part of an occasional series on food and mission.

At the Asian Rural Institute, the whole school community daily participates in the practices of foodlife work. From the sowing of the crops and feeding of the livestock to the food processing and meal preperation, the community comes together to give of their lives to create food that will sustain life. Not agriculture, or farm work, but this is foodlife work. It reminds us that food is the life God has given us and that our work is part of the process to bring life to the whole world.

Foodlife gives community members of ARI a spiritual experience of connecting and reconnecting to each other, even amidst the conflicts and misunderstandings of everyday life. The ARI Training Handbook states, “Foodlife is a vital activity for human beings to maintain their lives and it connects God, the earth, and human beings – working as a medium for reconciliation and peace building.”[1]

Behind this word foodlife is an understanding of the world and of God.

Foodlife is a term that ARI says was coined by Rev. Dr Toshihiro Takami, or Tom as he was affectionately known by many. Dr. Takami is often known as the founder of the Asian Rural Institute (ARI) and in fact was our first director. For many of the original supporters of ARI, he was also often the face of ARI.

Dr Takami coined the word foodlife in that he took two words that while connected deeply, have become increasingly separated in modern society and joined them into one.

When talking about the reason for coining a new word, Dr Takami talks about agriculture and what it has become. He says:

“Agriculture in a broad sense of the term may be the only human enterprise which would help sustain our planet’s food chain. Almost all other industries are destructive of natural environment. Industrial products as we know them today, especially petroleum based ones, do not help nature’s recycling process. Modern agriculture using science and technology makes agriculture destructive of nature like most other industries. Agriculture destructive of nature is destructive of life. Food produced by destructive agriculture is destructive of human lives. Modern technology which is detached from the art of science is making agriculture destructive.

“Food producing is fast becoming part of big industry on a global scale, and consumers and farmers are being alienated from each other and from the act of food production. Food in this case is no longer a linkage between human beings and nature or creation, nor between consumers and farmers. Food is becoming an agent of alienation.”[2]

That was said almost three decades ago, and in reality, if we think about life today, if you go into a grocery store in almost any modern city in the world, especially in the Global North, you will find a plethora of food. Much of it either has no visual connection to the life it came from, or it has been perfected to the point that it looks more plastic than edible. This 21^st century reality is not just about disconnection in the sense that the ARI philosophy speaks of, but it is also a major cause of environmental degradation, the lack of food security in many places, and even regional violent conflict.

For ARI, the reality of the world all comes down to our understanding of food and life. What is the relationship between the two and how are we as humans supposed to relate with them? Genesis tells us God’s ideal. We see humans naming animals, getting their food from the land, being told to subdue, control, or as we say at ARI, be stewards of the world. In God’s ideal world, we see humans interacting with creation in order to see life flourish.

According to Dr Takami, what we call agriculture did not seem so much interested in seeing life flourish anymore. As countries of the world have sought to use technology and business in order to respond to the wants of the consumers of the world, the focus is no longer on life. Instead, he was worried that the work to create food was becoming more and more disconnected from life. He says in the same article:

“When this kind of scheme of meeting the food needs of the world population establishes hegemony, the already energy-intensive agriculture (which would destroy the food chain), will become increasingly energy intensive not only in the method of production but also in transportation, distribution, preservation, processing and consumption. All matters concerning FOOD would become an integral part of giant monopolistic industries controlled by the powerful few. When such takes place, no human person makes profit but only inhuman world wide trading systems make profit. We would do great injustice to the present and future generations and to the whole creation if we allow this to happen.”[3]

Dr Takami ends by saying what an injustice it would be to the future and to all of creation if we allowed this to happen. This then becomes the question before us.

Through its fifty years of practice, ARI has sought to offer an alternative view of how food, life, God, and creation should be connected and how each and every one of us can relate. I believe that in that connection, there is the deep meaning of foodlife. Dr Takami’s question is really a call for you and me, all of us, to participate in the practice and process of foodlife. So, what do you think? How can we best join in the work of creating food that sustains life for tomorrow? We as part of creation have a responsibility to God, ourselves and the rest of creation to respond to this question.

---

[1] Asian Rural Institute, “The Heartbeat of Takami: A book of Toshihiro Takami’s words”, (Japan, Asian Rural Institute, 2018), 58.

[2] Sharing Food is Sharing Life: In Search of a Genuine Life was a speech given on June 29, 1998 at the United Nations Dialogue on the Impact of Globalization in New York, New York. In this speech, Rev. Takami shared the above words. A copy can be requested from the Asian Rural Institute by contacting info@ari-edu.org

[3] Sharing Food is Sharing Life: In Search of a Genuine Life.

Recommended Reading: 100 Years of Methodism in East Congo

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the arrival of Methodist missionaries in Tunda in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was the beginning of Methodism in what is now the East Congo Episcopal Area. Earlier this month, the East Congo Episcopal Area hosted a centenary celebration, with all four Congolese bishops as well as many other guests attending. For more on that celebration and the history of Methodism in East Congo, see this article (in German) from the Swiss United Methodist website and the videos posted to the East Congo Episcopal Area Facebook page.

Thomas Kuhn, Missiology, and World Christianity, Part III

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.

Over the past two weeks, I have described the emergence of the current dominant paradigm within the academic field of missiology, its relationship to the field of World Christianity, and some reasons why there may be a paradigm shift on the way in missiology, in part because of developments within World Christianity. In this post, I will reflect on what it would mean for missiology to undergo a paradigm shift.

First, a paradigm shift represents a time of crisis for an academic field, but not necessarily the end of that field. When the colonial mission paradigm collapsed, it threatened to discredit the field of missiology as a whole, and indeed the field lost a good deal of prestige, funding, and positions. But missiology adopted a new paradigm and reemerged into another very productive period of scholarship, helping give birth to World Christianity. Thus, it is important to make a distinction between a field and its reigning paradigm, though there are of course tight connections between the two.

If it is true that missiology is facing a paradigm shift, some might wonder what comes next? Honestly, I do not know. I have yet to see anything that is a clear contender for a new paradigm for missiology. I can think of some possibilities, but I have no confidence that any of these would achieve a level of dominance within the field.

The first such possibility is that a new paradigm of missiology would emerge not from the Western academy but from the Majority World. While the inculturation paradigm was developed and advanced in part by missiologists from the developing world (such as Lamin Sanneh), it had its roots in responding to crises in Western Christianity related to the collapse of the colonial paradigm. Perhaps a new way of thinking about mission that responds primarily to the needs and self-understanding of the church in the Global South will become dominant in the Global North as well.

Another possibility is that new technology or new research techniques will open up new possibilities for missiological research, leading to a new paradigm. If this comes to pass, the Boston University Center for Global Christianity and Mission China Historical Christian Database might be a representation of the sorts of big data computing approaches that would allow for new types of research addressing new questions and yielding new assumptions about missiology. It is important to distinguish between new tools and new assumptions about the field, but the former can influence the latter.

A third possibility is that the increasingly severe environmental crisis caused by global climate change will force a significant re-thinking of Christian mission and its study. In this possibility, a new paradigm of missiology would emerge that sought to distance itself from eco-recklessness and instead centered care for God’s creation (human and non-human). This would parallel the breakdown of the colonial mission paradigm, which was unable to reckon with the historic harm caused by colonialism, and the emergence of the inculturation paradigm, which crafted a vision for Christian mission that affirmed all cultures.

Moreover, there is also the possibility that no new paradigm will emerge, or at least no single dominant paradigm. While missiology is a relatively small discipline, large disciplines like anthropology and history have room within them for multiple intellectual paradigms.

There is also the possibility of the withering of the field of missiology in the face of challenges to its current paradigm. Areas of human knowledge and academic disciplines are not guaranteed to continue.

In the English-speaking world, the field of philology has largely (though not entirely) been supplanted by linguistics, which continues some of the insights of philology but goes beyond them as well and has become a much larger field within academia. It is possible that World Christianity could supplant missiology in the same way.

Another analogy might be the field of geography, which continues, but in a diminished state from the level of attention, prestige, funding, and positions it enjoyed in the early 20th century. Missiology could similarly continue, but with less general interest in its work.

Ultimately, questions about the future of missiology and its dominant paradigm come down to two:

First, does the field continue to generate interesting conversations?

Continuing a paradigm involves both fidelity to core assumptions and the ability to apply those assumptions in new, interesting, and innovative ways. At the ASM conference this year, a friend remarked of a presentation, “That’s the same old thing I’ve been hearing for 30 years.” Normal science is productive when it extends the insights of an intellectual paradigm and applies them to help make sense of more phenomena. A sense that a paradigm is “played out” would diminish it.

Boredom is one threat to a paradigm. Confusion is another. According to Thomas Kuhn, paradigms break down when they no longer effectively serve as framing devices to make sense of the data. In this way, missiology would no longer generate interesting conversations if the assumptions of its dominant paradigm could no longer make sufficient sense of what Christians experience of the church, the world, and the relation between the two. That is essentially what happened at the end of the colonial paradigm, and that collapse threatened the field of missiology as a whole. Such confusion makes interesting conversations difficult.

Second, are there the resources to sustain the people and places (physical and intellectual) committed to having conversations enabled by the paradigm?

That cast of people may change, the places they work may shift, and as the past two and a half years have shown us, even how they have conversations may take new forms. But conversations don’t happen without people and a way to connect them.

For an academic field to be vibrant, it needs a critical mass of people to carry it forward. Those people need employment in positions related to the field. Such positions might extend beyond the academy, as is especially true in missiology, but it is hard to have a vibrant academic field of hobbyists. The people engaged in that field also need conferences, publications, lecture series, and the like to exchange ideas and research funding, libraries, and other resources to generate new ideas.

Of course, it is easy to catastrophize and to see in every change tremors of an on-coming disaster. But changes do matter, and changes in the world, in the church, and in the academy do impact disciplines such as missiology and their reigning intellectual paradigms. Asking where the field is going and how to keep it healthy are a useful exercise for academic disciplines.

Jonathan McCurley: FoodLife - Life and Food at the Asian Rural Institute in Japan, Part I

Today's post is by Rev. Jonathan McCurley. Rev. McCurley is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church serving through Global Ministries as a missionary in the community life of the Asian Rural Institute in Nasushiobara, Japan. This post is part of an occasional series on food and mission.

“Kids, it`s time to eat! Get dried off and come in here!”

Those were words I fondly remember my nana saying when my siblings and I would stay with her and my grandfather in the summer as children. Coming in from the backyard pool, a table spread with her wonderful cooking would be prepared there on the back porch.

I also remember that behind the pool, there was always a small garden that my nana kept up and would even ask for help in weeding or harvesting. I remember picking the tomatoes or cucumbers together with my nana and felt such pride at the harvest.

Little did I know as a child that my nana was teaching me about much more than delicious tomatoes or the importance of eating together. As an adult I have come to know that actually, in her own way, she was teaching my siblings and I about the importance of food to our lives.

Food is something that brings people together and creates a time for us to share with one another. We do not only share the fruit of the harvest though, sharing food also often becomes the means for us to share about our life with one another.

Fast forward twenty some years to Japan and a young couple getting married and moving to Nasushiobara, a small city found right outside of the outskirts of metropolitan Tokyo. Here I found myself at the Asian Rural Institute.

The Asian Rural Institute (ARI) is legally a technical school located in Eastern Japan, about 100 miles outside of Tokyo in Tochigi prefecture, but in reality, it is much more than that. It is a vision, it is a process, it is a work of repentance and reconciliation, and it is a community. Founded in response to requests from Christians in Asia, ARI brings people from around the world together to live and work together, seeking to build a world where all may live together.[1]

At the center of the life of ARI is God, the giver of life, and the creation that He so graciously gives. People at ARI learn that living together is not human centered, but at the core living together is about relationships. It is about our relationship with God, our relationship with other humans and our relationship with all created things.

At ARI, this is called the three loves and is the focus of all that happens.[2] Much of the process of ARI is learning how to share love. In a practical sense, it is how to create food that will give life and how to live within and with the creation that God has put all around us.

To understand the process of creating food that sustains life, ARI has a unique understanding, that is a term coined as “foodlife.” The process of foodlife then is not called agriculture or farming, but foodlife work.

“Foodlife is a special word used at ARI to express the reality that food and life cannot be separated; both depend upon each other. God has given us the gift of creation so that we can sustain our lives by making food. Human beings cannot survive without food, so we work to sustain life through a healthy relationship with nature. At ARI people make an effort to create foodlife in which the soil becomes richer as food is produced and human relationships become more beautiful.

“In fact, it is a joyful experience for community members when they can produce food through their labor in the morning and evening. They also gather to receive the food, giving thanks to God and to the people who labor to produce and prepare the food. Foodlife believes that when we enjoy a meal together of the food we produced and prepared, then we can experience the blessings of God and the heart of the community.”[3]

What does this look like? At ARI, the food we eat is the food we grow on the farm. Over 90% of the food we eat together, we grow together, meaning that we value a high rate of food self-sufficiency. To do this, over 60 varieties of crops and vegetables are planted, and the community keeps livestock - primarily pigs, chickens and goats.

Our foodlife is about cooking, processing and preparing meals as much as it is about growing crops or raising livestock. In fact, members of the ARI community spend one hour of foodlife work every morning and evening, dividing themselves into several groups.

Daily morning and evening foodlife work is managed by all members of ARI including participants, staff, volunteers and even visitors on a rotational basis. Waking up at 6:30 every morning, foodlife work happens before breakfast, facilitated by the leadership of the Participants of the Rural Leaders Training Program. Some go to the farm to cultivate land, some harvest vegetables, some feed livestock, while some cook breakfast.

All of this work is hard, but it is spiritually rewarding because it is all for the sake of the entire community to live healthily and peacefully.

The basic philosophy of foodlife at ARI is the full utilization of space and resources that we have. It also involves the integration of all parts of foodlife. For example, we utilize pig manure as an energy source and fertilizer, dry leaves for nursery beds and leaf compost, kitchen garbage for animal feed and compost.

We regard the forest as an important part of foodlife as well. While the forest protects land from landslides, soil erosion, typhoons and earthquakes, it provides us with fuel, dry leaves, natural pesticides, microorganisms, wild vegetables, and timber as well as increasing the biodiversity in nature. This is essential to create a balanced eco-system. This is the philosophy behind foodlife.

Actively participating in foodlife, the whole cycle of food production and consumption, helps to understand the philosophy, practical skills, and knowledge of what many would call organic farming, as well as the importance of food and food self-sufficiency, and the dignity of labor.

But more, it gives the community of ARI a sense of wholeness. The cycle of preparing soil, sowing seeds, saving seeds, caring for, harvesting, eating, sharing, and recycling clearly shows us where we are from, how life is sustained and where it will end. This gives a sense of security and a meaningful existence on this earth.

As I think back to my childhood, I realize that helping in the garden and eating together the food we harvested was not just a job to do or a habit that was important. Actually, I can now see how my nana was teaching me and my siblings about foodlife and what it means to be part of God’s creation and in relationship with others. I am thankful now more than ever for those experiences and the meaning found in them.

---

[1] More information about the founding of ARI can be found on page 2 and 3 of 40 Years of Walking with Grassroots Leaders https://ari-edu.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/40-Years-of-Walking-with-Rural-Leaders.pdf

[2] The three love movement is said to have originated with Kristen Kold (1816-1870) of Denmark and spread throughout Japan through the Ainokai (love farming group). An explanation in English of one version of the three loves and be found here: https://www.san-ai-kai.jp/philosophy/english.html

[3] This is the explanation offered in section B, Curriculum, of the Training Handbook of the Asian Rural Institute, which is used to orient members of the community as they arrive and begin their stay. A copy can be requested from the Asian Rural Institute by contacting info@ari-edu.org

Recommended Reading: Africa Initiative Calls for Episcopal Elections

Following a meeting in Nairobi in May, the Africa Initiative released a statement last month that, among other things, calls for episcopal elections to be held this year. The several page document, which reflects discussions held at its Nairobi meeting, reiterates its opposition to any form of accommodation with those accepting of homosexuality, reiterates its disappointment in the further postponement of General Conference to 2024, and explains its invitation of leaders of the Global Methodist Church to present to the group as a form of open information sharing. It also reiterates support of the Protocol, though there are separate indications ([1], [2]) that there is some dissension within the Africa Initiative about the strategy of waiting for the Protocol to pass in 2024.

The most significant new development within the Africa Initiative statement is a call at the end to hold episcopal elections in the three African central conferences by the end of the year. The statement asserts that not holding such elections "would be considered by us as marginalization; and a gross denial of the rights of the UMC in Africa to exercise its spiritual democracy by electing its new episcopal leaders as will the jurisdictions in the United States."

The Africa Initiative's point about equality among the regions of the globe is certainly well taken. The episcopacy and episcopal elections do not function the same everywhere in the world, raising the question of whether that represents contextualization, inequality, or both.

There may, however, be additional motives for the Africa Initiative to push for episcopal elections. Three out of the four bishops set to retire in Africa are criticized within the Africa Initiative document for alleged mistreatment of African United Methodists aligned with US Traditionalists. Thus, pushing for episcopal elections may also be a way for the Africa Initiative to try to elect episcopal leadership that will treat its members more favorably.

The decision about whether to call episcopal elections in Africa ultimately rests with the central conference, in conversation with the African bishops themselves and international partners who typically support the meeting of African central conferences.