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. This
piece originally appeared as a commentary on the United Methodist News Service site and is republished here with permission.
Connectionalism is a fundamental part of what it means to be church for Methodists.
But recent divisions in and separations from The United Methodist
Church have raised a host of questions about the meaning of
connectionalism: If some people and churches leave The United Methodist
Church, are they still “in connection” with United Methodists? If so, in
what way? If The United Methodist Church has connectional relationships
with other Methodist denominations such as the AME Church, could it
develop similar relationships with the Global Methodist Church? What
about churches that leave The United Methodist Church to become
independent? Are they still connectional, or have they lost something
distinctly Methodist?
To begin answering such questions, one must look at the many possible
meanings of connectionalism. Methodists have varied ways in which they
connect with one another and with other Christians. These varied ways
include organizational, relational and theological dimensions of
connectionalism.
Connectionalism as organization
For many, the term “connectionalism” brings to mind denominational
structures. Indeed, denominational structures are one of the most
important ways that United Methodists connect to one another.
Nevertheless, the concept of denomination is a modern one and one that
is understood differently in different parts of the world.
Methodists connected to one another before our current denominational
structures and connect with others outside those structures as well.
Thinking of connectionalism in terms of denominational structures and,
more broadly, in terms of organizational linkages highlights several
important forms of connectionalism.
First, it emphasizes the important link between connectionalism and
conferencing. In John Wesley’s days, the “connexion” was those preachers
who conferenced with Wesley. Connectionalism was defined by
conferencing. Since Wesley’s days, various forms of conferencing – from
local charge conferences to General Conference to the World Methodist
Conference – have continued to be important means for Methodists to
connect with one another.
Yet the varying levels of conference also highlight the complexity of
connectionalism as defined by organizational connections. Two United
Methodists in Minnesota may have a fairly direct connection because they
are part of the same General Conference, jurisdictional conference and
annual conference. A United Methodist in Alabama and one in Angola would
be connected less directly by the General Conference but would also be
separated by central/jurisdictional conference and annual conference (in
addition to language and culture!). Moreover, both the United Methodist
in Alabama and the one in Angola would be in some sense connected to a
Methodist in Argentina through the World Methodist Conference, even
though they were in separate denominations. Within and beyond The United
Methodist Church, conferencing both connects and distinguishes varying
groups of Methodists.
Mentioning Argentinian Methodists raises the question of
inter-denominational connectionalism. Indeed, The United Methodist
Church as a whole has a variety of bilateral and multilateral connections
with other denominations. Here again, variety proliferates. There are
at least five different forms of bilateral interdenominational
connection alone (concordat, affiliated autonomous, affiliated united,
covenanting and full communion). The United Methodist Church is part of
many multilateral ecumenical groups, including the World Methodist
Council.
Moreover, the different levels of conferencing and variety of
inter-denominational connectionalism can intersect to produce an
exponentially greater number of possible forms of connection within and
beyond Methodism. Many central conferences and annual conferences have
direct ecumenical relationships with other church bodies, either
bilaterally or multilaterally. United Methodists in Wisconsin are
bilaterally connected to Methodists in Bolivia, and United Methodists in
the Democratic Republic of Congo are connected to many other
denominations through that country’s council of churches.
Organizational connections abound even further at the local level. A
United Methodist congregation may be connected to an AME congregation
(along with Lutherans, Baptists, Church of God in Christ and others)
through a local ministerial association or through a joint agreement to
support a particular social ministry. The variety of such local forms of
organizational connectionalism are beyond counting.
What characterizes all this dizzying array of organizational
connectionalism within and beyond Methodism is formal agreements among
those organizations. Such arrangements make the rules, rights and
responsibilities involved in organizational connections clear. Put
another way, organizational connection includes explicit agreements
about joint decision-making, finances, programming, accountability, etc.
These sorts of organizational connections are the ones that are most
directly being changed when individuals and churches leave The United
Methodist Church. Changes in organizational status raise questions about
the rules, rights and responsibilities that had previously held. It is
clear that those leaving The United Methodist Church will not have the
same rights and responsibilities in the denomination as they previously
had — nor will they be bound by the same rules. It remains a significant
open question what, if any, new forms of organizational connections
(out of the many possible forms on many possible levels) will come to
exist among those remaining United Methodist and those formerly in the
church.
Connectionalism as relationship
While organizational forms of connection within and beyond The United
Methodist Church as a denomination are important, they are far from the
only way Methodists connect. As I have written about with regard to European Methodism, personal relationships can be just as central to how Methodists connect with one another as formal organizational ties.
Here again, roots of a relational understanding of connection can be
traced back to John Wesley. The earliest Methodist conferences were not
formal organizations but rather gatherings of people that had personal
relationships with Wesley. Developing Methodist organization grew out of
pre-existing relationships among Wesley and the early Methodist
preachers and class leaders.
The first conferences were not only relational but focused
specifically on conversation. Thinking of connection in terms of
communities of conversation remains relevant today. Whether those
conversations happen via social media, scholarly discourse or official
ecumenical dialogue, participating in conversations about what it means
to be Methodist is one of the things that makes someone Methodist and
part of the Methodist connection.
Of course, Methodists are not focused just on talking; they are
people who believe that one’s faith should be lived out in one’s
actions. Thus, another important way in which Methodists connect
relationally is by collaborating in mission and ministry.
Sometimes this collaboration can take the form of formal,
organizational connections. But there are countless examples of informal
collaboration among Methodists within and beyond The United Methodist
Church that are based on the personal connections of those involved in
the work, not on a formal organizational contract. Such informal
collaborative connections are especially important at the local level,
where Methodists work with one another and others to run soup kitchens,
carry out evangelistic campaigns, lobby for policies and share
discipleship resources.
A deterioration in such interpersonal, relational connections has
both preceded and precipitated the current breaking of organizational
connectional ties. Breaking such organizational ties will continue to
rend personal connections. Indeed, much of the angst that people feel
over the severing of organizational connections is driven by concerns
for what that will mean for relationships.
Connectionalism as theological principle
Formal organizational ties and interpersonal relationships are
concrete and tangible expressions of connectionalism. But behind these
practices of connectionalism lie theological understandings of
connectionalism. A theological understanding of connectionalism affirms
that the true nature of the church must include the bonds among
congregations. This view contrasts with a congregational understanding
of the church, in which each congregation is by itself fully the church.
A belief in connectionalism is connected to beliefs about the unity of
the church and the catholicity of the church.
Some of the concern about the present denominational division within
The United Methodist Church is a theological concern for what this
division expresses about our belief in or realization of the unity of
the church. This concern is fair. Yet as a theological principle,
concepts like the unity of the church and connectionalism are not
dependent upon human practices but rather rooted in the divine will. All
Christians are connected to one another by their mutual connection to
Christ, whether we recognize those connections or not and however well
(or poorly) we live them out.
Shifting senses of connectionalism
As I have indicated above, the current denominational division has
raised questions about organizational, relational and theological
understandings of connectionalism. In particular, shifting
organizational and relational connections are deeply intertwined. A
breakdown in relational connections makes an organizational separation
easier to contemplate, which has further implications for
relationships.
A theological view of connectionalism can either be a source of
anxiety or reassurance amid these fracturing organizational and
relational connections. We must also take seriously the possibility that
as organizational and relational forms of connectionalism are
reconfigured, this may shift theological understandings of
connectionalism.
As United Methodists and Global Methodists grapple with how to relate
to one another, either directly, indirectly (through common
participation in multilateral groups like the World Methodist Council),
and programmatically (through common use of Wespath services, for
instance), how will these new forms of practical organizational and
relational connectionalism lead to new insights about or changed
interpretations of connectionalism as a theological principle?
For Methodists within and beyond The United Methodist Church,
fidelity to the Methodist tradition demands that we grapple with such
questions.
