As noted a week ago, Christians around the world are currently celebrating the Season of Creation, which lasts until Oct. 5th. In the spirit of the Season of Creation, I would like to pass along two stories about United Methodists around the world working on behalf of the environment. Significantly, both stories come from the Central Conferences. As this blog has reported before, the Central Conferences are at least as concerned about environmental issues, if not more so, than the American church.
The first story details efforts by Africa University and United Methodist women's groups in Zimbabwe to respond to environmental hazards caused by the lack of appropriate disposal methods for disposable diapers.
The second story relates tree-planting efforts by United Methodist children and adults in the Philippines.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Cultural captivity in the American UMC, part 2
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
In a post last week, I laid out some evidence that Robert Hunt’s claim that the UMC is bad at thinking about and adapting to cultural differences applies not just internationally but domestically as well. I noted that being tied to a white, middle-class culture creates a real problem for the UMC in modern American society, where the white middle class is a shrinking percentage of the population.
The irony to this problem is that the predecessors of the UMC used to be much better at engaging with culture. While race has always been a problematic issue for American Methodists, African-Americans have had a spot in American Methodism since the beginning. Moreover, the Methodist Episcopal Church and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had flourishing ministries among German, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Italians, and other ethnic groups that were conducted in relevant languages by leaders from those cultures.
Methodists were better at any other group of American Protestants in reaching out to immigrants and allowing them to create a place for themselves in the church. Granted, there were limitations to this outreach. It was certainly a minority of Japanese, Germans, or Swedes who became Methodist. White, American Methodists often displayed culturally chauvinist and assimilationist attitudes towards their ethnic compatriots. But they also allowed for ethnic minorities to develop their own leadership, run their own conferences, and conduct their own programs using their own cultural norms.
Fast forward a hundred years to today. Immigration is once more a significant force in American society. The percentage of Americans who are foreign-born has recently returned to highs not seen since the heyday of early 20th-century immigration.
Moreover, among these immigrants are many who have had previous experience with and connection to Methodism, something that was by and large not true of immigrants in the early 20th century. Koreans, Filipinos, Nigerians, Brazilians, Samoans, and others are coming to this country as already Methodists.
Yet, while there are some great examples of local ministries by and with these groups, the UMC has largely not been able to turn these local congregations into wider movements. There are no Methodist movements among today’s immigrants comparable to those a century ago.
What’s the difference between Methodist outreach to immigrants a century ago and Methodist outreach to immigrants now? Certainly the immigrant groups coming to America have changed and much has changed about American society in the last hundred years, and these are important factors influencing the relationship between immigration and religion.
Yet it’s worth noting that Methodism has changed in the last hundred years as well. At the same time that Methodism was welcoming immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century, it was also beginning a process of bureaucratization in its structures and professionalization in its ministry. This resulted in a much thicker Book of Discipline with more rules regarding things like ordination, church properties, and recognized ministries of the denomination.
While there were benefits to bureaucratization and professionalization, both processes also closely tied the church to ways of operating that were taken from the dominant white, professional culture of the mid- to late-20th century. In the process, other cultural approaches to leadership, decision-making, and organization were gradually brought into line with the dominant culture or squeezed out of the church.
Thus, it is not just that the immigrants arriving in the US are different now than they were a century ago or that American society is different, but that the church is different and has less room in its communal life for approaches to ministry that deviate from white, middle-class norms.
There are both ethical/theological and practical reasons why this situation is problematic for The United Methodist Church. Theologically and ethically, an inability to reach beyond a limited subset of the population undercuts an emphasis on the catholicity of the Wesleyan message and allows for the perpetuation of latent if not explicit racism and ethno-centrism. Practically, as already noted, it dooms the UMC to further demographic decline.
Yet it doesn’t need to be that way. Methodism has successfully welcomed cultural diversity in the past and could do so again in the future. It would require sacrifices by those in the dominant culture, but does our faith not call us to sacrifice for the sake of making disciples?
In a post last week, I laid out some evidence that Robert Hunt’s claim that the UMC is bad at thinking about and adapting to cultural differences applies not just internationally but domestically as well. I noted that being tied to a white, middle-class culture creates a real problem for the UMC in modern American society, where the white middle class is a shrinking percentage of the population.
The irony to this problem is that the predecessors of the UMC used to be much better at engaging with culture. While race has always been a problematic issue for American Methodists, African-Americans have had a spot in American Methodism since the beginning. Moreover, the Methodist Episcopal Church and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had flourishing ministries among German, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Italians, and other ethnic groups that were conducted in relevant languages by leaders from those cultures.
Methodists were better at any other group of American Protestants in reaching out to immigrants and allowing them to create a place for themselves in the church. Granted, there were limitations to this outreach. It was certainly a minority of Japanese, Germans, or Swedes who became Methodist. White, American Methodists often displayed culturally chauvinist and assimilationist attitudes towards their ethnic compatriots. But they also allowed for ethnic minorities to develop their own leadership, run their own conferences, and conduct their own programs using their own cultural norms.
Fast forward a hundred years to today. Immigration is once more a significant force in American society. The percentage of Americans who are foreign-born has recently returned to highs not seen since the heyday of early 20th-century immigration.
Moreover, among these immigrants are many who have had previous experience with and connection to Methodism, something that was by and large not true of immigrants in the early 20th century. Koreans, Filipinos, Nigerians, Brazilians, Samoans, and others are coming to this country as already Methodists.
Yet, while there are some great examples of local ministries by and with these groups, the UMC has largely not been able to turn these local congregations into wider movements. There are no Methodist movements among today’s immigrants comparable to those a century ago.
What’s the difference between Methodist outreach to immigrants a century ago and Methodist outreach to immigrants now? Certainly the immigrant groups coming to America have changed and much has changed about American society in the last hundred years, and these are important factors influencing the relationship between immigration and religion.
Yet it’s worth noting that Methodism has changed in the last hundred years as well. At the same time that Methodism was welcoming immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century, it was also beginning a process of bureaucratization in its structures and professionalization in its ministry. This resulted in a much thicker Book of Discipline with more rules regarding things like ordination, church properties, and recognized ministries of the denomination.
While there were benefits to bureaucratization and professionalization, both processes also closely tied the church to ways of operating that were taken from the dominant white, professional culture of the mid- to late-20th century. In the process, other cultural approaches to leadership, decision-making, and organization were gradually brought into line with the dominant culture or squeezed out of the church.
Thus, it is not just that the immigrants arriving in the US are different now than they were a century ago or that American society is different, but that the church is different and has less room in its communal life for approaches to ministry that deviate from white, middle-class norms.
There are both ethical/theological and practical reasons why this situation is problematic for The United Methodist Church. Theologically and ethically, an inability to reach beyond a limited subset of the population undercuts an emphasis on the catholicity of the Wesleyan message and allows for the perpetuation of latent if not explicit racism and ethno-centrism. Practically, as already noted, it dooms the UMC to further demographic decline.
Yet it doesn’t need to be that way. Methodism has successfully welcomed cultural diversity in the past and could do so again in the future. It would require sacrifices by those in the dominant culture, but does our faith not call us to sacrifice for the sake of making disciples?
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Plan Now: Season of Creation starts Sept. 1
This Thursday, Sept. 1st is the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation and inaugurates a five-week-long Season of Creation, which lasts until Oct. 4th, as this press release from the WCC notes. The World Day of Prayer and the Season of Creation are ecumenical efforts uniting Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Protestants. Christians from those traditions are invited to engage in prayer and take action on issues related to creation care during this five-week period.
This event (or series of events) is significant for several reasons:
1. It reflects the growing importance of creation care as an area of missiological action and reflection. Care for creation is, for instance, an important theme in the WCC's recent affirmation on mission and evangelism, Together Towards Life.
2. It originated with the Orthodox but has become an ecumenical event. The WCC press release notes, "The late Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I proclaimed 1 September as a day of prayer for the environment in 1989. The Orthodox church year starts that day with a commemoration of how God created the world." Oct. 4th was chosen as the end day because it is the feast of St. Francis in the Catholic Church. Thus, the five week-long Season of Creation was born of ecumenical interaction that combined affirmations from Orthodox and Catholic traditions. The movement continues as an ecumenical one, with Anglicans and conciliar Protestants now joined in support.
This event (or series of events) is significant for several reasons:
1. It reflects the growing importance of creation care as an area of missiological action and reflection. Care for creation is, for instance, an important theme in the WCC's recent affirmation on mission and evangelism, Together Towards Life.
2. It originated with the Orthodox but has become an ecumenical event. The WCC press release notes, "The late Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I proclaimed 1 September as a day of prayer for the environment in 1989. The Orthodox church year starts that day with a commemoration of how God created the world." Oct. 4th was chosen as the end day because it is the feast of St. Francis in the Catholic Church. Thus, the five week-long Season of Creation was born of ecumenical interaction that combined affirmations from Orthodox and Catholic traditions. The movement continues as an ecumenical one, with Anglicans and conciliar Protestants now joined in support.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Cultural captivity in the American UMC, part 1
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
A few weeks ago, Robert Hunt wrote a series of blog posts (post 1, post 2, and post 3) about The United Methodist Church’s difficulties in taking culture into consideration in our conversations about what it means to be a global church. Dr. Hunt, focusing in particular on how decision-making processes are embedded in culture, wrote, “The whole UMC is set up in decision making structures that are distinctly Anglo-American in culture. … These structures are significantly different from those of ethnic minorities within the US, and even more so United Methodists outside the U.S.”
While Dr. Hunt details this argument for United Methodists outside the US, I’d like to pursue just a couple of examples of how this argument plays out within the US, with special reference to leadership rather than decision-making.
Itineracy is a deeply-held value in the UMC, despite a long-term trend toward longer pastorates and notable exceptions at big-steeple church. Yet Anthony J. Shipley notes that frequent changes of pastoral leadership do not fit well with prevailing African-American expectations of church leadership. He writes, “Wherever you see a strong African-American church in an urban center, you will see a pastor who has been there a long time. The way we do business in The UMC, moving pastors every few years, you cannot possibly build a strong church.”[1] The examples of strong African-American churches Shipley provides have all benefitted from longer-than-average pastoral stays.
In another example, Justo Gonzalez has written about the challenges associated with providing theological education to rising Hispanic pastoral leaders in the UMC. Because the percentage of Hispanics with college degrees is lower than it is for other groups and because many Hispanics lack the financial resources and time to complete a three-year M.Div. degree, this pre-requisite for fully ordained ministry in the UMC may be out of reach. Gonzalez states bluntly that “we must acknowledge the cultural captivity of much of our institutional and ecclesiastical life, which prevents us from recruiting and making way for the growing minorities that will soon be the majority of the church.”[2]
The two examples cited address pastoral leadership, but one could make similar arguments related to lay leadership, decision-making, finances, and other areas of organizational life, as well as the much more obvious realm of cultural differences surrounding worship. The examples have been framed in terms of cultural differences related to race/ethnicity, but there are also cultural differences related to socioeconomic class (both Shipley and Gonzalez have strong words on this point, too) or even generation that are also relevant to the church.
The upshot of this difficulty of the UMC in responding to culture is not just the possibility for cultural misunderstandings and conflicts that exists in the global UMC but a real limit to the UMC’s reach in the US. Despite the presence of some very faithful members and leaders of color, we are overwhelmingly a white, middle-class church in a country that is less and less either.
Robert P. Jones’ recent book The End of White, Christian America is surely hyperbolic in its title, but it makes an important point: Christianity is declining among white Americans, and the growth segments for Christianity in America are among non-whites. As this blog has previous reported, the UMC is one of the whitest denominations in the US.
The Pew Forum and others have thoroughly documented the decrease of the middle-class in the US, as more people move either up or down the economic ladder. As this blog has previously reported, the decline in the American middle class parallels the decrease in American UMC membership.
Hence, if the UMC is not able to acknowledge, account for, and adapt to cultural differences domestically as well as globally, we can expect our decline in the US to continue no matter what position we take on sexuality, no matter what revitalization plan we put into place, no matter what sort of restructuring we undertake.
A few weeks ago, Robert Hunt wrote a series of blog posts (post 1, post 2, and post 3) about The United Methodist Church’s difficulties in taking culture into consideration in our conversations about what it means to be a global church. Dr. Hunt, focusing in particular on how decision-making processes are embedded in culture, wrote, “The whole UMC is set up in decision making structures that are distinctly Anglo-American in culture. … These structures are significantly different from those of ethnic minorities within the US, and even more so United Methodists outside the U.S.”
While Dr. Hunt details this argument for United Methodists outside the US, I’d like to pursue just a couple of examples of how this argument plays out within the US, with special reference to leadership rather than decision-making.
Itineracy is a deeply-held value in the UMC, despite a long-term trend toward longer pastorates and notable exceptions at big-steeple church. Yet Anthony J. Shipley notes that frequent changes of pastoral leadership do not fit well with prevailing African-American expectations of church leadership. He writes, “Wherever you see a strong African-American church in an urban center, you will see a pastor who has been there a long time. The way we do business in The UMC, moving pastors every few years, you cannot possibly build a strong church.”[1] The examples of strong African-American churches Shipley provides have all benefitted from longer-than-average pastoral stays.
In another example, Justo Gonzalez has written about the challenges associated with providing theological education to rising Hispanic pastoral leaders in the UMC. Because the percentage of Hispanics with college degrees is lower than it is for other groups and because many Hispanics lack the financial resources and time to complete a three-year M.Div. degree, this pre-requisite for fully ordained ministry in the UMC may be out of reach. Gonzalez states bluntly that “we must acknowledge the cultural captivity of much of our institutional and ecclesiastical life, which prevents us from recruiting and making way for the growing minorities that will soon be the majority of the church.”[2]
The two examples cited address pastoral leadership, but one could make similar arguments related to lay leadership, decision-making, finances, and other areas of organizational life, as well as the much more obvious realm of cultural differences surrounding worship. The examples have been framed in terms of cultural differences related to race/ethnicity, but there are also cultural differences related to socioeconomic class (both Shipley and Gonzalez have strong words on this point, too) or even generation that are also relevant to the church.
The upshot of this difficulty of the UMC in responding to culture is not just the possibility for cultural misunderstandings and conflicts that exists in the global UMC but a real limit to the UMC’s reach in the US. Despite the presence of some very faithful members and leaders of color, we are overwhelmingly a white, middle-class church in a country that is less and less either.
Robert P. Jones’ recent book The End of White, Christian America is surely hyperbolic in its title, but it makes an important point: Christianity is declining among white Americans, and the growth segments for Christianity in America are among non-whites. As this blog has previous reported, the UMC is one of the whitest denominations in the US.
The Pew Forum and others have thoroughly documented the decrease of the middle-class in the US, as more people move either up or down the economic ladder. As this blog has previously reported, the decline in the American middle class parallels the decrease in American UMC membership.
Hence, if the UMC is not able to acknowledge, account for, and adapt to cultural differences domestically as well as globally, we can expect our decline in the US to continue no matter what position we take on sexuality, no matter what revitalization plan we put into place, no matter what sort of restructuring we undertake.
[1] Anthony J. Shipley, “The Future of African Americans and Mission” in Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, ed. Charles E. Cole (New York: General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church, 2004), 185.
[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, The History of Theological Education. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2015), 139.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Recommended Reading: European bishops on A Way Forward
The Council of Bishops is just over a week away from announcing the membership of the Commission on a Way Forward, as we've previously reported. Thus, by now most of the content of this news article about A Way Forward from the UMC in Germany will not be news to most readers.
Yet the article is worth noting for the last two paragraphs, which give perspectives on the Commission on a Way Forward by Bishops Alsted and Wenner. American audiences have no doubt read perspectives from a variety of American bishops, but in the interests of adding global voices to the discussion, I have translated (with some help from Google) the last two paragraphs below:
"Christian Alsted, the chairperson of the Connectional Table, a type of international church council for the UMC, supports the opinion of the president of the Council of Bishops [Bruce Ough]. The bishop of the Central Conference of Northern Europe asked it to 'respect the decision of the General Conference as the highest body of the church.' The special commission should be granted time and space for their work, 'while we pray that the Holy Spirit gives them the necessary wisdom and insight.' At the same time, 'we should use the opportunity to focus our resources and our attention on the needs of this world, in which God is at work.'
"'Great tasks lie before us,' commented Rosemarie Wenner, bishop of the UMC in Germany, on the current situation. It is, however, possible to give one another room for diversity, 'so long as we are united in the main task: to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.' She prays 'that we remain together to set an example that different opinions do not hinder us from listening together to Christ and witnessing to him as the one that reconciles us and the world with God.'"
Yet the article is worth noting for the last two paragraphs, which give perspectives on the Commission on a Way Forward by Bishops Alsted and Wenner. American audiences have no doubt read perspectives from a variety of American bishops, but in the interests of adding global voices to the discussion, I have translated (with some help from Google) the last two paragraphs below:
"Christian Alsted, the chairperson of the Connectional Table, a type of international church council for the UMC, supports the opinion of the president of the Council of Bishops [Bruce Ough]. The bishop of the Central Conference of Northern Europe asked it to 'respect the decision of the General Conference as the highest body of the church.' The special commission should be granted time and space for their work, 'while we pray that the Holy Spirit gives them the necessary wisdom and insight.' At the same time, 'we should use the opportunity to focus our resources and our attention on the needs of this world, in which God is at work.'
"'Great tasks lie before us,' commented Rosemarie Wenner, bishop of the UMC in Germany, on the current situation. It is, however, possible to give one another room for diversity, 'so long as we are united in the main task: to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.' She prays 'that we remain together to set an example that different opinions do not hinder us from listening together to Christ and witnessing to him as the one that reconciles us and the world with God.'"
Thursday, August 18, 2016
UM & Global updates
Astute readers may have already noticed two changes to UM & Global in the past month and a half.
The first is actually a change for the blogmaster, rather than the blog itself. As you can see in the "About Me" section at the bottom of the page, I have a new position as Director of Mission Theology for Global Ministries of the UMC. While Global Ministries previously provided some financial support for the blog, this is a much closer relationship to the agency for me.
This change in my status will not, however, affect this blog. This blog continues to be a project of the United Methodist Professors of Mission, not Global Ministries. The materials posted on this blog, whether written by me or other commentators, continue to reflect the opinions of the individual authors and do not represent the opinions one way or the other of Global Ministries.
Moreover, the blog will continue to feature the same mix of solicited and submitted posts, recommended readings, and my own commentary as it has in the past. It will continue to focus on our six main content areas: mission, global United Methodist ecclesiology, global social issues, culture and diversity, ecumenical and interreligious relationships, and international Methodist partnerships.
The second recent change for the blog is the creation of a new Facebook page for the blog. In addition to announcing new posts on Twitter, they will also be posted to the Facebook page. I believe this addition will allow the blog to have a greater reach than previously possible through just the website and Twitter.
Thus, I encourage readers to like us on Facebook themselves and to share our page with other United Methodists as well.
Thanks again to all who read, share, and write for this blog. Here's to continued conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church!
The first is actually a change for the blogmaster, rather than the blog itself. As you can see in the "About Me" section at the bottom of the page, I have a new position as Director of Mission Theology for Global Ministries of the UMC. While Global Ministries previously provided some financial support for the blog, this is a much closer relationship to the agency for me.
This change in my status will not, however, affect this blog. This blog continues to be a project of the United Methodist Professors of Mission, not Global Ministries. The materials posted on this blog, whether written by me or other commentators, continue to reflect the opinions of the individual authors and do not represent the opinions one way or the other of Global Ministries.
Moreover, the blog will continue to feature the same mix of solicited and submitted posts, recommended readings, and my own commentary as it has in the past. It will continue to focus on our six main content areas: mission, global United Methodist ecclesiology, global social issues, culture and diversity, ecumenical and interreligious relationships, and international Methodist partnerships.
The second recent change for the blog is the creation of a new Facebook page for the blog. In addition to announcing new posts on Twitter, they will also be posted to the Facebook page. I believe this addition will allow the blog to have a greater reach than previously possible through just the website and Twitter.
Thus, I encourage readers to like us on Facebook themselves and to share our page with other United Methodists as well.
Thanks again to all who read, share, and write for this blog. Here's to continued conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church!
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Recommended readings: European annual conferences and migration
Following are two stories about how European United Methodists continue to undertake work relating to migration:
First, migration was a significant topic of discussion at the meeting of the Switzerland-France-North Africa Annual Conference, held July 16-19. The conversations around migration led to the annual conference adopting an official statement on migrants and refugees. The statement traces themes of migration in the Bible before making connections to current reasons for migration and ethical principles for responding to migrants. A report on the conference and the text of the statement can be found in this story (in French) from the annual conference. The statement can also be viewed in German and English versions.
Second, a video entitled "Willkommen" ("Welcome") produced by German United Methodists about their work with refugees was shown at the annual conference of the Methodist Church in Britain in July. The video made a significant impact on conference attendees, as reported in this article (in German) from the UMC in Germany. The end of the article also mentions continued discussions of migration at this summer's annual conferences in Germany. More information on the video and related educational materials can be found here, and the video can be viewed online in German and English versions.
First, migration was a significant topic of discussion at the meeting of the Switzerland-France-North Africa Annual Conference, held July 16-19. The conversations around migration led to the annual conference adopting an official statement on migrants and refugees. The statement traces themes of migration in the Bible before making connections to current reasons for migration and ethical principles for responding to migrants. A report on the conference and the text of the statement can be found in this story (in French) from the annual conference. The statement can also be viewed in German and English versions.
Second, a video entitled "Willkommen" ("Welcome") produced by German United Methodists about their work with refugees was shown at the annual conference of the Methodist Church in Britain in July. The video made a significant impact on conference attendees, as reported in this article (in German) from the UMC in Germany. The end of the article also mentions continued discussions of migration at this summer's annual conferences in Germany. More information on the video and related educational materials can be found here, and the video can be viewed online in German and English versions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)