Recommended Viewing: Living Our Principles

The General Board of Church and Society has produced a series of six videos featuring reflections from United Methodists around the world on the denomination's Social Principles. As GBCS notes in their press release announcing the video resource, the videos feature interviews with United Methodists from the US, Africa, and the Philippines. The episodes, each of which focuses on one section of the Social Principles, range in length from 40 minutes to about an hour. While the Social Principles are being revised, and the new Principles are available for comment, the videos are a useful resource not just for what they reveal about the current form of the document, but even more so for the ways in which they show a common United Methodist document being used and interpreted in many contexts around the world.

E. Julu Swen: Sharing on the “Anti-Christian” Comments of Two Great Churchmen

Today's post is by E. Julu Swen. Mr. Swen is a journalist and United Methodist from Liberia. An original version of the piece appeared on the author's personal blog. It is used with permission.

The world was rocked a few years ago by the comments of Pope Francis of the Catholic Church and retired Archbishop Bishop Desmond Tutu of the Anglican Church in South Africa in support of gay and lesbian communities. In their separate comments, each clergyman supported the fact that the constituents of these communities have legitimate rights to God's Kingdom and said that he was in no way going to serve as a barrier to any of these people in their attempt to seek entrance to God's Kingdom. Bishop Desmond Tutu said, “God should allow gay people into heaven,” while Pope Francis said, 'If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?”

Surely, these comments were too hard for any soft-headed Christian to take lightly, especially coming from Pope Francis and Bishop Tutu, two great Christians, if I may put it that way.

In Liberia and in the social media (Facebook) there were several comments about the truthfulness of Bishop Tutu's Christian stance on the gay issue. “The Bishop is not a Christian,” one comment read. As I read through the various comments, I was tempted to ask whether these people were now taking the place of God, to be condemning other individuals for their failings to follow God's instruction of righteous living instead of leaving that assignment to God.

I did not see similar comments on the pronouncement of Pope Francis simply because it was not on the social media (Facebook) or not on my page. With the millions of Catholics around world and the numbers of sexual abuse cases haunting the Catholic Church, eggs would have been thrown at the Pope or even at television sets if his congregations were watching around the world. As a matter of fact, thank God Pope Francis made the comment on the plane after a well-attended meeting in Brazil. Had he made the statement in one of those gathering in Brazil, he would have lost more than half his audience.

I strongly think that these two outstanding men are not alone in their thoughts and beliefs. As a matter of fact, I want to share in their stance on the issue of the rights of gay and lesbian communities. There are several institutions and documentation that support these positions. Additionally, I am sure it is not the place of any one person to condemn another for a decision that rests purely with God.

I read that Bishop Tutu's comments were in opposition to the decision of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe who threatened to “chop off the heads of gays & lesbians in his country.” As if there were not too many criminal activities in that part of the African continent or on the continent as a whole, why would any leader want to kill his people just because of their choice of life? How many gallows are there for the armed robbers, drug pushers and users, sex offenders, and all the various kinds of trafficking and traffickers? Oh, maybe African leaders, especially in those countries where there are laws against gay and lesbian practice, are getting kickbacks from the other criminal activities, which they are not getting from the gay and lesbian people.

"I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this" Bishop Tutu said in his support of gay rights, something largely shunned and frowned upon on the African continent. Yet a lot of Africans, myself included, are not made destitute by the gay and lesbian people, but rather by the individuals who preside over our nations as presidents, lawmakers, and judges. These are the people we should shun, instead of the tiniest minority whose orientation is different from ours.

As I rumble through these classic statements (my description) of these two great Christians, especially, Bishop Tutu's, I realize that individuals with different sexual orientation have a place in God's Kingdom once they are transformed by God Himself. I am not certain that Bishop Tutu would want sinners and their sins in heaven, just as the Pope Francis would not want to interact with people who practice homosexual acts, unlike those with homosexual orientation. For example, Pope Francis stated, “There is a Catholic teaching that separates those with homosexual orientation from those who practice homosexual acts.” According to the Pope, the orientation is not sin; it is the act that is considered sinful.

I think the retired Archbishop Tutu's desire to be in heaven with gay people is rooted in the scriptures. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

This is where I share in Bishop Tutu's comment. If the Apostle Paul can recognize the already washed people of God with their former identity, who is the Bishop to think that gay people will not be in heaven? The logical content of the Bishop's comment gets my strongest support.

I would not have agreed with Pope Francis more if I had not read what the Scriptures said about God's position on these matters. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:13-16).

For example, the Pope admitted that there is “a lot written about the gay lobby in the Vatican, but I still have not seen anyone in the Vatican with an identity card saying they are gay.” The same is true about all the religious institutions (especially churches) in the world. We all go to church with some kind of sin under our sleeves or with someone we know is living a sinful life. Surely, we don't stop going because of that reason. We either talk them into changing or pray for them to change; and gays and lesbians are included.

The United Methodist Church Book of Discipline states, “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons” (BOD para. 161, The Nurturing Community).

Based on all these documentations and others that I cannot cite in this piece, I share in and support the stance of these two great men who in my lifetime have presided over and are still presiding over large Christian communities in the world. I strongly believe that there is room for more at the Cross of Jesus and this includes washed and transformed gay and lesbian people. As a matter of fact, the UMC Book of Discipline states that “the grace of God is available to all”; and in my judgment, that grace can only be found in God’s house, the Church.

How much Methodist structure is necessary globally?

Today’s post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott. It is the third of a four-part series on money and relationships in the global church. Dr. Scott is Director of Mission Theology for the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent official positions of Global Ministries.

Over the past couple weeks, I have been raising the question of how United Methodists can face the problem of vast economic inequality in the church in a way that preserves relationship between rich and poor without turning those relationships into ones of dependence solidifying inequalities of power. Last week’s post examined the asset-based development approach, which is a way of relativizing the economic resources shared by the rich by recognizing the value of other, non-economic resources. Today’s approach, reducing the church structures required globally, is a means to reduce the need for economic resources to be shared from the rich to the poor.

The United Methodist Church and its predecessors, along with Western Protestant missionaries generally, have promoted through their civilizing missions a rather expensive model of being church based on Western modernity. People joke about the UMC being nothing but committees. Yet this joke gets at a truth: The United Methodist Church is organized in a particular way that presumes various aspects of a modern voluntary organization – committees, officers, by-laws, etc. And this is to say nothing about the buildings, programming, and paid staff that also go along with how we understand church.

The rub is that all of these – buildings, programming, paid staff, non-local committee meetings – require financial resources. As detailed last week, other assets are necessary for the work of the church, and these other assets must be recognized as such and valued accordingly. Still, financial assets are needed, and the more buildings, programming, paid staff, and non-local committee meetings you have, the more money you need to fund them. Such buildings, programming, staff, and meetings are not necessarily bad, but we make a mistake if we assume they must characterize the church everywhere and at all times.

If the church in all locations is required to have a certain level of these expenses that exceeds local abilities in poor countries to pay for them, then the church in those countries must rely on the church in rich countries to underwrite this approach to church. In this case, the church in poor countries must not only beg for money to help carry out ministries in society such as health and education ministries, it must rely on the church in rich countries for the basic operations of the church. When the church in a poor country cannot pay for its on-going basic operations, it becomes dependent on the church in rich countries in ways that psychologically, morally, and spiritually distort both poor and rich.

If a church (either a congregation or a regional body) lacks the funds to pay for all of its basic operations, there are two solutions to that problem: increase revenues or decrease costs. I’ll look at possible ways to increase revenues in next week’s post, but for this week, I want to talk about the other half of the equation: decreasing costs.

I would like to make a distinction between decreasing costs and cutting costs. The latter is a management technique arising out of modern capitalism that seeks to do the same things while spending less by realizing greater efficiencies in process. By the former I mean a wholesale rethinking of what costs are necessary in all parts of the church around the globe and jettisoning those that are not necessary in particular local contexts.

While United Methodists are tied to a modern, organizational understanding of the church, it is important to point out that the church hasn’t meant the same thing in all places and times. While the church has certainly required some level of resources to operate and the church in some places and times has had great wealth relative to its surrounding society, that is not to say that all churches have always required the same level of resources that are required to pay for several full-time staff, a modern building with utilities, an array of professionalized ministries, and frequent national and international travel.

One way to decrease the costs of being church is to decide that some of these components are not universally necessary or not necessary in the same quantities as we currently have them in the UMC. This could mean reducing professionalized ministries, full-time ministers, required committee meetings, etc. I say this not to make a case for getting rid of any particular one of these options, but to give a sense of the range of what could be possible.

Moreover, I am not calling for rich Western United Methodists to unilaterally tell poor United Methodists, either in other countries or in their own home countries, that they will no longer pay for things that the poor United Methodists hold dear. What I am suggesting is that all United Methodists support and encourage local adaptation and contextualization of the church that takes into consideration the economic conditions of the church along with its social, political, and religious conditions.

To some extent, such adaptation already happens. Church does means something different in a village church in Mozambique than it does in a suburban megachurch in Texas, and that is well and good.

Yet to continue this process of adapting the church to its local economic and other conditions would also require some changes to the Book of Discipline, which often stipulates a model of church based on a presumed American level of financial wherewithal. Such changes are part of what’s going on with the effort to create a Global Book of Discipline. Thus, that effort is to be commended and encouraged.

In this process of adaptation, rich United Methodists must not presume to determine for poor United Methodists what structures they should have locally. They should listen to poor United Methodists to find out what parts of church structure they find necessary, relevant, and sustainable in their contexts. In so doing, rich United Methodists must adopt a posture of listening and learning. Certainly, they can engage poor United Methodists in conversations about financial sustainability, but these much be conversations and not proclamations on the part of the rich.

Adopting less expensive local adaptations of church and its ministries would mean that money is less a factor in relationships between different branches of The United Methodist Church, since fewer poorer branches would be dependent upon richer branches for their very existence. Moreover, to the extent that money does flow from richer United Methodists to poorer United Methodists, it can be part of asset-based partnerships to transform the world and not just keep the lights on. Thus, adaptation of church structures can yield not only greater equality, but greater mission as well.

Recommended Readings: United Methodism in Germany

In case you missed it, United Methodist News Service has been putting out a series of stories about The United Methodist Church in Germany. While entries in this series go back a couple of years, many of the stories have been published in the last couple of months. Not only are these stories a chance to learn more about United Methodism in another part of the world, most also deal directly with the church as it is in mission.

Among the stories are several about United Methodists seeking revitalized congregations and new ministries in the community.

Also included are several about the history of deaconesses in the German UMC.

Quite a number of the stories address immigration within society and within the church.

The General Board of Church and Society also met recently in Berlin, Germany. Board members were given another glimpse into the German church and German society. GBCS, UM News Service #1, UM News Service #2, the Germany Episcopal Area #1, and the Germany Episcopal Area #2 all wrote articles on this meeting.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo: The Church Exists for Mission

This is the third of a three-part blog by Rev. Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Associate Professor of Evangelism, Mission, and Methodist Studies at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, that will discuss the work of the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the formation of The United Methodist Church.

Swiss theologian Emil Brunner wrote his now famous statement in 1931 that has redefined the church’s mission: “The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning.”[1] As the United Methodist Church celebrates the 50th anniversary of the uniting General Conference in 1968 it is a good time to reflect on the mission of the church and purpose of its organizational structure. Sometimes denominations and church structures can experience unintended “drift,” and take on a life of their own. German theologian Paul Tillich cautioned about the important balance between form and dynamics (Spirit) that healthy churches should maintain. Tillich went so far as to caution against an institution becoming too set or rigid in its form and become the object of idolatry.

This reflection will follow-up on my two previous blogs (blog 1 and blog 2) on the global nature of the UMC on the anniversary of Cuban Methodist autonomy. I will revisit the work of the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) that examined the organization of the Methodist and then the United Methodist Church in the 1960s and early 1970s. I think that you will agree that many of the issues studied by COSMOS are still relevant today—if not more so.

John Wesley gave the Methodist movement great vision and direction when he wrote in the "Large" Minutes: "What may we reasonably believe to be God's design in raising up the Preachers called Methodists? To reform the nation and, in particular, the Church; to spread scriptural holiness over the land."[2] When American Methodism was launched and ready to become its own denomination Wesley wrote with mixed-feelings:

As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free.[3]

This freedom of innovation and the importance of context, as well as connection, has been at the heart of Methodism from the beginning.

In the midst of conversations of unity between The Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren, the 1964 General Conference of The Methodist Church continued Wesley’s vision for the global church when it approved this statement: “In the growth and maturing of Methodist churches overseas two basic principles are apparent, in one way or another, in all forms of organization: 1) the principle of freedom, and 2) the principle of fellowship.” Today the conversations of the Commission on the Way Forward still embody these two foci.

To carry out this vision, the 1964 General Conference mandated COSMOS to “study the structure and supervision of The Methodist Church in its work outside the United States and its territories and its relationships to other Church bodies…”[4] Taking up this mantle, the commission held study committees in every central and annual conference outside the United States, as well as consultations with British Methodists and the World Methodist Council. In addition, COSMOS had a major consultation in Green Lake, Wisconsin in 1966. In attendance were 250 leaders from 48 countries including bishops, board executives, clergy and laity representatives from the central and annual conferences around the world. One representative from Singapore, Yap Kim Hao, spoke on behalf of autonomy at the consultation:

Autonomy is not so much a question of self-government or independence as that of the principle of freedom. We are primarily interested and vitally concerned with the Church making her own witness in the social and political environment which is clearly delimited in our world today. We are attentive to the freedom of our people to make an unfettered response to God and His word which is spoken to us in our living situation.[5]

Yap Kim Hao went on to argue at the consultation that Methodist churches in Africa and Asia could not afford to be seen as a western institution imposed upon local people and advocated becoming affiliated autonomous Methodist churches with equal partnerships while still maintaining fraternal relationships with the Methodist Church in the United States.[6] Two years after the consultation, Yap Kim Hao was elected the first Asian bishop of the newly formed Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore in 1968.

Based on its findings from the consultation, COSMOS reported to the 1968 General Conference. They recommended that structural change of world Methodism is “desirable and necessary” and gave the following reasons:

1. There has been growth both in membership and in the strength of leadership in Methodist groups outside the United States. These groups want greater freedom to make decisions.


2. The spread of nationalism, finding expression in new nations and a greater desire for independence and self-determination, has created a new climate in which the church must carry out its mission.


3. Methodist churches outside the United States are now both receiving and sending missionaries. Present structures, created and controlled by a General Conference, 90 percent of whose delegates are from the United States and 90 percent of whose time is devoted to concerns of the American church, cannot give proper consideration to the different conditions of 45 countries involved.


4. The emergence of the World Council of Churches and regional conferences such as the East Asian Christian Conference raise questions as to how Methodist groups should be related in these areas and be fully participating members of these bodies and at the same time under the jurisdiction of the General Conference. Similar problems exist in Africa, Latin America and India.


5. A deepening conviction that to drift or make minor shifts in present structures is to decide against a world church; by default annual conferences of Malaysia, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Chile, Panama, Peru and Uruguay become autonomous.[7]

The Uniting Conference that was held in Dallas 50 years ago this month accepted the report of the commission and granted autonomy to those annual conferences outside the United States that had requested it, but did not act on any of the recommendations for greater structural change. After unification, COSMOS continued to work for one more quadrennium until the 1972 General Conference, at which time it was disbanded. The United Methodist structure has remained largely the same ever since.[8]

I would posit that many of the issues addressed by COSMOS are still factors today and the church would do well to use this occasion of the 50th anniversary of the formation of The United Methodist Church to revisit our original purpose so that the structure will always follow the mission of the church.

I have argued in other places that we can maintain an international Methodist connection while simultaneously giving freedom to regional bodies to develop a structure more suitable to their context and culture and in obedience to local laws. I believe that we can create a more fluid structure while also maintaining the two principles established by the 1964 General Conference of fellowship and freedom, or in the words of Tillich “form” and “dynamics.”

We can do all this while continuing Wesley’s vision for Methodism “to spread Scriptural holiness over the land.” He gave early American Methodists this same freedom in 1784, and it remains a good organizing principle for global Methodism. Just as Emil Bruner stated “The Church exists by mission, just as fire exists by mission.”[9]

[1] Emil Brunner, The Word and the World, London: World Student Movement, 1931, p.108.

[2] John Wesley, Works, Jackson Edition, vol.8; Baker, 1978, p. 299.

[3] This letter was sent with Thomas Coke and distributed to American Methodists in 1784 along with the Sunday Service and an edited version of the Articles of Religion. Letters of John Wesley.

[4] Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas, Report No. 1, Book of Discipline, 1968, p. 1778.

[5] Yap Kim Hao, A Bishop Remembers, Singapore: Gospel Works, 2006, 66.

[6] Ibid, 67.

[7] Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas, Report No.1, Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 1968, 1784.

[8] The General Conference has created a Commission on the Worldwide Nature of the Church and they have made recommendations to several General Conferences, but no major structural changes have been implemented. See my 3-part blog on “The Cost of Being a Global Church” November 10, 17, and 24, 2015, www.umglobal.org.

[9] Emil Brunner, The Word and the World, London: World Student Movement, 1931, p.108.

What are your assets?

Today’s post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott. It is the second of a four-part series on money and relationships in the global church. Dr. Scott is Director of Mission Theology for the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent official positions of Global Ministries.

Last week, I raised the question of how United Methodists can face the problem of vast economic inequality in the church in a way that preserves relationship between rich and poor without turning those relationships into ones of dependence solidifying inequalities of power. I noted the importance of the rich sharing with the poor, for not to do so would destroy relationship by implying that the rich did not care for the poor. If the rich must share, then, how can they share without creating dependency?

One approach to sharing without creating dependency is asset-based partnerships. Asset-based partnerships can involve partners with varying levels of financial resources working together to address issues in the church and the world, but in a way that is intended to create more equal partnership between all participants, regardless of their level of financial resources.

The key to asset-based approaches is realizing that money is only one form of asset. While Americans are socialized to understand assets in economic terms, an asset can be defined as anything of value, or anything that is helpful for accomplishing work. In Christian theological language, an asset is any gift or grace given us by God.

Certainly, money is an asset, and most undertakings require a certain amount of money. But the important insight of asset-based approaches is that money is far from the only asset. Other assets include knowledge, skills, abilities, relationships, networks, authority, physical resources, and even prayer and spirituality. All of these assets can be necessary to accomplish a project, and thus all of them have value. Therefore, all of them should be recognized as valuable. If we think of assets as treasure, then they should not be understood only as economic riches, but as anything which we actively treasure, which we hold in high value.

The other important tenet of asset-based approaches to partnership is that not only is there a wide variety of assets, but all people and groups have some assets. Not all individuals may have the same level of financial assets, but the poor have other assets along with whatever meager amount of financial assets they do have. They also have knowledge, skills, abilities, relationships, networks, and spirituality. Asset-based partnerships recognize the assets that are contributed by all who participate.

Asset-based partnerships thus shift the mentality of partnership from “We, the rich, have the money; therefore, we will make the decisions,” to “We are all contributing necessary assets to this project; therefore, we all have a say in how the project will go, since it would not work without all of us.” Asset-based partnerships thus require give and take, listening, and mutual understanding.

Such an approach requires some spiritual effort and humility on the part of the rich. One of the ways in which wealth negatively affects the rich is that it distorts their views of themselves, creating the conditions for pride from assuming that their wealth means that they also have more of other assets than other people – knowledge, skills, networks, and even spirituality. The rich must be willing to not only give up their riches but give up their sense of superiority.

For the rich to open themselves up to recognize and receive the assets of the poor requires some kenosis – some self-emptying. Yet, as Christians, we have the greatest example of self-emptying in Jesus who, “though he was in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to exploit. But he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave and by becoming like human beings. When he found himself in the form of a human, he humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:6-8) Rich Western United Methodists must ask ourselves how we can empty ourselves and become obedient, both to God and to the poor. To do so will require vulnerability, which may run counter to American culture, but it is a direct response to the gospel call.

Despite the spiritual and psychological challenges to the rich in adopting this model, it has been an important one promoted by Global Ministries, the World Council of Churches, and secular development organizations. One expression of such an approach is mission roundtables, which seek to bring together partners around an issue on a relatively equal footing that recognizes the assets of all.

Asset-based approaches do not remove all inequalities. Asset-based partnerships still usually involve rich Christians and poor Christians working together in poor Christians’ countries, not rich Christians’ countries. Rich Christians have by and large not yet recognized that poor Christians may have something to contribute to the ministry of rich Christians in their own home contexts, perhaps an inevitable reflection of a world in which not only wealth, but health, peace, education, and well-being are inequitably distributed.

Persistent inequalities in wealth and well-being that create rich and poor are not God’s desire for the world. Yet, while inequalities do persist, asset-based partnerships address the important and biblical injunction for the rich to share of their wealth with the poor. They are an important part of the solution, especially when combined with other partial solutions, such as my post next week will explore.

Recommended Reading: Matt Rawle, Juan Huertas & Katie McKay-Simpson on #MyHope4Methodism

Ministry Matters, in conjunction with Abingdon Press's Faultlines collection, recently published a post entitled "Finding Hope in the UMC." The article is written by Louisiana Annual Conference pastors Matt Rawle, Juan Huertas, and Katie McKay-Simpson. The piece is an excerpt from their recently-published book The Marks of Hope: Where the Spirit is Moving in a Wounded Church.

The authors center their hope for the UMC in the local church. The article also specifically mentions mission as an aspect of hope.